It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[UngeheuerLich]

This is trying to make a distinction without too much of a difference. Do you think that the people of Paizo care too much about this distinction when it comes to WotC threatening their business?

Do you think, the people of paizo do everything out of the good of their hearts?
Offering ORC at exactly that time was a business decision. An ice cold jab at WotC. Because they think they will harvest some desillusioned WotC fans...

Again. Not to say, it was not good for the fans and 3pp and one of the things that may eventually have led to WotC folding.

 

[Aldarc]

Do you think, the people of paizo do everything out of the good of their hearts?

I think that answering this is irrelvant to the point I was making about how people are now feeling unsafe about WotC's "safe harbor."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think that answering this is irrelvant to the point I was making about how people are now feeling unsafe about WotC's "safe harbor."

I don't think so.
Paizo and WotC are both legal entities with leaders that try to sell as much products as they can.
Creating Pathfinder migh very well be one of the reasons why someone at WotC wanted to change the OGL.
Taking 90% of their game and using it to be their biggest competitor at that time was probably something they wanted to avoid.

Edit: my trust in "Paizo" is also very low. I think they are good at seizing opportunities and building a fanbase. I don't think their games are particularly well done in general.

 

[Parmandur]

I think that answering this is irrelvant to the point I was making about how people are now feeling unsafe about WotC's "safe harbor."

That's why they went full Creative Commons: no trust required, and the safe harbor is of no further corporate interest to raid.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think so.
Paizo and WotC are both legal entities with leaders that try to sell as much products as they can.
Creating Pathfinder migh very well be one of the reasons why someone at WotC wanted to change the OGL.
Taking 90% of their game and using it to be their biggest competitor at that time was probably something they wanted to avoid.

Which is why someone at WotC was able to remove that temptation, permanently. Now Black Flag and C7d20 can make a 5E Pathfinder, forever.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think so.
Paizo and WotC are both legal entities with leaders that try to sell as much products as they can.
Creating Pathfinder migh very well be one of the reasons why someone at WotC wanted to change the OGL.
Taking 90% of their game and using it to be their biggest competitor at that time was probably something they wanted to avoid.

Edit: To be clear, my argument is not about Paizo. It's about how various individuals or even 3pp feel about what they once regarded and were told was a "safe harbor." That safe harbor was threatened. Not everyone will be eager to return. It doesn't matter if people can "trust" corporations or the people at corporations. I don't think anything really comes of trying to invalidate how people are feeling about the situation by splitting hairs about whether corporations can be trusted or not.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nevermind. Can't happen again.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Really, you two? That's the caliber of exchange you want to represent yourselves with?
Make it constructive, or bow out, please.

 

[pogre]

Hasbro's actions mean that I will consider their future products. I was already off the automatic buy train for D&D books. Now, something will have to create a lot of positive buzz for me to pick it up.

That's quite a bit further from the space where I was at before Hasbro backed down - when I was prepared to buy nothing new for D&D.

 

[Dustin_00]

Before going back, I'd need 2 things: a big carrot, and protection/peace of mind they couldn't do it again.

It's so sad that instead of making DnDBeyond the juicy go-to carrot, they went with a legal whip.

And it's so weird how WotC gets one licensed digital project out the door about once every other year, but Games Workshop has approached digital gaming and just cranked out projects with many dev teams, getting around 2 releases a year. They put out turn-based, action, RTS, mech, star ships, survival, and freakin' orc fighter simulations -- give them a game genre, and they pick the IP that matches that genre and run with it. They get to see what works, what doesn't, and cycle forward on that. Maybe WotC could learn from that.

 

[Faolyn]

Can we please stop equating revoking the OGL with murder... seriously they aren't comparable and it actually makes your position, in my eyes, seem even more overblown.

It's not the same level of criminal awfulness, no. But WotC did try to "kill off" a lot of 3pps and VTTs. And they only backtracked because they realized they were going to lose a lot of money if they didn't, not because they realized or cared that what they were doing was greedy and harmful.

And that's where the analogy comes in. They tried to do an awful thing. They were stopped. That doesn't mean the attempt just gets ignored. Trying to kill a person and not being able to do it is still a crime. Trying to kill off games is still an explitive-deleted move. Personally, I see no reason to forgive them for trying to be an explitive-deleted.

I mean, I'm not going to organize a boycott or anything like that. I'm just going to enjoy my non-D&D games from now on.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not the same level of criminal awfulness, no. But WotC did try to "kill off" a lot of 3pps and VTTs. And they only backtracked because they realized they were going to lose a lot of money if they didn't, not because they realized or cared that what they were doing was greedy and harmful.

