I don't mean to pick on this post in particular, but I seriously have to admit I don't understand where questions like this come from. All of us, no matter which side of the fence we might happen to be on, really should be aware that our personal preferences do not equate to market success. Predictions of 4E's imminent collapse are, and have been from the moment of their first appearance, ludicrous. D&D will sell, if only because of the name (and there are many people for whom the game is worth buying for reasons that have nothign to do with the name). Similarly, however, deciding that 4E is good - or even just that it doesn't suck - does not mean that Pathfinder is in any way in trouble.
Who mentioned in this post about the collapse of 4E? I am not quite sure I understand where you are coming from
Who mentioned in this post about the collapse of 4E? I am not quite sure I understand where you are coming fromNo one. I was placing those arguments in parallel to this one, pointing out that both sides have, in the past, made apocalyptic prognostications that never made sense in the slightest.
Got ya.
I will pretend to know the roleplaying industry.
We're very happy with our decision.
I haven't heard of any 4e third-party products selling in significant numbers, and Pathfinder's numbers have been significant since the beginning.
Again, we are confident we made the right decision for ourselves and for our customers.
Well that's not really very fair to say since they could only start selling them using the GSL on October 1.
Also what do we mean by "significant numbers"? To keep them in business? I mean people were saying a similar thing about Paizo when you decided to go on your own. What is "significant" is relative.
|
Well that's not really very fair to say since they could only start selling them using the GSL on October 1.
Also what do we mean by "significant numbers"? To keep them in business? I mean people were saying a similar thing about Paizo when you decided to go on your own. What is "significant" is relative.
Actually, thats quite fair. What did you expect 3PP's to do, sit on thier hands and not sell anything till then?
Significant numbers: equal to or greater than current numbers prior to 4e's announcement. Paizo's have grown monthly since their decision and the announcement of 4e.
If they jumped to 4e, would those numbers have equaled current ones? I hazard the answer is no.
Actually, thats quite fair. What did you expect 3PP's to do, sit on thier hands and not sell anything till then?
I meant it wasn't fair to say they haven't sold a lot, considering they have only be able to sell them using the GSL for less than three weeks. Let's give them sometime and see how things work out before we start saying things like they haven't sold in significant numbers.
|
Actually, thats quite fair. What did you expect 3PP's to do, sit on thier hands and not sell anything till then?I meant it wasn't fair to say they haven't sold a lot, considering they have only be able to sell them using the GSL for less than three weeks. Let's give them sometime and see how things work out before we start saying things like they haven't sold in significant numbers.
Technically, Goodman Games has been selling since August.
But that is also the point. Paizo, if they'd gone with 4E, couldn't have sold anything for several months. For a relatively small business, that would be crippling if not fatal.
Creative Director
|
Actually, thats quite fair. What did you expect 3PP's to do, sit on thier hands and not sell anything till then?I meant it wasn't fair to say they haven't sold a lot, considering they have only be able to sell them using the GSL for less than three weeks. Let's give them sometime and see how things work out before we start saying things like they haven't sold in significant numbers.Technically, Goodman Games has been selling since August.
But that is also the point. Paizo, if they'd gone with 4E, couldn't have sold anything for several months. For a relatively small business, that would be crippling if not fatal.
For a business the size of Paizo, which is still technically a small business but in this industry is one of the larger ones, I'd say it'd be more on the side of fatal than crippling. Had we gone with 4th edition, the delays to the GSL would have forced us to go several months with very little cash flow. I'm pretty sure that had we done so, Paizo would be a lot smaller company than it is today.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
...it wasn't fair to say they haven't sold a lot, considering they have only be able to sell them using the GSL for less than three weeks. Let's give them sometime and see how things work out before we start saying things like they haven't sold in significant numbers.
Keep in mind there have been companies producing 4E-compatible products without the GSL. Goodman Games, for example, released their first 4E products at Gen Con in August.
