Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo / other OGL companies


Paizo General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,038 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onkonk wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
When it comes to Paizo: 20 years of consistent behaviour and integrity matters. Sure, we can't predict the future - maybe a giant legal battle with WotC will nuke their finances and force them to sell, and the new owner is a tyrannical maniac. Or a comet could land on the office. All of these could happen. But they aren't likely. If in the short term we had to put our money on one party to take over the role of custodian of the Open Gaming movement... Paizo would be a good candidate.
Devil's Advocate: The only reason Paizo has been behaving "well" could be due to the OGL having set the terms of fairness to-date. We've never seen a Paizo without the OGL that set a certain level playing field across the industry. I don't think Paizo has ever been threatened in this manner either and may be prone to react in a protectionist manner as well.

Paizo was not forced to use the OGL for PF2, they could have gone for something else if they wanted to be "less nice".

Since Creative Commons came out in 2002, I've been a fan of using the Creative Commons license as a primary gaming license, not OGL (especially for non-D&D-derived systems) and I hope that the new license mostly cribs from CC with a variety of possible license variations (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA are the most commonly useful CC licenses for tabletop gaming).

TBH, I'm not "angry" at Hasbro right now. I don't just don't feel it because large corporations are going to behave like large corporations and being angry doesn't change that.

Liberty's Edge

27 people marked this as a favorite.

I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.

I'd be less angry if it were clear that their decisions here were going to be financially beneficial to them, ultimately. Like, if you're going to be Corporate-Evil at least be competently Corporate-Evil.

All their succeeding in doing is blowing up their own community and converting friendly competition into active competition. I dont see how this "works out" for them in the long run.


Raynulf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Raynulf wrote:

While the idea of having an independent, no-one-party-controls-this license and SRD for the community to use may sound nice, I'm not sure how practical this is.

I suspect that for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone. Maybe Paizo, Kobold Press and a bunch of other publishers could form some kind of joint legal entity in order to do so...

I'm not sure why. Licenses are just text. If two companies make a more traditional licensing agreement, we wouldn't say one of them owns the license, would we?

If a company releases its content with a license like the OGL 1.0a (but not actually Wizard's OGL and with improvements to block revocation), that content is released on those terms. Someone only needs to own it if they want to change it later (for good reasons or less good ones.)

To quote Ryan Dancey: "The value of the open gaming license is that it licenses D&D, not that it is a good license".

Basically, a license without a system - and most notably an extremely popular system/brand is of little value to the industry. Which is also why people are watching Paizo for their response, because while PF2 is dwarfed by 5E, it is bigger than anything else in the fantasy TTRPG field.

To an extent that's fair, but it's a very different point. A new license without a popular system licensed under it might not be of great value, but it's still legally valid even if the license itself isn't owned by anyone.


Brairthorne wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Because I was there, at the time, I remember that there was controversy at the time over whether Wizards of the Coast could possibly pull the rug out from under the whole open gaming thing by pulling D&D back in-house and revoking the OGL. I don't think it's a coincidence that Creative Commons licensing became a thing shortly afterward.

Yeah, I remember being excited about the OGL...but I knew that TSR sued anyone and everyone they could. There wasn't really an equivalent elsewhere I knew about.

Before the OGL, if you wanted to add something to the world of DnD you did the following:
Create a meticulously worded letter to the company describing your concept in exacting detail with enough fluff text to make it interesting.
Mail that idea to TSR, because email wasn't a thing yet.
Wait for 4-6 weeks for the prompt reply.
Realize they are never going to respond in any way, your work won't be published, and you wasted a few months.

It was certainly a smaller world, but there were definitely 3rd party materials published almost from the beginning. Some officially licensed and some just "suitable for use with the world's most popular fantasy RPG" or similar language.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Raynulf wrote:

While the idea of having an independent, no-one-party-controls-this license and SRD for the community to use may sound nice, I'm not sure how practical this is.

I suspect that for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone. Maybe Paizo, Kobold Press and a bunch of other publishers could form some kind of joint legal entity in order to do so...

I'm not sure why. Licenses are just text. If two companies make a more traditional licensing agreement, we wouldn't say one of them owns the license, would we?

If a company releases its content with a license like the OGL 1.0a (but not actually Wizard's OGL and with improvements to block revocation), that content is released on those terms. Someone only needs to own it if they want to change it later (for good reasons or less good ones.)

To quote Ryan Dancey: "The value of the open gaming license is that it licenses D&D, not that it is a good license".

