# Kickstarter's Director of Games on Why The Platform Attracts Lower OGL v1.1 Royalties



## darjr

He also commented he knew how the numbers impact creators


----------



## Bacon Bits

Only 20%! Barely an inconvenience!


----------



## Alzrius

For clarification, that 20% royalty (which is 25% on other crowdfunding platforms; that's the "Managed to get lower %" that's referenced in the tweet) is only on the amount earned above the $750,000 threshold, though according to Gizmodo, "the Commercial Agreement “covers all commercial uses, whether they’re profitable or not.” So if you go into the red on a Kickstarter that earned $800K in backing money, you will still owe Wizards of the Coast, regardless of the fact that you did not profit from your venture."


----------



## JThursby

I'd like to thank Morrus for keeping on top of reporting this.  The more we see, the more it looks like the original leak was valid.  This development has the potential to impact a lot of livelihoods, mine maybe included.


----------



## ronaldsf

Hm. This lower royalty % still incentivizes creators to crowdfund only through Kickstarter and not through other means. (Remember, all creators must report their earnings to WOTC so doing Indiegogo doesn't bypass having to report.) So it's still a "benefit" - just not a "hidden benefit" as the tweet says.


----------



## Art Waring

The real question people should be asking is:

will kickstarter move forward allowing content using both the 1.1 OGL and the 1.0a? because the impacts on the entire industry could be bad across the board for anyone that doesn't want to sign the new license.


----------



## Morrus

Art Waring said:


> The real question people should be asking is:
> 
> will kickstarter move forward allowing content using both the 1.1 OGL and the 1.0a? because the impacts on the entire industry could be bad across the board for anyone that doesn't want to sign the new license.



I did wonder that. Will they enforce anything?


----------



## Art Waring

Morrus said:


> I did wonder that. Will they enforce anything?



for the moment they made no comment except "its not our license."


----------



## overgeeked

Art Waring said:


> The real question people should be asking is:
> 
> will kickstarter move forward allowing content using both the 1.1 OGL and the 1.0a? because the impacts on the entire industry could be bad across the board for anyone that doesn't want to sign the new license.



If WotC is serious about "de-authorizing" 1.0/a, then they'd likely go after Kickstarter for allowing anything. It's also likely part of their contract. We push creators to your site if, and only if you don't allow 1.0/a. Or, more simply, if WotC says the old license is null and void, Kickstarter would be on the hook for allowing any violations of WotC's copyright and IP. So either way, not likely to be any new 1.0/a Kickstarters.


----------



## Morrus

Art Waring said:


> for the moment they made no comment except "its not our license."



I'm pretty sure they enforce copyright violations as being against their ToC.


----------



## Art Waring

overgeeked said:


> If WotC is serious about "de-authorizing" 1.0/a, then they'd likely go after Kickstarter for allowing anything. It's also likely part of their contract. We push creators to your site if, and only if you don't allow 1.0/a. Or, more simply, if WotC says the old license is null and void, Kickstarter would be on the hook for allowing any violations of WotC's copyright and IP. So either way, not likely to be any new 1.0/a Kickstarters.



that is the concern.


----------



## Tazawa

overgeeked said:


> If WotC is serious about "de-authorizing" 1.0/a, then they'd likely go after Kickstarter for allowing anything. It's also likely part of their contract. We push creators to your site if, and only if you don't allow 1.0/a. Or, more simply, if WotC says the old license is null and void, Kickstarter would be on the hook for allowing any violations of WotC's copyright and IP. So either way, not likely to be any new 1.0/a Kickstarters.




Pretty sure this applies to OneBookshelf too. It’s much easier to get people to agree to OGL 1.1 and distribution on D&D Beyond if you block their access to alternate distribution channels.


----------



## overgeeked

Tazawa said:


> Pretty sure this applies to OneBookshelf too. It’s much easier to get people to agree to OGL 1.1 and distribution on D&D Beyond if you block their access to alternate distribution channels.



Exactly. So it wouldn’t matter if they can’t revoke 1.0/a, they can still set their lawyers on any and all distribution channels who don’t fall in line. And that would be the state of affairs until a judge orders otherwise.


----------



## Transformer

Lol. We did it all for the people! A beautiful outpouring of altruism! All 4 the gamers! Just sheer coincidence the percentage only went down for people who go through our site.


----------



## timbannock

Morrus said:


> I did wonder that. Will they enforce anything?



They enforce so few of their own rules when a particular campaign goes sideways. ;-P
Kidding-not-kidding aside, I guarantee they are interested in how much enforcing WOTC will do, if indeed the OGL 1.0a is de-authorized. If they start losing all those sweet OSR campaigns, that'll certainly hurt their bottom line.


----------



## Haplo781

Well I guess everyone who said the leaks were fake yesterday is wiping the egg off their faces right now.


