D&D 5E Who tried to end the OGL?

[Weiley31]

Corpo gonna Corpo.

 

[Jadeite]

There are parts in 3.5 that are Open Content but not in the SRD, including Unearthed Arcana. If they are that worried about releasing stuff into Creative Commons and truly no longer intend to deauthorize the OGL, they could just release a OGL 1.3 that is similar to OGL 1.0a but irrevocable.

 

[Staffan]

We will probably never know the whys. But I think the general outrage probably misses a lot of nuance. I doubt the sole reason was to destroy all OGL products and he probably wrongly through that they were offering a lot of attractive carrots to 3PP. Not sure it even matters anymore.

I have no reason to disbelieve the stated reason: they were afraid someone like Disney or Meta would eat their lunch, and the hit to the existing OGL ecosystem was collateral damage.

 

[Jadeite]

I have no reason to disbelieve the stated reason: they were afraid someone like Disney or Meta would eat their lunch, and the hit to the existing OGL ecosystem was collateral damage.

It's a good thing they never released Magic under the OGL, otherwise Disney would have been able to create its own Trading Card Game ...
The worth of D&D is in the name, not in the rules. There are, in my opinion of course, better games out there, but stuff like Stranger Things made people interested in D&D, not RPGs in general.

 

[Oofta]

There are parts in 3.5 that are Open Content but not in the SRD, including Unearthed Arcana. If they are that worried about releasing stuff into Creative Commons and truly no longer intend to deauthorize the OGL, they could just release a OGL 1.3 that is similar to OGL 1.0a but irrevocable.

The issue though is that they own the OGL. Unlike the CC, there's nothing stopping them from changing again. It wouldn't stop the negativity. That, and any new document would have to go through lawyers. Nobody wants to deal with lawyers unless they have to.

 

[Oofta]

It's a good thing they never released Magic under the OGL, otherwise Disney would have been able to create its own Trading Card Game ...
The worth of D&D is in the name, not in the rules. There are, in my opinion of course, better games out there, but stuff like Stranger Things made people interested in D&D, not RPGs in general.

There was no correlation between the release of sales for D&D and the release of Stranger Things. D&D 5E was already hitting a pace of rapid growth before the show was released, the upward trend just continued on. Same with Critical Role.

Those things don't hurt, same with all the coverage from news sources. But saying it's popular because of those things? No evidence.

 

[TiQuinn]

There was no correlation…
…
Those things don't hurt…

So you’re saying they had zero correlation? No one was drawn to D&D by virtue of Critical Role or Stranger Things. It was entirely internal organic growth?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The worth of D&D is in the name, not in the rules.

Unfortunately for WotC most of their revenue comes from selling rules, not selling the name.

They have tried to earn more from the name, with decidedly mixed results (e.g. HAT).

 

[TiQuinn]

Unfortunately for WotC most of their revenue comes from selling rules, not selling the name.

They have tried to earn more from the name, with decidedly mixed results (e.g. HAT).

I think they’re being incredibly shortsighted if they give up on the movie route. No one was expecting that movie to be good and some people were still a bit tentative about returning to theaters.

 

[Jadeite]

Unfortunately for WotC most of their revenue comes from selling rules, not selling the name.

They have tried to earn more from the name, with decidedly mixed results (e.g. HAT).

But their revenue from the rules is also due to name recognition and critical mass. 5e would sell far less if it wasn't called Dungeons and Dragons.