The ORC Alliance Grows

I am in full agreement. The inclusion of any kind of ethics/morality/content clause or restrictions is a TERRIBLE idea, mainly because that kind of thing is in itself a WEAPON intended to be used to kill publications, products, and art.

It doesn't matter if the aims of it are actually held to the highest standard that human beings can or have EVER been able to maintain, it could still be weaponized as morality is, BY DEFINITION, a subjective measure of actions/beliefs/values. There can be no universally unbiased arbiter of this type of thing because morals, ethics, and beliefs are grounded in biases and subjective thought so heavily that they fundamentally represent the core foundation of basically every diverse society that has ever existed. Nobody can be trusted with the responsibility of handling this on a universal level that would need to be simple, easy to understand, and use as is the intention of the ORC.

As for individual Licencing to use the IP related to the products that the ORC will NOT cover for various settings and publications made by ORC partners, thats another beast altogether and that falls to the individual publisher to handle which I think is the way it should be.

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no such clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Which makes sense. Paizo's own Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility license has that in Section 4.

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

I signed up but I'm worried. I'm a content creator but I don't have anything to prove my existence because for the past year I've been working full time and caregiving when not.

Do I have a voice at all (such as here?), or is the Alliance going to be a revenue-ocracy? To be fair, there's gotta be filtering of some sort or 1500+ publishers will make the dysfunction of the United Nations look cute.

P.S. Darn you, WotC! The timing of this couldn't be worse for me.

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

The more I think about this, the less I like it.

You absolutely know some will use this to ban queer or trans content made with their material. Or to block "wokeness" in general.

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

'Morality clauses' aren't attached to SRDs. SRDs were licenced by OGL before and (presumably) will be licenced by ORC in the future. Exclusively.

How can Anderson Morgan Gaming Join the ORC.

In the first blog post, there's a link to sign up

Paizo Announces System Neutral Open RPG License

So stop panicking, please ;)

Tone policing people as fear-mongering when we've gone from "Boy I can't wait to see what 2023 brings for Paizo" to "...will Paizo even still be in business in 2024?" as a legit question in the span of a month makes me wonder if you're just now joining the conversation.

thejeff wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

'Morality clauses' aren't attached to SRDs. SRDs were licenced by OGL before and (presumably) will be licenced by ORC in the future. Exclusively.

'Morality clauses' are commonly attached to trademarks and IPs not included in SRDs, which is a different licence/contract.
So stop panicking, please ;)

That's how I expected it to work, but "there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises" implies otherwise.

And I'm not panicking, I'd just hate to see this approach taken in the ORC.

To clarify I probably messed up some of the wording from his interview on RollforCombat, that's just the nature of me trying to summarize a TWO HOUR LONG livestream but the idea was that the primary license, ORC, probably won't have any language like OGL 2.0's Warranties and Disclaimers Section (e), but much like Paizo's licensure was a sub-license under the general OGL 1.0a he said that other publishers who publish their own material could choose to add additional conditions on usage of their work

What that's called, whether it's SRD, fan-use policy, or whatever, I don't know. I chose to be sensible with my life and didn't go to law school. I also don't have any time for hair-splitting and "akshually" on what part of the legalese it falls under.

It's also important to remember we haven't even seen an ORC draft.

Let's bear in mind that OGLv1.0a wasn't a paradigm shift of copyright law. In hindsight, the only thing it offered was certainty that WotC wasn't going to be "They Sue Regularly" all over again. Mind you, that was a HUGE benefit; legal costs can be significant for an indie publisher. Just saying the benefit was economic, not legal.

I don't know what ORC plans to do but OGLv1.1 was legally untenable. You can demand royalties for 3rd party content and revoke a license for code of conduct violations all you want, but mechanics are not protected by copyright so these power grabs were always a huge bluff by WotC. Beyond protecting their trademarks (which WotC never opened up in the first place) they have no real power over others' original works, no matter how derivative. I can demand everyone here pay me and conform to my personal code of ethics, but I have no legal power to enforce it until my plans to take over the world are completed.

That in mind, IANAL but my best understanding is ORC can't contain a morality clause that would function as desired. Hypothetically ORC could boot someone from the Alliance, and setting aside the uncomfortable questions of whose job is it to be World TTRPG Police and how to prevent abuse of such power, that may be the thing to do just on principle. But any effect beyond good feels would be a formality because the exiled can still publish anyway ("compatible with Pathfinder" etc.). In practice you can't sue someone just for being objectionable; the legal means here would be something like defamation, which is a tough road if the dispute boils down to Content Creator A is offended by Content Creator B. At most ORC could serve as a quality standard like JIS but is that really part of the plan?

IMO, ORC doesn't NEED to be the be-all, end-all runbook of game publishing anyway. The morality angle originated from the odious OGLv1.1, and personally I suspect it was put in there as a PR smokescreen for the awful stuff. In practice, all it'd do is EXCLUDE bigoted content from WotC's royalty scheme via revocation whereas the publication itself can't be stopped. As envisioned, the woke folks are still stuck paying 25%. FWIW, there are other ways of dealing with TTRPG pariahs without throwing a legal document at them; just ask Wizards of the Coast how their month is going.

thejeff wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

The more I think about this, the less I like it.

At least with a morality clause in the license, you know where you stand. With this, every publisher gets to add their own morality clause and have it enforced under ORC terms.

You absolutely know some will use this to ban queer or trans content made with their material. Or to block "wokeness" in general.

So let them. I imagine they will have a tough time hiring creative types and/or persuading people to buy their products if they can get them made. If for some reason they sell really well, that would mean that social attitudes have changed radically from what they are today, and nothing we say today would matter in that hypothetical distant future.

Remember, all anyone had to do to tank sales from the nu-TSR Star Frontiers was post excerpts of its racist portions. The free market did the rest.

The main risk to publishers is having their brands tainted by material published by their licensees, but a big requirement of the OGL and probably the ORC as well is the inability to claim compatibility with the source product in the absence of a secondary license that allows it. The place for a morality clause (preferably one that is clear in intent and that can be modified as social attitudes evolve) is in said secondary license.

thejeff wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

The more I think about this, the less I like it.

At least with a morality clause in the license, you know where you stand. With this, every publisher gets to add their own morality clause and have it enforced under ORC terms.

You absolutely know some will use this to ban queer or trans content made with their material. Or to block "wokeness" in general.

So let them. I imagine they will have a tough time hiring creative types and/or persuading people to buy their products if they can get them made. If for some reason they sell really well, that would mean that social attitudes have changed radically from what they are today, and nothing we say today would matter in that hypothetical distant future.

Remember, all anyone had to do to tank sales from the nu-TSR Star Frontiers was post excerpts of its racist portions. The free market did the rest.

The main risk to publishers is having their brands tainted by material published by their licensees, but a big requirement of the OGL and probably the ORC as well is the inability to claim compatibility with the source product in the absence of a secondary license that allows it. The place for a morality clause (preferably one that is clear in intent and that can be modified as social attitudes evolve) is in said secondary license.

Yeah, as long as it's a secondary license tied to compatibility claims/logo/branding or use of product identity, not something tied to the ORC open content, that's cool.

I was reading that as a mechanism in each SRD to add their own restrictions to the actual SRD content, which I would have a problem with.

I have to imagine that use cases for a "morality clause" under the ORC would be to allow work to be covered by different licenses, like how Creative Commons is actually six different licenses.

So you can offer the protection of "you can make derivative works that don't make us look bad" with one license, with a sliding scale of permissions for various license options.

Since the whole point of said clause in the new OGL is just "we want to avoid PR disasters in case someone makes us look bad". You do want the ability to insulate yourself from this somehow (which could also be "what you are allowed to license is not identifiable as us".)

Glad to see so many folks showing up! Glad you’ve got a good crew to work with here.

Hi everyone--

I am moving to PF2e and here is what I posted on the DNDBeyond OLG survey tonight:

I am 52 and have played D&D since I was ten years old with the D&D Basic edition. I am also a DM and a player on Roll20 and have been using 5e for the past four years. I have spent multi-thousands of dollars on TSR and WOTC D&D products (digital PDFs, ROll20 resources, official miniatures, novels, board games, accessories, hard-copy books, Dndbeyond subscriptions, MOTG cards, and MOTG online) over the past 40+ years. I was loyal to the brand for all these years and supported literally all products TSR and WOTC produced. I am the ideal customer for WOTC.