...it wasn't fair to say they haven't sold a lot, considering they have only be able to sell them using the GSL for less than three weeks. Let's give them sometime and see how things work out before we start saying things like they haven't sold in significant numbers.Keep in mind there have been companies producing 4E-compatible products without the GSL. Goodman Games, for example, released their first 4E products at Gen Con in August
But not using the GSL. Also I wonder if I were to go to Goodman's site and ask on their forums if the Paizo staff's claim that Goodman has't been selling their 4e compatible products in "significant numbers" is vaild, what type of answer I would get.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
...do publishers really share their sales numbers between themselves?
Sometimes, informally. We also hear anecdotal reports from retailers (to be taken with a giant block of salt) and distributors (generally reliable, but only for their particular market segment).
Also, keep in mind that paizo.com is one of the largest gaming retailers in the world, so our own sales provide a pretty good indicator of the market. It can be argued that we have a customer base that's biased towards 3.5, so comparing 3.5 sales to 4E sales on paizo.com may not be fair. However, comparing our 3rd-party 4E sales to Wizards' 4E sales isn't affected by that bias. Given that we also know how well 3rd-party 3.5 sales compared to Wizards' 3.5 sales, I think we can put together a pretty good picture of which publishers have thus far done well by transitioning to 4E and which have not.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
But not using the GSL.
Right now, I don't think customers are making any distinction between GSL and 4E-compatible. In fact, Goodman's non-GSL DM Campaign Record is probably our best-selling 3rd-party 4E product.
Also I wonder if I were to go to Goodman's site and ask on their forums if the Paizo staff's claim that Goodman has't been selling their 4e compatible products in "significant numbers" is vaild, what type of answer I would get.
I think defining "significant numbers" is a fair question. I'm not going to say whether we think Goodman's 4E products are selling better than his 3.5 products did, but I don't think that's what Erik was talking about anyway. I think he was saying that we're not seeing any indication of a 3rd-party 4E explosion like we saw with the first d20 products—an explosion that reinvigorated the RPG industry and instantly put companies like Green Ronin and Necromancer on the map. In short, we believe that the sales data we have does not indicate that making a 4E product automatically nets you a "pile of money;" nor does it in any other way indicate that *not* making products 4e-compatible is a mistake.
For me, I would also say no. I'm not versed in marketing studies or anything like that and keep in mind that this IS the Paizo forum. But I feel that Pathfinder improves on my D&D 3.5 experiences and allows me to use the books I already own with substantially less conversion than 4th edition.
Even more than that: the writing, editing, art direction and print quality has remained at a consistently high level. I can't possibly run everything I've bought from Paizo, but with every adventure path I almost kick myself in the middle of my campaign and say,"Ah, but I want to run this now." I'm still interested in learning more about 4th edition (not interested enough to shell out for the books yet, but not beating anyone over the head with a bone, either... at least over this) but I can say that I firmly believe Paizo made a good call branching out on their own.
|
|
Actually, thats quite fair. What did you expect 3PP's to do, sit on thier hands and not sell anything till then?I meant it wasn't fair to say they haven't sold a lot, considering they have only be able to sell them using the GSL for less than three weeks. Let's give them sometime and see how things work out before we start saying things like they haven't sold in significant numbers.
Dont you think ist MORE unfair to expect any company to sit on their hands for 5 months and not sell anything?
Dot you think thats the point?
Edited, edited, edit:
Nevermind, smurf.
Further, final, edit, really, genuinely, truly, honest for this post:
I really should keep out of these 4E threads.
Would other people please keep it peaceful, and from getting angry, please?
I will pretend to know the roleplaying industry.
Again, we are confident we made the right decision for ourselves and for our customers.
While I have no doubt the decision was a good one for Paizo. As a former customer it was not a good one for me. :-)
Of course, this is a selfish outlook on my part. 4E is my current system of choice.
|
|
I'd say no (to the OP's question).
Right now, Paizo - both though its Pathfinder related products and various clearancy sales - absorbs circa 90% of my gaming budget (the other 10% goes to miniatures and papercrafting sets).
