NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 8886610" data-attributes="member: 59816">Yeah, THAT part I understand people getting upset about, though I guess I also understand why Hasbro would want to find a way to stop direct competitors from using their own game to compete with them.I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "sharing". Isn't that allowed by the non-commercial bit?Do they still publish PF1 material? If so, that would suck for them, yes. But again, didn't Paizo essentially use D&D's ruleset to build D&D's biggest competition? Is that really "fair" to D&D? Is it unreasonable for D&D's owners to have a problem with that?That's terrible, I admit it. That kind of stuff usually polices itself doesn't it? (IE if they ever actually do it, they'd have a riot).REVENUE? Yeah, that would be where your only profits lie. I'm on board with this one. that would kill most of the bigger publishers, AFAICT. Which sounds like they're purposefully trying to keep their bigger publishers small. (You'd be much better off making $745K than 1M in that case, which seems strange). It seems to me to be a way of keeping publishers from becoming actual competitors.Don't get me wrong, I always feel like there should be more carrot and less stick. I liked the original OGL because it seemed generous. (While in a lot of ways, it caused the industry to move toward more publishers propping up D&D when they could otherwise be creating competition for it - I think this was the OGL's original intent). It was only the rise of Paizo (who made better 3e product than WotC did) and then Pathfinder (that outsold 4e for awhile) that showed that the OGL could have the "loophole" of allowing a company to OUT PERFORM D&D using its own rules!</blockquote>

Verification