I am very upset with your disregard for the D&D community. Your view of third-party publishers and how you have treated them through this OGL situation is awful. They help you BUILD the brand, and you turn around and alienate them, destroying some of their business models, as you seek to monetize D&D even further. Yes, you are running a business and I am not opposed to you making money with the D&D brand, but your deceptive approach to increasing your revenue through misleading communication has caused irreparable harm to your reputation in the community of gamers. I am extremely disappointed with how you view gamers like myself. You have deviated dramatically from Gary Gygax's vision for D&D, and I don't like it.

I will not do business with WOTC again and am moving my gaming dollars to Paizo.

Looks like the Deathstar's days are numbered :-)

How can Anderson Morgan Gaming Join the ORC. Most we just streamed live on Facebook. First with 3.5 then Pathfinder. At one time I am just under an million subscribers. We did the you could make money streaming Dnd online. I had most high school and collage females. But they liked white wolf better. We had 7 to 13 players. Because are adventure path was written for 3.5 but after my art team moved or got busy, I have dm at gencon with both 4th and p1 st.

The initial post on the Open RPG Creative License (ORC) is here: Paizo Announces System-Neutral Open RPG License:

The most relevant section, which includes a link to join is here:

The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

Errenor wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

'Morality clauses' aren't attached to SRDs. SRDs were licenced by OGL before and (presumably) will be licenced by ORC in the future. Exclusively.

'Morality clauses' are commonly attached to trademarks and IPs not included in SRDs, which is a different licence/contract.
So stop panicking, please ;)

That's how I expected it to work, but "there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises" implies otherwise.

Though Leon Aquila could have gotten it wrong, I suppose. Or I could be misreading it.
And I'm not panicking, I'd just hate to see this approach taken in the ORC.

Leon did get it very wrong and mixed up two different things.

Thus is great news!ⁿ

Should we have heard something by now?

Adamant Entertainment signed up on the first day that ORC was announced, but we haven't received any emails.

Should we have heard something by now?

Adamant Entertainment signed up on the first day that ORC was announced, but we haven't received any emails.

Yes, you should have received an introductory email welcoming you to the alliance with a link to the ORC Discord server. That is all I have received thus far.

Thanks. Somebody just shot me a copy of the invite link via Direct Message on Twitter.

No email, and so I re-filled the form, just in case I forgot to click the "agree to have messages sent" box -- still nothing.

Ah, well. Discord it is, then. :)

The announcement states “sharing rules mechanics and encourages innovation and collaboration in the tabletop gaming space.”

Other than a play test how do 3pp publishers contribute to the shared rules mechanics?

The announcement states “sharing rules mechanics and encourages innovation and collaboration in the tabletop gaming space.”

Other than a play test how do 3pp publishers contribute to the shared rules mechanics?

They publish their own stuff. Everyone takes inspiration and ideas from what everyone else does.

And an open gaming license is specifically designed to facilitate sharing of game mechanics in published products while enabling the original authors of a gaming book to protect things like setting based IP.

Even with Hasbro (seeming to) back down, the ORC is still important!

The announcement states “sharing rules mechanics and encourages innovation and collaboration in the tabletop gaming space.”

Other than a play test how do 3pp publishers contribute to the shared rules mechanics?

If I understand the question correctly,

The ORC will not come with rules. Publishers will put out their own rules under the ORC, which will then become available to all like the SRD is for the ogl. In essence, tpp contribute by releasing their own SRDs.

If I understand correctly.

Even with Hasbro (seeming to) back down, the ORC is still important!

I mean, there's no guarantee they won't try it again when the dust settles. That's why the ORC being managed by an independent entity is important.

Precisely that ^

It also will provide a constantly-present point of comparison that any future alteration to the OGL will be instantly weighed against.

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

So, now that Wizards of the Coast has moved to Creative Commons (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons) -- and joined such great games as Blades in the Dark, Dungeon World, Gumshoe, and Fate -- will others follow them?

The CC licence already exists (no need to invent a new one), and meets the goal of being independent, and is already used by many highly rated games.

Looking forward to seeing Paizo, Chaosium, Monte Cook Games, Pinnacle, and all the other great companies on that list adopt Creative Commons.

I really hope they don't.

CC licenses are overly broad. I use them on some of my photographs, but it would be nice to have a license that was more directly tailored to the concerns of game developers and gave them more flexibility and nuance in how they license their creative works.

It may meet the goal of "being independent", but it misses on so many other goals that I would not want the ORC horde to stop development on a better structure.

