Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9338002" data-attributes="member: 8461">And I didn't purport to have &quot;hard numbers&quot;; that was you who asked for them, which means you should be asking Paizo and not me.I'm sure there were combinations of factors, but I doubt that people not liking 4E was still relevant in 2017, for example, when Paizo was not only still going strong with Pathfinder, but also debuted Starfinder, which was itself open and viral.Calling PF2 &quot;similar to 5E&quot; is already a stretch, and I'm pointing out that the reason it was already pretty big was because (in part) of its open viral nature. At the very least, the point has to be conceded that being open and viral didn't hurt it, which was the suggestion originally put forward.And you don't think that has anything to do with their content being virally open?No, that's not the question. <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/open-gaming-should-mean-open.704081/post-9337736" target="_blank">The question</a> (which wasn't even a question, being stated as a declarative), was &quot;As a professional writer your demands that my content be available to everyone for free means I can no longer be a professional.&quot;And that's wrong, with Paizo being the proof. Their content is available to everyone for free, and their professional writers are not unable to be professional writers because of that. Quite the opposite.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9338002, member: 8461"] And I didn't purport to have "hard numbers"; that was you who asked for them, which means you should be asking Paizo and not me. I'm sure there were combinations of factors, but I doubt that people not liking 4E was still relevant in 2017, for example, when Paizo was not only still going strong with Pathfinder, but also debuted Starfinder, which was itself open and viral. Calling PF2 "similar to 5E" is already a stretch, and I'm pointing out that the reason it was already pretty big was because (in part) of its open viral nature. At the very least, the point has to be conceded that being open and viral didn't hurt it, which was the suggestion originally put forward. And you don't think that has anything to do with their content being virally open? No, that's not the question. [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/open-gaming-should-mean-open.704081/post-9337736']The question[/URL] (which wasn't even a question, being stated as a declarative), was "As a professional writer your demands that my content be available to everyone for free means I can no longer be a professional." And that's wrong, with Paizo being the proof. Their content is available to everyone for free, and their professional writers are not unable to be professional writers because of that. Quite the opposite. [/QUOTE]

Verification