And that's where the analogy comes in. They tried to do an awful thing. They were stopped. That doesn't mean the attempt just gets ignored. Trying to kill a person and not being able to do it is still a crime. Trying to kill off games is still an explitive-deleted move. Personally, I see no reason to forgive them for trying to be an explitive-deleted.

I mean, I'm not going to organize a boycott or anything like that. I'm just going to enjoy my non-D&D games from now on.

Well, here's the thing: it wasn't criminal (quite the opposite, it seems to have been very above board on the law), just self-destructive. But more importantly, it wasn't a personal decision, but corporate policy. We don't know who wanted to do it, and who wanted to stop it (who succeded)succeeded, so actual forgiveness or assignment of blame isn't really feasible. In the end, it's good that the suboptimal action was stopped, and prevented from being a viable option in the future. Hopefully better decision makers are empowered from this. But there isn't anything personal or criminal in this.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, here's the thing: it wasn't criminal (quite the opposite, it seems to have been very above board on the law), just self-destructive. But more importantly, it wasn't a personal decision, but corporate policy. We don't know who wanted to do it, and who wanted to stop it (who succeded)succeeded, so actual forgiveness or assignment of blame isn't really feasible. In the end, it's good that the suboptimal action was stopped, and prevented from being a viable option in the future. Hopefully better decision makers are empowered from this. But there isn't anything personal or criminal in this.

Every day their attention must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate. Sometimes the subject was a war criminal, but other times it was someone who made a heinous substitution in guacamole.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, here's the thing: it wasn't criminal (quite the opposite, it seems to have been very above board on the law), just self-destructive. But more importantly, it wasn't a personal decision, but corporate policy. We don't know who wanted to do it, and who wanted to stop it (who succeded)succeeded, so actual forgiveness or assignment of blame isn't really feasible. In the end, it's good that the suboptimal action was stopped, and prevented from being a viable option in the future. Hopefully better decision makers are empowered from this. But there isn't anything personal or criminal in this.

It doesn't have to be criminal or personal. It's still an expletive-deleted move.

Every day their attention must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate. Sometimes the subject was a war criminal, but other times it was someone who made a heinous substitution in guacamole.

OK, tell me this: why should I get "back onboard" with WotC, as the thread's title insists?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't have to be criminal or personal. It's still an expletive-deleted move.


OK, tell me this: why should I get "back onboard" with WotC, as the thread's title insists?

Yes, why? And seriously,  what does that mean?

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn't have to be criminal or personal. It's still an expletive-deleted move.

That's business for you. Fortunately, deeper thinking won out this time.

OK, tell me this: why should I get "back onboard" with WotC, as the thread's title insists?

I don't think that anyone should be "on board" with any company, I think that's unhealthy parasocial bonding. I just put a pre-order on Keys from the Golden Vault because it looks interesting, and I'll buy any other books that look interesting, from any company.

 

[Faolyn]

That's business for you. Fortunately, deeper thinking won out this time.

"An extremely high percentage of people, based on this poll, are very upset with us. This means we'll lose money."

That's not exactly deep thinking there.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not the same level of criminal awfulness, no. But WotC did try to "kill off" a lot of 3pps and VTTs. And they only backtracked because they realized they were going to lose a lot of money if they didn't, not because they realized or cared that what they were doing was greedy and harmful.

And that's where the analogy comes in. They tried to do an awful thing. They were stopped. That doesn't mean the attempt just gets ignored. Trying to kill a person and not being able to do it is still a crime. Trying to kill off games is still an explitive-deleted move. Personally, I see no reason to forgive them for trying to be an explitive-deleted.

I mean, I'm not going to organize a boycott or anything like that. I'm just going to enjoy my non-D&D games from now on.

Yeah. An analogy is mean to help with understanding, not represent one thing equating to another. Claiming we're equating what WotC with murder is a Red Herring. It avoids acknowledgement of what we're really saying.

 

[Maxperson]

Every day their attention must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate. Sometimes the subject was a war criminal, but other times it was someone who made a heinous substitution in guacamole.

Guacamole itself is heinous.

 

[Parmandur]

"An extremely high percentage of people, based on this poll, are very upset with us. This means we'll lose money."

That's not exactly deep thinking there.

"Releasing the game into Crestive Commons ultimately benefits out business", however, us pretty high level thinking. And somebody had to make thst case.