Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hossrex" data-source="post: 4145976" data-attributes="member: 60784">I never said it wasn't a failure of their development staff, however you *CAN NOT* deny that without the OGL, WotC would have made more money.Your entire point boils down to &quot;The OGL is better for *GAMERS* because it puts more content on the shelves&quot;.&nbsp; I agree 100% with this.&nbsp; You're however trying to manipulate facts to pretend your statement is actually &quot;The OGL is better for *WotC* because it puts more content on the shelves&quot;.No.The very fact that you say &quot;That is a failure of their development staff&quot;...&nbsp; which is why they've lost money...&nbsp; is *PROOF* (in itself) that the OGL has cost Wizards of the Coast money.Who cares *WHY* its cost them money?&nbsp; Who cares that maybe if they'd had better content it wouldn't have cost them money.It *HAS* cost them money.You're all constantly repeating &quot;how great the OGL has been&quot;...&nbsp; when what you mean is &quot;how great the OGL has been for gamers, and third parties&quot;.&nbsp; It really has been &quot;so-so&quot; for WotC.*EVIDENCED* by their further consideration regarding its resurrection.Unless...&nbsp; and I say this in nearly every post, and everyone ignores it because its pretty freaking iron clad...&nbsp; unless you think you know more about whats better for Wizards of the Coast then Wizards of the Coast does.I'm not saying any of you're wrong.I'm just saying that Wizards of the Coast pays many people many (MANY) dollars to determine whats &quot;best&quot; for Wizards of the Coast.Here you are giving that &quot;service&quot; away for free.Perhaps...&nbsp; you're not as knowledgeable as you purport, else you'd probably be making some of those many (MANY) dollars.Right?Side A:&nbsp; DnD players on a well known, but still fairly insignificant hobby website say something.Side B:&nbsp; Market experts, who've gone to school and had first hand experience with trends, markets and practices say a different thing.You have the option to go with either.Would a whole lot of you take option A?If so...&nbsp; it would fully explain how one former trading card company, properly run, could so utterly dominate this market away from (QUOTE)sensible(UNQUOTE) people.It never occurs to half of you that you could possibly be wrong about something, does it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hossrex, post: 4145976, member: 60784"] I never said it wasn't a failure of their development staff, however you *CAN NOT* deny that without the OGL, WotC would have made more money. Your entire point boils down to "The OGL is better for *GAMERS* because it puts more content on the shelves". I agree 100% with this. You're however trying to manipulate facts to pretend your statement is actually "The OGL is better for *WotC* because it puts more content on the shelves". No. The very fact that you say "That is a failure of their development staff"... which is why they've lost money... is *PROOF* (in itself) that the OGL has cost Wizards of the Coast money. Who cares *WHY* its cost them money? Who cares that maybe if they'd had better content it wouldn't have cost them money. It *HAS* cost them money. You're all constantly repeating "how great the OGL has been"... when what you mean is "how great the OGL has been for gamers, and third parties". It really has been "so-so" for WotC. *EVIDENCED* by their further consideration regarding its resurrection. Unless... and I say this in nearly every post, and everyone ignores it because its pretty freaking iron clad... unless you think you know more about whats better for Wizards of the Coast then Wizards of the Coast does. I'm not saying any of you're wrong. I'm just saying that Wizards of the Coast pays many people many (MANY) dollars to determine whats "best" for Wizards of the Coast. Here you are giving that "service" away for free. Perhaps... you're not as knowledgeable as you purport, else you'd probably be making some of those many (MANY) dollars. Right? Side A: DnD players on a well known, but still fairly insignificant hobby website say something. Side B: Market experts, who've gone to school and had first hand experience with trends, markets and practices say a different thing. You have the option to go with either. Would a whole lot of you take option A? If so... it would fully explain how one former trading card company, properly run, could so utterly dominate this market away from (QUOTE)sensible(UNQUOTE) people. It never occurs to half of you that you could possibly be wrong about something, does it? [/QUOTE]

Verification