I'm not confused by a business decision, my guy...all I said was that I never expected that...That's a lot of assuming coming from your part. I haven't looked much at this thread, but it seems that a few people here have a complex. It's so...weird.
"There's no reason for you to have different expectations," then.
I imagine it’s a similar to Marvel and DC fans. Fans assume that there’s all this animosity between them, when in reality most of the writers and artists work for both and would like for the characters to crossover but the people who run the companies refuse to split profits with competition. Until this year (look up Batman/Deadpool)
Indeed, and it's even more open when it comes to D&D, since they've quite literally released their ruleset for free in a way that anyone can use to make stuff, including the competition. Selling the very creations they intended their competitors to go out and make (and taking a cut of the proceeds) is... to be expected.
(Not to mention the fact that D&D vs Pathfinder is nowhere close to the kind of duopolostic rivalry that Marvel vs DC have. Paizo's entire revenue is a rounding error to WotC.)
Intercompany crossovers are very hard to negotiate a partnership because they have to start from zero again about merchandising, reeditions, licencing or copyright of new content created during crossover. For example if videogame studio wanted to produce a Marvel vs DC title they should talk with both companies. And an animated adaptation?
I'm not confused by a business decision, my guy...all I said was that I never expected that...That's a lot of assuming coming from your part. I haven't looked much at this thread, but it seems that a few people here have a complex. It's so...weird.
"There's no reason for you to have different expectations," then.
I imagine it’s a similar to Marvel and DC fans. Fans assume that there’s all this animosity between them, when in reality most of the writers and artists work for both and would like for the characters to crossover but the people who run the companies refuse to split profits with competition. Until this year (look up Batman/Deadpool)
Indeed, and it's even more open when it comes to D&D, since they've quite literally released their ruleset for free in a way that anyone can use to make stuff, including the competition. Selling the very creations they intended their competitors to go out and make (and taking a cut of the proceeds) is... to be expected.
(Not to mention the fact that D&D vs Pathfinder is nowhere close to the kind of duopolostic rivalry that Marvel vs DC have. Paizo's entire revenue is a rounding error to WotC.)
It's also the very strategy they claimed to want to pursue, way back in 3.0, when they made the SRD. Provide the core and profit from the market.
"There's no reason for you to have different expectations," then.
Indeed, and it's even more open when it comes to D&D, since they've quite literally released their ruleset for free in a way that anyone can use to make stuff, including the competition. Selling the very creations they intended their competitors to go out and make (and taking a cut of the proceeds) is... to be expected.
(Not to mention the fact that D&D vs Pathfinder is nowhere close to the kind of duopolostic rivalry that Marvel vs DC have. Paizo's entire revenue is a rounding error to WotC.)
Intercompany crossovers are very hard to negotiate a partnership because they have to start from zero again about merchandising, reeditions, licencing or copyright of new content created during crossover. For example if videogame studio wanted to produce a Marvel vs DC title they should talk with both companies. And an animated adaptation?
It's also the very strategy they claimed to want to pursue, way back in 3.0, when they made the SRD. Provide the core and profit from the market.
Yep - and now there's an open license that's actually fit for purpose, multimedia-suitable, proven in court etc.