----------



## MNblockhead

Haplo781 said:


> Well I guess everyone who said the leaks were fake yesterday is wiping the egg off their faces right now.



Yeah, but it isn't being wrong that stings...its how wrong this all is. Crazy. Spending way to much time on these boards reading this.  I think I need to just step away from it for a few weeks when things are more settled and choate and catch up on any articles EN World posts summing things up.


----------



## Andrew Anderson

Transformer said:


> Lol. We did it all for the people! A beautiful outpouring of altruism! All 4 the gamers! Just sheer coincidence the percentage only went down for people who go through our site.



In fairness, it would presumptuous for Kickstarter to negotiate something for Indiegogo, for example. 
Perhaps you should direct your sarcasm to other funding platforms and encourage them to negotiate.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

overgeeked said:


> Exactly. So it wouldn’t matter if they can’t revoke 1.0/a, they can still set their lawyers on any and all distribution channels who don’t fall in line. And that would be the state of affairs until a judge orders otherwise.



If things go that way, I hope they choke so hard on the expense that the entire company folds. 

“No D&D is better than bad D&D” ain’t just true for individual campaigns or groups.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

interesting... somehow Kickstarter had the power to force a 5% discount. WotC must see Kickstarter as a major outlit


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> interesting... somehow Kickstarter had the power to force a 5% discount. WotC must see Kickstarter as a major outlit




I admit I dont watch this stuff closely, but have the other crowdfunding sites had projects pull over a million USD?

When we look at the cut off of $750K, and the percentage Wizards is after, it all just reeks of squeezing blood from the stone. Kickstarter making themselves the best option, just brings more dollars into their channel, and if its already the default biggest/best, its an easy win for Wizards as well.


----------



## Zehnseiter

Andrew Anderson said:


> In fairness, it would presumptuous for Kickstarter to negotiate something for Indiegogo, for example.
> Perhaps you should direct your sarcasm to other funding platforms and encourage them to negotiate.




I am kind of interested what the response of EU based platform like for example gameontabletop is here. EU laws are different then US ones and have different customer protections. The "We have money and so can sue anybody to the ground even before there is court date" game isn't as easy in the EU.


----------



## bedir than

timbannock said:


> If they start losing all those sweet OSR campaigns, that'll certainly hurt their bottom line.



No, they're worried about losing things like "Let's make a Vox Machina cartoon" and "Here's another MCDM book" and "Tome Beasts 72"

Things that make real money


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> interesting... somehow Kickstarter had the power to force a 5% discount. WotC must see Kickstarter as a major outlit



I’d love to see the full contract.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> I’d love to see the full contract.



not so much the contract (although that would help) I mostly wonder if Kickstarter had to agree to something for this.


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> not so much the contract (although that would help) I mostly wonder if Kickstarter had to agree to something for this.



Yes. I’d hope they’d say.


----------



## Grendel_Khan

Zehnseiter said:


> I am kind of interested what the response of EU based platform like for example gameontabletop is here. EU laws are different then US ones and have different customer protections. The "We have money and so can sue anybody to the ground even before there is court date" game isn't as easy in the EU.




As far as I know there hasn't been a large 5e-related campaign on Game On Tabletop so far, so I doubt it's even really on WotC's radar. Despite all that talk of RPG creators moving away from Kickstarter (especially over blockchain stuff) it seems like most everyone's slinking back, but especially anyone who might hit that $750k+ mark.


----------



## darjr

Ryan Dancy will be in the show! At roll for crit


@Morrus


----------



## timbannock

bedir than said:


> No, they're worried about losing things like "Let's make a Vox Machina cartoon" and "Here's another MCDM book" and "Tome Beasts 72"
> 
> Things that make real money



Considering how much money Gavin Norman has raised there and how about 90% of Zine Month is OSR games, I think there's an argument that they stand in that group too. Not by any one single campaign, but all of them combined.

But the point is: sure, yeah, that too!


----------



## bedir than

timbannock said:


> Considering how much money Gavin Norman has raised there and how about 90% of Zine Month is OSR games, I think there's an argument that they stand in that group too. Not by any one single campaign, but all of them combined.
> 
> But the point is: sure, yeah, that too!



Right, but the 20% mark is only for a single company or individual that makes more than 750,000 in a year.

No one in the OSR is doing that.


----------



## timbannock

bedir than said:


> Right, but the 20% mark is only for a single company or individual that makes more than 750,000 in a year.
> 
> No one in the OSR is doing that.



