Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="triqui" data-source="post: 5913421" data-attributes="member: 57948">I'm going to make this my final post about the issue, because this is running in circles.That's true.That's wrong. I didn't operate under that assumption. I even said "they might be wrong, or they might be right". Simply putting a game under OGL doesn't necessarily cause it to  become a competitor, and *I didn't say so*.What I said, is what you quoted right above: they will avoid releaisng under the OGL because they want to avoid another major competitor like pathfinder. That's what I said, and that's what I keep saying. But that is not working under the assumption that, if they release the 5e in OGL, they'll necessarelly create a competitor. I even said "they might be wrong, or they might be right". That is working under the *opposite* assumption. That if they *don't* release the 5e as OGL, they make sure that there won't be a 5e Pathfinder.If they release 5e in OGL, they have the *risk* of a 5e Pathfinder. Not certainity, for sure. But the risk. If they don't, they don't have such risk. Because B is a prerrequisite for A. As I work under the assumption that WotC wants to avoid losing customers to competitors (dare assumptions I make), I think they'll avoid *risk* altogether.No, it was under the assumption that they don't want another pathfinder, and thus they'll make a move to avoid other Pathfinder. No OGL means no Pathfinder, and thus they'll do that.No, it's not. It would be, if they weren't related. They are related, so it's not. Just becouse something bad does not happen always you do something else, it does not mean you shouldn't stop doing it to avoid the risk. I got hurt playing football. I don't want to get hurt playing football, so I stop to play football. It's not a causation. It's not true that playing football makes you get hurt. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. But that's not relevant, the sentence "I don't want to be hurt playing football, so I don't play it" is not fallacious. Sure, there are other ways to play football, and avoid being hurt (get stronger, play cautiously, be lucky, pray a prayer...). But no matter of what, there's *risk*. While if I don't play footbal, I have NO chance to be hurt playing football (I might get hurt in other, different ways, but not playing football).Same goes with WotC. They released an OGL. They got a competitor. They don't want this kind of competitors. So they won't release a new OGL. This does not work under the assumption that if they release OGL, they'll get a new competitor *for sure* (just like playing football does not mean an injury for sure). It works under the assumption that releasing a OGL means a *risk* of a OGL competitor, while not releasing a OGL means that risk is zero. Like the risk of being injured in a football match, if you don't play football. I've been talking about a 5e Pathfinder all the time. I thought that was clear. An irrelevant remark, as 200 bucks, or 300 bucks, or 1000 bucks are, anyway, finite. If the total market budget is 100 millions, WotC would rather have the whole 100 millions, than share it with Paizo (or whatever) Yes, this assumes WotC thinks Paizo is a competitor, and yes, it assumes WotC is more afraid of "closer" competitors than unrelated ones. And they'll do so, as long as people's budget is not "infinite" or "nigh-infinite".Never said it didn't. I said that, under my assumption, WotC biggest concern, is Pathfinder success. By far. So, in my opinion (and all that jazz), they'll move toward a goal that try to avoid further "Pathfinders" to appear. OGL is a necessary prerequisite for successful "Pathfinders". So No OGL means No New Pathfinders. Even if, yes, OGL *might* mean no New Pathfinder, depending on the circumstances. But... why take the risk?</blockquote>

Verification