Incidentally, I want less DnD games now, given what's going on with the OGL. I want to support those creators, and not have to support Hasbro/WotC. I won't be buying the Season 2 pass for WotR until I know what's happening with the Pathfinder stuff as a result of this.
Not telling you what to do with your money but I don't think that works against Hasbro. As I read the OGL it's really designed to hamper Paizo's / Pathfinder's business. It actually says something to that effect in surprisingly explicit terms.
Yeah, seems contradictory to me. It's studios like Owlcat and TA that we ought to be supporting.
But to your main point, @KillerRabbit, WotC has also, in parallel with their OGL BS, canceled five other D&D games that were currently being made. Two of those had been in development for quite a while with a lot of sunk costs for those studios. So WotC is literally saying to D&D fans: BG3 is all you are going to get for D&D games, and if you don't like it we don't care.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I plan to support the alts - I'll pay for the DLCs from both Owlcat and TA because I think they're the one's being wronged. I also answered the survey asking WotC to support open gaming.
Now I do think that WotC is in the right in wanting to shut down NuTSR but they already have the power to do that, if only because NuTSR is pretty good at shooting themselves in the foot.
But as @Boblawblah points out 25% is a "time for you to go away" percentage.
Agreed.
It's not contradictory at all. If WotC is going to be absorbing profits from the DLC, I'm not going to support WotC. What seems contradictory, to me, is saying that you agree that 25% is go away levels of royalties, while going on and supporting it anyway, thus encouraging WotC to go ahead with it.
Your'e starting from a point that wotc already won and has total control over pathfinder, which is not remotely true yet
