Reactions from WOTC???


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
SirUrza wrote:
I know for a fact that Green Ronin is in the undecided category.
I said d20, not 4E. They made the 3.5 companion to freeport, but I can't remember the last 3.5 product they made before then. They also announced that the 3.5 companion to freeport would be their last 3.5 product.

They still sell Bleeding Edge adventures and still have at least one more planed but not made. They don't have a release date yet for it, only coming soon. So they have been and still are making 3.5 products. Just not very many, I can't recall anything else other than them and what you already mentioned they have come out with for a long time though.


Keith Baker's reaction.


Thanks for the link, Lilith!

Is Keith a full-time Wizards employee? I was under the impression that he was still an independent contractor/freelancer (albeit, one with recurring Eberron work), but maybe my info is out of date.

And (IMO) Keith is cool - nice to hear his thoughts.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think he is a freelancer but does a lot of work for them, but I could be wrong.


Isuru wrote:

Someone asked Rich Baker of WotC this question over at the FR section of the WotC Boards. Here's his response:

WotC_RichBaker;15380581 wrote:

Sorry, but I feel it's sort of bad form to comment on another company's plans. I know most of the guys over at Paizo, and I wish them well.

Why would it be bad form?? - unless, of course, he was panning Paizo's decision. It's not bad form to say good things. :)

Liberty's Edge

I have a sneaking suspicion that the unspoken WotC corporate opinion is either "We'll crush you like a [CENSORED] bug and have you all working at fast-food restaurants for the rest of your lives, you impudent little cretins! How DARE you shun our new edition!" or "You fools! We pity your shortsightedness and lack of judgment, but the world moves on, whether you do or not." (In other words, rage and/or pity) But they're not going to say so publicly. In related news, the Paizo crew should feel glad that the real world is not a cyberpunk game setting, or they'd need some bodyguards. ;)

But seriously, I don't really care about how WotC and Paizo feel about each other. I'm just excited about the Pathfinder RPG!


Timespike wrote:

I have a sneaking suspicion that anyone who I don't like is a monster beyond redemption, regardless of any challenge to my truthiness."

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the people at WotC are thinking what they are thinking and it is impossible for me to do anything other than speculate wildly what that could be. If I wanted to, I could make up any of several thoughts to put in their heads by hearsay, such as "Why did I get a penguin?" "Where are my car keys?"

"I think the guys are going to rip this a new one, so I better run it past Greg in development before I bounce it up"

Liberty's Edge

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
Timespike wrote:

I have a sneaking suspicion that anyone who I don't like is a monster beyond redemption, regardless of any challenge to my truthiness."

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the people at WotC are thinking what they are thinking and it is impossible for me to do anything other than speculate wildly what that could be. If I wanted to, I could make up any of several thoughts to put in their heads by hearsay, such as "Why did I get a penguin?" "Where are my car keys?"

"I think the guys are going to rip this a new one, so I better run it past Greg in development before I bounce it up"

*Laughs* That's not what I was driving at at all, actually. I'm kinda ambivalent towards WotC but I don't want them out of business. And I like Paizo quite a bit. I DON'T think WotC is real fond of Paizo at the moment. I would imagine that both "sides," such as they exist, feel at least somewhat betrayed by the other. But regardless, I'm but a humble consumer. I just buy what I think looks nifty. 4E doesn't look all that nifty to me. PRPG does (especially after reading the alpha document. The new turning & grappling rules ALONE... ...but I digress) I'll still buy up old WotC 3.X product until I have everything I want, namely: Shining South, Secrets of Xen'Drik, Secrets of Sarlona, Dragonmarked, Player's Guide to Eberron, City of Stormreach, Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, Lords of Darkness, Explorer's Handbook, Waterdeep, Lost Empires of Faerun, and Serpent Kingdoms. The combined cover price of which is about $385, and I assure you, I will take no steps at all whatsoever to insulate the money I spend on those books from finding WotC's coffers. I DON'T hate them. I just don't like the new edition or the license recall.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

"Why did I get a penguin?"

To stuff and cuddle with at night of course.... pft like that wasn't obvious.


Marc Radle 81 wrote:
Has there been any reaction from Wizards regarding the decision? Either officially or maybe on an individual basis?

