Alternate Alignment system

[Brown Jenkin]

LOL. That is why I won't even bother with your flailing about.

jmucchiello sums up the OGL logic nicely. Ryan Dancey put forth the exact same case when he created the OGL. So how about the proof of failure that was asked of you.

 

[Corjay]

If I had access to the quarterly reports prior to rumors of 4e (necessary for excluding financial biases based from the rumors), I could. But unless you can tell me where I can find them, both sides of the argument are unprovable. Just because the networking concept was the basis is not proof that it worked. The concept can still be solid, while its execution is extremely flawed. The GSL also runs off the networking concept, but it executes it in a way that protects WOTC's bottom line (with the exception of subsection 6.1). A declaration that "the suits" somehow have less understanding of the effects of the OGL than jmucchiello is flawed to the point of being ridiculous. That's why there's nothing to argue against. He clearly is trying to assert his self-declared exceptional knowledge over those who are truly in the know (I speak of "the suits").

 

[Roger]

It'd be nice if every other thread didn't fill up with this sort of crap.

My fellow ENWorldians -- please, I implore you. Someone with 8 posts under their belt posted a fairly straightforward question in the correct subforum. If you want to do something other than answering the question, please avail yourselves of the Fork Thread button.

(Further to that point, if someone wants to reply to this post in particular, please do so by Forking.)



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Lizard]

Oh yeah, I'm being real sarcastic. Because we all know the real reason they felt the need to completely rewrite the OGL into the GSL was because the OGL was sooo lucrative.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll enjoy the profits from the licensing fees the GSL imposes...

 

[jmucchiello]

It'd be nice if every other thread didn't fill up with this sort of crap.

My fellow ENWorldians -- please, I implore you. Someone with 8 posts under their belt posted a fairly straightforward question in the correct subforum. If you want to do something other than answering the question, please avail yourselves of the Fork Thread button.

(Further to that point, if someone wants to reply to this post in particular, please do so by Forking.)

Sorry but I'm strictly an ENWorld 1 grognard and can't do that....

Besides, the answer to the OP's question is "Get a Lawyer". Without these pointless diversions, this thread would be very short.

 

[jmucchiello]

If I had access to the quarterly reports prior to rumors of 4e (necessary for excluding financial biases based from the rumors), I could. But unless you can tell me where I can find them, both sides of the argument are unprovable.

You stated as fact that WotC lost money on the OGL. I asked you for a forum post by someone at WotC saying that is true. I didn't ask for financials. WotC's books are meaningless in this regard since there is no GAAP entry for "network effects".

A declaration that "the suits" somehow have less understanding of the effects of the OGL than jmucchiello is flawed to the point of being ridiculous.

See now, the network effect theory wasn't my theory. It was Ryan Dancey's theory. He wrote the OGL. He wrote the FAQs about the OGL still on the WotC website. If they didn't believe the words he wrote were still true, wouldn't they take those pages down?

Specifically, read the answer to Q: Why create Open Games?

He clearly is trying to assert his self-declared exceptional knowledge

How dare you doubt me!

 

[Corjay]

You know, the person who brought up the point about Dancey's theory was you. I didn't bring it up, and I never challenged it, and I never said it was your theory. What I challenged was your statement that the OGL was successful. I say again "Just because the networking concept was the basis is not proof that it worked. The concept can still be solid, while its execution is extremely flawed." To translate, just because the networking worked out doesn't mean the OGL was successful. The OGL can successfully accomplish networking without successfully accomplishing bolstering WOTC's bottom line. Conversely, WOTC's bottom line can be bolstered through securing their property as done in the GSL while still accomplishing Dancey's networking theory. Though, admittedly, as I pointed out a couple of times above, subsection 6.1 causes a kink in profits, a kink caused by putting a little damper on the networking aspect, and thus needs a rewrite in that portion.

Clear enough?

 

[jmucchiello]

To translate, just because the networking worked out doesn't mean the OGL was successful.

Nor does their moving away from the OGL prove it was unsuccessful or, as you said, causing them to hemorrhage money. The 4e team was not shy about poking fun at the flaws in 3.5. Where was the similar invectives for the OGL? If it was so bad they should have been complaining it was as bad as getting polymorph right.

The image of hemorrhaging money implies they almost went out of business over the OGL. That was ridiculous. You still haven't shown someone at WotC complaining about losing pennies over it.

 

[Corjay]

Nor does their moving away from the OGL prove it was unsuccessful or, as you said, causing them to hemorrhage money. The 4e team was not shy about poking fun at the flaws in 3.5. Where was the similar invectives for the OGL? If it was so bad they should have been complaining it was as bad as getting polymorph right.

The image of hemorrhaging money implies they almost went out of business over the OGL. That was ridiculous. You still haven't shown someone at WotC complaining about losing pennies over it.

And I'm not going to. You and I are people with two different views. I have the support of the fact that they changed the license so significantly that it's easy to have affirmation in my opinion that there was little redeeming value in the original business-wise. You have...what? Hmm, not the GSL, not the game, not your own side of someone at WOTC declaring its success (to counter your request of me). So, it looks like, even though I have no proof, I at least have a point over you. No? Give proof.

Spillage about how you asked me first is meaningless. Proof goes both ways. You're asking me to provide proof over your own lack of proof. I'll stick with my 1 point score: a significant rewrite shows significant problems in the original. If you can one-up that, then maybe I might be inclined to search out some solid proof. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who isn't willing to waste theirs and then ask me to.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I'll stick with my 1 point score: a significant rewrite shows significant problems in the original.

It shows no such thing. It shows that there are different people in charge with different ideas about the direction the company should be going. It does not show that OGL was flawed in any way.