Olrox17
Hero
Of course, I'm not disputing that. But I cannot, in good conscience, fault WotC if they thought it ended up being a rough deal for them.
Again, I'm not at all excusing them for the horrible, devastating mess this leaked OGL is.
New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)
- Thread starter Umbran
- Start date
Again, I'm not at all excusing them for the horrible, devastating mess this leaked OGL is.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
yes it also clicks in to abruptly.
I am a math guy. If I every put out a book for sale I will do my best to figure the cost of printing X number and my over head spread across Y number sold...
5% on everything can be added in form the jump no issue.
25% over 750,000 is a VERY different gamble. If I DON'T hit 750k I am over charging and losing sales. If I don't build it in and it's a hit I can lose money. Funny Cost Benefit moment I have seen in similaritish circumstances... If we sell at $5 each we expect to sell 500 of them and bring in (revenue not profit) $2500 but if we raise the price to $12 we expect less sales maybe about 180, so bring in (again revenue not profit) $2,160 so we make more money selling it for less (again this is revenue so the cost matters assume we can make it for $4.50 or less) But if at $2200 a new cost kicks in we need to adjust for it... so with that new cost the $5 book has to be $6 but at $6 the new estimate is 250 sales (more then the $12 but a lot less then the $5) so now we are over chargeing getting less sales and our revenue is $1500
So do I price at $5 or $6... last month I would have said launch at $5 and hope you really sell 500, make more money on the next one with happy return customers... this month I would say With the new rules don't make it OGL at all...
Ruin Explorer
Legend
The scaling is a huge issue, though, because that's what can invert you from profit to loss or just totally destroy profitability and make the whole thing opportunity cost loss. It's vastly harder to factor in to pricing/Kickstarter ask, and even if you could have kick in like a tax (which KS doesn't allow and I don't think other platforms do either) at $750k, it would be truly amazing at causing campaigns to slam to an abrupt halt at $750k.
But this is why I'm saying 5% on all would have worked out much better and been much more accepted.
The trouble is 5% on all doesn't let you force Paizo, CR, etc. into some kind of separate, secret licensing agreement, and it's which I believe is the major goal with these crazy revenue demands.
I don't think that was the intent.
I think the intent of the OGL was o allow 3PPs to support 3.5. It wasn't to allow you to design a 3.75e and have it compete with 4e, 5e, or 6e.
Prime_Evil
Adventurer
I would like WotC to clarify the position of games unrelated to D&D who adopted the OGL in good faith. Remember that over the past twenty years, WotC have offered the license as something usable by any RPG company as a way to license content. And lots of companies took them up on that offer. These downstream companies relied upon undertakings publicly made by WotC in good faith. They are not part of the DnD ecosystem, so destroying them doesn't benefit WotC. But the proposed changes may crash 60-80% of small RPG publishers working on other systems. I've been doing work on an SF supplement for the Cepheus Engine. The publisher is terminating all future products until the uncertainty around the legality of the OGL is resolved. It's a big deal for non-DnD systems too.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
From Dancey's words, it was also intended so D&D could survive no matter the ultimate fate of WotC.
mamba
Legend
If you are not tied to the OGL because you are using parts of WotC's SRD, then they can just drop the OGL altogether. Also, from my understanding anything under 1.0 is fine (that is the perpetual part), they just cannot use it to release anything new under it (that would have been the irrevocable part)
That's not the argument being made.
The OGL 1.0 allows you to design a form of D&D with WOTC's system and compete against WOTC's current and future systems.
It was designed to allow the system to live in case the caretaker dies, not allow the system betray and attempt to kill the caretaker.
Prime_Evil
Adventurer
That pretty much kills all future releases for any game system released under the OGL. You can expect the death of systems like Cepheus Engine, OpenD6, FATE, Legend, Delta Green, etc.
WoTC may be on shaky legal ground due to the reliance of unrelated parties on a public offer they made. But the fact is that no publisher can afford to take them on. I expect Hasbro to vigorously defend the revocation of earlier revisions of the OGL. This prevents any party from forking their system.
It would be a show of good faith if WoTC would at least amend the wording of the revocation of OGL 1.0a to limit the scope of the change to their own IP only. The current form has the potential to crash large sections of the entire RPG market.
mamba
Legend
The caretaker just had its best year ever, so not sure what killing you are referring to
Similar Threads