Just my two cents:

1) I rather suspect that individuals at Wotc who like the folks at Paizo have no issue with this. Other folks . . .

2) As a company, Wotc could care less. They think they have the bee's knees with 4e and can't imagine or won't allow themselves to imagine that whatever any other company does can possibly matter. Ah, hubris! And marketing spin.

3) As soon as 4e sales are not all that Wotc projections have them being, if or when that should occur, Wotc will care mightily about what Paizo has done and with 20/20 hindsight, Wotc will see Paizo as having "split the market." Wotc's response will then be interesting in the manner of the Chinese curse. It will be 4e vs Pathfinder and Wotc vs Paizo. Paizo should contingency plan for this. If Pathfinder is perceived as "hurting" 4e as might be judged by anything Wotc says or does, if and at such time, Paizo should be prepared to seize upon this and look to claim the market initiative - "The King is dead. Long live the King!"


I have to wonder at the reaction not of WOTC but of Hasbro. If 4e comes out and then tanks, how much longer will Hasbro want to continue to support a drain. This will be a strictly business decision and not one based on enjoyment of the game. In that case, could it be possible that Hasbro then cancels 4e and licenses the RPG part of the DnD Intellectual Property to Paizo? That would not be a bad solution.

If instead, it does do what the apparent aim is and ups the sales of the miniatures then they may not care that the circle is complete back to miniatures with minor roleplaying rules

Jon Brazer Enterprises

DaveMage wrote:
Why would it be bad form?? - unless, of course, he was panning Paizo's decision. It's not bad form to say good things. :)

Best speculation: They're friends so they don't want to say anything negative. Then there are elements higher up in the chain of command that want them to speak only good things of the coming edition and nothing good about anything else (like the whole of their marketting campaign has been thus far). So the best way to make both happy is to stay silent.

This is just a guess from the Emergency Guessing System. This is not an actual emergency. This is only a guess. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP.


cthulhubryan wrote:

I have to wonder at the reaction not of WOTC but of Hasbro. If 4e comes out and then tanks, how much longer will Hasbro want to continue to support a drain. This will be a strictly business decision and not one based on enjoyment of the game. In that case, could it be possible that Hasbro then cancels 4e and licenses the RPG part of the DnD Intellectual Property to Paizo? That would not be a bad solution.

If instead, it does do what the apparent aim is and ups the sales of the miniatures then they may not care that the circle is complete back to miniatures with minor roleplaying rules

Now in which fantasy world do you live? ^^

a.) 4th Ed. CAN'T be a commercial failure.
b.) Why would Hasbro make a contract with Paizo? They allready own Wizards, so they can make anything they want in-house.


Neithan wrote:


a.) 4th Ed. CAN'T be a commercial failure.

Can too.

Neithan wrote:


b.) Why would Hasbro make a contract with Paizo? They allready own Wizards, so they can make anything they want in-house.

Takes time to fire the guys who caused the mess-up and get new ones... ;-)


Neithan wrote:
a.) 4th Ed. CAN'T be a commercial failure.

Why not?

I have no doubt in my mind the core books will sell like hotcakes. But so did ticket sales for the american Godzilla remake on opening weekend.

People will flock to the books to see them and try them. Once word gets out that the game isnt all that hot...how much of a demand will there be for expansion books?

Veterans will see that 4th edition isnt as good as previous ones...and newcomers trying out D&D will be unimpressed and would rather play Warcraft or Magic the Gatering.

Now Im not saying this is my prediction of the future..But I see it as one of many possiblites.
You think this scenario is impossible? Why?


Neithan wrote:


b.) Why would Hasbro make a contract with Paizo? They allready own Wizards, so they can make anything they want in-house.

Well, several reasons. Now be assured that I am NOT saying that this will happen, but that it could happen.

1. If you have a division that takes a successful, but perhaps underperforming property (DnD3.5) and turns it into a loss leader which could also negatively impact other properties (Minis, Books, etc.) then some Harvard MBA at Hasbro may decide that a licensed arrangement that keeps up interest in those other products is a sound investment.

2. If 4e is not a failure but is less successful than Pathfinder and the same Harvard MBA sees erosion of profits from other divisions, then the ability to spark new interest in those divisions at a net profit without adding additional overhead as a sound proposition.

