It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Imaro]

I wonder if people suggesting WotC's intention to revoke the OGL 1.0a caused no harm actually think publishers who had material under the OGL 1.0a were holding fire sales to liquidate inventory that they were afraid they might not be able to legally sell were doing that just because?

So we are discussing something (revoking the OGL 1.0a) that didn't actually happen. At the end of the day they could have waited and seen what actually was going to happen. Is the company itself responsible if you decide (off aa leaked tip) to sell their stock and it doesn't pan out? I'm failing to see how WotC is responsible for the choices they made. WotC's intention was leaked and some, though not all, publishers reacted to it (before their final decision) in a way they chose to. Claiming WotC "harmed" them is a stretch in my mind as we are talking about business moves.

 

[Velderan]

So we are discussing something (revoking the OGL 1.0a) that didn't actually happen. At the end of the day they could have waited and seen what actually was going to happen. Is the company itself responsible if you decide (off aa leaked tip) to sell their stock and it doesn't pan out? I'm failing to see how WotC is responsible for the choices they made. WotC's intention was leaked and some, though not all, publishers reacted to it (before their final decision) in a way they chose to.

They could have waited and found WotC wasn't going to bend from the original mid-January OGL1.1 implementation and found themselves with a bunch of stuff they couldn't sell that would have ruined their business. I'm not a publisher, but I'd guess selling whatever you had for 50% at least gives you some cash to attempt to pivot to working on something not tied to the OGL in an attempt to remain in business with that new product.

How is WotC responsible? Well for starters the initial draft could have considered many publishers print what they think they'll sell in a year and perhaps not had such an aggressive implementation date to allow publishers a chance to clear inventory naturally?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Given these last 2 posts, I'm not entirely sure why either of you chose to respond to my initial post questioning if people saying no harm had been caused considered the fire sale losses to some 3pp since that would be an example of financial harm. Your posts responding to me have been pretty dismissive of that harm actually existing, citing the publishers that benefitted. Again, whether that harm is of concern to you was never called into question by me if you read what I've posted. My entire point has been that harm HAS existed as a result.

Landlord owns an apartment building.
Landlord says that next year, they will be raising the rent $200 a month.
Tenants complain. This will be a substantial hardship, they say!
Landlord hears tenants, and agrees to not raise the rent.

Now, during the time between the announcement and the walkback, it could be argued that there was "harm." For example, I am sure it is stressful to be a tenant. Some tenants might have chosen to have moved. Others, worried about the landlord in the future, might makes plans about moving in the future, even knowing that the rent isn't going up.

Trouble is- this is such an attenuated idea of "harm," that is is difficult to have conversations with people because that's not how you normally view it. It's not a harm- it's an economic cost.

This happens all the time. You accept a job offer, move across the country, and get laid off. That sucks. It really, truly sucks. It sucks in a manner more (I would argue) than what Hasbro did. But it's not harm. Your have a contract with a supplier for widgets and they decide to sell the widgets to someone else and just pay you the damages for the breach- even though you really needed the widgets and were depending on the contract. Oh well! Next time, write a better contract.

People are so caught up in using words they aren't seeing what actually happened. Corporation had plan. Consumers and partners reacted badly. Corporation course corrected. This is what we wanted. If anything, I think that there are people that are almost disappointed in their victory. Such is life.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Given these last 2 posts, I'm not entirely sure why either of you chose to respond to my initial post questioning if people saying no harm had been caused considered the fire sale losses to some 3pp since that would be an example of financial harm. Your posts responding to me have been pretty dismissive of that harm actually existing, citing the publishers that benefitted. Again, whether that harm is of concern to you was never called into question by me if you read what I've posted. My entire point has been that harm HAS existed as a result.

Please give me data, that the fire sales were
a) necessary
b) actually losses

I bet some of those "fire sales" were the result of 3pp seizing the opportunity to sell books that were on the shelves for a while. Or pdfs.
Even at a great discount, that might be more income than not having done the firesale.

 

[Imaro]

They could have waited and found WotC wasn't going to bend from the original mid-January OGL1.1 implementation and found themselves with a bunch of stuff they couldn't sell that would have ruined their business. I'm not a publisher, but I'd guess selling whatever you had for 50% at least gives you some cash to attempt to pivot to working on something not tied to the OGL in an attempt to remain in business with that new product.

Yes and that is what running a company is all about, having to make hard decisions around finances, a changing market, etc... Some publishers lost money, some made money and some waited it out... but claiming WotC actively harmed those who chose to handle it in a way that they lost money (especially when you seem to address it only in so far as it negatively impacted some publishers) doesn't make sense to me.

How is WotC responsible? Well for starters the initial draft could have considered many publishers print what they think they'll sell in a year and perhaps not had such an aggressive implementation date to allow publishers a chance to clear inventory naturally?

Yes because it is WotC's responsibility to consider and help out other companies in the same space when coming up with their own business plans... What other companies do you hold to this standard?

