Wulf Ratbane said:
There does seem to be the odd situation where some of the same folks are asserting two contrary things at the same time:
1) 3PP are insignificant in the grand scheme of things as compared to WotC, and their little splinter systems cannot possibly compete with 4e D&D;
2) 3PP are irreparably damaging WotC's 4e prospects by competing against them with countless little splinter systems.
Obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle, but with no real hard public data, we'll never know where on the spectrum that is. Without the real data, people will bring up whichever point rhetorically helps their current argument.
Plus, throwing terms like "insignificant" "cannot possibly" and "irreparably" does push those statements into being more opposite than they need to be. Especially considering the good comment above that each individual splinter game doesn't really compete, but the sum total of them can have a noticeable impact.
Furthermore, this new edition change
A) comes from a perpetually open edition,
B) has had more than it's fair share of negative reactions and PR missteps,
C) makes more dramatic changes to the game than any previous edition, and
D) might be licensed in a way such that some of the largest 3PPs like Green Ronin will be forced to not support the new edition without abandoning their bread & butter splinter games.
From all of that, D&D looks more vulnerable to competition than during most any of its history. I'd put it right up there with the worst days of TSR in it's downward spiral. Back then D&D was obviously in far worse shape, but now, however, D&D 4 products have to compete with D&D 3 products from 3PPs. However, even though it is more vulnerable at the moment, it's still a vulnerable 800 lb gorilla. So I don't think irreparable harm is being done, but I think unlike before, splinter games, even directly competing fantasy ones like Pathfinder RPG, can have more bottom line impact on D&D than they ever could have before.
