So what benefits would you say WotC is gaining from it... and why would they choose to loose said benefits by revoking it?
Advertisement.
That's literally -why- the OGL was created in the first place. To get 3rd Party Publishers to make D&D-Adjacent content that would drive more sales of the PHB/DMG/MM and other WotC-created content from people who bought the 3rd party book and needed the core rulebooks to use it.
So that people who played with Green Ronin's offerings would enjoy the game that much more, and buy further D&D Merch from the Wizards Online Storefront.
To make D&D an even more dominant force in the TTRPG industry when games like World of Darkness and Shadowrun were really getting started.
Vampire: the Masquerade was getting big enough by the early aughts to release a tie-in branded videogame in 2004. Shadowrun's Third Edition launched in '98 and 4e in 2005.
Heck, other tabletop games that weren't RPGs, strictly speaking, like Warhammer and Warmachine were starting forays into TTRPG territory and the OGL allowed them to make d20-based games which increased D&D's overall system marketshare to keep another "3d6" or "d10 pool" system from rising up and displacing the d20 standard.
And this cultural hegemony that D&D has enjoyed for decades is all built upon the OGL. Even their biggest "Rival", Paizo, keeps people using d20+modifiers rather than creating a new dynamic in the field that moves people away from what is now referred to as "RPG Dice" on storefronts like Amazon.
But the new execs weren't there. Didn't understand the calculus. They just see something keeping them from siphoning off more money and control in the short-term. So they're getting rid of it for short term quarterly gains, unaware of the long term financial benefits of what they're gutting.
No. As everyone likes to crow, you can't control or license the general IDEA. Only the particular expression can be so protected. So, if Sal invented a very specific form of pizza, never seen before, and the dispute were over that specific pizza, then it would be more analogous.
I used the restaurant space analogy because it makes clear what Sal actually controls, without that ambiguity.
And in the process pushed the analogy far enough that it doesn't work in the other direction.
I dunno. Maybe we should use the Sal's Pizzeria analogy to instead do what I wrote about just above this inline quote. Using Sal's name and product as an advertising boon that also directs traffic back to Sal's place. "Buy my special Pizza Cutters and Pizza Plates and Pizza Reheater for use with Sal's Pizza!"
"Not anymore unless you sign over the rights to those things so I can make and sell 'em without giving you royalties!"
"Time to stop using Sal's Pizza as a selling point for my product. Maybe I'll sign on with Luigi's Pizza Plan that allows a buncha pizza places to band together and offer their name for a product..."
"Let's not be too hasty, now! How about I make it okay to use my pizzeria in your advertisements without the royalties and stealing your business, but reserve the right to shut you down at a moment's notice if you put pineapple on your pizza?"
"Nah... think I'm gonna work with Luigi, Sal."