As I dislike a couple of the core design choices of 4E (both rules and flavor wise) I switched from a "generic d20 market customer" to a more focused position... and I'm fine with that.
Best of luck to 4E 3PP publishers and good gaming fun to 4E fans, but I'm just happy that Paizo stayed as a reliable 3.X source, and I think that this choice will be succesfull for them too.
...do publishers really share their sales numbers between themselves?Sometimes, informally. We also hear anecdotal reports from retailers (to be taken with a giant block of salt) and distributors (generally reliable, but only for their particular market segment).
Also, keep in mind that paizo.com is one of the largest gaming retailers in the world, so our own sales provide a pretty good indicator of the market.
Right, sometimes you post something and then you a few moments later the answer pops up in your head: they've got a store.....
Dont you think ist MORE unfair to expect any company to sit on their hands for 5 months and not sell anything?Actually, thats quite fair. What did you expect 3PP's to do, sit on thier hands and not sell anything till then?I meant it wasn't fair to say they haven't sold a lot, considering they have only be able to sell them using the GSL for less than three weeks. Let's give them sometime and see how things work out before we start saying things like they haven't sold in significant numbers.
Which is a separate issue.
The comment I referred to was to make an analogy akin to someone saying a baseball team hadn't won a single game in the season, despite it being made during the first game of the season. Saying that 3rd party producers haven't had "significant sales" doesn't make a whole lot of sense yet since for the majority (a few, like Goodman did a work around) they could only start selling at October 1.
Just to be clear, I am not making any claim that Paizo should have gone 4e. I don't play 4e, I don't care about 4e, I play 3.5, I care about 3.5, I don't care about 3.x. I wish Paizo had chosen to stick with 3.5 instead of working on developing their own version, but them's the breaks, and I can live with them. Paizo is evidently doing well, so they didn't make a wrong choice. Was it the best choice, I can't say, I'd need to be able to look into all of the alternate universes where those other choices were made to see how things worked out. As this technology isn't quite up to par yet, we'll just have to be satisfied with it not being a bad choice.
Dot you think thats the point?
Which point? The point that Paizo shouldn't have gone 4e? Sure, I don't think it would have been in their interest to sit on their laurels for an extended time. Though as Goodman showed, it wasn't exactly necessary to do that either (though I think they worked with WotC to make sure it was ok). Or the point where some makes a comment that seems, at least superficially, to be crapping on other 3pp who have chosen to go 4e? No, I don't think it is fair to do so. Now if the comment had been "the sales aren't significant enough for a company the size of Paizo" that would have been an entirely different issue. Because what is significant for one company might be so for another. Some companies can survive on much smaller pieces of the "pie" than others.
|
While its noble and such to try to cater to old fans, I really think paizo practically walked away from money.
business that walk away from money are making a mistake
(factor in larger audience, and remove the costs of trying to develop and brand your own game = moar profit)
L
What costs would those be?
The cost of the thousands of fans, spreading goodwill, playtesting and suggesting new rules, who are giving their time for free?
Oh, woe, the cost must be crippling...
|
Creative Director
|
Just to be clear, I am not making any claim that Paizo should have gone 4e. I don't play 4e, I don't care about 4e, I play 3.5, I care about 3.5, I don't care about 3.x. I wish Paizo had chosen to stick with 3.5 instead of working on developing their own version, but them's the breaks, and I can live with them. Paizo is evidently doing well, so they didn't make a wrong choice.
Ah; I see. To be honest, I would have liked to stick with 3.5 as well, and maybe work on developing the PF RPG on a MUCH more leisurely pace. With the arrival of 4th edition, though, that option went away. Remember, we didn't decide to fire up the PF RPG because we wanted to compete with 4th edition. We did this because we had to... because the core rulebooks for everything we were doing were about to go out of print. We can't keep Golarion and Pathfinder alive by asking newcomers to the game to go to Ebay or start scrounging used book stores for used copies of the 3.5 core books, nor can we just tell them to go online to download the SRD. There HAS to be a series of core rulebooks available and in print for an RPG to stay healthy, after all, and since we can't just reprint the 3.5 core books (especially since two key factors: How to generate stats and how to level up aren't in the SRD at all), we had to come up with new rules for those sections we couldn't reprint anyway.
