Regardless of if you can or can't copyright "armor class"...
Since you mention it: The mail just came in. According to this here letter, my patent for the word and concept of "attack" just went through.
That means that basically all roleplaying games, as well as tabletop wargames, and indeed most computer games (not to mention humans) are now violating my patent rights. They owe me approximately 7 killion Euros. And no, I won't take dollars or similar forms of pretent money ;-P
I would, however, accept World Domination instead.
I give the world 48 hours to submit and comply before I sue you to annihilation!
Muahahahahaha!
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a podcast interview of Ryan Dancey he speaks on this topic. The 2000 OGL WAS a direct response to a direct competitor eating away at their marketshare (White Wolf with V:TM). The only way they could figure out how to steal momentum away from WW was via making their system "open source."
This rationale is incorrect and I'm 99% sure I never said anything remotely like that. Can you quote a source?
|
I'm probably going to get lynched for saying this, but I would love to see (and would happily buy) a Pathfinder 2E sooner rather than later, especially if it really cleaned things up and shaved a few hundred pages off the core book. Something like Star Wars Saga would be ideal.
But yeah...way in the minority here. ;-)
Guess it depends on what you mean by sooner. Me personally i am ok with a new edition every 5-7 years. Especially if they did another open beta like last time.
Egads! it worked!
I said Dancey 3x thinking of the movie Candyman.
This rationale is incorrect and I'm 99% sure I never said anything remotely like that. Can you quote a source?
Who are you to question--
Oh wait...nevermind. :P
In a podcast interview of Ryan Dancey he speaks on this topic. The 2000 OGL WAS a direct response to a direct competitor eating away at their marketshare (White Wolf with V:TM). The only way they could figure out how to steal momentum away from WW was via making their system "open source."This rationale is incorrect and I'm 99% sure I never said anything remotely like that. Can you quote a source?
Now why would you expect your name to carry any weight on the internet? It's quite obvious you've edited your own memory to change it to retroactively change what you said. We can't believe you of all people concerning what you may or may not have allowed yourself to remember saying in your heavily edited memory.
:) :) :)
White Wolf was bought by computer game developer CCP. The focuse over there is currently at CCP developing a WoD MMO and WW staff helping with CCP's existing MMO, Eve Online. Pen and paper stuff got sidetracked as a result.
Yep. And that purchase in fact was one of the two things that ended my relationship with WW as a specific term of our contract. That said, dont take that as negative. The other thing was the revocation of the d20 STL. I love all the people at WW and have nothing but fond memories of working with them. Great people and lasting friends. I was talking with Steve Wieck of WW (now with OneBookShelf aka DTRPG) just today. He and his brother Stew, who owned WW are two of the coolest guys you will meet. So was Rich their art director. I could go on and on. I see some of their guys now work with Paizo. Kieran Yanner, an artist, for instance did some stuff for me back in the day under WW and Kieran's stuff is great. Just an example. The list is way too long.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no doubt in my mind that Paizo could have been a big supporter for 4E had WotC not stalled, delayed, and changed their stance on 4E licensing.Yes I agree. I remember a podacst I listened to in the run up to 4E where Eric Mona stated he was looking forward to 4E and being a partner with WoTC on it and the sooner they got Paizo a copy of the rules the sooner they could start planning product for it.
I believe once they got a copy of those rules, it was game over.
We actually NEVER got a copy of those rules.
So it was game over once we realized that they were not really looking for partners, or at least once we realized that their schedules were completely incompatible with us remaining a viable business.
The mechanics of the game (while they didn't exactly help) actually had relatively little to do with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of Paizo and reasons for creation of Pathfinder - would it change much if WotC left Dungeon & Dragon magazine in your hands? Do you think you (as a company) would remain alongside with WotC when they introduced 4th edition if both magazines would still be done by you?
If WotC left Dungeon and Dragon in Paizo's hands and a usable 4E license, I doubt there would be a Pathfinder. And that would be a shame. So in a sick way I'm glad that all happened because I prefer Pathfinder to 4E.
We actually NEVER got a copy of those rules.
So it was game over once we realized that they were not really looking for partners, or at least once we realized that their schedules were completely incompatible with us remaining a viable business.
The mechanics of the game (while they didn't exactly help) actually had relatively little to do with it.
When Erik says it wasn't about the rules, you guys need to believe him.
