Search results

Does this probably mean that the sales of the tabletop rpg branch is not what makes the most profits for the D&D brand?

If one pays some attention to the relevant internet discussion channels since Essentials were launched, he will get the impression that Pathfinder sales are overtaking the 4e ones. The cause seems to be that Essentials managed to spread confusion to the fan base and the succeeding publishing...

I am confused. I still fail to see what this thread asks and the answers posted by people are not helping. I mean, the question should not be whether Wotc should support 3pp at all. Wotc has issued the GSL to allow any third party to support it. So, in theory, Wotc already does support 3pp, so...

Like it or not, among the fanbase, this is going to be confronted with the evergreen Essentials Red Box, supposedly the most basic introductory product to D&D. Interesting to see how things will turn out.

Here, I will try to make it plain and clear for you where the problem lies in what you are saying. Basically, what you say is that Wotc should make a 3.5e highly compatible game without being OGL. This, simply put, makes no sense. Why? Simply because the OGL is a base of compatibility. Since...

There is. Fear of getting sued. Even if mechanics cannot be copyrighted as you say. Also, trying to be "copyright infringement" proof in such an endeavor could be a nightmare. And still, Wotc could still sue you. In other words, what was the point of the OGL first place again?

So you attack me instead of attacking the argument. If you cant face the argument it is stupid to provoke by posting a disagreement and when asked to put it on solid ground accuse people of being thick headed and that you should ignore them.

Blah blah blah. Nothing to see here. Nada. Explain what you meant in plain english please and show how my conclusion is not logical. It is to easy to blame a language barrier and then not try to explain in plain english where the misunderstanding lies.

Yeah, so what exactly do you disagree with? That, for Wotc, following the OGL and having something like Pathfinder happen is not a matter of concern? Sure, some people like you may think so. Wotc seems to think differently. And I think you will have to try really hard to be convincing on how...

It has a lot to do exactly for your point #3: If it were not for Pathfinder, Wotc would stand a higher chance or, if you prefer, an easier time on this front. The front to win people (back). I tried to explain you why this happens to be so. If it is still unclear, I will try once again.

You said: "WotC could have gotten away with abandoning the OGL or they could have gotten away with publishing an entirely new fantasy RPG. They couldn't get away with doing both simultaneously." You make a distinction here. The distinction is: Either publish something new or abandon the OGL...

Your post here it helps explain nothing. My impression is that you are trying to defend yourself just for the sake of defending it. Sorry but this post is totally empty for the sake of the argument.

3.5e is OGL. For 3.5e they could not abandon the OGL . Maybe yes, maybe not. The deal is that if 4e were OGL competitors could mix and match 3.5e and 4e and the new edition could be in even tighter competition than it is now.

Another problem is the ulterior motives for the decision makers or those that influence them. Rare is the quality of ingenuous service towards your company. Usually: personal interests > company interest.

Nope it is contradictory and creates confusion. This point supports the premise that Wotc and Pathfinder have different target markets. Which means that they do not compete for market share. What you are saying now is that what you wanted to say all along is that Wotc and Paizo are competitors...

Ok, so it is what billd is saying. But why insisting on that point about people that would not follow 4e Pathfinder or not. This point supports the other argument.

So your point is: -that Wotc is not entitled to the Pathfinder market even if it is their target market, as billd91 puts it, (and you agree with him) -the Pathfinder's market is not Wotc's market So, what is it? You are not making it clear.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5492657-post279.html I do not get why you are so stubborn about it. EDIT: What does you mean that their perspective is wrong anyway? That PF has not been a problem or a mishap for Wotc's own goals and aims? That Wotc is just paranoid? And the matter of the argument...

Well, this is not what you were saying. It seems you have come up to agree with this by our conversation so far and that's good for me. But, to be fair, the initial context were about the effects and results of something like OGL to Wotc by Wotc's own perspective.

Look at Essentials for example. It is an effort of Wotc to claim these people. If it were not that someone else, Wotc would have more possibilities on that front.