New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Reynard]

So, registration doesn't have to be onerous. Reporting income/profit is a pain, I agree, but may be a requirement from WotC's perspective. I am willing to allow it if it is specific to OneD&D, because we are not likely to get everything we want, and we have to give somewhere.

That's fair.

I think we have to dispense with the notion that current WotC is actually looking for that kind of 3pp support from this. The v1.1 terms were too hostile for that to begin with. I expect that at best, the OGL to them is for amateurs, and real 3pp support, if any, will be handled by other, more specifically negotiated license agreements.

I know this is a + thread so i don't want to get too deeply into it, but I think the fact that WotC is negotiating directly with big 3PPs suggests they do, in fact, want that kind of support to continue but more under their control. WotC isn't going to suddenly triple their staff and output. it is easier for them if other folks make the adventures and settings and splat books.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At this point WotC already has their "5E equivalent" to the Game System License-- the DMs Guild. Anyone who uses that does so by agreeing to terms that are outside the OGL. In return for having more of "WotC's D&D stuff" to use in their products (and thus being potentially more enticing to consumers), they pay a fee back to OneBookshelf and WotC to do so.

This seems to me to be the only real way for WotC to go forward and make a higher percentage of money off of the products other people make using their stuff... have their own place for those people to sell their stuff and have that place be even more enticing for people to use over the OGL and DMs Guild. And as we've all theorized before... D&D Beyond is probably that place. But it's up to WotC to make using D&D Beyond THE place for people to sell their stuff-- to make it financially worthwhile for people to do so (moreso that DMs Guild or just through the OGL.)

At the end of the day... the negotiations back in Washington by people on both sides are probably going something like this:

"We should get a cut of all these products that are making money hand over fist using the bones of our game system! Here are the changes to the OGL so we can get a percentage of all of it!"

"The changes you are proposing to the OGL are assuring people to NO LONGER actually make anything using the bones of our system anymore. So you're basically changing things so we get a percentage of ZERO. While at the same time reducing the size of the gaming pool, and thus potentially reducing the number of our own products we sell. I don't see how your changes make financial sense."

"But that's OUR STUFF they are making money with!"

"Yes. But their use of our stuff is what is contributing to the number of people growing the size of the D&D pool. And we are making more money on our stuff then we otherwise would be by the size of the pool growing. You basically are asking to cut the pool in half before then taking a percentage of what's left. Well, the money we would make from that is still less than the money we were already making from the larger pool, so what you're proposing isn't actually going to benefit us."

***

I'm sure it probably feels weird to the money people at WotC/Hasbro that there's no licensing fee to allow other people to use their game system-- after all, licensing is one of the biggest money-makers a company has. And so they are thinking there SHOULD be a fee for everyone to use the OGL and SRD to make money off of WotC's owned material. They do currently get that fee from everyone who uses DMs Guild (with the perks that come with doing so)... but right now there's no way to funnel people off of the OGL and into using DMs Guild (where WotC can then get that fee). The question will just then be whether there ends up being a way to extract that fee without actually forcing people to stop using WotC's material at all? Because we saw it with the 4E GSL... people WILL just stop-- either because they go out of business, or because they pivot if they have the capital to do so.

 

[Umbran]

I agree, and I would buy those OGL books, but I am reluctant to support WotC at that point, so would not switch to 1DD. I do not feel very charitable to WotC / Hasbro right now, so them getting any of my money is an uphill battle for them

So, here's the problem - if you are basically taking yourself out of their market, you lose all leverage. You are no longer a customer they can get, so your feelings on the subject can be ignored.

 

[mamba]

So, registration doesn't have to be onerous.

it means the license is not open though and
WotC could pull out the rug from under it at any time by removing that ability (not the biggest concern right now though, admittedly)

Reporting income/profit is a pain, I agree, but may be a requirement from WotC's perspective. I am willing to allow it if it is specific to OneD&D, because we are not likely to get everything we want, and we have to give somewhere.

probably unavoidable if you want to stay in the 1DD sphere, which right now does not even feel worthwhile

I think we have to dispense with the notion that current WotC is actually looking for that kind of 3pp support from this. The v1.1 terms were too hostile for that to begin with.

agreed, they want the whole cake now

I expect that at best, the OGL to them is for amateurs, and real 3pp support, if any, will be handled by other, more specifically negotiated license agreements.

