Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 4201400" data-attributes="member: 8461">I think so too, which is why I called you on it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />The analogy isn't quite correct. I'm not talking about for the purpose of spiting WotC. I'm talking about that since it'd allow companies to publish the same product for 3.5 and 4E, maximizing their sales potential for it, which is a good thing. That may not be what WotC wanted them to do, but it's what's best for those third-party companies.I'm quite counting on it, since a specific definition defines it rigidly, and one can then look for ways around it.How nice for Wizards; I'm more interested in what those other publishers want, personally. Some people take a different stance, and that's fine. Since we don't yet have a clear definition (publishers seem to, but said definition hasn't been explained to us yet - in this thread, at least) it's hard to way what a &quot;logical&quot; or &quot;fair&quot; interpretation would be. Bare in mind that the same thing could be said about companies who released products directly under the OGL to circumvent the d20 STL's restrictions, and make competing products. That's hardly &quot;fair&quot; to WotC either, but it was ultimately a good thing for many companies that did it, and for fans who bought those products and liked them.Wow, posting on a forum warrants a letter from WotC's lawyers? EN World really has hit the big time! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />It is good news. I'm just mentioning that it could still be better for everyone else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 4201400, member: 8461"] I think so too, which is why I called you on it. ;) :p The analogy isn't quite correct. I'm not talking about for the purpose of spiting WotC. I'm talking about that since it'd allow companies to publish the same product for 3.5 and 4E, maximizing their sales potential for it, which is a good thing. That may not be what WotC wanted them to do, but it's what's best for those third-party companies. I'm quite counting on it, since a specific definition defines it rigidly, and one can then look for ways around it. How nice for Wizards; I'm more interested in what those other publishers want, personally. Some people take a different stance, and that's fine. Since we don't yet have a clear definition (publishers seem to, but said definition hasn't been explained to us yet - in this thread, at least) it's hard to way what a "logical" or "fair" interpretation would be. Bare in mind that the same thing could be said about companies who released products directly under the OGL to circumvent the d20 STL's restrictions, and make competing products. That's hardly "fair" to WotC either, but it was ultimately a good thing for many companies that did it, and for fans who bought those products and liked them. Wow, posting on a forum warrants a letter from WotC's lawyers? EN World really has hit the big time! :lol: It is good news. I'm just mentioning that it could still be better for everyone else. [/QUOTE]

Verification