Basically, a license without a system - and most notably an extremely popular system/brand is of little value to the industry. Which is also why people are watching Paizo for their response, because while PF2 is dwarfed by 5E, it is bigger than anything else in the fantasy TTRPG field.

To an extent that's fair, but it's a very different point. A new license without a popular system licensed under it might not be of great value, but it's still legally valid even if the license itself isn't owned by anyone.

The value of the license isn't determined by whether it's legal or not. It's determined by the content it licenses.

D&D is a huge brand, which is why OGL 1.0a is so impactful (and why OGL 1.1 is so problematic, assuming the draft fairly represents the final product). Creative Commons is a very well-put-together license that addresses most if not all of the problems in OGL 1.0a but it doesn't have any IP of significant value attached to it, so it's not a very valuable license in monetary terms.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.

indeed. This isn't the sort of thing to encourage through blithe acceptance. It needs to be fought with no small amount of heat and public outcry.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.

At the risk of sounding defeatist, I'm pretty sure that ship sailed decades ago. :-(


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
At the risk of sounding defeatist, I'm pretty sure that ship sailed decades ago. :-(

if it had, we wouldn't be in this thread.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
indeed. This isn't the sort of thing to encourage through blithe acceptance. It needs to be fought with no small amount of heat and public outcry.

It's not.

Weary, bitter acceptance, maybe. But not blithe. Blithe is happy and I'm not happy about it.


Kittyburger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Raynulf wrote:

While the idea of having an independent, no-one-party-controls-this license and SRD for the community to use may sound nice, I'm not sure how practical this is.

I suspect that for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone. Maybe Paizo, Kobold Press and a bunch of other publishers could form some kind of joint legal entity in order to do so...

I'm not sure why. Licenses are just text. If two companies make a more traditional licensing agreement, we wouldn't say one of them owns the license, would we?

If a company releases its content with a license like the OGL 1.0a (but not actually Wizard's OGL and with improvements to block revocation), that content is released on those terms. Someone only needs to own it if they want to change it later (for good reasons or less good ones.)

To quote Ryan Dancey: "The value of the open gaming license is that it licenses D&D, not that it is a good license".

Basically, a license without a system - and most notably an extremely popular system/brand is of little value to the industry. Which is also why people are watching Paizo for their response, because while PF2 is dwarfed by 5E, it is bigger than anything else in the fantasy TTRPG field.

To an extent that's fair, but it's a very different point. A new license without a popular system licensed under it might not be of great value, but it's still legally valid even if the license itself isn't owned by anyone.

The value of the license isn't determined by whether it's legal or not. It's determined by the content it licenses.

D&D is a huge brand, which is why OGL 1.0a is so impactful (and why OGL 1.1 is so problematic, assuming the draft fairly represents the final product). Creative Commons is a very well-put-together license that addresses most if not all of the problems in OGL 1.0a but it doesn't have any IP of significant value attached to it, so it's not a very valuable license in monetary terms.

No, I get that, but this particular subthread started by arguing that "for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone".


"Accepting" that corporate is going to corporater does not mean liking that corporate is going to corporate.

What leads to dystopian cyberpunk future is not being accepting of things as they are. Its not being able to do anything to stop it.

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
At the risk of sounding defeatist, I'm pretty sure that ship sailed decades ago. :-(
if it had, we wouldn't be in this thread.

One thread is about the difference between where we are and a Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare. Worst case scenario WotC wins, Paizo goes out of business, and this thread will be gone with it. WotC's vision is not just OneD&D. It's OneVTT, where printed games no longer exist, and no one gathers in person to play games. Everyone works and then goes home to play the game online. Welcome to the matrix.

Next on the corporate agenda having a job is under-monetized...


Temperans wrote:

"Accepting" that corporate is going to corporater does not mean liking that corporate is going to corporate.

What leads to dystopian cyberpunk future is not being accepting of things as they are. Its not being able to do anything to stop it.

again, if that were the case, we would not be here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I look at the big picture I think: How can Hasbro even win this fight? How can you handle millions of angry highly educated people who can sink dozens of hours a month in their hobby?

The TTRPG market won't even blink. Even if a bunch of publishers go bankrupt, they'll be quickly replaced by others and in a decade from now the TTRPG market will be back on tracks. Our market is fueled by passion, not money.
On top of it, they hit their clients as much as their competitors. How many of us have backed up Kickstarter campaigns, participated in a way or another to an RPG project, wiki, platform, website or whatever? There's not a strong distinction between clients and professionals in the TTRPG market. Hasbro will experience a level of anger that is unheard of. And the hits will come from everywhere.
And the TTRPG community is very reactive because if a single person around a table is vocal against Hasbro, they can easily turn an entire table away from D&D. So the disease can spread extremely quickly.
On top of it, we are used to be attacked. Remember all the "RPGs are satanic" vibe? That was not that far away (I'm not that old). We were not loved, we grew strong from it.

