NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 2802093" data-attributes="member: 158">However, one's social and job standing does make a difference when considered in the backdrop of stances or policies made - otherwise, no one would have ever come up with the concept of "conflict of interest." You're absolutely right - why WOULD a publisher agree with something that hurts his business? Why wouldn't a publisher agree with something that helps his business? I may be wrong, but I don't remember Mike discussing these topics in this fashion prior to now - I'm not saying Mike's a schill, I'm saying it does concern me that the things he's espousing WOULD harm dozens of 3rd party publishers, while either helping or doing nothing harmful to WotC. I'm saying don't divorce the idea that Mike's suggestions are good for the line of business he's in, as opposed to just being for the betterment of the industry.Your statement makes WotC sounds like a monolithic corporate entity whose goals have not changed over time. However, the originators of the OGL no longer have a say in the company; for that matter, the people who replaced them are gone too, for that matter. I do think WotC's overt goals have changed over the past 5 years; note Ryan Dancey's original statements about the intent of the OGL, one of which was to encourage 3rd party publishers to handle topics that a larger company could not.Now, however, is it true that these same 3rd party publishers who handled topics WotC did not at first touch are somehow hurting the industry by doing so? Now WotC are touching ideas that were not considered profitable (adventure modules, environment settings, etc.) because of perceived industry gaps. Were these gaps not profitable in some way, or necessary, WotC's management team would not be persuaded to go towards these topics.</blockquote>

Verification