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="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3467440" data-attributes="member: 2525">Why is everyone assuming that WOTC just pulled the license, and that Paizo played no role in those negotiations?One likely series of events was this:WOTC: Well your license renewal is coming up, so lets talk about it.  Your sales are way up, and we think we deserve a portion of that increase.  So we want to add +X% to the license fee.Paizo: No.  We did the work, and we want the same percentage of profits as before.WOTC:  But part of your popularity is because you have the official seal of approval on your products, and can cover new products coming out from WOTC.  WOTC's products are selling like gangbusters right now, and part of that popularity is spilling over to your magazines which share in the interest for those new products.  We should therefore share in the increased profits from that increased popularity.Paizo: We disagree.  We think our product popularity is not really related to yours.WOTC:  Well then I guess we will need to part ways on this issue then.Paizo: I guess so.  So, how should we do this....I mean, that seems like a more likely senario than WOTC just randomly calling up one day and saying "You're cut off".Why is there a continuing assumption in this thread that it was the greed of WOTC only, and not the greed of both parties, that is at fault here.  Or, that greed even played the major role in this decision?And then there is all this hatred of "suits" and the "suits" at WOTC are at fault.  As if there are no "suits" at Paizo, or as if we know it was corporateness that was solely behind these decisions (despite both parties seeming to imply it was amicable).It sure sounds like a lot of people are jumping to conclusions and taking sides without all the facts.</blockquote>

Verification