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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 4187697" data-attributes="member: 13107">Not getting a fight is avoiding competition.  Competitive markets are all about getting into fights, and allowing that to select the best and lowest cost products.3.5E products are devalued no matter what.  But why kill them off, except to scrape out an extra 10% of sales?  I just don't understand why WoTC is so *eric's granda's filter* bent on killing 3.5E.  Unless it would be more than 10%.I thought that automobile obsolescence was about making sure the parts wore out at about the same time.  You've spent too much on a part if it lasts longer than all of the others.  (Or lasts a lot longer than all of the others.  I can see that you would want certain parts to fail last, or to not fail very often, which might force you to make ithose parts to last on average a lot longer.)Maybe, WoTC is making choice that is truly in my best interest (and 4E is superb!), and is simply making that decision for me (and for all of the gaming companies out there).  I don't think that is appropriate.(A reason that I can think of for preventing production of 3.5E products is to reduce the back-transfer of 4E ideas to 3.5E.  If a company produces a couple of 4E products and uses that to pay for their learning all about 4E, what would be stopping them from adapting those ideas to 3.5E and creating a transitional book?)(On the other hand, why didn't WoTC do this themselves?  I have to say that having transitional products seems like a big win, keeping the existing fan base happy while making it breathing-air easy to move up to 4E.)---I am interested in the defensibility of my statement of being harmed by their licensing terms.  Could this statement be successfully argued?</blockquote>

Verification