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

In any case, good news. I'm willing to be a participating publisher as well. Just send me a PM so we can do whatever further discussion including email information for any NDAs or whatever best discussed in private or confidentiality as appropriate.

I really hope they don't.

CC licenses are overly broad. I use them on some of my photographs, but it would be nice to have a license that was more directly tailored to the concerns of game developers and gave them more flexibility and nuance in how they license their creative works.

CC license varies from very broadly open to more restrictive form of CC.

Just because the SRD is say.... CC-BY (with CC0 being the absolute most permissive) does not mean you can't distribute your own work on a more restrictive lice. CC-BY-SA would require the modified work to be licensed out under the same terms... much like GPL licenses.

CC license varies from very broad to more restrictive form of CC.

I first started using CC licensing in 2005 on Flickr. I'm very aware of all the flavors available.

I still think that there is a need for a better licensing structure for ttrpgs.

Dragon Nexus Games wrote:

CC license varies from very broad to more restrictive form of CC.

I first started using CC licensing in 2005 on Flickr. I'm very aware of all the flavors available.

I still think that there is a need for a better licensing structure for ttrpgs.

Fair enough but useful for other here for the information.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

In any case, good news. I'm willing to be a participating publisher as well. Just send me a PM so we can do whatever further discussion including email information for any NDAs or whatever best discussed in private or confidentiality as appropriate.

Paizo has already set up a page for game publishers to sign up to participate in the creation and review process of the ORC license found in their original blog post (and relinked HERE).

We're working in merch. Had to write the welcome letter to publishers and set up the Discord server first, but will be getting to that agenda item soon!

Even with WotC backing off "de-authorizing" 1.0a, there is still a need for both the license and the merch.

AceofMoxen wrote:

Even with Hasbro (seeming to) back down, the ORC is still important!

I mean, there's no guarantee they won't try it again when the dust settles. That's why the ORC being managed by an independent entity is important.

And recall that this isn't even the first time they've tried this. Back in 2008 they tried to stop people from using the OGL with the GSL, and a clause in it that anyone using the GSL couldn't make any OGL content. This part was stripped after outcry, but the GSL was still more restrictive. And now 15 years later they pull a similar stunt. WotC in control means there will always be an incentive to try to do this again. Having something universal and not controlled by any company with a profit motive in it will be useful.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

AceofMoxen wrote:

Even with Hasbro (seeming to) back down, the ORC is still important!

I mean, there's no guarantee they won't try it again when the dust settles. That's why the ORC being managed by an independent entity is important.

And recall that this isn't even the first time they've tried this. Back in 2008 they tried to stop people from using the OGL with the GSL, and a clause in it that anyone using the GSL couldn't make any OGL content. This part was stripped after outcry, but the GSL was still more restrictive. And now 15 years later they pull a similar stunt. WotC in control means there will always be an incentive to try to do this again. Having something universal and not controlled by any company with a profit motive in it will be useful.

They probably won't attempt this again this year. They may try again something in the future because they can stop publishing SRDs with the CC and you have to have a copy with the SRD so we who have a copy would have it. Of course, they didn't do something clever like you having to register to get the download and a special note that this copy is licensed to _______________, (underlined filled with your name as registered) under this license so only the persons named on the PDF as registered can use the licensed work under the license. While they don't own the creative commons license, they own the work licensed. They weren't being sneaky that way.

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

Thanks, Aaron. I'm looking forward to it. I would like to see the ORC in a good draft. Although it would take a lawyer to compare the two. :)

And recall that this isn't even the first time they've tried this. Back in 2008 they tried to stop people from using the OGL with the GSL, and a clause in it that anyone using the GSL couldn't make any OGL content. This part was stripped after outcry, but the GSL was still more restrictive. And now 15 years later they pull a similar stunt. WotC in control means there will always be an incentive to try to do this again. Having something universal and not controlled by any company with a profit motive in it will be useful.

Hopefully the ORC will be better managed. So far, I think Paizo is doing the right thing.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

In any case, good news. I'm willing to be a participating publisher as well. Just send me a PM so we can do whatever further discussion including email information for any NDAs or whatever best discussed in private or confidentiality as appropriate.

To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

The lich was being forced to make a hasty withdrawal and propose panicky peace offerings in front of the completely unexpected resistance and the gathering of the ORC horde.

They are still a CE lich.

I am not expecting redemption in the future.

