Kickstarter's Director of Games on Why The Platform Attracts Lower OGL v1.1 Royalties

Jon Ritter, Kickstarter's Director of Games, clarified why creators making over $750K using the new Open Gaming Licence v1.1. will only have to pay WotC 20% royalties on revenue over that $750K instead of 25% like they do on other platforms.

Kickstarter was contacted after WoTC decided to make OGL changes, so we felt the best move was to advocate for creators, which we did. Managed to get lower % plus more being discussed. No hidden benefits / no financial kickbacks for KS. This is their license, not ours, obviously.

When asked whether he was aware that those royalties would cut out the majority of most successful Kickstarter profit margins, Ritter acknowledged this with the words "Very much aware of the numbers."

The OGL -- Just What's Going On?

D&D fandom is in uproar again about purported upcoming changes to the Open Gaming License, and rumours are flooding social media regarding WotC's intentions to 'de-authorize' the existing Open Gaming License in favour of a new one. What's the OGL? The Open Gaming License is a share-a-like...

www.enworld.org

 

[Lord Twig]

I think people are missing how this might actually work for some small creators. I am sure that some work on very slim margins and it is a fee based on total revenue, not just profit.

For example, say a creator makes $250,000 revenue on a product with a 10% margin. They would make $25,000 each time. But after their 3rd product for the year they would have to start paying a 25% royalty fee of $62,500. So it would actually be a $37,500 loss. Basically WotC would be capping them at a yearly profit of $75,000.

And, sure, an individual might be able to live on that (barely), but what if it is a company or a team of people? They would rely on putting out a lot of content to generate enough to pay everyone.

Bottom line, this is a blatant money grab that does not benefit the end user (us) in any way. A lot of the success of D&D 5e is based on the good will of the community for WotC and that good will has already taken a hit just by suggesting such a draconian license. They can probably salvage most of the good will by walking this back, but if they go forward with it and they start bringing lawsuits against creators I can not see things going well for them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think people are missing how this might actually work for some small creators. I am sure that some work on very slim margins and it is a fee based on total revenue, not just profit.

For example, say a creator makes $250,000 revenue on a product with a 10% margin. They would make $25,000 each time. But after their 3rd product for the year they would have to start paying a 25% royalty fee of $62,500. So it would actually be a $37,500 loss. Basically WotC would be capping them at a yearly profit of $75,000.

And, sure, an individual might be able to live on that (barely), but what if it is a company or a team of people? They would rely on putting out a lot of content to generate enough to pay everyone.

Bottom line, this is a blatant money grab that does not benefit the end user (us) in any way. A lot of the success of D&D 5e is based on the good will of the community for WotC and that good will has already taken a hit just by suggesting such a draconian license. They can probably salvage most of the good will by walking this back, but if they go forward with it and they start bringing lawsuits against creators I can not see things going well for them.

If theoretically a company asked me how to kill another company and they had the option to do this... this is a pretty good way to end it.