8 ms·

> I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent so far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making a statement about the leak to cor

> I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent so far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making a statement about the leak to correct any factually incorrect statements). Probably because they are trying to figure out damage control. this leak only happened on thursday. I would expect a response during the week with them backpeddling a bit.

ck425 4y ago
What's interesting(/blows my mind) though is that unsubstantiated rumours about the new OGL started going around weeks ago. This caused a massive amount of concern and outrage among the community, to the extend that WoTC actively moved up their communication timeline and responded with a post on DndBeyond containing more info about the new OGL (a far more reasonable version) to try and reassure the community and stop the fearmongering. That was all before this leak. Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage." Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. "The document does note that if the company oversteps, they are aware that they “will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.”" I hope this will get settled in court, though. The 1.0 Licence seems to be unclear whether it is revokable, but since there was a FAQ section on WoTCs Website explicitely stating you can always ignore changes you don't like, then this is what I would settle for, if I would have invested in it. The picture of the FAQ: https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.webp https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.web... from this article https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
  - ck425 4y ago
    > Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. Yes and there already was a massive shitstorm that they attempted to address before these additional details were leaked. That's the part that confuses me. It should have been crystal clear to WotC that there would be huge outrage over this leaked document. The chain of events so far has been: - Rumours started about changes in the new OGL to make it more restrictive but with little actual details. - Creators within the community start worrying and raising a shitstorm based on their negative presumptions of the new OGL. - WotC post about the new OGL on DndBeyond to address the rumours (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d). They say they hadn't planned to share details so soon but felt they had to to reassure the community due to the shitstorm the unsubstantiated rumours had raised. The details they share seem reasonable, if more restrictive, and WotC say they want to make the process easy for creators. - The text of the OGL is leaked and it's waaay more restrictive than the blog post implied and arguable worse than most creators originally feared during the initial shitstorm.
    - sobkas 4y ago
      > > Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. > Yes and there already was a massive shitstorm that they attempted to address before these additional details were leaked. That's the part that confuses me. It should have been crystal clear to WotC that there would be huge outrage over this leaked document. The chain of events so far has been: > - Rumours started about changes in the new OGL to make it more restrictive but with little actual details. - Creators within the community start worrying and raising a shitstorm based on their negative presumptions of the new OGL. - WotC post about the new OGL on DndBeyond to address the rumours (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d). They say they hadn't planned to share details so soon but felt they had to to reassure the community due to the shitstorm the unsubstantiated rumours had raised. The details they share seem reasonable, if more restrictive, and WotC say they want to make the process easy for creators. - The text of the OGL is leaked and it's waaay more restrictive than the blog post implied and arguable worse than most creators originally feared during the initial shitstorm. Because from their perspective it's more advantageous to slit goose throat than share its golden eggs with competition allowing it to grow and in the future threaten wotc/hasbro position.
darreninthenet 4y ago
It wouldn't surprised me if they leaked it themselves to either see what the outcry would be, or so they can release a version that's not as bad as the leak and people are happier with it even though it's still terrible.
- dndthrowwww 4y ago
  Far more likely this was an internal draft that an employee was horrified by.
- rhdunn 4y ago
  My understanding (from sources such as Roll For Combat and Indestructoboy) is that: 1. various creators were sent OGL 1.1 licenses, a contract to sign, FAQ, and an NDA on/around Dec 21 to be signed by Jan 4th. 2. Rumours were circulating about the OGL license changes. 3. Once the NDA lifted on Jan 4th, the various people sent the licenses from (1) sent the OGL 1.1 license to others, including gizmodo.
  - JTbane 4y ago
    various creators were sent OGL 1.1 licenses, a contract to sign, FAQ, and an NDA on/around Dec 21 to be signed by Jan 4th. This is pretty underhanded and will cost WotC a lot of goodwill.
dathinab 4y ago
I thinks it's more like "sitting it out", I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they where doing. But I fear like MTG moved to maximize squeezing out money from players on the risk of long term losses D&D will now move there, too. So I kinda expects this to only be the start of wtf. this isn't what we want moments.
- tapland 4y ago
  They said in their latest (december?) earnings call they would focus on increasing monetization of DnD going forward.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Who knows what their corporate plan is of course… It seems a bit odd, though — card collecting games have always seemed to have a bit of a mercenary streak. I mean buying and trading cards is sort of part of the hobby, right? I think players go into it expecting some level of ongoing costs. With pen and paper RPGs, the sort of mythical ultimate campaign that many only hope to achieve could go for years and years on a couple books. I can’t think of many hobbies that provide as favorable a $:entertainment ratio. This is… not a market that is expecting to spend a lot of money…
  - brianwawok 4y ago
    MTG has gone from “It would cost $3000 a year to own a play set of every new card” To “It would cost $50,000 a year to own a play set of every new card” Like yah for sure it was always for profit. But like the last few years of changes has been extreme.
    - snapcaster 4y ago
      Yeah, but isn't the meaningful metric "It would cost X to own a Tier 1 Standard Deck" or something? has that amount gone up? I only play booster draft so no idea tbh
  - dathinab 4y ago
    > It seems a bit odd, though There is a difference between making money and abusing year long commitment of the community to make people spent more money then they think is reasonable (or should afford give their financial spending). People which have decades of emotional commitment are quite easy to be pressured into "over-spending", through if you do it too much it can cost you your brand and many people their hobby. To some degree you can compare it to games having "just" in-app purchases in a well balanced way even if it might be a bit pay to win and it a game using all kinds of dark patterns to squeeze out every penny no matter the moral and being pay-hug to even have a chance to compete. Like for many of the current relevant formats the entry cost for not just playing causal with your friends is around 500€ for a _single_ deck and 1000+€ for going competitive; and just to be clear that's in a context where WotC managed to not (yet) kill of their brand by going too much overboard with pricing. But it means that if you are not a well earning single that hobby isn't quite affordable anymore. *Anyway WotC basically kicked out anyone who is not at least slightly well of, because they don't make them money and I'm afraid what that could men for D&D*.
moate 4y ago
WOTC seems to have filled a room full of rakes and banana peels and decided to sprint through it at full speed. This, D&D ONE, the M:tG 30 abysmal failure.
- failrate 4y ago
  A room full of rakes and banana peels sounds more like something from Grimtooth's Book of Traps.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  Really seems apparent that BofA was right in their estimation of what Hasbro and WotC are doing to their core business/businesses.

