Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 8942030" data-attributes="member: 7034611">as I said, I think they expected a better response and not that no 3pps would sign on.Kyle clearly was dismissed when the decision was made, but I still do not think this was about wiping out 3pps, that was just an unintended side effect.If it were the intent, they imo would have stayed the course.I agree, I guess there is never a good point for announcing this, but as far away from your next important product as possible sounds like the best way to go, so the outrage can die downI have no idea why it took them two years to discuss this though. Given how completely unreasonable that version was, I have no idea what they did for two years. You can create something this bad over a week and then throw it to the community for discussion and it could not have been worse.I have no good explanation for that, delusion and paranoia are the closest I get.that is more or less what I meant. Had they opened with 1.2 as a starting point for an open discussion, I think many people would have been ok with it. While there are some things they could exploit, you would not have expected them to do so.After 1.1 there was no way you weren’t counting on them to do just that, even if the clause is pretty standard legalese language.all true, it would have a negative impact on this, I just think it would have been small enough for them to just ignore it if 1.1 were that important to them.Most of the player base does not care, which also means WotC can afford not to. We had people in this forum being ok with it, and if this is true here, most players certainly would be too.Also, Kyle says they were working on 1.2 when 1.1 leaked, in which case they were much more open to changes than just giving in to community pressure. So do you think he lies there or how do you explain that?For me it is rather simple, they were surprised by the reaction (and as I said before, I do not understand why they thought the 1.1 terms and revoking 1.0a would go over any better than it did), but were open for discussion.Changing the terms from 1.1 to 1.2 based on 3pp feedback was already happening, then either leaving 1.0a in place or going to CC because you do recognize you lost trust was a smaller step than going from 1.1 to 1.2 was.Would this have happened without pushback? No, but it did not take all that much either, so they were not that set on the 1.1 terms which to me means they were open for discussion, they just went about it in a way that did not help them (but one that is understandable, ie iron it out with the big 3pps first, and then open it for wider discussion)No doubt, it sounds like they said so all along but were ignored. After the leak and survey, they had the data to back it up.We just disagree on intent (killing / dominating 3pps vs defense against imagined threats), the extent of the damage to D&D this would have done and by extension how open to changing the terms they were to begin with (with the intent also factoring into this).</blockquote>

Verification