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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4436217" data-attributes="member: 42582">Let's take for granted that WoTC (as a wholly-owned subsidiary, I believe, of a publicly listed company) is acting in a way that it believes will maximise its returns, and hence its value.From that, it follows that WoTC believes that the GSL (appropriately revised) will generate more returns for it than did the OGL + d20 STL.Furthermore, we can look at the particular changes from one licensing regime to the other to work out exactly how WoTC believes those returns will be generated.Roughly speaking, the OGL licencsed stand-alone games ("variant SRDs" in many cases), but the d20 STL was understood as providing an incentive to 3pps to support D&D.Did WoTC introduce a separate OGL and d20 STL in order to facilitate the production of stand-alone games, or rather to resolve certain difficulties inherent in trying to regulate the use of its IP via a single licence? Given the difficulties that have attended the GSL's attempt to do the latter, it seems to me reasonable to suppose that it was the IP complexities, as much as if not more than the desire to facilitate stand-alone games, that motivated WoTC.I would offer, as support for this hypothesis, the following thought: WoTC's financial benefit from having 3pps publish modules, campaigns and D&D rules supplements is much more direct (ie more PHBs and MMs sold) than is their financial benefit from having players move to stand-alone games that are nevertheless d20, or from having 3pps finance the rise of Mike Mearls (after all, the same thing happened before the OGL/d20 STL - ICE financed the rise of Monte Cook before he went to TSR).Further support for this hypothesis is that, despite the complexities involved which have necessitated a revision within weeks of release, WoTC is licensing 4e via a single licence that will make stand-alone games more difficult to produce.Now, it is of course possible that WoTC have miscalculated where their best financial interests lie, and in particular have overestimated the worth of immediate returns and underestimated the worth of indirect benefits. Personally, however, given that they probably employ a number of accountants to work these things out for them, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt until some more concrete evidence of miscalculation is produced.Of course, what is good for WoTC's finances isn't necessarily good for that of all the 3pps. But WoTC's motivation is never going to be one of offering philanthropic support to 3pps.</blockquote>

Verification