The existence of the OGL v1.0a as given to this point allows you to take a big chunk of the D&D 5e rules and content (specifically this subset: https://www.5esr

The existence of the OGL v1.0a as given to this point allows you to take a big chunk of the D&D 5e rules and content (specifically this subset: https://www.5esrd.com/ https://www.5esrd.com/) and 3.5e (this subset): https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm and implement a character builder, database lookup, etc, roll engine etc. which you would need to make a virtual tabletop to compete with their upcoming product. This is a problem for Wizards of the Coast as they view DnD as "heavily under-monetised" and so would like to change that with DnD 6E (aka OneD&D) to a model more similar to microtransaction laden video games. In particular, as part of OneD&D, they are building a whole new VTT on top of D&D Beyond which they acquired last year. This new VTT will have 3d models and animations which they want to sell to players, and D&D Beyond already allows selling pieces of rules for players to use in their character sheet seperately (see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cauldron-of-everything https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cau...). This compares to the current model of D&D where maybe the GM buys a couple of books and shares them to their table or people just look up the SRD for the rules and use a third party character builder or VTT. The problem is if you're comparing "1 person spends $60 and 4-5 people pay $0" to "6 people pay recurring microtransaction revenue at the level of popular video games", then the 3d models and fancy effects are highly unlikely to avoid people choosing one of the cheaper options using the open licensed material. So #1 they'd like to kill the ability for third parties to interfere with their new monetisation models. As for benefit #2, if they get to kill Pathfinder which is the closest game to D&D in licensing shenanigans, then that also removes the easiest option for players to move to if they accomplish point #1 alone. Failing that, they'll settle for #2b, which is capturing the revenue of Paizo (the publisher of Pathfinder) for themselves so that even if players flee D&D to alternatives, Wizards aren't losing any money. As a tertiary benefit, maybe they manage to bully some smaller content creators into agreeing to 1.1 with the terms that they get to sell it on OneD&D to pad out their content library and make OneD&D more appealing to end users.