Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Anonynonynonythrowaway" data-source="post: 8895618" data-attributes="member: 7040016">The 1.0a OGL was, at its core, a promise of stability for third party publishers.&nbsp; It was a promise that third party publishers could safely and continuously use or refer to certain material without the sort of litigious response TSR had been known for, building trust where a simple promise may not have worked.Trying to pull 1.0a back at all destroyed a lot of trust in this regard.&nbsp; It simply made it much riskier to depend on WotC allowing the use of material WotC has and will allow third parties to use - it's harder to depend on the material staying available on consistent terms.&nbsp; That WotC ever intended to add royalty rates that would make market success a threat to third party publisher survival will be hard to forget, even if that section is now gone.&nbsp; Any third party publisher that wants to draw from 3 or 5 now has to consider both of those threats before publishing, and this will drive companies away.The two biggest open questions are about stability: is the continued use of 1.0a for already published material absolutely secure, can 1.0a be used for material derivative of that (PF1e ecosystem, most notably), and will WotC still be able to freely alter the upcoming OGL as was originally planned?&nbsp; The last in particular would make working with the new OGL a quite risky proposition with WotC's prior plans in consideration, too risky for many companies.I wouldn't put WotC's effort to claim veto power on quite the same level of risk - at least the reasons are, if the ability to edit and revoke is removed, reasonably stable, though Team Hadozee might not be the best judges of offensiveness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Anonynonynonythrowaway, post: 8895618, member: 7040016"] The 1.0a OGL was, at its core, a promise of stability for third party publishers. It was a promise that third party publishers could safely and continuously use or refer to certain material without the sort of litigious response TSR had been known for, building trust where a simple promise may not have worked. Trying to pull 1.0a back at all destroyed a lot of trust in this regard. It simply made it much riskier to depend on WotC allowing the use of material WotC has and will allow third parties to use - it's harder to depend on the material staying available on consistent terms. That WotC ever intended to add royalty rates that would make market success a threat to third party publisher survival will be hard to forget, even if that section is now gone. Any third party publisher that wants to draw from 3 or 5 now has to consider both of those threats before publishing, and this will drive companies away. The two biggest open questions are about stability: is the continued use of 1.0a for already published material absolutely secure, can 1.0a be used for material derivative of that (PF1e ecosystem, most notably), and will WotC still be able to freely alter the upcoming OGL as was originally planned? The last in particular would make working with the new OGL a quite risky proposition with WotC's prior plans in consideration, too risky for many companies. I wouldn't put WotC's effort to claim veto power on quite the same level of risk - at least the reasons are, if the ability to edit and revoke is removed, reasonably stable, though Team Hadozee might not be the best judges of offensiveness. [/QUOTE]

Verification