mamba
Hero
no, I agree with him. 1.1 was designed so no one in their right mind can accept itThat was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.
no, I agree with him. 1.1 was designed so no one in their right mind can accept itThat was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.
There's got to be a name for the logical fallacy where you assume that people are competent and so when they do something that looks stupid it must be because it's actually part of a genius plan that you just don't understand. Is there a name for that?Specifically, he said it was a license designed for everyone never to accept.
so incompetence then, rather than malice…I don't think so - I just think WotC believed they had all the leverage and could dictate whatever terms they wanted. I imagine they were shocked when none of the big players signed on.
Because Hasbro is clearly against NFTs.get good press for taking out objectionable content and NFTs
nobody did take itThe "poison pill" analogy the Professor Game Master was using, was that OGL 1.1 was soooooo bad, nobody would take it.
you do see how your two statements contradict each other, no?Why would anyone take royalties on profits, most small companies profits are zero...
I believe it was royalties only on the revenue over 750k, so not that much at all.
no fallacy here though, it was designed so no one accepts it. They expected the big publishers to negotiate separate licenses, that part did not happenThere's got to be a name for the logical fallacy where you assume that people are competent and so when they do something that looks stupid it must be because it's actually part of a genius plan that you just don't understand. Is there a name for that?
If you made 800k and they only too 25% of the (800-750) = 12.5k.Most projects, including the large kickstarters, would lose money at 25% over 750k of revenue…
Should have been Linux brosWhat's with the "formerly known as" ?
To engage with the point, yeah probably. While I don't necessarily know that that was the main intent at best, it was probably a shrug and "well, worst case that leaves us to provide and sell more content, oh well" territory. You can really explain it all away with simple ignorance of how the thing they make actually operates. Which, if you are imported Microsoft MBA bros, yeah, certainly possible.
And the friggin' Transformers Funko Pops NFT Lottery...Because Hasbro is clearly against NFTs.
![]()
Hasbro Makes NFT Debut with Power Rangers Collection on Wax
Hasbro Makes NFT Debut with Power Rangers Collection on Waxcorporate.hasbro.com
It would kill many 3PP companies, certainly.
So I agree with the "poison pill" analogy. And I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that it was designed to kill the OGL, to reset the fanbase (getting rid of fans who care about "non-WotC" content). I think that it was purposefully made to free WotC from the "dead weight" of fans like me - who merely buy the books and run the games in person, who don't engage with it on DND Beyond, who wouldn't subscribe to their VTT services.
The $30/month per player will outspend me anyway - because I purchased maybe 2 hardcovers from WotC per year.
Exactly, it's the value that was ludicrous.Revenue is standard for licensing agreements. No license uses profits as the calculation for royalties.
They trouble is, they didn't ask for a slice of that, they instead let small companies go unharmed, and asked for such a giant slice from anything larger that it would virtually ensure they were no longer meaningfully profitable, or making a loss.1. There's a mountain of some good, some bad, lots of meh content out there for 5E, and lots and lots of designers riding the coat tails of 5E's popularity to make a couple bucks. I cannot begrudge WotC for expecting a slice of that pie and wanting to QC some of it. But of course that's going to go over like a lead balloon.
Depends on if you expected to make that kind of money or if you ended up with a windfall. The royalty on anything over a certain amount would have had the hardest impact on things like kickstarters - where a more modest project exceeds expectations and can't really be planned for. A smaller % royalty on all levels of revenue is something easier to plan for since it's an increase over the whole product, whether an expected level of success or a windfall.If you made 800k and they only too 25% of the (800-750) = 12.5k.
12.5k to license something that made 800k on?
That is laughable. And all you do is increase the price a little.
Anyway they removed the clause so doesn't matter.
Yes. They would be pulling the right of any other content creators to use the OGL to make NFTs. Of course they would keep the right to make NFTs, NHLs, NFLs, or whatever with their IP.but I think Retreater meant non-Hasbro NFTs, so it makes sense they would be against that.
Many Kickstarters at that level of revenue break even, or lose money. And even 3PPs with decent revenue operate on thin margins. A company on 2 million in revenue would be looking at royalties of 312,500. That’s crippling.If you made 800k and they only too 25% of the (800-750) = 12.5k.
12.5k to license something that made 800k on?
That is laughable. And all you do is increase the price a little.
Anyway they removed the clause so doesn't matter.
Just the ones they don't get a cut from.Because Hasbro is clearly against NFTs.
![]()
Hasbro Makes NFT Debut with Power Rangers Collection on Wax
Hasbro Makes NFT Debut with Power Rangers Collection on Waxcorporate.hasbro.com
Seems a needlessly complicated way of doing it.