Kickstarter's Director of Games on Why The Platform Attracts Lower OGL v1.1 Royalties

Jon Ritter, Kickstarter's Director of Games, clarified why creators making over $750K using the new Open Gaming Licence v1.1. will only have to pay WotC 20% royalties on revenue over that $750K instead of 25% like they do on other platforms.

Kickstarter was contacted after WoTC decided to make OGL changes, so we felt the best move was to advocate for creators, which we did. Managed to get lower % plus more being discussed. No hidden benefits / no financial kickbacks for KS. This is their license, not ours, obviously.

When asked whether he was aware that those royalties would cut out the majority of most successful Kickstarter profit margins, Ritter acknowledged this with the words "Very much aware of the numbers."

The OGL -- Just What's Going On?

D&D fandom is in uproar again about purported upcoming changes to the Open Gaming License, and rumours are flooding social media regarding WotC's intentions to 'de-authorize' the existing Open Gaming License in favour of a new one. What's the OGL? The Open Gaming License is a share-a-like...

www.enworld.org

 

[darjr]

He also commented he knew how the numbers impact creators

 

[Bacon Bits]

Only 20%! Barely an inconvenience!

 

[Alzrius]

For clarification, that 20% royalty (which is 25% on other crowdfunding platforms; that's the "Managed to get lower %" that's referenced in the tweet) is only on the amount earned above the $750,000 threshold, though according to Gizmodo, "the Commercial Agreement “covers all commercial uses, whether they’re profitable or not.” So if you go into the red on a Kickstarter that earned $800K in backing money, you will still owe Wizards of the Coast, regardless of the fact that you did not profit from your venture."

 

[JThursby]

I'd like to thank Morrus for keeping on top of reporting this. The more we see, the more it looks like the original leak was valid. This development has the potential to impact a lot of livelihoods, mine maybe included.

 

[ronaldsf]

Hm. This lower royalty % still incentivizes creators to crowdfund only through Kickstarter and not through other means. (Remember, all creators must report their earnings to WOTC so doing Indiegogo doesn't bypass having to report.) So it's still a "benefit" - just not a "hidden benefit" as the tweet says.

 

[Art Waring]

The real question people should be asking is:

will kickstarter move forward allowing content using both the 1.1 OGL and the 1.0a? because the impacts on the entire industry could be bad across the board for anyone that doesn't want to sign the new license.

 

[Morrus]

The real question people should be asking is:

will kickstarter move forward allowing content using both the 1.1 OGL and the 1.0a? because the impacts on the entire industry could be bad across the board for anyone that doesn't want to sign the new license.

I did wonder that. Will they enforce anything?

 

[Art Waring]

I did wonder that. Will they enforce anything?

for the moment they made no comment except "its not our license."

 

[overgeeked]

The real question people should be asking is:

will kickstarter move forward allowing content using both the 1.1 OGL and the 1.0a? because the impacts on the entire industry could be bad across the board for anyone that doesn't want to sign the new license.

If WotC is serious about "de-authorizing" 1.0/a, then they'd likely go after Kickstarter for allowing anything. It's also likely part of their contract. We push creators to your site if, and only if you don't allow 1.0/a. Or, more simply, if WotC says the old license is null and void, Kickstarter would be on the hook for allowing any violations of WotC's copyright and IP. So either way, not likely to be any new 1.0/a Kickstarters.