Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

[Fifth Element]

So you are just equating it to a 50/50 flip of a coin? Really?

Is that how you think all business is run?

No, you're taking me far too literally. It was an attempt at an illustration of my point.

If you said "moving away from the OGL will be an epic fail" in 2008, but on no other basis than your gut feeling, it's the same as flipping a coin with respect to claiming prescience later. If you had had a very solid, supportable reasoning in 2008, on the other hand, that would be very different.

I just don't think you can have a solid, supportable position about the OGL, because it seems likely to me that it had both its costs and benefits to WotC, and anyone who claims to know with any certainty which outweighed the other is fooling himself. That's the nature of business decisions: it's dreadfully difficult to evualte them, even after the case, much less before the case.

 

[Umbran]

As if anyone had to guess, Gorbacz won't be joining us for a while. Carry on.

 

[JustKim]

You're blaming Paizo because WotC exploited your subscriber info? Huh. Interesting.

No, there were two different incidents. The one where my information ended up in the hands of Bradford Exchange did not involve WotC.

 

[nedjer]

No, you're taking me far too literally. It was an attempt at an illustration of my point.

If you said "moving away from the OGL will be an epic fail" in 2008, but on no other basis than your gut feeling, it's the same as flipping a coin with respect to claiming prescience later. If you had had a very solid, supportable reasoning in 2008, on the other hand, that would be very different.

I just don't think you can have a solid, supportable position about the OGL, because it seems likely to me that it had both its costs and benefits to WotC, and anyone who claims to know with any certainty which outweighed the other is fooling himself. That's the nature of business decisions: it's dreadfully difficult to evualte them, even after the case, much less before the case.

Never understood why they didn't do an add-ons licence for settings, scenarios and websites, instead of opening the door all the way for Paizo and now Goodman Games. Maybe no such licence exists, though I'm sure I've seen one somewhere - and they could have made one?

 

[Fifth Element]

Never understood why they didn't do an add-ons licence for settings, scenarios and websites, instead of opening the door all the way for Paizo and now Goodman Games. Maybe no such licence exists, though I'm sure I've seen one somewhere - and they could have made one?

I suspect what happened was that they thought the d20 trademark license would be viewed as an indespensible part of the licensing; and the d20 STL did not allow PHBs to be published since character creation rules were verboten by the license. But the d20 license itself was ultimately seen as secondary to the OGL by itself. I don't think they foresaw fully independent games being produced using the license; it's often difficult to foresee the full implications of your decisions.

 

[BryonD]

No, you're taking me far too literally. It was an attempt at an illustration of my point.

Ok, I can't draw either. So I understand.

If you said "moving away from the OGL will be an epic fail" in 2008, but on no other basis than your gut feeling, it's the same as flipping a coin with respect to claiming prescience later. If you had had a very solid, supportable reasoning in 2008, on the other hand, that would be very different.

Ok. Then we agree, it was very different.

I just don't think you can have a solid, supportable position about the OGL, because it seems likely to me that it had both its costs and benefits to WotC, and anyone who claims to know with any certainty which outweighed the other is fooling himself. That's the nature of business decisions: it's dreadfully difficult to evualte them, even after the case, much less before the case.

I think WotC is making a bunch of money off the DDI and I don't claim to know at all exactly how they are doing or what their expectations were.

But, I predicted the split market we now have and for reasons much better than "gut". And I'm going to go out on a limb and presume they didn't actually want it to play out this way.

 

[Fifth Element]

And I'm going to go out on a limb and presume they didn't actually want it to play out this way.

I fully agree. Where we disagree is the degree (-gree trifecta) to which it was foreseeable. You say you predicted it, and had good reason to. Perhaps so. But others disagreed, and you ultimately being proved right about the split in the market does not necessarily mean it was the obvious answer three years ago, or even the answer that would be arrived at by the majority.

 

[BryonD]

or even the answer that would be arrived at by the majority.

I haven't given much consideration to whether the majority should have been able to predict it. I don't see much relevance to that.

Only a handful of people really needed to, and those people *should* have been able to.

 

[Fifth Element]

I haven't given much consideration to whether the majority should have been able to predict it. I don't see much relevance to that.

Only a handful of people really needed to, and those people *should* have been able to.

Typically business decisions for large corporations are made by groups of people, and the majority of said group is who I was referring to.

Your second sentence is the claim I'm arguing against. It's easy to say now that they should have seen it. Whether or not that's true is more complicated that saying but they should have seen it.

And heck, maybe they did see it, but they also predicted that DDI would be so profitable by itself that they didn't need to worry about a fragmented market? There are so many variables involved in these types of decisions that I find messageboard claims of "but it's so obvious" to be unconvncing.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

(Removed Color )
Those claiming pro-WotC bias need to check their facts - the only money I've given to WotC since I bought the three core books for 4e was for a DDI membership, and that only for a few months to download the character builder client and play with the VTT beta.

[jk]But it's all core!*[/jk]

More seriously, that kind of surprises me - I had most of the mods pegged, will they, nil they, as 4e fans. My bias, not yours - in my head this is a D&D site, primarily supporting whatever edition is current. I never tried to attach games to mods much beyond that. I apologize, though I don't think that I have ever voiced that opinion on this forum.

The Auld Grump

* Come to think of it, I suspect that the 'It's all core!' train of thought is one of the things hurting WotC right now.