Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 394076" data-attributes="member: 812">What company? Wizards?Sorry, I thought you said that Wizards ought to add earlier versions of D&amp;D to the SRD. Clearly that's doing SOMETHING. Something stupid, if you ask me, and I think I've been pretty clear as to why I think so.&nbsp;&nbsp; I note that you've ignored my entire argument, which I take to indicate that you agree that I'm right. Well done.Name a single game, nay, a single product of any description that has universal appeal. Finding the market, targetting the market, hitting the market -- THAT'S business.But yeah, sure, all companies everywhere always want to sell products that have universal appeal. The fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE is why we have a market in the first place.What's a bigger seller? Is it too much to ask for a few more nouns here and there? Honestly. I assume you're referring to the mythical &quot;universally appealing&quot; game. Please outline the connection between this game and some expanded SRD (again, since you don't provide information, I assume you mean an SRD that includes 1E and 2E). Why does the one depend on the other?No, only the sellers of your magic unversal game.Honestly, Gene, I'm trying, but this isn't making any sense to me. If you're trying to make a case for the idea that Wizards should add earlier editions of the game to the SRD, can you try and state it in more complete, straightforward terms? I think I've made a pretty strong argument as to why that's a bad idea from WotC's current business model (or the business model as I best understand it). It's up to you to refute that and I don't understand how your recent post accomplishes that. If I'm misunderstanding you then please show me your meaning again.On the other hand, if I've turfed your arguments and you can't come up with anything better than recasting your previous &quot;Ooh, this would be cool!&quot; notion, then we're done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="barsoomcore, post: 394076, member: 812"] What company? Wizards? Sorry, I thought you said that Wizards ought to add earlier versions of D&D to the SRD. Clearly that's doing SOMETHING. Something stupid, if you ask me, and I think I've been pretty clear as to why I think so. I note that you've ignored my entire argument, which I take to indicate that you agree that I'm right. Well done. Name a single game, nay, a single product of any description that has [i]universal[/i] appeal. Finding the market, targetting the market, hitting the market -- THAT'S business. But yeah, sure, all companies everywhere always want to sell products that have universal appeal. The fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE is why we have a market in the first place. What's a bigger seller? Is it too much to ask for a few more nouns here and there? Honestly. I assume you're referring to the mythical "universally appealing" game. Please outline the connection between this game and some expanded SRD (again, since you don't provide information, I assume you mean an SRD that includes 1E and 2E). Why does the one depend on the other? No, only the sellers of your magic unversal game. Honestly, Gene, I'm trying, but this isn't making any sense to me. If you're trying to make a case for the idea that Wizards should add earlier editions of the game to the SRD, can you try and state it in more complete, straightforward terms? I think I've made a pretty strong argument as to why that's a bad idea from WotC's current business model (or the business model as I best understand it). It's up to you to refute that and I don't understand how your recent post accomplishes that. If I'm misunderstanding you then please show me your meaning again. On the other hand, if I've turfed your arguments and you can't come up with anything better than recasting your previous "Ooh, this would be cool!" notion, then we're done. [/QUOTE]

Verification