And most importantly: How can the company owning D&D show to everyone that they have an evil alignment and expect to live with it? Some of us are already killing giant rats in their basement. It'll take us a couple of months to raise a proper level 20 party to take the case.

I'm not worried. Hasbro should be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Saw a post somewhere talking about how a certain best case scenario is Hasbro had WotC up against a wall and was forcing the issue. WotC 'leaked' the potential OGL to enrage the player base intentionally so they can point at the players and say 'see what happens when you piss them off?' and hopefully, if not scrapped, it gets a full rewrite to still be useable.

Downside is damage is already done. Good luck. You have already created new competitors just with the threat of pulling it and showing that you can try this crap at any point in the future.

Idiocy at its best 1.1 is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

RollforCombat has scheduled a watch party for a video being released by Wizards of the Coast on the subject of the OGL allegedly at 2pm CST.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqXC4G-wdF4

Pure rumors from unconfirmed leaks says that they may possibly be postponing the roll-out as they're noticing the massive wave of Beyond DND cancellations. But take that with a truckload of salt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Pure rumors from unconfirmed leaks says that they may possibly be postponing the roll-out as they're noticing the massive wave of Beyond DND cancellations. But take that with a truckload of salt.

It's gonna be a bad look if those leaks seem prophetic at 3 EST though.


Freehold DM wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
At the risk of sounding defeatist, I'm pretty sure that ship sailed decades ago. :-(
if it had, we wouldn't be in this thread.

I disagree. The ship may not have reached port yet, but it has long since departed (that is to say we've gone so far down the path that we can no longer course correct, at least not in the context of the current system).

That said, this is getting dangerously close to politics, so I'll leave it here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
When I look at the big picture I think: How can Hasbro even win this fight? How can you handle millions of angry highly educated people who can sink dozens of hours a month in their hobby?

They seem to believe that brand trumps all. Forth Edition should have disabused them of this notion, but fifteen years is an eternity when corporations don't look past next quarter.

Looks like it's time to issue a reminder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

When I look at the big picture I think: How can Hasbro even win this fight? How can you handle millions of angry highly educated people who can sink dozens of hours a month in their hobby?

The TTRPG market won't even blink. Even if a bunch of publishers go bankrupt, they'll be quickly replaced by others and in a decade from now the TTRPG market will be back on tracks. Our market is fueled by passion, not money.
On top of it, they hit their clients as much as their competitors. How many of us have backed up Kickstarter campaigns, participated in a way or another to an RPG project, wiki, platform, website or whatever? There's not a strong distinction between clients and professionals in the TTRPG market. Hasbro will experience a level of anger that is unheard of. And the hits will come from everywhere.
And the TTRPG community is very reactive because if a single person around a table is vocal against Hasbro, they can easily turn an entire table away from D&D. So the disease can spread extremely quickly.
On top of it, we are used to be attacked. Remember all the "RPGs are satanic" vibe? That was not that far away (I'm not that old). We were not loved, we grew strong from it.

And most importantly: How can the company owning D&D show to everyone that they have an evil alignment and expect to live with it? Some of us are already killing giant rats in their basement. It'll take us a couple of months to raise a proper level 20 party to take the case.

I'm not worried. Hasbro should be.

That's naive. D&D collapsing can and will hurt the TTRPG market and community. It has before.

Sure, individuals can move on to other games, but a lot of people will just leave if they don't like the new D&D approach and WotC drove a lot of the outreach that grew the community. Some growth came through streaming and the like, but the curve was already there with 5E before that took off.
Popular D&D editions have always been times of growth for the hobby. Unpopular ones times of contraction. Maybe now is different, but I wouldn't count on it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like theHuge leak from an insider @Wizards

It's what we feared: the higher ups despise us, the D&D community, and see us only as an "obstacle to their money".

Subs on D&D Beyond are all WotC care about, so I've cancelled mine. Let your voice be heard #opendnd #StopTheSub

[A screenshot of the leak]

Earlier, I said that boycotts only work when they're focused and well-organized. Well, this seems like a pretty good case that a boycott can work here. The main target should be DDB subscriptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Makes sense. I never thought about it before but Wizards of the Coast pivoting to "D&D as subscription games services" would be in keeping with what every other marketing guru has told various companies the wave of the future is these days -- in which case the books don't matter, just the subs.


thejeff wrote:


Popular D&D editions have always been times of growth for the hobby. Unpopular ones times of contraction. Maybe now is different, but I wouldn't count on it.