CthulhuBryan (MBA, Miskatonic University. esito sulum hostium)


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
Why would it be bad form?? - unless, of course, he was panning Paizo's decision. It's not bad form to say good things. :)

Best speculation: They're friends so they don't want to say anything negative. Then there are elements higher up in the chain of command that want them to speak only good things of the coming edition and nothing good about anything else (like the whole of their marketting campaign has been thus far). So the best way to make both happy is to stay silent.

This is just a guess from the Emergency Guessing System. This is not an actual emergency. This is only a guess. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP.

This wins the most plausible guess competition.

Liberty's Edge

Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:

It's hard to imagine how they'll mesh the core assumptions of 4e with pre-existing worlds like FR without doing great violence to the campaign setting people know and love. So WotC is liable to lose many of those customers as well.

I am a devoted Forgotten Realms DM, having run campaigns in that setting since the "old grety box" was released in 1987. Having seen what WoTC has planned for the Realms...

SirUrza wrote:

Oh it's much worse then that. They killed characters off, not backgrounds. They destroyed countries. They altered their own 3e canon to fit their own needs even if it contracts everything, and they're wiping out pantheons.

Oh. Elminster is also afraid of casting spells because apparently he's inherited the memories of mutliple superbeings that threat to take over his sanity if he does. So basically Elminster is a walking time capsule just waiting to be cracked open to allow the Realms to be restored to it's former glory in 5E should sales take a dive... and they will.

...I no longer have an interest in the 4E version of the Realms, or even 4E as a system. I will be supporting Paizo and the Pathfinder system, even if I don't use the Pathfinder campaign setting.

Silver Crusade

Not so much into caring about Wotc thinks but what about other publishers like privateer press. There player's handbook is out of print.


Interesting

Contributor

Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:
Now all they need are some Golarion novels to put up on the bookshelf at Borders, next to all those RA Salvatore and Dragonlance novels. If they could solicit something at the level of quality of the early Dragonlance books, they could get some young people into their game.

While nothing's on a schedule, know that you're not alone in wanting to see some Pathfinder Chronicles novels! The idea's been on our radar for a while now, and as Planet Stories continues to grow, the possibility of setting tie-in novels becomes greater and greater. For right now, however, the Pathfinder's Journal will have to suffice....


brent norton wrote:
Not so much into caring about Wotc thinks but what about other publishers like privateer press. There player's handbook is out of print.

It's my guess that the GSL will be written in such a way as to prevent Iron Kingdoms from ever being reprinted under 4th edition rules. I don't mean "section 5 paragraph 2 subsection C: Iron Kingdoms is no more" I mean more like "section 5 paragraph 2 subsection C: Any game using the GSL will be required to use the core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, Monster Manual) in their original intended form." Which the Iron Kingdoms setting doesn't do. They limit spells and magic items and have their own classes and it's awesome.

But from a company standpoint I doubt Privateer Press really cares anymore. Iron Kingdoms made them a company but Warmachine and Hordes are their moneymakers now. They could conceivably drop IK and just go on with their business as a miniatures company and not suffer one iota.

<.< >.> Personally I'm hoping they do another print run of things under the OGL. They had tried to keep their Monsternomicons up to date with the wargame releases, I hope they continue to do so.


Neithan wrote:
a.) 4th Ed. CAN'T be a commercial failure.

Atari, Inc. was the hugely dominant video game company of 1982. The E.T. movie was a huge hit. The can't-miss marriage of the two was the E.T. video game, which sold 1.5 million copies.

Which would have been a success (Atari Inc.'s 8th-best selling game of all time), except that they made 4 million of the cartridges. That massive commercial failure resulted in the end of Atari, Inc. in 1984; it was broken up and pieces were sold off.

Sovereign Court

cthulhubryan wrote:
Neithan wrote:


b.) Why would Hasbro make a contract with Paizo? They allready own Wizards, so they can make anything they want in-house.

Well, several reasons. Now be assured that I am NOT saying that this will happen, but that it could happen.

1. If you have a division that takes a successful, but perhaps underperforming property (DnD3.5) and turns it into a loss leader which could also negatively impact other properties (Minis, Books, etc.) then some Harvard MBA at Hasbro may decide that a licensed arrangement that keeps up interest in those other products is a sound investment.

