Ricardo Gladwell wrote: > On Tuesday 22 Jan 2002 4:02 pm, William Olander wrote: > >>Ok, I'm fairly good at Devil's advocate but this is starting to go over the >>edge of rediculous even for me. We all know there is never going to be >>total revision of D&D ever again because its all out there and everything >> > > Now who's being ridiculous? Do you really think that WotC won't re-release a > new version of D&D with all the hundreds slavering fans out there forking out > their dollars for the last few versions/editions. Of course there will be a > new version, because new editions sell, and sell well. And, for all we know, > it won't even be OGL'd. > >
Assuming it takes another ten years to do "4E" (likely), and assuming the Open Gaming movement continues to grow (moderately likely), then, they may find themselves in the same bind IBM did with the PS2. IBM released the PS2 as an attempt to reclaim the market from the clone makers. It had an incompatible bus, and everyone was supposed to switch to OS2, which was superior to DOS and not freely licensed. Guess what? The clone market was so large that IBM was rejected for not being "IBM Compatible". Ten years from now, if Ryan Dancey's business plan is correct and there's still a paper&pencil gaming market, a lot of games will be based on the SRD, so many that it will be the default for gaming. If WOTC releases a new, "incompatible" system and does not license it under the OGL, it may well be viewed as useless because it won't be compatible with the vast morass of third-party products out there. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
