Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5657957" data-attributes="member: 6957">From what I have seen locally, I think that ICv2 is pretty accurate in this case. It may well be that there are more 4e players, but they are not buying as much, or are relying on the DDi. Then that complaint is not aimed at you, I certainly don't remember you whinging that Pathfinder's success was because people fear change, or that Paizo hasn't written any new content, so you are safe from my mighty, mighty ire. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Had WotC not given the OGL away free then 3.X would not have been the success that it was. 3PP would not have jumped on board. Folks may complain about the D20 glut, but the amount of support that was generated was immense, something that I do not think that we will see again. WotC's sales rode on a horse made of 3pp publishers.3.X was a huge success, and deserved it - the OGL was a huge boon. It was a success that 4e wanted to build on, but instead they decided to shoot the horse that had helped them win the race last time. Another metaphor is that they wanted to put the genie back in the lamp, and he decided that he did not want to go.The mishandling of the GSL, and the GSL itself, torpedoed much of the 3PP support that they could have had, adding another element of risk to that of the radical changes to the engine of the game. They had the resources, but handled the risk management poorly.As I said, I have not noticed it, but it is likely there. But I certainly do not blame Stevens for having voiced pride that by some accounts their risk in supporting the older engine had been more successful than they would have imagined.The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification