So the OGL drama hey

[erik]

To follow up...

It's not nonsense, it is just an unsupported conclusion

That's two different things then is it.

Yes. Like the difference between a logical fallacy and a mistaken premise. One is an error in process, the other is an error in data. I took nonsense to be an implied error in process as it was paired with innumeracy.

Innumeracy is an ignorance of the processes of mathematics, which does not follow from using incorrect data.

So yes, you were using those words incorrectly.

It's possible my assumptions are incorrect, it's even possible they're so far incorrect that my conclusions are incorrect. But just because you think they're insultingly stupid doesn't make them incorrect. It just means you have your own assumptions that differ.

It looks like regular big book PDFs (i.e. not adventure module types) go for 29.99, such as the PHB. I can get the hardcover PHB on amazon for 26.10 right now (as opposed to 49.99 at a hobby store). So my assumption of PDFs and books being similarly priced seems apt, especially considering I could also get used copies for 17.25 where WotC sees 0% of that sale.

As for how many pdfs they are selling, I'm pretty sure we have no way of knowing. Here is my thought process for trying to ballpark it:
I would have assumed the number of pdf sales would be tragically low... except that it is all a part of the DnD Beyond website, and the only way their $146 million dollar deal to buy the site makes sense is if people really are throwing shitloads of money at that site. So my traditional understanding that the price of a pdf is $0 since it is super easy to find them for free online, is probably misplaced. Meaning that people are probably actually buying these pdfs in significant quantities.

I checked and DnD 5e does not provide complimentary pdfs with their physical purchases. I would have bet that most pdfs are a double-dip in sales since in my mind people buy the books first and would get pdfs as luxury items to reference more easily.... buuuut, given the huge presence of 5e on roll20, there probably are a lot more people who are purely digital than the demographic I'm more familiar with back in the 2000's. So maybe WotC are cannibalizing their book sales some with pdfs, but that's more profitable for WotC thanks to the superior profit margins.

So I am given a couple reasons to suspect that they are selling a bunch of these pdfs (#1 the impressive value of their webservice and #2 the very substantial online play demographic), and that's even better than selling books because it makes so much more money in profit per pdf. I did not think this was a really controversial observation. Especially since Amazon seems to devour a lot of their profits to make the book profit margins razor thin.

If you can sell PDFs in place of books, then it beats the piss out of book sales.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

One is an error in process, the other is an error in data.

So they are both wrong and both nonsense. You are TRYING to argue semantics that what you said just MIGHT be wrong... and could even be right if you make insane assumptions BUT THAT IS STILL WRONG AND NONSENSE.

So arguing something is nonsense but in a more complex way is not an argument against it being nonsense. In fact the nature of nonsense is such that arguable you are only digging the hole deeper.

And also, no, innumerate was the correct term because the specific language you used DIRECTLY claimed that higher percentages of profit margins ALONE would "beat the piss". That IS innumerate, in fact exactly that sort of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of how percentages work is almost a TEXTBOOK example of innumeracy in practice.

You imagining additional values in your head you never mentioned does not change the text and does not stop it from being innumerate. It CAN determine whether you yourself are secretly innumerate or not in your head but it does not change the text you wrote on the internet.

You are spewing a bullshit attempt at a semantics squid ink attack just to cover for the fact that you said one small but really stupid thing on the internet. Just give up admit you created just one line of pure stupid text on the internet and get over it.

Or instead, after claiming wrong isn't wrong and an innumerate statement isn't innumeracy you COULD just go on paragraph after paragraph trying to pretend some rather extreme assumptions are potentially valid because.. NO REASON you just are still just speculating in a total void and admitting it.

Then you end with...

If you can sell PDFs in place of books, then it beats the piss out of book sales.

Which is just a fucking repetition of your original DUMB ASS claim, relying on the same extreme assumptions you just totally failed to base in reality, only now with LESS NUMBERS just in case you get called out on innumeracy.

I'm sure that WOTC is making (some amount of) money (up to now) on D&D beyond and digital sales. But the things you are saying are stupid things to say. (potentially) High profit margins for digital goods (which, FYI, are not 100% you know just in case, because you seem that dumb) are nice, but that is not the be all and end all and trying to have some sort of imaginary pissing contest about the most profitable edition in your head with no genuinely relevant comprehensive numbers.