And given the fact that general consensus both around the office and among most readers was that 3.5 could use some tinkering, it all just made sense to do that tinkering now. Personally, I feel that the current Beta as it stands is TOO far afield from 3.5; not in a major way, but in some minor ways that take the game a shade too far from the previous incarnation. We're doing the open beta playtest to see how other folk react, and based on their feedback we'll be using that as part of the judgment process to determine how far we'll be going with the final game. But in the end, yes, it'll be a new game. And whatever shape that game takes... at this point, the route Paizo's taken looks to have been the right one for Paizo.
|
|
Which is a separate issue.
The comment I referred to was to make an analogy akin to someone saying a baseball team hadn't won a single game in the season, despite it being made during the first game of the season. Saying that 3rd party producers haven't had "significant sales" doesn't make a whole lot of sense yet since for the majority (a few, like Goodman did a work around) they could only start selling at October 1.
Except its NOT a seperate issue. No one is earning money, so how would it be a mistake to jump? All the issues WOTC caused with delays and such caused it.
It does make sense. No one is making money. So why would it be a mistake for them to jump on teh band wagon?
Eric is right. No one is making money. There have been no significant sales. So why was it a mistake.
|
|
I still don't want to switch to 4E (though I don't hate it by any means - it's just not the game I want to play). I still enjoy OGL/3rd ed materials out there way more than 4E. From where I stand, Paizo made the right choice. To each their own I guess, but I bet many people have a similar experience to mine.
Except its NOT a seperate issue. No one is earning money, so how would it be a mistake to jump? All the issues WOTC caused with delays and such caused it.
Because the majority of sales only started on Oct. 1.
It does make sense. No one is making money. So why would it be a mistake for them to jump on teh band wagon?
Because the majority of sales only started on Oct. 1.
Eric is right. No one is making money. There have been no significant sales. So why was it a mistake.
Because the majority of sales only started on Oct. 1.
And again, I am not saying it is, was, or will be a good idea for Paizo to go 4e.
Even more than that: the writing, editing, art direction and print quality has remained at a consistently high level. I can't possibly run everything I've bought from Paizo, but with every adventure path I almost kick myself in the middle of my campaign and say,"Ah, but I want to run this now."
While I agree that Paizo made a perfectly good decision to not switch I can't see any of this as being a part of why it was a good decision.
If they went with 4th Edition they'd still do far above average in writing, editing, art direction and print quality. All of these things are part of the Paizo model and there is no reason to think that any of them would be particularly negatively impacted should they ever choose to do 4E material.
If they went with 4th Edition they'd still do far above average in writing, editing, art direction and print quality. All of these things are part of the Paizo model and there is no reason to think that any of them would be particularly negatively impacted should they ever choose to do 4E material.
The GSL could make many of the things they do nono's. It is a very restistive document and on top of that they would have went months with no product and that is never good for a small company.
If they went with 4th Edition they'd still do far above average in writing, editing, art direction and print quality. All of these things are part of the Paizo model and there is no reason to think that any of them would be particularly negatively impacted should they ever choose to do 4E material.
I think they will make fantastic 4E material if there is ever a relaxation of the GSL straightjacket. I think it would be in Paizo's self-interest to publish 4E material, assuming that their 'core' work was allowed to continued as is. WotC IMHO blundered with the GSL. I understand its intended role in reining in the IP rights, but the law of unintended consequences has brought the industry back to the pre-3E/OGL era. Companies spinning off their own rule systems to support their adventures rather than a unified platform that everyone could utilize and which facilitated cross-company product fertilization.
What will happen in the next few years in the RPG industry will be very interesting to see.
The GSL could make many of the things they do nono's. It is a very restistive document and on top of that they would have went months with no product and that is never good for a small company.