While a fair point, if the OGL 1.0/a is revoked and all the OSR -- and frankly, quite possibly every D&D-related Kickstarter -- is shelved, that is money Kickstarter no longer sees by virtue of those campaigns never going live on Kickstarter. KS makes its money not just by the big campaigns, but by all campaigns that use its services. KS fees are a thing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

timbannock said:


> While a fair point, if the OGL 1.0/a is revoked and all the OSR -- and frankly, quite possibly every D&D-related Kickstarter -- is shelved, that is money Kickstarter no longer sees by virtue of those campaigns never going live on Kickstarter. KS makes its money not just by the big campaigns, but by all campaigns that use its services. KS fees are a thing.



but if those companies have the legal wherewithal to know if and what is legal they could go indigo go still


----------



## Grendel_Khan

GMforPowergamers said:


> but if those companies have the legal wherewithal to know if and what is legal they could go indigo go still




Are you under the impression that Indiegogo doesn't charge processing fees? If they don't negotiate a deal with WotC similar to Kickstarter's (and they're not in a position to do that) creators would lose even more money there.


----------



## overgeeked

Grendel_Khan said:


> Are you under the impression that Indiegogo doesn't charge processing fees? If they don't negotiate a deal with WotC similar to Kickstarter's (and they're not in a position to do that) creators would lose even more money there.



Unless WotC doesn’t bother and just sets their lawyers to it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Grendel_Khan said:


> Are you under the impression that Indiegogo doesn't charge processing fees? If they don't negotiate a deal with WotC similar to Kickstarter's (and they're not in a position to do that) creators would lose even more money there.



if (as people keep saying) you can't deauthorize the old OGL, you can use the old OGL on indigogo and not pay ANY %


----------



## Grendel_Khan

GMforPowergamers said:


> if (as people keep saying) you can't deauthorize the old OGL, you can use the old OGL on indigogo and not pay ANY %



By that logic you could use the old OGL and publish on any platform and just hope WotC doesn't come for you. The deal Kickstarter made is just formalizing what you're going to have to do with OGL 1.1 to avoid WotC's wrath.


----------



## darjr

bedir than said:


> Right, but the 20% mark is only for a single company or individual that makes more than 750,000 in a year.
> 
> No one in the OSR is doing that.



I thought OSE did it? in one Kickstarter they hit close but they had a couple last year didn’t they?


----------



## bedir than

darjr said:


> I thought OSE did it? in one Kickstarter they hit close but they had a couple last year didn’t they?



OSE, by Necrotic Gnome, was at 165,000 pounds.









						Old-School Essentials
					

A modular adventure game in the tradition of the beloved 1980s role-playing rules. 100% old-school rules, 100% modern design.




					www.kickstarter.com
				




It's their only kickstarter


----------



## darjr

bedir than said:


> OSE, by Necrotic Gnome, was at 165,000 pounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old-School Essentials
> 
> 
> A modular adventure game in the tradition of the beloved 1980s role-playing rules. 100% old-school rules, 100% modern design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kickstarter.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's their only kickstarter



$772 Thousand by Exalted Funeral








						Old-School Essentials Fantasy RPG Box Sets
					

Two deluxe boxes of monsters, magic, wonder, and peril. 100% old-school rules, 100% modern design.




					www.kickstarter.com


----------



## Lord Twig

I think people are missing how this might actually work for some small creators. I am sure that some work on very slim margins and it is a fee based on total revenue, not just profit.

For example, say a creator makes $250,000 revenue on a product with a 10% margin. They would make $25,000 each time. But after their 3rd product for the year they would have to start paying a 25% royalty fee of $62,500. So it would actually be a $37,500 loss. Basically WotC would be capping them at a yearly profit of $75,000.

And, sure, an individual might be able to live on that (barely), but what if it is a company or a team of people? They would rely on putting out a lot of content to generate enough to pay everyone.

Bottom line, this is a blatant money grab that does not benefit the end user (us) in any way. A lot of the success of D&D 5e is based on the good will of the community for WotC and that good will has already taken a hit just by suggesting such a draconian license. They can probably salvage most of the good will by walking this back, but if they go forward with it and they start bringing lawsuits against creators I can not see things going well for them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lord Twig said:


> I think people are missing how this might actually work for some small creators. I am sure that some work on very slim margins and it is a fee based on total revenue, not just profit.
> 
> For example, say a creator makes $250,000 revenue on a product with a 10% margin. They would make $25,000 each time. But after their 3rd product for the year they would have to start paying a 25% royalty fee of $62,500. So it would actually be a $37,500 loss. Basically WotC would be capping them at a yearly profit of $75,000.
> 
> And, sure, an individual might be able to live on that (barely), but what if it is a company or a team of people? They would rely on putting out a lot of content to generate enough to pay everyone.
> 
> Bottom line, this is a blatant money grab that does not benefit the end user (us) in any way. A lot of the success of D&D 5e is based on the good will of the community for WotC and that good will has already taken a hit just by suggesting such a draconian license. They can probably salvage most of the good will by walking this back, but if they go forward with it and they start bringing lawsuits against creators I can not see things going well for them.



If theoretically a company asked me how to kill another company and they had the option to do this... this is a pretty good way to end it.


----------

