D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[delericho]

It may well be that they are winding down with an intent to sell off the D&D IP. Now that they have the movie rights secure, it is a much more viable option.

That would make sense if they weren't going ahead and making that movie. It doesn't make sense to invest money in a movie if they're planning to turn around and sell the IP.

Besides, it's very very rare for Hasbro to let go of IP once they've got it. Much more common for them to mothball things to be tried again in 20 years.

 

[Wicht]

Besides, it's very very rare for Hasbro to let go of IP once they've got it. Much more common for them to mothball things to be tried again in 20 years.

I know that Hasbro has discontinued producing certain licensed products such as Cabbage Patch Kids and Pokemon; but have they ever actually sold IP to another company?

I suppose there could always be a first time.

 

[Mistwell]

Total nonsense, indeed.

I find this statement completely ironic, given you go on to write in the very same paragraph:

The only reason not to use it at this point or with this edition is if you never plan to use it again. It may well be that they are winding down with an intent to sell off the D&D IP. Now that they have the movie rights secure, it is a much more viable option. It's been said time and again that as an RPG it simply doesn't pull enough weight for Hasbro. Perhaps they have now examined most of the avenues the IP can draw revenue and decided it it time to get out of the D&D business.

It may well be aliens will land and declare the moon is made of cheese and they are seizing it for their fondue restaurant on Mars. I mean, if we're discussing nonsense, why not?

 

[halfling rogue]

At most Wizards might decide they don't want to publish a tabletop role-playing game anymore. At that point they would license the D&D name out to someone else (likely Paizo) for a profit and someone else would publish it with their review. That's the farthest Hasbro would let go of the D&D brand.

Aren't they basically farming the D&D name out to other companies right now--Sasquatch, Kobald Press, etc--for a profit with their review? Hasbro owns the IP, farms it to 3rd party with Wizards acting as basically the middle man. Now that the rules are established, it seems they are acting more as the stewards of the IP than anything else. They certainly aren't creating anything outside of the rules. All of the creation is coming from the outside.

 

[Mark CMG]

That would make sense if they weren't going ahead and making that movie. It doesn't make sense to invest money in a movie if they're planning to turn around and sell the IP.

Oh, I don't know. If I buy cattle, I certainly feed them whether I intend to sell them or eat them. I don't know the particulars of the deal that was struck to settle the lawsuit over the film rights but I'd imagine if it included giving Sweet Pea's guy a producer credit they have to move forward as if they are making a film even if they sell off the D&D IP in the meantime (along with the film rights).

 

[Jer]

Aren't they basically farming the D&D name out to other companies right now--Sasquatch, Kobald Press, etc--for a profit with their review? Hasbro owns the IP, farms it to 3rd party with Wizards acting as basically the middle man. Now that the rules are established, it seems they are acting more as the stewards of the IP than anything else. They certainly aren't creating anything outside of the rules. All of the creation is coming from the outside.

Eh - right now what they're doing is mostly working with freelancers just like they have done since almost the start of D&D. These days the freelancers are organized into studios rather than as individuals, but they're still using a freelancer model for contracting work out. They're still acting as publisher, they determine how many books per year will be published and what they'll be, and they still control the game at a more than just "review" level. They're providing the storyline to the freelance studios and requiring a specific product be turned around from them. They seem to be more directly involved with the production of the material beyond just a "give us the final product and we'll review it and demand changes before you can publish it" model.

Farming out the IP completely would be more like what Lucas/Disney does with the Star Wars property. They sell the rights to make a Star Wars game to a company like FFG (or Wizards before them - or WEG before them) and that company is responsible for the gameline. Lucas/Disney gets to review the work and can reject things or have them make changes before they allow publication - or even tank whole ideas - but the creative endeavor is almost entirely on the licensee's side and the publishing risk/reward of the line is also mostly going to fall onto the licensee's shoulders.

 

[Mark CMG]

Hasbro does not sell IP.

Never say never, though it is unlikely.

 

[Mistwell]

Aren't they basically farming the D&D name out to other companies right now--Sasquatch, Kobald Press, etc--for a profit with their review? Hasbro owns the IP, farms it to 3rd party with Wizards acting as basically the middle man. Now that the rules are established, it seems they are acting more as the stewards of the IP than anything else. They certainly aren't creating anything outside of the rules. All of the creation is coming from the outside.

No, this is not what they are doing. They've spoken out about this very issue, repeatedly, with multiple people. Freelancers have also spoken out about it from their end. All sources agree that WOTC's interaction with freelancers on these projects is actually MORE, not less, than it always was with prior editions. WOTC is doing more work, reviewing more, drafting more, analyzing more, communicating more, with the freelancers than they ever did under 3e or 4e. The only real difference is the names involved - instead of "Freelancer A, Freelancer B, and Freelancer C", it now instead says, "Company A, which is composed of Freelancers A, B, and C". Some people have (mistakenly) taken that to mean the projects were wholly farmed out to some third part company, but that's been spoken to very directly by WOTC and very clearly denied. And the freelancers who have spoken out since this controversy started also agree with WOTC on that point.

And in particular, all NEW rules in any of the material in those joint ventures was vetted and created by WOTC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Total nonsense, indeed. Furthermore, the idea that the OGL does any harm to the D&D brand or does not help with WotC sales has been proven false over two editions. The only reason not to use it at this point or with this edition is if you never plan to use it again.

What metrics are you using to determine what would "harm" WotC's sales? That's just as an amorphous term you're throwing out as the word "effective" you used before. No "harm" by what standards? The OGL from the beginning of 5E's existance would be more "effective" for WotC by what standards? You're making claims here but not actually backing them up.

The fact that you happen to be one of those 3PP studios that wanted to release content from the very beginning of WotC's 5E lifespan makes your opinions on the matter less than objective. You can claim WotC would have been better off... but in truth, it's you and other designers like you who truly would have been better off because you'd be actually selling things right now, rather than not selling anything. So it's very hard to take your statements on the situation at face-value.

 

[Mark CMG]

Aren't they basically farming the D&D name out to other companies right now--Sasquatch, Kobald Press, etc--for a profit with their review? Hasbro owns the IP, farms it to 3rd party with Wizards acting as basically the middle man. Now that the rules are established, it seems they are acting more as the stewards of the IP than anything else. They certainly aren't creating anything outside of the rules. All of the creation is coming from the outside.

True. They don't like the word "outsourcing" because of the bad connotations but, setting those bad connotations aside (which really have more to do with sending jobs "overseas" to lower labor costs, which is not the case here), it is essentially what is being done.

I think one of the main problems is when folks equate anything done under the OGL as potentially harmful to WotC which has never really been the case. No more so than anything they farm out now has been problematic. There are some corners of the `Net who prefer the work from outside over WotC's material but it's like having a fruit stand where you sell mostly your own produce and not carrying bananas just because you don't grow them even if it has been proven that selling bananas will cause more folks to stop and also buy what you grow. It's just silly.