If they went with 4th Edition they'd still do far above average in writing, editing, art direction and print quality. All of these things are part of the Paizo model and there is no reason to think that any of them would be particularly negatively impacted should they ever choose to do 4E material.
It'd potentially close some doors I suppose but not doors that are usually a huge focus of Paizo. I mean good editing applies in any edition, good writing too, print quality is part of their manufacturing process. That leaves art direction - but with the possible exception of a handful of more R rated images I don't think their art direction would be a problem for the GSL.
Hence Paizo may have very good reasons not to go 4E but these are not those reasons, the staff at Paizo will presumably remain good editors and writers whether or not they choose to go 4E, PfRPG or instead decide to become a subsidiary of Chaosium.
From what I been told alot of there modlers seem to dark for what wotc has planned for the GSL. But there lays the issue, holding up for weeks or more while they decide if it needs rewrote. In the end I do hope the GSL allows more 3pp stuff, however I think paizo made the right call. Increased sales and such goes along way. If the GSL allowed both well that be cool as well.
|
|
This brings up three questions for me.
I am not James, but I hope I can answer the questions too.
Is the market for people who want to play D&D 3E but don't already own the rules a large one, then?
The PFRPG is fo all those who are happy with the 3rd eition rules. The new Game will fix a few of the bugs in 3.5 (polymorph anyone?). PFRPG does one very important thing: It will provide Players Handbooks! The PFRPG PHBs are for those who know 3rd and stay with the updated game and for NEW players! It is essential for PAIZO to get more Gamers to use their products. Old customers might stop playing or go 4th.
Are all companies who are carrying on with 3E going to produce their own core rulebooks?
This is possible but unlikely as creating a core rulebook involves a lot of manpower and playtest input. It is my hope - and certainly that of PAIZO- that the PPs who stay with 3rd edition will eventually use the PFRPG as basis for their products.
Necromancer Games -if the new GSL supports 3.5 products besides 4th products and if it will be feasible- will most likely use the PFRPG rules for their 3rd edition products.Is PFRPG going to be so close to 3E that a group can use both without having to decide which version to go with, or are people going to have to discard their 3E core rules to play with Pathfinder?
The most important idea behind PFRPG (at least for me) is the backwards compatibility to 3rd edition. DMs will be able to use their Adventures and Monster Books without much time for conversion. Likewise Players should be able to use PRCs and Noncore-Baseclasses without much need fo coversion in PFRPG.
But you will need the PFRPG PHB, as the system will be different.As to how different, this is still in playtest and under consideration by the PAIZOnians.
As it stands with the BETA -and that is a personal opinion- it is sufficiently easy for the DM to use his old materials but it can get complicated for Players who love their PRCs and Noncore-Feats and Spells.
|
|
Because the majority of sales only started on Oct. 1.
Because the majority of sales only started on Oct. 1.
Because the majority of sales only started on Oct. 1.
And again, I am not saying it is, was, or will be a good idea for Paizo to go 4e.
Irrelevant when they start. Paizo would NOT be making money on 4e. No one is much yet, Good man just got started. Again, no one is making money, doesnt matter when they are suppose to start.
Or again did you expect them to sit on their hands for 5 months?
Did Paizo make a mistake by not going with the 4th edition?
Most definetly not.
There's more than enough people who think that 3e should be continued, and maybe fixed, but not abandoned yet.
Anyway, their stuff keeps selling like hotcakes. Doesn't seem like a mistake to me.
|
|
While I agree that Paizo made a perfectly good decision to not switch I can't see any of this as being a part of why it was a good decision.
If they went with 4th Edition they'd still do far above average in writing, editing, art direction and print quality. All of these things are part of the Paizo model and there is no reason to think that any of them would be particularly negatively impacted should they ever choose to do 4E material.
It would have greatly effected their third adventure path would it have not? No Drow allowed, IIRC.
Irrelevant when they start.
Irrelevant when they start when discussion how much money has been made? That is like saying it makes as much since to complain a team hasn't one a single game whether it is during the very first game of the season or is in the middle of the season. Of course when it started matters. If you couldn't sell products before a certain date, then you would not have ... sold any products during that time. We have exactly 20 days of potential sales to go on, and I seriously doubt many retailers have any real information on these sales yet.