 

[Clint_L]

It is easy to get all moralistic on the internet, when you have nothing really at stake. I note that most of the folks still demanding vengeance are not the actual 3PP, who are worried about running their businesses and making decisions about what the most recent action by Hasbro means to that business.

If your big concern is the welfare of 3PP, then you did your job. Hasbro backed off. If you want to keep supporting them with your money, that's great! That's where most of my RPG budget goes. I don't know that moral self-righteousness on the internet is doing much for them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It is easy to get all moralistic on the internet, when you have nothing really at stake. I note that most of the folks still demanding vengeance are not the actual 3PP, who are worried about running their businesses and making decisions about what the most recent action by Hasbro means to that business.

If your big concern is the welfare of 3PP, then you did your job. Hasbro backed off. If you want to keep supporting them with your money, that's great! That's where most of my RPG budget goes. I don't know that moral self-righteousness on the internet is doing much for them.

In fairness, moral self-righteousness is really cheap. And Econ 101 teaches us that when something is priced that low, you're going to get overconsumption.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Trouble is- this is such an attenuated idea of "harm," that is is difficult to have conversations with people because that's not how you normally view it. It's not a harm- it's an economic cost.

This happens all the time. You accept a job offer, move across the country, and get laid off. That sucks. It really, truly sucks. It sucks in a manner more (I would argue) than what Hasbro did. But it's not harm.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's worth noting that at the executive/business level, people absolutely do sue over these sort of things, and they absolutely do win cases, though more often the cases are settled (generously) out of court.

The only reason, I would suggest, such cases aren't vastly more common is that at lower economic strata, most people don't have the money to pursue such a case, nor would winning it or settling necessarily reward enough to money to make up for the costs involved. I'm particularly thinking of your latter example, because I know that, at least in the UK, people have won cases on that basis. But the only ones I'm aware of were very high-end people, where yearly salaries were in the multiple hundreds of thousands. I'd guess that was on the basis of promissory estoppel or breach of contract rather than just "harm" though?

Also with the landlord example, people in shipping sue the hell out of each other all the time in very similar situations, and a lot of those end up favouring the party who is the equivalent of the tenant. But maybe shipping law is weird. Well, I mean, there's no maybe lol. But it's interesting how if enough money is involved this sort of situation seems to resolve very differently.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's worth noting that at the executive/business level, people absolutely do sue over these sort of things, and they absolutely do win cases, though more often the cases are settled (generously) out of court.

The only reason, I would suggest, such cases aren't vastly more common is that at lower economic strata, most people don't have the money to pursue such a case, nor would winning it or settling necessarily reward enough to money to make up for the costs involved. I'm particularly thinking of your latter example, because I know that, at least in the UK, people have won cases on that basis. But the only ones I'm aware of were very high-end people, where yearly salaries were in the multiple hundreds of thousands. I'd guess that was on the basis of promissory estoppel or breach of contract rather than just "harm" though?

So, this might also be a jurisdictional thing. Generally, in the United States, this isn't an issue. Employment contracts (which are usually reserved for a C-level types, or certain other highly-skilled professionals) would cause this to be a breach of contract. Otherwise, again without getting into specifics or other concepts (CBAs, etc.), if you are offered a position, there is no general understanding that you will retain the position ("at will") and no concept that if you choose to move for that position, you will be compensated for it.

Also with the landlord example, people in shipping sue the hell out of each other all the time in very similar situations, and a lot of those end up favouring the party who is the equivalent of the tenant. But maybe shipping law is weird. Well, I mean, there's no maybe lol. But it's interesting how if enough money is involved this sort of situation seems to resolve very differently.

Shipping and other contracts for goods usually default to the UCC here. Which, again, not really relevant to the discussion.

Point being that we don't normally consider "harm" in the moralistic sense when it comes to contractual issues that can be cured by pecuniary (monetary) amounts. In fact, it's almost like there's ... oh .... whole doctrines and stuff about it.

Finally, getting far afield. Now that the OGL thing is over, we should probably avoid turning this into Bob Loblaw's Law Blog.

 

[Faolyn]

Is it the royal "we" or a certain group?
And I really want to know, because I am confused. I do it differently. The past achievments only play a part. As you know, all companies correct their course every once in a while.
Companies who used to produce good products last year might produce trash this year and vice versa.

A generic we.

So answer me this:

A hypothetical company frequently alternates between producing good stuff and bad stuff. Do you (A) automatically buy their stuff, hoping you managed to get them when they were producing good stuff? (B) wait for reviews to see if it's worth it? (C) decide to not buy from them again because you can never tell what sort of product you're going to get?

Because both B and C there indicate that you've lost trust in the company, while A indicates that you either don't care about quality or you have money to burn.

I don't get your mentality either. In my opinion, and I know, you will call it whataboutism, there are other companies constantly doing harm, no matter how much the outcry and how many people will boycot them. Just by holding a position where you can't get around them. WotC just forefeited that position forever.

Not forever. Until they can prove themselves.