That's a good point, but I don't see where WotC has left businesses a choice. A reliable piece of a (smaller) pie seems better than what they're offering in the "OGL" 1.1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
thejeff wrote:


Popular D&D editions have always been times of growth for the hobby. Unpopular ones times of contraction. Maybe...

Maybe for D&D players, but certainly I don't think that the hobby was hurting in 1991 when D&D 2e (and later 2.5e) was viewed as blase and Vampire was hot as Hell.

Meanwhile, FASA, arguably the 2nd greatest TTRPG company next to TSR/Wizards of the Coast closed its doors in 2001, just after 3.0 D&D was released.

So your hypothesis needs a little work.


If I understand it a lot of contract law relies on reasonable intent and good faith negotiations, and there seems to a lot of evidence in written form over the years that WoTC at the time and the writers that wrote up original OGL meant for it to last forever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
When it comes to Paizo: 20 years of consistent behaviour and integrity matters. Sure, we can't predict the future - maybe a giant legal battle with WotC will nuke their finances and force them to sell, and the new owner is a tyrannical maniac. Or a comet could land on the office. All of these could happen. But they aren't likely. If in the short term we had to put our money on one party to take over the role of custodian of the Open Gaming movement... Paizo would be a good candidate.
Devil's Advocate: The only reason Paizo has been behaving "well" could be due to the OGL having set the terms of fairness to-date. We've never seen a Paizo without the OGL that set a certain level playing field across the industry. I don't think Paizo has ever been threatened in this manner either and may be prone to react in a protectionist manner as well.
A lot of senior people at Paizo are firm believers in the open gaming movement. They didn’t use the OGL purely because it was advantageous to them.

And we don't have to just accept it because its Paizo. We can read the terms for ourselves and decide if it is fair. Personally, I expect if Paizo goes this route, it will be similar to OGL 1.0a... but crucially put in the language that explicitly hardcodes it being irrevocable. May be wrong about that, but it seems like PR coup right now.


Starfinder Superscriber

We're about to find out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqXC4G-wdF4

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Makes sense. I never thought about it before but Wizards of the Coast pivoting to "D&D as subscription games services" would be in keeping with what every other marketing guru has told various companies the wave of the future is these days -- in which case the books don't matter, just the subs.

I love that you have -

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Next to your name. Just a reminder that you can run subscription services and still provide value.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

New Change petition is up, this time from the OGL's writer.

https://www.change.org/p/hasbro-please-take-no-action-regarding-the-open-ga ming-license-v1-0a


17 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this is a fallacy, but--Wizards of the Coast wishes they could switch to a subscription model? Gosh, if only they had access to some kind of, I don't know, periodical publication or two that people could subscribe to and receive regularly. Maybe it could come out every month, or something. Ooh, and maybe you could tie it in with an effort to help recruit new game designers, really promote freelancers without encouraging them to become competitors, you know?

If only there was a way. Oh, well. Time to dunk the art form in turpentine a couple times.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
At the risk of sounding defeatist, I'm pretty sure that ship sailed decades ago. :-(

Death: NO. YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN’T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?


Starfinder Superscriber

Fair.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

When I look at the big picture I think: How can Hasbro even win this fight? How can you handle millions of angry highly educated people who can sink dozens of hours a month in their hobby?

The TTRPG market won't even blink. Even if a bunch of publishers go bankrupt, they'll be quickly replaced by others and in a decade from now the TTRPG market will be back on tracks. Our market is fueled by passion, not money.
On top of it, they hit their clients as much as their competitors. How many of us have backed up Kickstarter campaigns, participated in a way or another to an RPG project, wiki, platform, website or whatever? There's not a strong distinction between clients and professionals in the TTRPG market. Hasbro will experience a level of anger that is unheard of. And the hits will come from everywhere.
And the TTRPG community is very reactive because if a single person around a table is vocal against Hasbro, they can easily turn an entire table away from D&D. So the disease can spread extremely quickly.
On top of it, we are used to be attacked. Remember all the "RPGs are satanic" vibe? That was not that far away (I'm not that old). We were not loved, we grew strong from it.

And most importantly: How can the company owning D&D show to everyone that they have an evil alignment and expect to live with it? Some of us are already killing giant rats in their basement. It'll take us a couple of months to raise a proper level 20 party to take the case.