The previous poster who Erik was responding to was suggesting that the 3Ps saw the rules and that is what made us say no way. That's just not the case. (it might be that is not what the prior poster meant, but that is what I took from it--Paizo saw the rules and said no way).
Clark
This rationale is incorrect and I'm 99% sure I never said anything remotely like that. Can you quote a source?
Hey Ryan, great to see you and I hope to see you at the Con.
I dont know if you got a chance to see the letters I wrote to WoTC about opening 4E under the OGL earlier in this thread. If not, take a look. I'd love to chat with you about them.
Clark
PS--See folks, that's how secret they were. I hadn't even sent them to Ryan before I posted them here and I know Ryan well enough to have emailed him :)
Hey Ryan, great to see you and I hope to see you at the Con.
Will PaizoCon be able to handle this much OGL power? You'll have to come to find out!
;)
Two things I think need to be stated.
1) Do not overstress the importance of D&D to Hasbro and WotC. D&D is small pickings compared to M:tG, and it would surprise me if it was more then a footnote for corporate, a "Oh yeah and we also have this license here I guess?" D&D is small time IP compared to a lot of things. CCGs are WotC's big money makers.
2) I really, really doubt third party was stealing large amounts of sales from WotC, or that such was ever a concern. I don't think the GSL is created to "destroy the third party" or anything like that. Rather, I think WotC is letting third party do their own thing more or less. They are neither hampering nor helping it. What the third party does is the third party's business. They aren't evil or hate third party. They're just ambivalent.
I think I've learned more in the past 20 posts than I ever have before...
Hey Ryan, great to see you and I hope to see you at the Con.Will PaizoCon be able to handle this much OGL power? You'll have to come to find out!
;)
Why must you schedule PaizoCon right around our due date?
A plague on both your houses!
See you next year hopefully!
Dumb question - I have a copy of Mutants & Masterminds (Copyright 2002), and there's no D20 logo on it.
The game doesn't make any mention of the D20 STL, and it contains it's own character generation system and advancement system. It makes no mention of requiring the D&D PHB, like my Spycraft stuff does.
There's an OGL page in the back.
This is the 1st Edition of the game, isn't it? I don't recall M&M ever using the D20 STL.
Paizo never went 4e as they never had the option. I am not saying they would have but Wotc failed to deliver anything at all and with the time running out Paizo had to make a call or go under.
It really is that simple.
Paizo never went 4e as they never had the option.
Twelve posts up, that's pretty much what Eric Mona said. I'll take his word for it.
Do not overstress the importance of D&D to Hasbro and WotC. D&D is small pickings compared to M:tG, and it would surprise me if it was more then a footnote for corporate, a "Oh yeah and we also have this license here I guess?" D&D is small time IP compared to a lot of things. CCGs are WotC's big money makers.
IIRC, the Pokemon CCG was what Hasbro was after. It had been burning bright for WotC (and was pretty much gold on every other front as well). I think MtG and D&D were nice extras in the deal but not essential. Hasbro is a toy company afterall and they were gathering up as much of the Pokemon IP as they could. The game really died back shortly after the purchase (as did Pokemon in general). In the end I think MtG and D&D made more for WotC after the Hasbro purchase...
Why must you schedule PaizoCon right around our due date?
Why must you schedule your due date right around PaizoCon?
IIRC, the Pokemon CCG was what Hasbro was after. It had been burning bright for WotC (and was pretty much gold on every other front as well). I think MtG and D&D were nice extras in the deal but not essential. Hasbro is a toy company afterall and they were gathering up as much of the Pokemon IP as they could. The game really died back shortly after the purchase (as did Pokemon in general). In the end I think MtG and D&D made more for WotC after the Hasbro purchase...
The Pokemon CCG died? AND the games?
Jeese, all these cards I have must be zombies...
As for the games: 200 Million lifetime sales and the best selling game of all time doesn't really sound "dead" to me.
The Pokemon CCG died? AND the games?
Jeese, all these cards I have must be zombies...
As for the games: 200 Million lifetime sales and the best selling game of all time doesn't really sound "dead" to me.
In relative popularity and sales compared to when Pokemon made all those WotC folks millionaires, it has died off.
To call it dead is a vast understatement, but it certainly isn't the behemoth that it once was, nor is M:tG.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see folks playing either game in public outside of a game shop these days, I just don't see it anymore around this area, and time was, I couldn't go anywhere that had a spare table and chairs (or a small empty spot of floor space) and NOT see people playing.