So best case then is for the current OGL to not go away. My fork in the road scenario.

 

[Simplicity]

Edited. I mean that's my point. They can't write anything now. They have to accept something that's existing.

 

[Umbran]

I know this is a + thread so i don't want to get too deeply into it, but I think the fact that WotC is negotiating directly with big 3PPs suggests they do, in fact, want that kind of support to continue but more under their control.

So, that's exactly what I said. WotC is not expecting the real 3pp support to come from the OGL. That doesn't mean we can't consider license terms we'd find palatable.

If you are against 3pp choosing special license deals, and you require them to be using OGL, then that's a subject for a different thread.

WotC isn't going to suddenly triple their staff and output. it is easier for them if other folks make the adventures and settings and splat books.

If the TTRPG is a legacy they need to get movie and AAA game levels of cash out of the brand, I don't know if they care how much support it gets, so long as they can claim it exists.

 

[Umbran]

it means the license is not open though and
WotC could pull out the rug from under it at any time by removing that ability (not the biggest concern right now though, admittedly)

Which is why the scheme I offered up sets 3e, 3.5e and 5e off to the side. If they pull the rug out from under OneD&D... I don't know that I care. I still have 5e.

So best case then is for the current OGL to not go away. My fork in the road scenario.

Um... I presented a fork in the OP.

You see, this is what WotC doesn't want - other folks taking their ideas and not giving due credit

 

[mamba]

So, here's the problem - if you are basically taking yourself out of their market, you lose all leverage. You are no longer a customer they can get, so your feelings on the subject can be ignored.

from where I stand me threatening to leave is the only leverage I have (being a player and not a 3PP).

Maybe I misunderstood your scenario, so let’s try again

• if the OGL 1.0 gets terminated and 1.1 forced on everyone, I am not moving to 1DD
• if 1.0 sticks around and covers 1DD I am
• for anything in between it depends on the terms

 

[rules.mechanic]

So, registration doesn't have to be onerous. Reporting income/profit is a pain, I agree, but may be a requirement from WotC's perspective. I am willing to allow it if it is specific to OneD&D, because we are not likely to get everything we want, and we have to give somewhere.

I think we have to dispense with the notion that current WotC is actually looking for that kind of 3pp support from this. The v1.1 terms were too hostile for that to begin with. I expect that at best, the OGL to them is for amateurs, and real 3pp support, if any, will be handled by other, more specifically negotiated license agreements.

I think the ideas you've listed look reasonable.

WotC is under no obligation to keep doing an Open License for their IP but they really have to honor the previous licence for prior content for 3PPs to keep any faith with them.

For new, OneDnD, content, it's disingenuous for them to call their new license "Open" if it includes the Commercial component - just call it the OneDnD License. Butm again, if they want to reserve the right to change the terms of, or cease issuing, this new license. it must not affect the terms and license for products notified before the change of date.

And 20-25% of gross income / revenue is cartoonishly greedy (even if it's just a starting position for negotiation and even if they've been getting away with 50% on DMs Guild because of the wider content and infrastructure that comes with DMs Guild). Nobody would have batted an eyelid at 5% (starting at a lower level) and they would get valuable data about a wider spectrum of content and its popularity and, most importantly, who to buy out or bring in-house. Maybe even somewhere 5-10%, although big 3PPs have already pointed out 10% is above their profit margin. Can only be higher if it avoids other headline costs for the publisher: e.g. by coming with a distribution platform like DMs Guild, DnD Beyond, etc. Digital content, games, movies could require a separate negotiated license (with a commitment to encourage these and to negotiate in good faith).

They do need that bit about a non-exclusive, lifelong, royalty-free license to IP. It protects them from being sued if they independently come up with something that's similar to something a 3PP has produced (e.g. some of the OneDnD playtest changes are houserules seen in 3PPs) but they have to limit its scope (i.e. not be allowed to directly reproduce).

 

[mamba]

Which is why the scheme I offered up sets 3e, 3.5e and 5e off to the side. If they pull the rug out from under OneD&D... I don't know that I care. I still have 5e.

so aren’t you taking yourself out of their market too then?

I am not seeing WotC abandoning 1DD.