It sounds like you don't believe loss leaders exist. I don't know what I would have to do to convince you business take on loss leaders rationally on a daily basis.
I'm a firm believer in loss leading sales. What's happening here is that words are being shoved into my mouth. I never said nor implied what you are attributing to me.
But there is a clear comparison. Both are giveaways of company services or products with the intent to create something of a virtuous cycle that grows not only the entire hobby but more importantly customers of WotC's priced products. The success of the RPGA or the OGL at doing this are not necessarily equal.
The RPGA does not directly bring in money to WotC, I didn't imply that it did and you can't pin me into such a corner. But if you look at where the RPGA had been organized with WotC's hierarchy, you will get a clearer idea at why WotC is pleased with funneling money into an operation that does not bring in returns. The RPGA had long been stuck under marketing. It is essentially accounted for as an advertising expense.
This is my view of how the OGL can be similar. It was (among other purposes) functionally a method to promote a WotC game system as attractive to other publishers. That when enough publishers signed on to produce material using the underlying game mechanics, a virtuous cycle would begin growing not only customers for WotC priced products but growing the entire depressed RPG hobby. It is my belief that, like the RPGA, the OGL can be viewed as an experimental marketing expense.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are both fruits, but they're not the same. What you're pointing out is the theory behind it. Like I said, this conversation has been trampling that ground over and over from thread to thread. What I want is proof of how the OGL has succeeded in that area for WOTC. Otherwise what we have is a bunch of people with opinions, myself included, and no real facts. So your yes has no more weight or value than my no until you can prove that WOTC financially benefited from the OGL. This whole discussion got to this point because of my claim that the OGL did not make money for WOTC. You all insist I'm wrong simply because the theory is successful in other mostly unrelated areas. What the OGL was meant to be and what it ended up being in practice are also two different things.
You changed the question that would lead to only one answer for your own and WotC's validation: the bottom line (i.e., $$$).
If that's the case, why even bother to publish and release a ROYALTY-FREE license? It's more profitable to offer exclusive FEE-BASED licensing, even if they have to hire one person to handle licensing of their brand.
Hmm....
No, I didn't change the question. If you have been reading my posts, the question has remained the same. Yes, I am looking for validation that it has affected WOTC's bottom line. You make it look like it's a crime to ask such a thing. I'm not questioning the theory of royalty-free loss leader products. I am only questioning whether the OGL ever achieved that goal to WOTC's benefit. Yes, it cost WOTC money. Yes, it spread the product around. But my claim is that no, it did not do anything significant for WOTC.
Unless someone has a legitimate and direct response to my query, then don't bother responding. This whole discussion is just running in circles on matters that have nothing to do with what I'm asking about. I know the theory. I believe in the theory. You're preaching to the converted. I'm not, nor have I ever been attacking the theory. I'm attacking the effectiveness of the OGL and the OGL only. If you can't establish that WOTC benefited from the OGL, then you can't discount my claim that WOTC's motives for the GSL are based on the OGL's failure. If you don't want to go in that direction, then why bother with the discussion?
Otherwise, get back to the point of the thread, which is to discuss WOTC's motives for the GSL.
