Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6290993" data-attributes="member: 2067">I dunno. Paizo had some irons in the fire other than the magazines, and while those were key, I have the impression that they would've happily continued to make D&amp;D products supporting 4e even without them. I think there's some alternate universe where 4e was OGL where Paizo never became a competitor and Golarion was a 4e setting and Erik Mona has a bitchin' evil beardAye, but you aren't thinking like a controlling brand manager hungry for sweet sweet unique IP! I'd imagine WotC took the mags back for the same reasons 4e didn't go OGL: they wanted to control their brand. A lot of 4e's decisions seem to make sense in that context, where terrified brand managers skittish about this &quot;shared IP&quot; see it as a weakness that WotC doesn't control what a D&amp;D orc looks like at every D&amp;D table and in the minds of every D&amp;D player. Look at flagging sales in late 3.5e, blame it on a weak brand, spearhead a new &quot;rebranding&quot; effort to secure in the minds of everyone one true message from the brand owners, and you have consistency and control and hypothetical benefits aplenty. You wind up with old terms used in new ways, consistent visual imagery, one true model of &quot;the world,&quot; and a desire to stop others from publishing things with &quot;your&quot; IP on them. 4e could be characterized by a lot of those things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6290993, member: 2067"] I dunno. Paizo had some irons in the fire other than the magazines, and while those were key, I have the impression that they would've happily continued to make D&D products supporting 4e even without them. I think there's some alternate universe where 4e was OGL where Paizo never became a competitor and Golarion was a 4e setting and Erik Mona has a bitchin' evil beard Aye, but you aren't thinking like a controlling brand manager hungry for sweet sweet unique IP! I'd imagine WotC took the mags back for the same reasons 4e didn't go OGL: they wanted to control their brand. A lot of 4e's decisions seem to make sense in that context, where terrified brand managers skittish about this "shared IP" see it as a weakness that WotC doesn't control what a D&D orc looks like at every D&D table and in the minds of every D&D player. Look at flagging sales in late 3.5e, blame it on a weak brand, spearhead a new "rebranding" effort to secure in the minds of everyone one true message from the brand owners, and you have consistency and control and hypothetical benefits aplenty. You wind up with old terms used in new ways, consistent visual imagery, one true model of "the world," and a desire to stop others from publishing things with "your" IP on them. 4e could be characterized by a lot of those things. [/QUOTE]

Verification