A sacrifice to appease the masses and hatching new plans to find loopholes and workarounds so they can once again go for world (cash flows) domination is far more plausible IMO.

In other words, if they give something, it means that it's not really a worthy gift and that they're preparing something else.

Given the lich thinks its phylactery is under-monetised I think it will be scheming with new hidden tracts, curses and zombie clauses.

Some more thoughts based on the big leak from D&D Shorts about WotC's plans for D&D. It's likely that openness never was the threat to their profits that they thought it was. D&D has huge market share even with the OGL. And third party content likely draws players to their product (and the rule book purchases and various other types of merch). If this new online environment they're working on is as amazing as claimed, they'll have many people flocking to it. They've been able to pour the kind of money into development that no third party is able to, and they've already got the head start in development. If that really is the future of gaming like they're betting on, then licensing is basically irrelevant. They own the platform (I seriously doubt it will be opened in any way), and will control all the micro-transactions that are the apparent income source they expect. So this whole ordeal was likely a counter-productive distraction, even if it didn't provoke a backlash the value would be debatable. They were trying to kill competition, but if their plans are successful, they don't have any competition. I guess possibly the big concern might be if some major video game company that isn't a current competitor decides to get into things, someone like say Microsoft might be able to afford to make an even grander VTT.

The test to see if the lich learned its lesson is what they do with 6e license. But I still fully expect them to monetize DDB to death. The timing of the announcement to give up the OGL fight makes me wonder if part of the motivation to change their minds was to take advantage of Paizo running out of books and trying to win back players before the next shipment of books in April.

Some more thoughts based on the big leak from D&D Shorts about WotC's plans for D&D. It's likely that openness never was the threat to their profits that they thought it was. D&D has huge market share even with the OGL. And third party content likely draws players to their product (and the rule book purchases and various other types of merch). If this new online environment they're working on is as amazing as claimed, they'll have many people flocking to it. They've been able to pour the kind of money into development that no third party is able to, and they've already got the head start in development. If that really is the future of gaming like they're betting on, then licensing is basically irrelevant. They own the platform (I seriously doubt it will be opened in any way), and will control all the micro-transactions that are the apparent income source they expect. So this whole ordeal was likely a counter-productive distraction, even if it didn't provoke a backlash the value would be debatable. They were trying to kill competition, but if their plans are successful, they don't have any competition. I guess possibly the big concern might be if some major video game company that isn't a current competitor decides to get into things, someone like say Microsoft might be able to afford to make an even grander VTT.

Yep, if their Unreal engin’d VVT has all this money and time sunk into it, and helmed by the folks apparently…helming it I’m sure it is their “future of DnD” and there won’t be much competition for it. Given the recent upswing in customers/fanbase and the ease with which people seem to gravitate towards mobile games, casual video games, lite games etc, making a shiny bells and whistles Unreal version of DnD will likely be a big winner. Most people won’t remember the tiny blip of January 2023, and even less will care enough to not buy the shiny. Pretty sad, but that is the history of marketing and capitalism.

Was good to see them totally capitulate on this, but I figure this may have been a fallback from the start with a baleful skull’s eye on the major prize. Now I want to refer to DNDB as the Accursed Soul Gem…

I mean, if their supposed evil plan is to do really well because they've got a really great product that appeals to people and they can dominate without interfering with other creators, then I don't really have a problem with that.

Yep, if their Unreal engin’d VVT has all this money and time sunk into it, and helmed by the folks apparently…helming it I’m sure it is their “future of DnD” and there won’t be much competition for it. Given the recent upswing in customers/fanbase and the ease with which people seem to gravitate towards mobile games, casual video games, lite games etc, making a shiny bells and whistles Unreal version of DnD will likely be a big winner. Most people won’t remember the tiny blip of January 2023, and even less will care enough to not buy the shiny. Pretty sad, but that is the history of marketing and capitalism.

I don't think this is even sad. It may well even be good for the TTRPG industry as a whole. Lots and lots of new people get drawn into the D&D shiny online experience and some percentage of them (a small percentage but a large number of actual people) realize that they want more and start to explore the other possibilities offered by the rest of the community.

Their VTT MAY be so good as to eliminate D&D customers from existing VTTs (which may or may not kill those VTTs). For those of us who aren't playing D&D that would be sad but that pretty much IS the way of the world. New technology replaces older technology