2. If 4e is not a failure but is less successful than Pathfinder and the same Harvard MBA sees erosion of profits from other divisions, then the ability to spark new interest in those divisions at a net profit without adding additional overhead as a sound proposition.

CthulhuBryan (MBA, Miskatonic University. esito sulum hostium)

When did you start posting on the Paizo boards, Bryan? Anyway, I just hope that Paizo is successful, and that one day they will have ownership or a least a license to use the D&D brand for RPG purposes. I believe that 4E is a good example of how some things seriously suffer when corporations get a hold of them and try to make them more "friendly" to the masses. 4th edition has one purpose as far as WotC and Hasbro are concerned: Sell more minis. That's basically it. It's not about making the game better. It's about boosting minis sales. I really don't want to support a company that does that to my hobby.


Who cares how Wizards Of The Coast feels about Paizo's decision. I'm just glad someone picked up and carried the proverbial D&D 3.5 torch after Wizards Of The Coast decided to toss it in favor of 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons.

Although 4E doesn't look like my type of game and I will be stepping away from being a WOTC consumer, I do wish them success in their endeavours. I sincerely hope 4E is successful in bringing a whole new generation of young role-players to the tabletop to carry on this splendid hobby. Who knows maybe all these kids playing MMO's on computers will discover tabletop role-playing through 4E D&D

I'm curious though how the whole Open Game License works. Could Wizards Of The Coast terminate the OGL, thereby ending the Pathfinder RPG before it ever gets off the ground?

Dark Archive

Naleax wrote:

I'm curious though how the whole Open Game License works. Could Wizards Of The Coast terminate the OGL, thereby ending the Pathfinder RPG before it ever gets off the ground?

This is the wonder of the OGL, it cannot be legally terminated. I don't believe that GSL will have this same feature.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Naleax wrote:

I'm curious though how the whole Open Game License works. Could Wizards Of The Coast terminate the OGL, thereby ending the Pathfinder RPG before it ever gets off the ground?

The OGL is non-revokable (and Wizards has publicly verified this).


Naleax wrote:
I'm curious though how the whole Open Game License works. Could Wizards Of The Coast terminate the OGL, thereby ending the Pathfinder RPG before it ever gets off the ground?

The Open Game License for 3.5 is irrevocable.


Lilith wrote:


The Open Game License for 3.5 is irrevocable.

...systematic, hydromatic, ultramatic! ^_^


elnopintan wrote:
Naleax wrote:

I'm curious though how the whole Open Game License works. Could Wizards Of The Coast terminate the OGL, thereby ending the Pathfinder RPG before it ever gets off the ground?

This is the wonder of the OGL, it cannot be legally terminated. I don't believe that GSL will have this same feature.

Even the GSL will be irrevocable at the end of 4E. There's a US supreme court ruling somewhere in a similar case stating that when a game switches editions, if access to the old material had been granted as per an OGL or GSL, then it cannot be revoked.

I'm not sure which case it was though, I'll have to ask my boss. He was the one who brought this info to my attention.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:


When did you start posting on the Paizo boards, Bryan? Anyway, I just hope that Paizo is successful, and that one day they will have ownership or a least a license to use the D&D brand for RPG purposes. I believe that 4E is a good example of how some things seriously suffer when corporations get a hold of them and try to make them more "friendly" to the masses. 4th edition has one purpose as far as WotC and Hasbro are concerned: Sell more minis. That's basically it. It's not about making the game better. It's about boosting minis sales. I really don't want to support a company that does that to my hobby.

I've posted here and there. It was the Pathfinder RPG announcement that brought me back more often. I'm quite excited about Paizo's direction with both existing 3.5 material and also with the new Pathfinder line which I have enjoyed reading and soon running.

I like the mini's but I see them as a support product for RPGs not the other way around.


James Sutter wrote:


While nothing's on a schedule, know that you're not alone in wanting to see some Pathfinder Chronicles novels! The idea's been on our radar for a while now, and as Planet Stories continues to grow, the possibility of setting tie-in novels becomes greater and greater. For right now, however, the Pathfinder's Journal will have to suffice....