Those days are gone.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think those games are still going strong as product lines, but instead of selling a large number of cards to a large casual audience, they sell a large number of cards to a smaller, hardcore audience.
Or, at least that seems to be the case for magic. I'm less sure about pokemon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Ryan, great to see you and I hope to see you at the Con.
I dont know if you got a chance to see the letters I wrote to WoTC about opening 4E under the OGL earlier in this thread. If not, take a look. I'd love to chat with you about them.
Can't wait to get to PaizoCon and see lots of old friends especially you!
I knew in my gut that Wizards would never use the OGL for 4e. I knew from the day they changed the D20STL to add a review & approval process that they wished they could end the whole licensing regime. I dint think there was ever the slightest chance that they would allow content for 4e to publish without strings attached that would make 3rd party 4e support tenuous at best.
I don't doubt that Scott was receptive to the conversation but I'm reasonably certain that there was no point where he ever had any real decision power regarding licensing. That call was almost certainly over his pay grade.
I'm also reasonably sure that what happened afterwards (I.e. Pathfinder) just reinforces the view inside Wizards that the OGL was a disaster.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, the Pokemon CCG was what Hasbro was after. It had been burning bright for WotC (and was pretty much gold on every other front as well). I think MtG and D&D were nice extras in the deal but not essential. Hasbro is a toy company afterall and they were gathering up as much of the Pokemon IP as they could. The game really died back shortly after the purchase (as did Pokemon in general). In the end I think MtG and D&D made more for WotC after the Hasbro purchase...
Hasbro's purchase of Wizards was always about Magic. The fact that 18 months of post-purchase Pokemon sales paid for the whole acquisition, recapitalized Hasbro to avoid a bond default, and kept the company cash-flow positive during a very rocky period when Star Wars Episode 1 underperformed was just icing on the cake.
Further icing was leveraging the D&D electronic rights to shift nearly $300 million of write offs from Hasbro's games.com initiative to Atari/Infogrames.
Pokemon remains a very large global brand not only for CCG but for videogames. The CCG product is likely the 3rd best selling game behind Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh on an annual basis. It is now controlled by a stand-alone entity rather than a licensee, so those numbers are kept pretty quiet.
D&D is not and never has been considered a strategic brand at Hasbro, and nobody outside of Wizards pays it any material attention. All D&D material decisions are made in the Wizards building. I suspect the only conversation that involves anyone outside of Wizards is a discussion on top-line revenue vs. budget performance.
Everyone
I just want to say that we have a highly interesting discussion here with alot of different viewpoints and interpretations on history. And its not descending into a flamewar.
You're right. Something is seriously wrong. Something must be done.
SO DID YOU HEAR MY NEWEST FUNNY QUIP? 4e-diots! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The accepted epithets are
3tard.
4ron.
|
|
In a podcast interview of Ryan Dancey he speaks on this topic. The 2000 OGL WAS a direct response to a direct competitor eating away at their marketshare (White Wolf with V:TM). The only way they could figure out how to steal momentum away from WW was via making their system "open source."This rationale is incorrect and I'm 99% sure I never said anything remotely like that. Can you quote a source?
Wait. Ryan Dancey? The RYAN DANCEY? Kewl!
Wait. Ryan Dancey? The RYAN DANCEY? Kewl!In a podcast interview of Ryan Dancey he speaks on this topic. The 2000 OGL WAS a direct response to a direct competitor eating away at their marketshare (White Wolf with V:TM). The only way they could figure out how to steal momentum away from WW was via making their system "open source."This rationale is incorrect and I'm 99% sure I never said anything remotely like that. Can you quote a source?
Yep. Hearken, say I.
IIRC, the Pokemon CCG was what Hasbro was after. It had been burning bright for WotC (and was pretty much gold on every other front as well). I think MtG and D&D were nice extras in the deal but not essential. Hasbro is a toy company afterall and they were gathering up as much of the Pokemon IP as they could. The game really died back shortly after the purchase (as did Pokemon in general). In the end I think MtG and D&D made more for WotC after the Hasbro purchase...
The Pokemon CCG died? AND the games?
Jeese, all these cards I have must be zombies...
As for the games: 200 Million lifetime sales and the best selling game of all time doesn't really sound "dead" to me.