ck425 4y ago

What's interesting(/blows my mind) though is that unsubstantiated rumours about the new OGL started going around weeks ago. This caused a massive amount of concern and outrage among the community, to the extend that WoTC actively moved up their communication timeline and responded with a post on DndBeyond containing more info about the new OGL (a far more reasonable version) to try and reassure the community and stop the fearmongering. That was all before this leak. Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours that had already caused a huge outrage." Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. "The document does note that if the company oversteps, they are aware that they “will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.”" I hope this will get settled in court, though. The 1.0 Licence seems to be unclear whether it is revokable, but since there was a FAQ section on WoTCs Website explicitely stating you can always ignore changes you don't like, then this is what I would settle for, if I would have invested in it. The picture of the FAQ: https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.webp https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ZdwvKxvMZWmS4xQZPcHJHw.web... from this article https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
- ck425 4y ago
  > Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. Yes and there already was a massive shitstorm that they attempted to address before these additional details were leaked. That's the part that confuses me. It should have been crystal clear to WotC that there would be huge outrage over this leaked document. The chain of events so far has been: - Rumours started about changes in the new OGL to make it more restrictive but with little actual details. - Creators within the community start worrying and raising a shitstorm based on their negative presumptions of the new OGL. - WotC post about the new OGL on DndBeyond to address the rumours (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d). They say they hadn't planned to share details so soon but felt they had to to reassure the community due to the shitstorm the unsubstantiated rumours had raised. The details they share seem reasonable, if more restrictive, and WotC say they want to make the process easy for creators. - The text of the OGL is leaked and it's waaay more restrictive than the blog post implied and arguable worse than most creators originally feared during the initial shitstorm.
  - sobkas 4y ago
    > > Well, they explicitely state, that they are ready to change a bit, if the shitstorm is big enough. > Yes and there already was a massive shitstorm that they attempted to address before these additional details were leaked. That's the part that confuses me. It should have been crystal clear to WotC that there would be huge outrage over this leaked document. The chain of events so far has been: > - Rumours started about changes in the new OGL to make it more restrictive but with little actual details. - Creators within the community start worrying and raising a shitstorm based on their negative presumptions of the new OGL. - WotC post about the new OGL on DndBeyond to address the rumours (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d). They say they hadn't planned to share details so soon but felt they had to to reassure the community due to the shitstorm the unsubstantiated rumours had raised. The details they share seem reasonable, if more restrictive, and WotC say they want to make the process easy for creators. - The text of the OGL is leaked and it's waaay more restrictive than the blog post implied and arguable worse than most creators originally feared during the initial shitstorm. Because from their perspective it's more advantageous to slit goose throat than share its golden eggs with competition allowing it to grow and in the future threaten wotc/hasbro position.