Oh my. I never heard of Planet Stories until this post. My my my. I fear that I may have to spend some money this weekend. I really like the idea expressed in the line document. Kudos Paizo!!!


cthulhubryan wrote:
James Sutter wrote:


While nothing's on a schedule, know that you're not alone in wanting to see some Pathfinder Chronicles novels! The idea's been on our radar for a while now, and as Planet Stories continues to grow, the possibility of setting tie-in novels becomes greater and greater. For right now, however, the Pathfinder's Journal will have to suffice....

Oh my. I never heard of Planet Stories until this post. My my my. I fear that I may have to spend some money this weekend. I really like the idea expressed in the line document. Kudos Paizo!!!

I just finished the collected Northwest Smith stories a few moments ago. It was outstanding.

Contributor

cthulhubryan wrote:

Oh my. I never heard of Planet Stories until this post. My my my. I fear that I may have to spend some money this weekend. I really like the idea expressed in the line document. Kudos Paizo!!!

Huzzah! We've just started talking about books we want to publish in 2009 as well, and I have to tell you, while I'm excited about what we're putting out currently, next year is going to be positively squee-worthy....

Contributor

Trey wrote:
I just finished the collected Northwest Smith stories a few moments ago. It was outstanding.

Great! Have you tried Leigh Brackett? While C. L. Moore beats her by a few years on the whole "first woman in the pulps" factor, I think Ms. Brackett's prose is a touch more modern - it really feels ahead of its time. So far, her "The Ginger Star" is my favorite of all the Planet Stories books....


Susan Draconis wrote:

Even the GSL will be irrevocable at the end of 4E. There's a US supreme court ruling somewhere in a similar case stating that when a game switches editions, if access to the old material had been granted as per an OGL or GSL, then it cannot be revoked.

I'm not sure which case it was though, I'll have to ask my boss. He was the one who brought this info to my attention.

Your boss?

Got a job opening?

Susan Draconis wrote:


It's my guess that the GSL will be written in such a way as to prevent Iron Kingdoms from ever being reprinted under 4th edition rules. I don't mean "section 5 paragraph 2 subsection C: Iron Kingdoms is no more" I mean more like "section 5 paragraph 2 subsection C: Any game using the GSL will be required to use the core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, Monster Manual) in their original intended form." Which the Iron Kingdoms setting doesn't do. They limit spells and magic items and have their own classes and it's awesome.

It's been confirmed that you can't do anything that doesn't require the use of 4e core rules.

And I also suspect that they'll put in something to make it hard to even do a campaign setting properly, with different races (and different takes on races) and all that. And even if not, the rules themselves do a decent job of that.

I guess a lot of companies will have no choice but to stick to 3e, meaning either to do their own version or to use PFRPG. (Well, there is the choice to butcher their settings to turn them into 4e settings, but I don't count that).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

KaeYoss wrote:
It's been confirmed that you can't do anything that doesn't require the use of 4e core rules.

Where was that confirmed?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah i would like to know too. I would be surprised if it was that restrictive. That would be nothing short of stupid for WotC to do.

I just checked Enworld and seen nothing about it. Will check the forums and WotC and see if I can find something that alludes to this.


Mike_Lescault on EN World wrote:

Hi All,

They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.

“We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”

I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.

Thanks,
-Mike

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221163&page=5&pp=30

The above was posted today over at EN World. Makes me think perhaps WotC brass, or maybe Hasbro is rethinking the whole concept of open gaming. It's pure speculation on my part, but maybe they're having trouble creating a GSL that allows them to protect their 4e content while creating an environment that is 3rd party friendly.


KaeYoss wrote:
Susan Draconis wrote:

Even the GSL will be irrevocable at the end of 4E. There's a US supreme court ruling somewhere in a similar case stating that when a game switches editions, if access to the old material had been granted as per an OGL or GSL, then it cannot be revoked.

I'm not sure which case it was though, I'll have to ask my boss. He was the one who brought this info to my attention.

Your boss?

Got a job opening?

Only if you kill one of the current employees in gladiatorial combat and claim their job as your winnings. That's how I got in.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
cthulhubryan wrote:


2. If 4e is not a failure but is less successful than Pathfinder and the same Harvard MBA sees erosion of profits from other divisions, then the ability to spark new interest in those divisions at a net profit without adding additional overhead as a sound proposition.

I think you are missing what is success for Pathfinder. 10,000 copies sold an issues has been more success than Paizo expected. WotC sells hundreds of thousands of their books. Even Paizo staff has said that they are not even in the same ballpark. There is no way Pathfinder is MORE successful than 4e. But it may become more successful as time passes just not in the threatens WotC kind of way.


