NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6307460" data-attributes="member: 2067">The point is that smaller audiences have different variables that go into what kind of license you need or want, so how L5R licenses isn't simply able to be copied over into how WotC should license. I see we've entered Argument Clinic territory. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Perhaps being a little less metaphorical would help here: It's something they're offering people in exchange for their time and effort at least (and possibly their money as well). It has to be worth an investment for content creators to partake of the license. By having any license, WotC would hope to take advantage of their labor (and possibly money). It's not a favor they're doing anyone, it's gotta be worth something (even if that something is only time and attention). The GSL is an example of a license that wasn't worth much to the content producers.  That's the case when there is IP infringement, but you can make D&D compatible adventures without even a little IP infringement, if you want. Not every D&D-compatible product need be infringing.That's runaway sales success on the PF side, AND it's a more open license. You can see pretty clearly why Pathfinder's license is more attractive to content creators, why so many more things were created to support PF than were created to support 4e. Any license WotC offers needs to compete with the OGL and Paizo's license (as well as lots of other licenses and other drains on peoples' time). The D&D brand and it's "official" capacity is of great value, but the GSL has shown that there are bad licenses that people will largely ignore if it isn't an attractive product.True enough. I think this points to other factors at work. Like not being sure how well 4e would do, or which 4e innovations were truly improvements. A lot of uncertainty in those first few days, a lot of controversy. 4e was also a sleek beast, and its bones weren't exactly transparent. But the issue is clearly more nuanced than "what's popular and has bad licensing gets cloned," that's for sure. Now, "what has bad licensing doesn't get as much stuff made for it" is pretty evident, I think.</blockquote>

Verification