I said "died back" as in declined from its peak of popularity. Not dead as in gone. There was a time when you couldn't get enough Pokemon cards in a retail outlet. That's no longer true. Do they still sell? Yes, but not in the quantity of cards or to the number of players they used to. It was the most popular CCG. I think Yu-Gi-Oh is currently although I see more people playing MtG again.
What has remained popular is the Pokemon video games. Those are guaranteed to sell 5 million or so per new iteration.
IIRC, the Pokemon CCG was what Hasbro was after. It had been burning bright for WotC (and was pretty much gold on every other front as well). I think MtG and D&D were nice extras in the deal but not essential. Hasbro is a toy company afterall and they were gathering up as much of the Pokemon IP as they could. The game really died back shortly after the purchase (as did Pokemon in general). In the end I think MtG and D&D made more for WotC after the Hasbro purchase...Hasbro's purchase of Wizards was always about Magic. The fact that 18 months of post-purchase Pokemon sales paid for the whole acquisition, recapitalized Hasbro to avoid a bond default, and kept the company cash-flow positive during a very rocky period when Star Wars Episode 1 underperformed was just icing on the cake.
Further icing was leveraging the D&D electronic rights to shift nearly $300 million of write offs from Hasbro's games.com initiative to Atari/Infogrames.
Pokemon remains a very large global brand not only for CCG but for videogames. The CCG product is likely the 3rd best selling game behind Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh on an annual basis. It is now controlled by a stand-alone entity rather than a licensee, so those numbers are kept pretty quiet.
D&D is not and never has been considered a strategic brand at Hasbro, and nobody outside of Wizards pays it any material attention. All D&D material decisions are made in the Wizards building. I suspect the only conversation that involves anyone outside of Wizards is a discussion on top-line revenue vs. budget performance.
Interesting. Thanks for the insight into motive. I'd always figured Pokemon was their #1 reason (for the tie in with toy sales) with Magic coming further back and D&D a minor issue. I knew the video game incarnation of Pokemon was still a powerhouse. Out of curiosity do you think CCG sales now compare to what they were then? From what I see it's down, but that may only be locally.
The distributor for my local store keeps running out of M:tG product, and the store itself also reports vastly higher sales numbers now than 2-3 years ago. I'm not sure if that's a localized phenomenon, but it would appear that M:tG sales are as strong as ever (unless they're simply printing less product).
I don't doubt that Scott was receptive to the conversation but I'm reasonably certain that there was no point where he ever had any real decision power regarding licensing. That call was almost certainly over his pay grade.
Absolutely true. Back in the day there were lots of great guys at Wizards. Many have moved on. Scott was the last of the crew I had much connection with and he has been gone for a while now. Its a shame. He is a great, great guy. I think he really understood open gaming and its benefits. But as you say, he didnt have the decisional power to get his viewpoint adopted. Its a shame. I have to say, it must have been really frustrating for him, like pounding your head against the wall. He was always very professional and he did not ever then nor has he since said anything bad about his time there. But I could kind of tell he was fighting a losing battle and it seemed to take a toll on him. I have always respected his professionalism through the process.
I'm also reasonably sure that what happened afterwards (I.e. Pathfinder) just reinforces the view inside Wizards that the OGL was a disaster.
Yep. Which is hilarious, because it is actually proof of the exact opposite. Pathfinder is proof of the genius of the OGL, not its weakness. But there is no doubt people IN WotC point to Pathfinder as proof of how bad the OGL is. Which is simply moronic and short sighted. But that's what happens when you take a pure sales view of products not a long term view.
In the end, I also think much of the problem with the openness of D&D through the OGL is that it scared the lawyers and the suits who were in the midst of their law suit against Activision over the D&D computer game rights. No one has ever said that to me, but that has long been my suspicion. I've had hints of its validity but no one has confirmed it.
|
CEO
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they basically primised that PFRPG 2e was still years and years away. I think the claim was that there wouldn't be anything before 2020 (or something along the lines).
And this is the reason why Count Rugen is probably right. A comment is made by some Paizo employee about a potential 2nd edition being "a long ways off" or "years and years away" and when the customers see that, everybody reads in a different answer. I have seen folks on messageboards take those vague statements and seen them turn them into "2nd edition won't come until at least 2015" or "it will be 2018 or later until there is a 2nd edition" or "there wouldn't be anything before 2020 (or something along the lines)."
