My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[overgeeked]

I think I read WotC made close to a billion last year and Paizo made $39 million. So 4% or 1/25th for Paizo as the top competitor?

I don't have a direct source on hand for these numbers or how much of that was D&D/Pathfinder versus other stuff like MtG or pathfinder novels and such.

Right. Magic is the majority of that money for WotC but I don’t know if we have solid numbers. Anyone dig through the available info?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Right. Magic is the majority of that money for WotC but I don’t know if we have solid numbers. Anyone dig through the available info?

Going from memory from the latest investor presentations I think they said that D&D passed $100M in revenue.

 

[overgeeked]

Going from memory from the latest investor presentations I think they said that D&D passed $100M in revenue.

So assuming that’s accurate, Paizo as a whole (PF1E, PF2E, Starfinder, APs, etc) is still less than 1/2 the size of D&D. Paizo is 39% the size of D&D, to be exact. And that’s the next closest competitor.

 

[Scribe]

So assuming that’s accurate, Paizo as a whole (PF1E, PF2E, Starfinder, APs, etc) is still less than 1/2 the size of D&D. Paizo is 39% the size of D&D, to be exact. And that’s the next closest competitor.

And I mean in that case, thats not exactly a poor market share, when you consider the monstrous reach of the WotC/Hasbro/D&D brand names.

Wizards is really bad at their job. lol

EDIT: I'm not even dunking here. Seriously. If those numbers are legit.

Its not as if TTRPG's are some boom industry. The covid bubble helped a lot of nerd/niche/shut in hobbies. People were desparate to find some kind of distraction. This was seen massively within MtG and 40K with a knock on effect that everyone saw Wizards reach a Billion Dollars.

If D&D is only 100 Million of that, and Paizo is able to hit 39 Million, with a FRACTION of the cultural penetration?

Wizards is absolutely throwing out the baby and the bathwater here by ruining the OGL. Those million dollar kickstarters are all essentially free adverts for D&D!

Mind BLOWING levels of stupidity out of this company.

If D&D is legit 100 million, and Paizo is 39, thats a joke.

The evaluation of this company is 100% flawed.

 

[overgeeked]

And I mean in that case, thats not exactly a poor market share, when you consider the monstrous reach of the WotC/Hasbro/D&D brand names.

Wizards is really bad at their job. lol

Yeah. Real bad.

Also. Wait…so D&D as a whole made $100 million last year…and they bought D&D Beyond for $150 million. So was Beyond itself worth more than the D&D brand itself? That can’t be right.

 

[Greg Benage]

Acquisition price isn’t equal to one year of revenue.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Sign the Petition

Stop Hasbro's monopoly on Dungeons and Dragons - a class action lawsuit petition

www.change.org

Class action lawsuit petition.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah. Real bad.

Also. Wait…so D&D as a whole made $100 million last year…and they bought D&D Beyond for $150 million. So was Beyond itself worth more than the D&D brand itself? That can’t be right.

Yeah I edit my post for more thoughts on this, but it doesnt work out. The numbers if real speak to a hubris and arrogance that is comical.

D&D is nothing but a naughty word name, and that name can't even blow Paizo out of the water.

If I asked my wife/son what D&D are, they know. Paizo? Pathfinder? ZERO clue.

D&D is the WoW of MMOs, but the RPG space is a fraction of the size.

Huge "big fish in a little pond" energy coming out of Wizards, and if these numbers are right, I'm naughty word roaring in laughter here.

 

[pemerton]

pemerton is giving straightforward answers.

Thanks!

 

[pemerton]

The clear issue around declaring it 'deauthorized' is that even those parties won't be capable of using OGC under the OGL 1.0a anymore because of section 9.

Where is section 9 of the existing OGL mentioned in the draft 1.2 document?

Here is the whole text of the notice of "deauthorisation":

The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.​

What is the legal effect of this? And what is the legal basis on which it purports to operate? I don't think it's clear.

For instance, it says that "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." What is meant, in that sentence, by the verb "licensed"? What permissions are part of that licence?

To me, the most obvious way of understanding that notice is that it is a withdrawal of the offer to license the SRD on the terms set out in the OGL v 1.0a. This means, in terms of section 2 of the OGL v 1.0a, that the SRD is not "Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License." What effect does that have on existing grants of permission under section 4? I've conjectured some possibilities in the PSA thread, and you've read my posts. One possible construction is that it means the SRD is no longer the subject matter of the section 4 grant, as that grant is (on the conjectured construction) confined to OGC to which currently contains a section 2 notice.

I don't know if the preceding is the argument that WotC is relying on. They may have several in mind. It's the best argument that I know that gives WotC the result it wants - it confines the previous permission granted very narrowly, allowing existing works to continue to be sold but brining all future licensing of SRD OGC (including by way of sub-licences) to an end.

You are only allowed to use authorized versions of the OGL

If this is your interpretation of section 9, I don't agree with it. I can't see any plausible construction of section 9 on which it contains a power of revocation.

So deauthorization does invalidate the earlier explanation in the FAQ.

And? This has been discussed to death in many threads including the lawyer-PSA thread. I don't see how it bears on the point I was making, which is that WotC in its FAQ never said that the offer to license would not be withdrawn.