Here's a way to try to fix your argument about profits and editions without those pesky relevant actual numbers on total net profit.

"The currently most profitable product WOTC has is almost definitely one it is currently actually selling".

[erik]

I ended with the same conclusion because I was walking through my thought process on how I got to that conclusion. It would have been quite unusual if I arrived at a new location using the same starting point and directions. I am sorry this simple rhetorical device flummoxed you so.

In the absence of data we can only speculate upon the data and give reasons for those speculations. Do you have any actual data? You're very emphatic yes, but that is not data. Caps lock is not a substitute for data unfortunately.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I was walking through my thought process

That wasn't a thought process. It was a dumpster fire. It was a series of contradictory speculations based on nothing with no actual facts entirely intended to try and reach a pre-determined conclusion to feed in "same price same sales" to make your stupid profit margin claim cosmetically viable.

Do you have any actual data?

Did I state that they were "beating the piss" out of their own sales from 20 years ago?

Oh I see. You make claims. Others need data.

[MGuy]

So little to talk about where the ogl is concerned that this is the preferred topic?

The wotc has moved to claiming that they are curbing some of the language they used in their ogl 1.1 fuck up. Wotc has drafted a 1.2 ogl now and sent out a survey with it. They are apparently marketing it as a "playtest" which seems really odd because there's no way they are going to leave a thing like this for the public to decide anything.

Meanwhile paizo is getting other people to get into the development of their own "orc" license. I don't know exactly what wotc would lose if other companies just start using another open license instead of theirs but it at least would be embarrassing.

[Thaluikhain]

So little to talk about where the ogl is concerned that this is the preferred topic?

The thread title is about drama, and there is drama in the thread. Makes sense.

Meanwhile paizo is getting other people to get into the development of their own "orc" license. I don't know exactly what wotc would lose if other companies just start using another open license instead of theirs but it at least would be embarrassing.

One wonders if those responsible for this decision have the self awareness to realise their mistake and be embarrassed, rather than getting annoyed with reality for not matching their vision. Though, if they are backpedaling, it hints that they might, but isn't conclusive.

Also, and I acknowledge that I might be totally misinformed about this, is one strength of the open licence that it is the open licence, rather than just an open licence? The big standard lots of people use? Competitors might not supplant it, but they can dilute it by offering rivals.

[deaddmwalking]

Erik is right. He just didn't use the numbers.

If you buy a PDF for $19.95, WoTC gets $19.95 (less transaction costs, and the cost of writing spread over all copies sold) which is basically close enough to saying they get 100% (of $19.95) so roughly $20.

If you buy a physical book for $29.95, WoTC gets $29.95 less the cost of physical production and distribution, as well as the retailer's markup. Let's just say that it cost $15 to distribute the book and $5 goes to the retailer, so WotC keeps roughly $10.

That would support a position that selling PDFs (especially directly online) 'beats the piss' out of selling physical books. The actual cost structure remains an unknown, but it's pretty clear that PDFs are cheap to produce and distribute relative to physical books, so it's hard to argue that PDFs aren't more profitable. But hard to argue is Phonelobsters raison d'etre.

Regarding the OGL, WotC can't deauthorize the original OGL. It doesn't even make SENSE that they would deauthorize it for NEW material but leave it authorized for OLD material. Even if you COULD, game mechanics can't be protected by copyright (like recipes can't be, either), so the OGL was pretty much an agreement to let people use something that they couldn't stop you from using anyway, provided you didn't use things that they probably COULD stop you from using (IP), but that would get messy and using the OGL kept everyone playing nicely.

But the United States legal system is pretty easily abused. Even though you can't copyright game mechanics, an EXPRESSION can be protected, and you can try to claim that someone stole your EXPRESSION and it goes to court and even if you win, you're bankrupt (but your lawyer is happy). Deauthorizing the OGL is most likely to lose in court, but that means someone has to stand up to Hasbro IN COURT and pretty much nobody has an incentive to do that.

But creating a new OGL that is explicitly not given by WoTC referencing other game rules that are not created by WotC is PRETTY SAFE. WotC could try to argue that the new game rules are a derivative work and even though game mechanics are not protected there's enough IP if you look cross-eyed at it, so you can't release some things under the new ORC agreement even though Paizo said you could.

