Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5609299" data-attributes="member: 10479">In later years I don't doubt that was true, and that would be and has been true for the tail end of any trend period.&nbsp; Our positions seem to be in sync in this regard.*edit* I should add that I don't think there were &quot;extensive quality control issues&quot; that necessarily caused the situation, in fact many of the companies that jumped in early and had distributor support all through had &quot;quality control issues&quot; and seemed to weather all of the changes.&nbsp; However, there certainly was plenty of leftovers as the boom subsided.What &quot;WotC knew&quot; is a potentially broad subject that I am not sure leads to all of the same places you or I could easily imagine.&nbsp; The 3.5 adjustment definitely seemed like something the contemporary heads of WotC felt was warranted (for the system and probably for financial reasons), and their support of the OGL at that stage was still very strong (relative to the support during 3.0).&nbsp; There may have been a mini-bust for some 3rd party interests at that stage but the resurgence of boomishness among most 3rd parties soon after 3.5 seemed to overshadow it.I point to the naming conventions of 4E and the GSL debacle (the slow ratification, the lack of sufficient 3rd party support as expressed by most potential 3rd party pubs, etc.) as a sign that WotC heads felt reclamation of IP was in their best interest.&nbsp; It's hard to imagine anyone could look at the current market just three years after the release of 4E and think the brand is currently as vibrant as it was during the previous edition's boom period.&nbsp; Again, I'm open to be swayed by indicators to the contrary but I am not seeing them online, in stores, by the actions of the limited 3rd party supporters, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 5609299, member: 10479"] In later years I don't doubt that was true, and that would be and has been true for the tail end of any trend period. Our positions seem to be in sync in this regard. *edit* I should add that I don't think there were "extensive quality control issues" that necessarily caused the situation, in fact many of the companies that jumped in early and had distributor support all through had "quality control issues" and seemed to weather all of the changes. However, there certainly was plenty of leftovers as the boom subsided. What "WotC knew" is a potentially broad subject that I am not sure leads to all of the same places you or I could easily imagine. The 3.5 adjustment definitely seemed like something the contemporary heads of WotC felt was warranted (for the system and probably for financial reasons), and their support of the OGL at that stage was still very strong (relative to the support during 3.0). There may have been a mini-bust for some 3rd party interests at that stage but the resurgence of boomishness among most 3rd parties soon after 3.5 seemed to overshadow it. I point to the naming conventions of 4E and the GSL debacle (the slow ratification, the lack of sufficient 3rd party support as expressed by most potential 3rd party pubs, etc.) as a sign that WotC heads felt reclamation of IP was in their best interest. It's hard to imagine anyone could look at the current market just three years after the release of 4E and think the brand is currently as vibrant as it was during the previous edition's boom period. Again, I'm open to be swayed by indicators to the contrary but I am not seeing them online, in stores, by the actions of the limited 3rd party supporters, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification