Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 3740456" data-attributes="member: 33060">Totally postulating here, but I'm guessing Wotc would want money up front as a certainty, rather than rely on a bigger hypothetical back end.We know that they have repeatedly turned down Paizo, who have proven themselves capable, so I think its fair to say Wotc is not inclined to grant the license.&nbsp; They must then be persuaded.&nbsp; A larger potential royalty I don't see as being persuasive, given that they are charry of the whole idea.&nbsp; Now, six zeros? I think one would have Wotc's attention.&nbsp; But I bet Paizo doesn't have that kind of cash to throw at any license, but I'm speculating again.&nbsp; Seven zeroes?&nbsp; Wotc could not refuse that kind of mad money, because that is what it would be - no chance of making that back reasonably.&nbsp; So absent someone or entity with money to burn, I don't see a license without something major happening to change Wotc's corporate thinking.&nbsp; I'd be pleased to be proven wrong, however.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GVDammerung, post: 3740456, member: 33060"] Totally postulating here, but I'm guessing Wotc would want money up front as a certainty, rather than rely on a bigger hypothetical back end. We know that they have repeatedly turned down Paizo, who have proven themselves capable, so I think its fair to say Wotc is not inclined to grant the license. They must then be persuaded. A larger potential royalty I don't see as being persuasive, given that they are charry of the whole idea. Now, six zeros? I think one would have Wotc's attention. But I bet Paizo doesn't have that kind of cash to throw at any license, but I'm speculating again. Seven zeroes? Wotc could not refuse that kind of mad money, because that is what it would be - no chance of making that back reasonably. So absent someone or entity with money to burn, I don't see a license without something major happening to change Wotc's corporate thinking. I'd be pleased to be proven wrong, however. [/QUOTE]

Verification