Hasbro really thought people wouldn't be willing to argue. But if they were right that there were millions of dollars at stake here (even if most of the players have a small piece of it, of course people would be willing to argue. I don't think that Paizo is going to win back a significant portion of the gaming population - they really did have a chance but they screwed it up and that's not coming back with this latest misstep by WotC. That probably means a whole lot of non-compatible books, but since 5th edition is basic the 'feel mechanic' I don't know that it means much.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Erik is right. He just didn't use the numbers.

Well, certainly more right than you.

At least Erik's defense of "but I was secretly thinking of additional assumptions that made it correct" was mildly coherent. A failure because secret head knowledge doesn't really count as a defense for things you say, but at least once outside of his head, coherent.

Your defense, of explaining (needlessly and pretty badly) what a profit margin is, then admitting you have no numbers either, is not a coherent approach. What it is is an approach someone stupid would use when they didn't understand what the argument was about but mistakenly thought they were smart enough to weigh in but all they could do is try and reword a google search on the meaning of profit margin.

[Thaluikhain]

But the United States legal system is pretty easily abused. Even though you can't copyright game mechanics, an EXPRESSION can be protected, and you can try to claim that someone stole your EXPRESSION and it goes to court and even if you win, you're bankrupt (but your lawyer is happy).

Um, what does expression mean in context? Is that like the "essence" of an artwork, and equally hard to pin down?

[deaddmwalking]

Typically it means that a specific string of text (such as a description of Strength) could be copyrighted, but not the underlying function.

For example:

Strength determines how much a character can lift, carry and how they're impacted by wearing heavy armor in combat.

OR

All creatures have a Strength Score. This is an abstract reflection of their ability to physically manipulate objects (lift, carry, pull) as well as athletically maneuver in the world by hoisting themselves up, leaping across a chasm, or swimming. A number of skills receive a bonus based on a character's Strength Score, and it determines the maximum amount they can carry (as well as how heavy weights reduce their effectiveness through the encumbrance system).

In both cases, the verbal description may be referring to the same mechanic. If I copy/pasted one or the other into my book, I could be infringing on a copyright. But if the first one is published and I write the second one, I'm in the clear - I'm clearly using different language to explain the game mechanic (which cannot be copyrighted). It doesn't matter that they describe the same mechanic as long as they do it in different ways...

Now, having everyone use different language to describe the same mechanic is needlessly confusing, which is one reason the OGL is really helpful - you can let people use the mechanic description from one product to another provided that you respect their restrictions on incorporating product identity.

What WotC is missing with this is that they KNOW that product identity is more valuable. Setting a video game in Waterdeep with the Dungeons & Dragons name is more valuable than setting a game in the Tarnlands with the name 'Zodak's Quest'. Zodak's Quest could potentially rely on D&D mechanics (not sure why you'd want to) but if they wanted to actually make it a D&D game they'd have to pursue a licensing agreement with WotC.

[Thaluikhain]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks.

[MGuy]

So they backed all the way out of the OGL thing. No deauthorizing OGL 1.0, The 5.1 thing is being put into creative commons. Seems like a full retreat. They successfully made paizo a bit of money. Sold 8 months worth of books in a few weeks. Long term effects will remain to be seen.

[Omegonthesane]

Notably the CC-BY 4.0 license has the magic word "irrevocable" that the OGL 1.0 was lacking, so they can't even try to back out of it no matter what the next bunch of know-nothing MBAs say. Short of them trying to find CC-BY 4.0 illegal or something, which I suspect would be heading outside the realm of pure lawfare.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

This got my group to start talking about trying out Pathfinder 2nd edition (ew? maybe?) but I wonder if it'll actually provoke enough tables to stop playing D&D. Or at least to stop paying for 5e stuff. Does Wizards even make money off of legacy content anymore, or do they just pretend it doesn't exist so they can get people to buy 5e books instead?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I'd like to contribute more at this point in the OGL news cycle.

But seriously, I am still stuck on all possible commentary ultimately ending up as just the latest iteration of "Eat The Rich".

[Omegonthesane]

Could link an article on POCgamer (not PCgamer) which spells out how WotC still dreams of making D&D a monetised hobby, citing the fact that 5e is almost done as an edition that actually releases products. So it may not be that they have simply learned and accepted that the value of OneD&D is and was and ever will be in the product itentity rather than in whatever shitty one-system Roll20 they roll out.