Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5913466" data-attributes="member: 8461">Okay.It's true that you stated that, it's not necessarily true that WotC is thinking that. Just making sure that's clear.I don't believe it is.You said that WotC would not release Fifth Edition under the OGL because they didn't want another Pathfinder. That is operating under that assumption.See above.It's not opposite, it's a reaction to assuming that the above assumption is correct. Your premise is that they won't release Fifth Edition under the OGL...because doing so will result in another major competitor like Pathfinder. As I've stated, that's fallacious logic.You didn't previously categorize it as a risk, but that WotC thought of it as a cause-and-effect situation.It's worth noting that you're using incorrect terminology here. This isn't about "another OGL." What's under discussion is the existing OGL. You're talking about a Fifth Edition SRD.Yes, it is. Just being "related" isn't enough - one has to be the cause of another.Another faulty analogy. Simply having something make something else possible is not the same as causing it. Hence why this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.IYHO.As I said previously, this is a simplistic view of the results of the OGL. It reduces the entire existence of the OGL to being the cause of a major competitor a la Pathfinder, which is a fallacy.Again, this analogy is overly simple, and shows no recognition of how the OGL makes it more likely people will buy WotC's products (as I stated above).First, that's just your opinion. Second, if it's only as long as people's budget is not "infinite," then why did your previous example involve people with an unlimited budget? Finally, you admit that you're making assumptions, which means that you must be aware of the possibility that those assumptions are wrong (which I think they are).Because, as I outlined, there are other rewards for doing so.</blockquote>

Verification