I'm not worried. Hasbro should be.

That's naive. D&D collapsing can and will hurt the TTRPG market and community. It has before.

Sure, individuals can move on to other games, but a lot of people will just leave if they don't like the new D&D approach and WotC drove a lot of the outreach that grew the community. Some growth came through streaming and the like, but the curve was already there with 5E before that took off.
Popular D&D editions have always been times of growth for the hobby. Unpopular ones times of contraction. Maybe...

contrary to popular belief 4th made a ton of money, just not what hasboro wanted and then of course switching to essentials killed 4th


6 people marked this as a favorite.

stream was cancelled


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Hey Aaron Shanks maybe you should submit your resume to Wizards of the Coast, they could use a competent marketing exec right now.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Hey Aaron Shanks maybe you should submit your resume to Wizards of the Coast, they could use a competent marketing exec right now.

Nah, we like Aaron right where he is. Appreciate his attention to detail and follow through.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

But do they (WotC) deserve him?


Kelseus wrote:
stream was cancelled

Lmao.

Also, another take:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/12/beg-forgiveness-ask-permission/#whats-a- copyright-exception


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
But do they (WotC) deserve him?

No. They deserve nothing right now but black flag and jovial Roger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gamerskum wrote:
If I understand it a lot of contract law relies on reasonable intent and good faith negotiations, and there seems to a lot of evidence in written form over the years that WoTC at the time and the writers that wrote up original OGL meant for it to last forever.

After listening to Ryan and taking a bit of time to digest, I've come to realise two things:

1) WotC have gone all-in on attempt 2 at their VTT, and the primary target of the OGL 1.1 is not even the 3rd party community - they're just targets of opportunity WotC are swiping at in passing .

The main goal is to backtrack and purge 5E from 3rd party digital tools so that WotC can roll out the Sauron Edition with a single option, controlled by them, for playing and managing it (and 5E which it still basically is) online. Because if they want to heavily monetize digital SE, the last thing they want is competition offering cheaper (or *gasp* FREE!) alternatives.

2) I'm not a lawyer... but seriously, revoking 1.0(a) feels like a huge gamble on WotC's part, hanging everything on "well it doesn't explicitly say we can't revoke it" and "it says any 'authorised' version... so what if we unauthorize 1.0(a)?".

As purely a layman in these matters, it looks like a very weak argument. Outside of getting their hands on a Tardis, they cannot go back in time and make 1.0(a) not an authorised version of the license, because it has been for nearly 23 years.

Furthermore, 1.0(a) explicitly calls out that it permits any authorised version of the license to be used, and WotC's statement that 1.0(a) is no longer authorised is part of v1.1.... which if you're not using because 1.0(a) explicitly says you don't have to - then 1.0(a) is still authorised. If the intent was that the 1.0a could be revoked, then Clause 9 would never have been included, because short of time travel it stops (by design) WotC-of-the-Future from undoing the work of WotC-of-the-Past.

Yes, WotC could try nuclear lawfare to prevent this from being ruled on through sheer legal costs of going to trial... but I suspect Ryan Dancey is probably correct in his conclusion that you can probably get a ruling on whether they can revoke 1.0a pretty darn quickly as it is a fairly simple legal question (not even taking 'intent' into account).


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber


Linda is saying that we didn't get bait and switched, they were fully ready to announce the OGL 1.1 today and choked


lol

lmao


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mission Accomplished.

At the very least this will give companies like Paizo more time to plan a transition off of 1.0a, as it is clear WOTC is ready at any moment to revoke free use of that license.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently the page for cancelling subscriptions went down from sheer traffic. You love to see it.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I know this is a fallacy, but--Wizards of the Coast wishes they could switch to a subscription model? Gosh, if only they had access to some kind of, I don't know, periodical publication or two that people could subscribe to and receive regularly. Maybe it could come out every month, or something. Ooh, and maybe you could tie it in with an effort to help recruit new game designers, really promote freelancers without encouraging them to become competitors, you know?

You speak utter madness, young lady.

Periodicals. As if that had ever worked.


Shisumo wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Coridan wrote:
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
At the risk of sounding defeatist, I'm pretty sure that ship sailed decades ago. :-(
Death: NO. YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN’T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?

Just bought that for my wife for Xmas. She was distraught that she couldn't find one to watch this upcoming Xmas as she does every year so she bought her own.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

LOL. Normally when a web site goes down like that it is called a DDOS attack. Not sure what to call it when it is legitimate traffic.

551 to 600 of 1,038 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo / other OGL companies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.