Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4427621" data-attributes="member: 94">You need to read my entire post. If WotC was worried about &quot;losing sales to competitors&quot; there would be no GSL either. They'll lose far more product sales, unit-to-unit, among adventures and supplements than they will in core rulebooks. If WotC produces one adventure per month, for example, and the GSL permits competitors to release adventures, then WotC is likely to &quot;lose&quot; 3, 4, 5 or more sales per month to those competitors. Since the GSL is going forward to allow exactly this scenario, it's a safe bet they don't see each 3PP sale as a &quot;loss&quot; on their own balance sheet.Moreover this point is amply made by the repeated (and recent) statements from WotC that they value 3PP support. Why do they value 3PP support? For the exact reason that I stated above: Because 3PP keep customers happily spending their money inside WotC's system.&quot;Loss of unit sales&quot; is not the issue.It is far more likely that WotC does not want to see spinoffs off Mutants and Masterminds ilk because the rule systems are too divergent from their house system. That forces the change in the GSL, because the alternate systems were slowly breaking down the network externalities that justified the OGL in the first place.They don't want people playing rules systems other than their rule system. Nothing's changed about that philosophy as far as I can tell.Unless folks would like to argue that &quot;There's no way that any 3PP is going to compete with WotC in any meaningful way!&quot; and then on another thread completely reverse themselves and suggest that WotC is changing the GSL because they fear competition from tiny little pissant publishers. But otherwise, yes, there is the rather obvious fact that WotC has some problems with the OGL after 8 years, or they wouldn't be changing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 4427621, member: 94"] You need to read my entire post. If WotC was worried about "losing sales to competitors" there would be no GSL either. They'll lose far more product sales, unit-to-unit, among adventures and supplements than they will in core rulebooks. If WotC produces one adventure per month, for example, and the GSL permits competitors to release adventures, then WotC is likely to "lose" 3, 4, 5 or more sales per month to those competitors. Since the GSL is going forward to allow exactly this scenario, it's a safe bet they don't see each 3PP sale as a "loss" on their own balance sheet. Moreover this point is amply made by the repeated (and recent) statements from WotC that they value 3PP support. Why do they value 3PP support? For the exact reason that I stated above: Because 3PP keep customers happily spending their money inside WotC's system. "Loss of unit sales" is not the issue. It is far more likely that WotC does not want to see spinoffs off [i]Mutants and Masterminds[/i] ilk because the rule systems are too divergent from their house system. [i]That[/i] forces the change in the GSL, because the alternate systems were slowly breaking down the network externalities that justified the OGL in the first place. [b]They don't want people playing rules systems other than their rule system. [/b] Nothing's changed about that philosophy as far as I can tell. Unless folks would like to argue that "There's no way that any 3PP is going to compete with WotC in any meaningful way!" and then on another thread [i]completely reverse themselves[/i] and suggest that WotC is changing the GSL because [i]they fear competition from tiny little pissant publishers.[/i] But otherwise, yes, there is the rather obvious fact that WotC has some problems with the OGL after 8 years, or they wouldn't be changing it. [/QUOTE]

Verification