You can see that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't because everyone has a different opinion about what we promised. And heaven forbid if, in the middle of the night with sleep fogging your mind, that you actually mention a date. Because that date will be held up as a sure fire promise that will never be broken. :)
The truth is that we have no idea about when or even if there will be a second edition of Pathfinder. I would wager that there will be, but at this fairly early stage of Pathfinder's first edition, any prognosticating about when a 2nd edition might happen is about as accurate as predicting the end of the world (October 21st anyone?).
But because of all of this, that decision, no matter how well thought out or how wonderfully conveyed WILL cause some people to hate Paizo. It can't be helped. Because everyone has a different idea about what we promised we would do and when. And if we don't deliver on their personal ideas about 2nd edition, then we will have done a horrible thing in their eyes.
I can say with all certainty that there will NOT be a 2nd edition of Pathfinder in 2012. You can take that one to the bank. :)
-Lisa
I'll take that to mean that Pathfinder 2nd edition is to be released January 2013, then. ;p
|
CEO
|
and kept the company cash-flow positive during a very rocky period when Star Wars Episode 1 underperformed was just icing on the cake.
This one always cracks me up. The Star Wars Episode I toy line was actually the highest grossing boy's toy line ever produced in the history of toys, at least as of 2000, when I went to Cincinnati to the old Kenner building and talked with their folks there when I was running Star Wars at WotC. The biggest problem they had was expecting an even higher selling product line (they weren't satisfied with biggest ever), so they produced WAY too much product, which ended up sitting on shelves and in warehouses. Couple that with horrible action figure product mixes (Darth Maul was so rare and in demand that they eventually shipped nothing but cases of Darth Maul to stores). The write-offs from destroying all that extra product cause them to take losses on the highest grossing toy line launch in history. That is where all the consternation at Hasbro corporate came from. And that is why heads rolled in the aftermath.
Of course, now people remember Star Wars Episode I as a huge failure, when it really should have been one of the company's high points if inventory had been managed better.
-Lisa
Further icing was leveraging the D&D electronic rights to shift nearly $300 million of write offs from Hasbro's games.com initiative to Atari/Infogrames.
Oops! Thanks Ryan. I think I mistakenly said Activision in a post when I meant Atari/Infogrames. :)
I'll take that to mean that Pathfinder 2nd edition is to be released January 2013, then. ;p
Awesome post, because you are joking but in reality what you posted just proves Lisa's point--someone somewhere actually will interpret her quote as corporate speak for release January of 2013. :) Brilliant illustration of exactly what she is talking about.
And as I've said in another thread now long forgotten, Paizo is moving into a new era for them--they are going from being the Apple of D&D to the Microsoft of Pathfinder. When you are the emerging superstar with a rabid fanbase, you get one type of comment and criticism. When you move to being the leader of a particular market segment, you get a whole different type of comment and criticism and your "purchasers" are not always the same rabid "fans" that make up the universe of purchasers in the beginning.
And with this change comes a whole new series of expectations and preconceived notions. Particularly now that Pathfinder is old enough that some people are coming to Pathfinder as new gamers, rather than coming to Pathfinder from 3.5. It's an interesting time.
It is an interesting time for Paizo. But knowing the people there, they will navigate the waters with skill.
I can say with all certainty that there will NOT be a 2nd edition of Pathfinder in 2012. You can take that one to the bank. :)
-Lisa
Calling it now, the simplified rules system in the beginners box, or some variation, gets adopted by many groups as the preferred pathfinder ruleset.
Calling it now, the simplified rules system in the beginners box, or some variation, gets adopted by many groups as the preferred pathfinder ruleset.
I'm very interested to see whether the rules system is Pathfinder, cut down, or Pathfinder, simplified. I'm certainly hoping for the latter and I suspect you may be right that it would end up as the preferred ruleset (at least for the low- to mid-level fans in the house). I know I'm eagerly awaiting these (hopefully simplified) rules so that I can start playing them with my son and daughter.
any prognosticating about when a 2nd edition might happen is about as accurate as predicting the end of the world (October 21st anyone?).
But I can predict the date for the end of the world. It's "whenever I pull *that* switch over there." ;-P
But I can predict the date for the end of the world. It's "whenever I pull *that* switch over there." ;-P
any prognosticating about when a 2nd edition might happen is about as accurate as predicting the end of the world (October 21st anyone?).
