Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenmarable" data-source="post: 4206064" data-attributes="member: 40359">I suppose I could have worded it clearer, but, yep I was aware of that and believe it as well. But at the time there was a very strong perception among publishers that the timing was far too coincidental. (My guess is that it wasn't coincidental, but it was a matter of Valterra trying to get a product like that out with a d20 logo on it BEFORE the changes came down so that the logo could still help sales before he had to remove it, but wasn't fast enough. But that's just my guess.)There's not a lot of direct cooperation, but there is plenty of backroom communication. An offhand comment during a casual conversation with their freelancers (who may very well be your freelancers as well) or even with distributors or retailers at GTS can hurt. Plus many of these publishers carry a lot of weight on messageboards. If I were to say that someone was acting like a neenerhead and spoiling all of our fun, it wouldn't really matter. But if Clark Peterson or Erik Mona came around and said that someone was a neenerhead and spoiling all of our fun, you can bet that person would lose customers. It's a blend of "relying on them for inside/expert information" with a dash of "cult of personality" throw in.I fully expect/hope there to be clarifying language on what a "product line" is. I also don't expect to see it until June 7th (WotC servers will crash on the 6th, but by the 7th someone will re-post it here at EN World, that's my prediction). <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think that's fair enough since these are businesses, but I also know that a lot of this relies on playing nice. That doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to accept anything WotC wants, but I'm just saying flagrant, thumbing your nose at everyone, sort of loophole exploits are bad for everyone, especially the company doing it. Subtler and "that's so wide open, I'd call that a feature not a loophole" sort of things are fine by me (and I will be looking for them, too). I'm just saying "Do it at any cost" would probably wind up costing more than its worth.I guess it sounds like I mostly disagree with where to draw the line, not disagreeing that we shouldn't push limits if feasible.</blockquote>

Verification