Vic Wertz wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
It's been confirmed that you can't do anything that doesn't require the use of 4e core rules.
Where was that confirmed?

I read it on the 4e boards, and they quoted stuff from enworld. At least that's what I think, it's from a few weeks ago, maybe even longer.

But I'm quite sure that it was said that all GSL material will have to refer to the core rules. No more Arcana Unearthed, Babylon 5 RPG, or True 20 in 4e.

I googled it and found a couple of things:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9059
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/archives/4 EOGLLeaks&page=1

Susan Draconis wrote:


Your boss?

Got a job opening?

Only if you kill one of the current employees in gladiatorial combat and claim their job as your winnings. That's how I got in.

No problem. I'm doing that for fun already, why not for profit, too?


KaeYoss wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
It's been confirmed that you can't do anything that doesn't require the use of 4e core rules.
Where was that confirmed?

I read it on the 4e boards, and they quoted stuff from enworld. At least that's what I think, it's from a few weeks ago, maybe even longer.

But I'm quite sure that it was said that all GSL material will have to refer to the core rules. No more Arcana Unearthed, Babylon 5 RPG, or True 20 in 4e.

Are you suggesting Chris Pramas has better information than Paizo, despite the fact the likely both got the bulk of their information from the same phone call?

And really, when you say something is confirmed it really should mean something was confirmed. What you have is speculation, some of it better founded than others, but none of it speaking for WotC as an official or unofficial announcement.


Vic Wertz wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
It's been confirmed that you can't do anything that doesn't require the use of 4e core rules.
Where was that confirmed?

This is what's posted on EN World that was supposedly said during the conference call:

"7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?

The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.

Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before."

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

While I think 7 will be true and maybe more. But right now it is all second hand information and while that might be what was said in the call. But lets face it, the GSL has almost assuredly changed with this long of a wait. How much? it is all speculation like what Chris did, not saying he is wrong. Only saying until WotC officially posts something it is all speculation or second hand information.

Scarab Sages

Frankly, I'm a little shocked the GSL still hasn't been released yet.

It really makes one wonder what in the world is going on over there.


Changed my mind, please delete this post.

Interesting, I never realized that the Core Books don't have to contain a copy of the OGL. So they can ship them without it.

Scarab Sages

Thraxus wrote:

While I will admit that I was caught flat-footed by Paizo going this route, they are not actually alone in this action.

Green Ronin has True 20 and Goodman Games is releasing Eldritch next month. Privateer Press has long since moved into the tabletop minatures realm with Warmachine as their mainstay.

Many companies are unhitching themselves from being solely dependant on D&D (be it straight d20 or 4e).

From my conversations with Jonathon Thompson at Battlefield Press they are going to continue supporting 3.5 as well.

Scarab Sages

Even the GSL will be irrevocable at the end of 4E. There's a US supreme court ruling somewhere in a similar case stating that when a game switches editions, if access to the old material had been granted as per an OGL or GSL, then it cannot be revoked.

I'm not sure which case it was though, I'll have to ask my boss. He was the one who brought this info to my attention.

I would love any info on that ruling or links to pertinent online resources about it. Please....

Sovereign Court

Neithan wrote:


Now in which fantasy world do you live? ^^

a.) 4th Ed. CAN'T be a commercial failure.
b.) Why would Hasbro make a contract with Paizo? They allready own Wizards, so they can make anything they want in-house.

Yes it can !

Consider the following scenario :

Hasbro exec : "Your sales of D&D are not high enough compared to budget ! We WANT +X, or you're fired"
WOTC guy :"Hmmm OK, we'll do a new edition, fire the old clients, and draw in the million customers of WoW".
Hasbro exec "Hmmm, that will do .... BARELY ! you have one year".

I am not saying this is what happened, as I have no clues, and don't particularly care, but it's not only a matter of how well it sells in the absolute, but also a matter of how well it sells VS EXPECTED income.

And even if I agree that the initial sales will be good due to all the pro-4e people converting, what about the new players that are not into D&D that will sssooooo want the product over Wow and consorts ?

For this last part, I have the highest doubts.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Reactions from WOTC??? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.