You're talking about the consumers, and you're 100% right in regards to them. But you seem to be equating D&D fans to the game studios, and I see that as a fals

You're talking about the consumers, and you're 100% right in regards to them. But you seem to be equating D&D fans to the game studios, and I see that as a false equivalency. Consumers of Unity games == consumers of D&D Companies based on the OGL == Companies based on Unity license WotC/Hasbro == Unity D&D consumers =/= companies based on Unity license In both cases, a large corporation (WotC/Hasboro, Unity) captured the space with promises that their platform would be free to use in perpetuity. In both cases, smaller companies were built around this garuntee; they naively thought that in perpetuity meant in perpetuity. In both cases, these smaller companies that popped up grew the large corporations to what they are today. In both cases, the corporation tried to sneakily revoke the older agreements to trick these smaller companies into a terrible deal. In both scenarios, the corporation displayed rent-seeking behavior and proposed changes that would destroy the companies that helped them become what they are today. > Fans can't just go and become fans of "free and open source D&D" Not sure what you mean by this, but my friends and I are and always have been fans of "free and open source D&D" because that's literally what D&D has always been. That's why so many were angry with the OGL changes; thats why the OGL changes got dropped. And, once Hasboro tipped their hand, many did transition to free and open source tabletop games that respect their third party creators and consumers alike https://www.polygon.com/23587624/non-dnd-dungeons-dragons-ogl-controversy-indie-sales-numbers https://www.polygon.com/23587624/non-dnd-dungeons-dragons-og...