I thought it was if you push the red history eraser button...
I thought it was if you push the red history eraser button...But I can predict the date for the end of the world. It's "whenever I pull *that* switch over there." ;-P
any prognosticating about when a 2nd edition might happen is about as accurate as predicting the end of the world (October 21st anyone?).
Nah, that's when time will be wiped out. Entirely. Forward and backward.
Because they basically primised that PFRPG 2e was still years and years away. I think the claim was that there wouldn't be anything before 2020 (or something along the lines).And this is the reason why Count Rugen is probably right. A comment is made by some Paizo employee about a potential 2nd edition being "a long ways off" or "years and years away" and when the customers see that, everybody reads in a different answer. I have seen folks on messageboards take those vague statements and seen them turn them into "2nd edition won't come until at least 2015" or "it will be 2018 or later until there is a 2nd edition" or "there wouldn't be anything before 2020 (or something along the lines)."
I would like to sincerly denounce one your subordinates, James Jacobs who was spreading confidential corporate information that you will not publish Pathfinder Role Playing Game, Second Edition, before year 2017. I have seen Mr Jacobs providing gamers with that information in one of the threads on paizo's own messageboard.
Truly yours, Annonymous Snitch.
I just knew that reading those old denounciation notes from the late socialism/early post-socialist times will be of use in the future! :P
Looking at how Pathfinder was written, I can see a Pathfinder 2nd Edition being as much an amalgamation and streamlining of existing rules as much as being an update. That said, I feel no great need to upgrade the rules right now. Sure, there are a few tweaks I think could be done ... but that's all they are, little tweaks that are not big enough to be a new release. I cannot actually see much scope for improving the game currently. If I have any gripe about the existing expansions, it's that a few of the new classes seem a little narrow in concept.
I have to say, I think that the story of Star Wars Episode I merchandising is possibly the saddest and the funniest story of turning a profit into a loss I have ever heard. Perhaps it shows the thinking that decided the OGL was a bad idea. The OGL pretty much put D&D back on the map when it had been written off as yesterdays news with better and more fun systems out there; I would go so far as to say without the OGL there might not even be a D&D ten+ years on. The OGL had also created a fanbase and network that is unprecedented in gaming. I can see how the OGL could have been an asset:
- The 3PPs are making some content that is selling, and it is selling because (presumably) it is what people want.
- Therefore, get the best 3PP's on board either freelancing or on salary making these products for us and our products will be what the buyers want.
- If it works, everyone involved will make money, and everybody is happy.
- Therefore, get the best 3PP's on board either freelancing or on salary making these products for us and our products will be what the buyers want.
And instead they went *exactly* the other route. "Let's hire a lot of people, train them how to write good d20 products, then lay them off at Christmas so they have both a reason and the capacity to compete with us."
I mean, HOW many people working for Paizo and the major 3pp were laid off from WotC after the launch of 3e?
I'll just say this on the subject of Pathfinder 2nd ed....if it comes I hope it is not because they have ran out of ideas for Golarion....and use the edition change to relaunch a bunch of 'updates' to Golarion...or a new campaign setting. IE I hope 2nd ed is not tied to the campaign setting side of things.
I remember the time when I browsed the shelves at the local game store and wondered who on earth would buy all these useless 20-page products that TSR shelled out.
Later I was enarmored with White Wolfs Vampire and Mage books but couldn't get anyone to play it because it wasn't d20.
Finally my gaming-group that I "DM" for almost 20 years now were in strong opposition to 4e after playing it for about 4 months and wanted to go back to 3.5 or AD&D but I wanted "something fresh" and always liked what Paizo did with Dungeon so I bought Pathfinder.
Neither I nor anyone from my gaming group ever owned a single 3PP apart from Dungeon Magazine.
So, from my experience, the failure of 4e and the success of Pathfinder didn't have much to do with 3PP and OGL but instead with WotC failing at designing a worthy successor to 3.5
Anyways:
...The Star Wars Episode I toy line was actually the highest grossing boy's toy line ever produced in the history of toys...(they weren't satisfied with biggest ever), so they produced WAY too much product...
Same story as what happened to WotC with "Fallen Empires" the first Expansion to Magic:TG after their worldwide success of the "Revised" Edition. They produced an amount of cards that could never be sold ever and thus FE was considered a failure when in reality it was quite successful (despite the cards being mostly crap).