So was it a poison pill?

[mamba]

That 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 it

 

[Jer]

Specifically, he said it was a license designed for everyone never to accept.

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?

Anyway that's what seems to be going on here. The explanation that the current leadership at Wizards doesn't understand the tabletop rpg market seems ridiculous, so it must be that that they do understand it and all of this blowing up in their faces was part of an intentional plot to do something we just can't really understand.

Meanwhile Occam's Razor suggests that they might just be bad at their jobs, like so many other high-level executives are in this day and age. I know which way I'd bet if I were a gambling man.

 

[billd91]

I agree that OGL 1.1 was a poison pill, but I don't believe it was intended to flat out stop people from making content. Rather, I think they probably wanted to drive significant 3PP to approach WotC to negotiate a less onerous license deal.

And if that drove out some of the leeches on Hasbro's IP? I think they'd have been perfectly fine with it.

 

[mamba]

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.

so incompetence then, rather than malice…

 

[Velderan]

get good press for taking out objectionable content and NFTs

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 Wax

corporate.hasbro.com

 

[mamba]

The "poison pill" analogy the Professor Game Master was using, was that OGL 1.1 was soooooo bad, nobody would take it.

nobody did take it

 

[mamba]

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.

you do see how your two statements contradict each other, no?

Most projects, including the large kickstarters, would lose money at 25% over 750k of revenue…

 

[mamba]

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?

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 happen

 

[Greggy C]

Most projects, including the large kickstarters, would lose money at 25% over 750k of revenue…

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.

 

[Undrave]

What'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.

Should have been Linux bros