Search results

it’s a more restrictive license, I assume that is what they meant

no idea, I certainly do not take them not saying so as evidence that they didn’t. I assume they had the IC2 numbers, if they had wanted to say that, they would have had a reason / excuse to do so

they do, I am not sure they have a good idea of whether the license is worth its fees though. It’s one thing if you license a specific product, like Goodman does with the OAR line. It is quite another if you could release your own game in pretty much the same state with the license number filed...

of course they can, but it still is more work to create your own version than to just copy&paste hers

it is not your point, it is mine however eh, SD has a license that lets you create content for it, I do not see that Kelsey is obligated to also allow the creation of a competing game. I am also no fan of ToV being based on the CC but releasing its SRD under ORC. You benefited from the freedom...

I like the flexibility of CC, I rather have them create something they do not share than nothing at all. Neither scenario gets you any new content under ORC I can understand a publisher releasing an SRD under a license that lets people create content for their game but not a new spinoff game...

not sure what is weird about it, they want to protect what they create, so ORC is out. Can’t really blame them for that

It's not Sly, it's Monty, Sly just posted it here. It's Darrington, it's Shadowdark, it's ORC (ToV and PF2), it probably will be Draw Steel, not sure where Matt is license wise now. As far as I can tell he could have easily used CC (i.e. wants to be as permissive anyway) but is reinventing the...

should be close to done, release to backers in maybe a month I guess

that would require Paizo to know the D&D sales numbers

I am sure they had a reason, whether it was a good reason is another matter… I often wonder whether the increase in sales is enough to compensate for the licensing cost. We will never know, not sure even the publishers have a good idea about that in many cases

I do not consider TR a strong draw, as an IP it is basically the 2000 / 2010 Indiana Jones, so what does set it apart from generic action adventure? As far as the genre goes, I assume it is less saturated than horror, sci-fi or fantasy. The one that comes to my mind immediately is Outgunned...

I have no idea about the mechanics of the game, but not being restricted to an IP is a positive in my book. You can create the game you want to, and it does not disappear a few years later along with the license (see Talisman Adventures and others)

didn't they change the category which made tracking harder? Also, there probably are a lot more direct sales now, and definitely more digital sales (50% or more by now), than there were during most of 5e's timeframe

That is like saying the latest indie movie sold more tickets this week than Avatar did, when Avatar was released 6 months ago

you sure about that?

some other game eventually, sure, given enough time any empire crumbles. Daggerheart now, a lot less likely…

so, Elon?

hence the spend 10-100 times what you may be making back… part of that is just getting there, part of it is so you can stay there without that level of spending having to go on forever The ‘problem’ is no one is interested in spending this much for that little return

maybe it would work, spend 10x to 100x what you have any chance of ever making back, and you probably do have a chance at unseating D&D, for a while at least. No, WotC could stop marketing / ads tomorrow and nothing would change at all. Their school programs are good for them, their marketing...