Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SSquirrel" data-source="post: 4139873" data-attributes="member: 5202">This argument reminds me distinctly about the RIAA's argument about filesharing.&nbsp; Most of the folks downloading all their music are cheap and likely wouldn't have bought much if any of that music if they had to shell out $.&nbsp; So it's really debatable if WotC loses sales.&nbsp; If you plan to buy 5 books in a year and the only game you play is D&amp;D and none of the D&amp;D books that come out that year interest you, they don't get your money.&nbsp; Maybe you play RIFTS too and pick up 5 books for them anyway.&nbsp; If WotC doesn't get my money in a given period of time, it's either b/c my money was busy paying for necessities or else they just didn't develop anything I felt was worth my hard-earned-in-a-crappy-economy-$.&nbsp; That is a failure of their development staff, not them getting screwed by the OGL.On the other hand, if I see WotC's book about deserts on the shelf and browse it and find it might have a few useful bits for that Arabian themed campaign, but is largely meh, then see that someone has made a d20 version of 1001 Arabian Nights and it is more inspired than WotC's, I buy it.&nbsp; Again, they could look at that as a lost sale, but I feel most of these &quot;lost sales&quot; are a result of things just not falling in the niche of the specific customer or just plain poorly written, unbalanced product.Monte has made a lot of money from the OGL, Pramas as well.&nbsp; I think we can see influence from their d20 work in 4E too.&nbsp; Much like Blizzard gets to lift nifty addons that get developed by their players and roll them into WoW, WotC gets to do the same w/innovations created by OGL games.&nbsp; At least the portions that are not IP restricted <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="SSquirrel, post: 4139873, member: 5202"] This argument reminds me distinctly about the RIAA's argument about filesharing. Most of the folks downloading all their music are cheap and likely wouldn't have bought much if any of that music if they had to shell out $. So it's really debatable if WotC loses sales. If you plan to buy 5 books in a year and the only game you play is D&D and none of the D&D books that come out that year interest you, they don't get your money. Maybe you play RIFTS too and pick up 5 books for them anyway. If WotC doesn't get my money in a given period of time, it's either b/c my money was busy paying for necessities or else they just didn't develop anything I felt was worth my hard-earned-in-a-crappy-economy-$. That is a failure of their development staff, not them getting screwed by the OGL. On the other hand, if I see WotC's book about deserts on the shelf and browse it and find it might have a few useful bits for that Arabian themed campaign, but is largely meh, then see that someone has made a d20 version of 1001 Arabian Nights and it is more inspired than WotC's, I buy it. Again, they could look at that as a lost sale, but I feel most of these "lost sales" are a result of things just not falling in the niche of the specific customer or just plain poorly written, unbalanced product. Monte has made a lot of money from the OGL, Pramas as well. I think we can see influence from their d20 work in 4E too. Much like Blizzard gets to lift nifty addons that get developed by their players and roll them into WoW, WotC gets to do the same w/innovations created by OGL games. At least the portions that are not IP restricted :) [/QUOTE]

Verification