Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8894606" data-attributes="member: 18">Really?You're going to misrepresent my words like that? Really Snarf? That's how you want to go?My point isn't "RUINY WUINY NEEDS A STATEMENT UWU", as you well know, so suggesting it is, that's shenanigans, sir! < waves hat exaggeratedly >My point is WotC has chosen not to make any kind of statement except one saying it would be "soon" (which they made on one of the most internet parts of the internet - Twitter, by the way, so yeah the internet definition does matter), when it would behove them to shut this situation down.Again they could have cut this off at the knees at any time they wanted. A statement as simple as "We have no intention of deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a" would have basically shattered this whole thing. Their silence here is incredibly unusual. Games companies (esp. video) often get into this kind of situation. Normally they deal with it pretty damn quickly with communication, either a mea culpa and some kind of climbdown, or a flat denial if it's something actually untrue.(Though some companies, like present-day post-Carmack id software, have decided to go with drama and nonsense instead, before.)[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.google.com/search?q=hasbro+stock&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB991GB991&oq=hasbro+stock&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i131i433i512j46i175i199i512j0i512l7.2877j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8[/URL]Eh?I mean, that's not a huge amount, yet, but this has only just started hitting the mainstream media literally today.Are you sure you're not confusing Brian and Erik Mona? I haven't seen any statement to that effect from Brian, but I did see one from Erik Mona.As for "it wouldn't have changed anything", well, sure, no, because some of those companies actually received the OGL 1.1, didn't they?Anyway, I thought you liked complete records - I still don't get why you're disregarding the stuff from December, and not noting WotC's part in this? Do you think it's irrelevant? I don't. You haven't really presented an argument as to why.Given the OGL 2.0 FAQ or some version thereof has now leaked, it's becoming more clear what is going on at WotC. Again no denial from WotC that it's real - which if it isn't real, is certainly "a bad idea" on multiple levels.Anyway, the main reason seems to be that they're desperately scrambling, and fundamentally incompetent.The OGL 1.1 leaks, that throws the cat among the pigeons, who are now pecking the cat and chasing it around.OGL 2.0 was apparently supposed to go out (though this is rumour), and that appears to be an attempt to basically double down but with minor concessions. Looks like they decided not to do that, though.If they end today without a statement that's going to be truly astonishing, but I can't rule it out, because that they've apparent abandoned possibly 2 or more OGL attempts at this point.Understanding where the leaks are coming from, by the way, is totally irrelevant to whether you make a statement, unless you intend that statement to be at odds with the facts in a way the leaks would undermine. You'd have a whole separate group of people doing that, not your PR guys or management, who would be doing any statements. There's absolutely nothing stopping you making a statement whilst they look for the leak. The same applies to litigation, and as a lawyer, you know that. If someone broke their contract, they broke their contract. It doesn't matter if you make a statement saying "This leak is bollocks" whilst looking for them or deciding what to do (again, unless the leak ISN'T bollocks).</blockquote>

Verification