darreninthenet 4y ago

It wouldn't surprised me if they leaked it themselves to either see what the outcry would be, or so they can release a version that's not as bad as the leak and people are happier with it even though it's still terrible.

dndthrowwww 4y ago
Far more likely this was an internal draft that an employee was horrified by.
rhdunn 4y ago
My understanding (from sources such as Roll For Combat and Indestructoboy) is that: 1. various creators were sent OGL 1.1 licenses, a contract to sign, FAQ, and an NDA on/around Dec 21 to be signed by Jan 4th. 2. Rumours were circulating about the OGL license changes. 3. Once the NDA lifted on Jan 4th, the various people sent the licenses from (1) sent the OGL 1.1 license to others, including gizmodo.
- JTbane 4y ago
  various creators were sent OGL 1.1 licenses, a contract to sign, FAQ, and an NDA on/around Dec 21 to be signed by Jan 4th. This is pretty underhanded and will cost WotC a lot of goodwill.

dathinab 4y ago

I thinks it's more like "sitting it out", I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they where doing. But I fear like MTG moved to maximize squeezing out money from players on the risk of long term losses D&D will now move there, too. So I kinda expects this to only be the start of wtf. this isn't what we want moments.

tapland 4y ago
They said in their latest (december?) earnings call they would focus on increasing monetization of DnD going forward.
bee_rider 4y ago
Who knows what their corporate plan is of course… It seems a bit odd, though — card collecting games have always seemed to have a bit of a mercenary streak. I mean buying and trading cards is sort of part of the hobby, right? I think players go into it expecting some level of ongoing costs. With pen and paper RPGs, the sort of mythical ultimate campaign that many only hope to achieve could go for years and years on a couple books. I can’t think of many hobbies that provide as favorable a $:entertainment ratio. This is… not a market that is expecting to spend a lot of money…
- brianwawok 4y ago
  MTG has gone from “It would cost $3000 a year to own a play set of every new card” To “It would cost $50,000 a year to own a play set of every new card” Like yah for sure it was always for profit. But like the last few years of changes has been extreme.
  - snapcaster 4y ago
    Yeah, but isn't the meaningful metric "It would cost X to own a Tier 1 Standard Deck" or something? has that amount gone up? I only play booster draft so no idea tbh
- dathinab 4y ago
  > It seems a bit odd, though There is a difference between making money and abusing year long commitment of the community to make people spent more money then they think is reasonable (or should afford give their financial spending). People which have decades of emotional commitment are quite easy to be pressured into "over-spending", through if you do it too much it can cost you your brand and many people their hobby. To some degree you can compare it to games having "just" in-app purchases in a well balanced way even if it might be a bit pay to win and it a game using all kinds of dark patterns to squeeze out every penny no matter the moral and being pay-hug to even have a chance to compete. Like for many of the current relevant formats the entry cost for not just playing causal with your friends is around 500€ for a _single_ deck and 1000+€ for going competitive; and just to be clear that's in a context where WotC managed to not (yet) kill of their brand by going too much overboard with pricing. But it means that if you are not a well earning single that hobby isn't quite affordable anymore. *Anyway WotC basically kicked out anyone who is not at least slightly well of, because they don't make them money and I'm afraid what that could men for D&D*.

moate 4y ago

WOTC seems to have filled a room full of rakes and banana peels and decided to sprint through it at full speed. This, D&D ONE, the M:tG 30 abysmal failure.

failrate 4y ago
A room full of rakes and banana peels sounds more like something from Grimtooth's Book of Traps.
BeefWellington 4y ago
Really seems apparent that BofA was right in their estimation of what Hasbro and WotC are doing to their core business/businesses.