David knott 242 |
I am surprised that there was no discussion about this blog back when it was written. Maybe because it was soon followed up by a blog that actually said what they planned to do?
Joana |
That was many website iterations ago. Perhaps discussions didn't attach so neatly to the blog entries back then? Or it just got detached somewhere along the way; back in the day, old threads went into archives when there hadn't been any replies in a certain amount of time (a process which annoyingly broke links).
Joana |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like the blog interacted with the discussion going on in this thread, for those interested in a trip down memory lane.
Skeld |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yeah, the good ol' days. I remember that thread.
I wonder if Paizo's is going to switch to the new edition of Pathfinder, or if they're going to decide it doesn't let them tell the stories they want to tell, like they did with 4e. I guess we'll have to wait until Jason has a chance to play it at PaizoCon.
-Skeld
Anguish |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if Paizo's is going to switch to the new edition of Pathfinder, or if they're going to decide it doesn't let them tell the stories they want to tell, like they did with 4e. I guess we'll have to wait until Jason has a chance to play it at PaizoCon.
Ouch. Tongue-in-cheek, but a bit harsh.
I think we (mostly) all know that PF2 has got to be a fiscal necessity to Paizo. Lisa wouldn't be risking the company on an edition change if not doing an edition change was viable. She's far too savvy for that.
Given necessity, from there flows the requirement of enthusiasm and public relations. They have to drum up enthusiasm and interest by emphasis on advantages to a new edition, and have to discount negatives.
So while similarities exist to someone else doing an edition change, that change wasn't necessity to Paizo, so the PR spin has to be different. That isn't to say any dishonesty has taken place in either circumstance. It's just that as circumstance and necessity changes, viewpoints change, measuring units change, and goalposts move.
Personally, while I remain dismayed with the direction PF2 is headed, to the point of - barring drastic change with regards to math flattening and magic nerfing - not being a consumer of it, I also remain supportive of Paizo in their necessity and the PR handling of it.
So... tiny bit harsh, I think. It's the thing we all see, and know, but necessity is, so pointing it out doesn't help.
Skeld |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no dishonesty here, just a lot of bad PR spin. Pointing that out isn't harsh. Things change over the course of 10 years and pointing out some of that irony is a great way of saying, "yes, we've heard something like this before."
-Skeld
Greylurker |
There's no dishonesty here, just a lot of bad PR spin. Pointing that out isn't harsh. Things change over the course of 10 years and pointing out some of that irony is a great way of saying, "yes, we've heard something like this before."
-Skeld
I don't think you could do worse PR than WoTC did with 4E. I mean editions wars are expected but you don't usually see the company making the game take the first shot