Scribe
Legend
It was actually the same board that put the 5.1 SRD into CC.
Yes, you can cherry pick the last of the 3 items. And?
It was actually the same board that put the 5.1 SRD into CC.
Yes, you can cherry pick the last of the 3 items. And?
But it was WotC owned by Hasbro that did all 3... thus it was the same corporation. You choosing to be overly pedantic and/or move goalposts doesn't change that what I claimed was true.
They never had the intention to do so. They did so after threatening a whole ecosystem and hobby leading into tens of thousands of people yelling at them. If people hadn't yelled, things would be very different.Yes they did, they released 5.1 into CC and they said OGL 1.0a will never be revoked (although to be fair they said that in the past too).
The leadership of twenty years is not the leadership of now. Same branding, different company.As a point of fact WOTC has not [yet] broken any promises on open gaming and they have been making promises about open gaming for some 20 years now.
Far more content? How do you measure it? In books? Pathfinder 2E has released more books in four years then 5E did in almost a decade. Paizo's entire rules are available for free online, and we're not even talking about Starfinder and Pathfinder 1E.Also I do think I need to point out that WOTC has put out far more open game content than any other RPG creator. For all the warranted goodwill generated by Kobold Press and Paizo, less of their actual IP generated by their creators has been released under OGL 1.0a.
All I can go in is what they do in public. They’ve said nothing about their future plans about open gaming and nothing about any internal changes.
It was an ecosystem largely built on their land that they had opened up to the public themselves. - They weren't expecting people to build large commercial properties competing with them on their own land when they did so.They never had the intention to do so. They did so after threatening a whole ecosystem and hobby leading into tens of thousands of people yelling at them. If people hadn't yelled, things would be very different.
Releasing under OGL 1.0a is not the same as giving access for free as I understand it. WotC released their content under 1.0a which allows people to not only access it, but also use WotC's content in product that they are making money from themselves. Arguably it is 1.0a that is what allows Paizo to make money from selling their products based on D&D.Far more content? How do you measure it? In books? Pathfinder 2E has released more books in four years then 5E did in almost a decade. Paizo's entire rules are available for free online, and we're not even talking about Starfinder and Pathfinder 1E.
And WotC profited from that ecosystem at least as much as the ecosystem did their product. It's mutualism.It was an ecosystem largely built on their land that they had opened up to the public themselves.
Sorry but no. They did not try to reel back some of their rights, the draft that was leaked had some absolutely outrageous clauses by almost any measure. I mentioned it in another thread - but I would have understood them asking for a cut of profits for products built on their framework. I would not have agreed with it, but I would have understood. But the amount they asked was outrageous, the clauses concerning the copyrights of content built on the OGL was outrageous, them asking you to waive rights like a jury was outrageous, the clauses about allowing them to jump in any lawsuits over third party creators was outrageous.When they tried to reel back in some of the rights to their land, they obviously weren't expecting quite an upsurge in people asserting their squatters rights and giving them bad enough press that they would lose money if they were to reassert their rights to their land.
WotC releases their content under 1.0a, which following the SRD allows you to redistribute a small amount of their content and to make content yourself which reference some key components and concepts from the game. Paizo allows every rule, player option, feats of every single book they have released available online. The parts they don't allow are lore and arts if I recall.WotC released their content under 1.0a which allows people to not only access it, but also use WotC's content in product that they are making money from themselves.
If there's one thing that came out of this whole OGL debacle, it is that this is arguable and nobody knows. It probably did at some point, but we don't know if it still does. WotC did not pull the trigger, it did not lead to lawsuits and so we have no idea. My absolutely unprofessional reading of the situation is that twenty years later, no Paizo does not need the OGL to make Pathfinder. We'll actually see that happen soon with new printings omitting it if I recall.Arguably it is 1.0a that is what allows Paizo to make money from selling their products based on D&D.
What? Every single Pathfinder 2E and Starfinder books, which are much more numerous than 5E books, are under the OGL. And as mentioned, both SRDs are waaaay more permissive than 5E's.However Paizo have not released as much content under 1.0a, which means that other companies can't make money from content Paizo produced in the same way that Paizo is making money from WotC content.
Undecided is unchanged.You realize that's pretty normal, right? After flubbing it that badly, sensible people take a step back and breathe, and think.
If we are going to assume something (there is no need to, but if we do it anyway) why not assume that the plans are undecided, rather than the plans are unchanged?
this is the most charitable (to WotC) reading possible, let’s fix your analogy a bit, so it better reflects reality…It was an ecosystem largely built on their land that they had opened up to the public themselves. - They weren't expecting people to build large commercial properties competing with them on their own land when they did so.
When they tried to reel back in some of the rights to their land, they obviously weren't expecting quite an upsurge in people asserting their squatters rights and giving them bad enough press that they would lose money if they were to reassert their rights to their land.