Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheFindus" data-source="post: 5452348" data-attributes="member: 75791">Of course the OGL was a fair liscense and it is completely WotC fault for underestimating the effect it would have in a situation when they want to publish a new edition and have to compete with the old edition and the 3rd party companies that grew into competitors.And of course they thought it would make money, otherwise, why bother.But my point is that they could have gone another legal route. Back in 1999/2000, nobody expected the OGL. With all the legal issues that TSR had to go through, they could have gone with a different approach. One - I am repeating myself here - which would have made it much much easier for other companies to use their stuff for a plannable period but to give WotC the freedom to keep the IP. And that, in 1999/2000, would have been revolutionary also.There are many legal ways to open up the usability of your product for others without giving up on the IP.Did they think about a new edition in 1999/2000? I would say probably only in a very fuzzy way, since the new edition had just come out.They choose the OGL, but this was by far not the only way to handle this legally. From a legal point of view, it is not: either OGL or GSL. Back in 1999/2000, something in between would have been possible, leaning more to the side of the easyness (is that an english word?) of the OGL, but without giving away the IP.This decision haunts them to this day and is the reason for the GSL. That, and giving away the brand itself to Paizo with the magazines. Those are the major mistakes, in my opinion, that WotC made in the past.In the present, of course, we also see A LOT of mistakes. It is painful to watch. But the effect of these mistakes multiply because they have created their own competition with a second actual, running version of DnD.</blockquote>

Verification