Man, Linda Codega is killing it right now.I see Gizmodo says WoTC are delaying - Wizards of the Coast Cancels OGL Announcement After Online Ire
Man, Linda Codega is killing it right now.I see Gizmodo says WoTC are delaying - Wizards of the Coast Cancels OGL Announcement After Online Ire
I'm happy to accept that I and my fellow posters on some of the "lawyer" threads don't count. But many of us do dispute that WotC enjoys any legal power to unilaterally change the terms of, or bring to an end, the licences it has entered into with other publishers on the terms of the OGL v 1.0a.Nobody (nobody that counts anyway) disputes WotC's legal right to change or terminate the license.
I don't think this is plausible. And far and away the biggest 3PP, Paizo, already competes directly against D&D.The 3PP market is why D&D is so dominant on the market. It's all the 3PP's work, not the WotC products that is the reason why nearly everything revolves around D&D.
It doesn't matter whether the change is legal or whether WotC is "owed" royalties from Pathfinder.
All that matters is that WotC has destroyed the community trust in them, and now everybody will compete directly against D&D One.
I don't think this is plausible. And far and away the biggest 3PP, Paizo, already competes directly against D&D.
This is plausible, and was part of Dancey's rationale for the OLG - ie contra some recent posts it was not "altruistic" but rather a calculated method of increasing WotC's market share and profits.While that's certainly true, I think we can't completely discount the value that the 3PP support has added to the product line without requiring WotC to output as much material themselves in the current edition (compared to previous ones). That kept their system "alive" while allowing them to reduce their D&D studio output in comparison to, say, 3e, and put the lion's share of the burden of adventure production (usually the smaller sellers as only the DMs tend to buy them) onto 3PPs.
I mean, I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't know how you could keep sources confidential and say who confirmed it, especially if they confirmed it with materials/evidence they themselves possessed. What am I not getting?
This is plausible, and was part of Dancey's rationale for the OLG - ie contra some recent posts it was not "altruistic" but rather a calculated method of increasing WotC's market share and profits.
assuming a court finds the license irrevocable, then the 3PPs no longer have to trust Wizard when using 1.0a...Even if WotC completely pulled back, it would not change a thing.
Even if WotC is legally 100% right, or 100% wrong... nothing changes.
The value of the OGL was in its ability to make 3PPs trust WotC.
That's gone, no matter what any court will say.
Assume all of this is settled long before any court gets a say in the matter. By "settled" I mean that in a year's time everybody whose trust in WotC is gone will have left the OGL permanently. Some will even create games that directly compete against D&D One - that is, games that offer similar themes and "texture" as D&D. The legalities of OGL won't matter - by then it's all inconsequential.assuming a court finds the license irrevocable, then the 3PPs no longer have to trust Wizard when using 1.0a...
The question then simply becomes is WotC ok with doing business under 1DD using 1.0a, and the answer to that still is 'hell no'
And the bigger point is that the trust is what built the community, not any legal counsel. Now that trust is gone, and that's all there's to it.
Your second sentence seems to get it, but there's still an awful lot of focus (from others) on whether this thing can be saved. Newsflash: it's already unsavable.