Paizo would NOT be making money on 4e.
Right, because Paizo is much larger company than many of these other 3pp. It has a much higher threshold to overcome to be profitable.
No one is much yet, Good man just got started. Again, no one is making money, doesnt matter when they are suppose to start.
If they haven't been able to sell product than that certainly does matter when discussing how much money they have made. If you have only been selling products for 20 days, it may be very hard to tell how much money has actually been made.
Or again did you expect them to sit on their hands for 5 months?
Paizo has greater requirements to stay in business than may other companies. Heck look at Necromancer games, not only are they sitting on their hands for 5 months, they are doing it for something like 2 years (now waiting for the Paizo system to come out). Different companies have different abilities to wait out situations. Of course a company like Goodman did a work around so they didn't have to wait and despite their supposive poor sales (I assume you included them when you said "no one is making money") they look like they have a lot of things in the works. Including just announcing a project involving 4e and Frank Frazetta’s Death Dealer (that was on Oct. 12th).
I think that Paizo's decision to stick with 3.5 was good for the short run, because their sales have improved. But in the long run, their sales will probably decline. Change is a good thing, and the 3.5 rules can only be stretched so far. So, to answer my own question, it will become a mistake in the long run, unless Paizo comes up with an original RPG on it's own, instead of a version of another RPG. Maybe the folks at Paizo should try to create some kind of online game like WoW. Eventually, paper & pencil games will be ancient history. I will probably still be interested in them, but I am in the minority on most things.
I think that Paizo's decision to stick with 3.5 was good for the short run, because their sales have improved. But in the long run, their sales will probably decline. Change is a good thing, and the 3.5 rules can only be stretched so far. So, to answer my own question, it will become a mistake in the long run, unless Paizo comes up with an original RPG on it's own, instead of a version of another RPG. Maybe the folks at Paizo should try to create some kind of online game like WoW. Eventually, paper & pencil games will be ancient history. I will probably still be interested in them, but I am in the minority on most things.
Lefear, I've stayed out of most of the 3.5 vs. 4.0 debate, as much of it is merely people's own opinions which are heavily subjective, and not supported by credible facts, unless you consider people's interpretation of what facts they do know to be gospel. I don't.
The notion that Paizo is "stretching" the 3.5 rules is a misnomer. Think of it this way. Do you prefer a game system that has had EIGHT years (3.0/3.5) of trial and error to iron out all the problems, and is being revamped, with all the experience had by the designers, as to what is wrong with the system and how it can be made better? Or do you favor having WotC start from scratch with an entirely new system, that they did minimal to no play testing outside the designers & their respective game groups, to make it fly. It will take 4.0 years to iron out all the problems inherrant in the new system. Pathfinder is literally "years ahead" of 4.0. Furthermore, having played 4.0 for the last few months, it is my observation that you have so comparitively few options (particularly if you are a spell caster, with only 5 or 6 spells/powers to choose from, rather than the dozens of spells you could choose from in past editions of the game), as to make 4.0 largely an exercise in monotanous dice rolling.
As to 4.0's success, WoTC's laid off people last I heard, and I think only Crosswiredmind and a few of his friends are actually willing to pay for Gleemax/DDI, which will likely be dropping further in price from its already reduced rate.
Simply put, Pathfinder is a superior system at this point in time. If you're willing to Re-buy the same books you've purchased in 3.0/3.5 for the 4.0 system, you may have a credible system in a few years, but for the time being, there's little that's noteworthy in 4.0. Unless you're one of the loyalists who believe WoTC can do no wrong...
|
|
Or do you favor having WotC start from scratch with an entirely new system, that they did minimal to no play testing outside the designers & their respective game groups.
Have a look at the playtest credits at the end of the Book. There were quite a fe playtesters credited. So far the mechanics seem solid enough.
Furthermore, having played 4.0 for the last few months, you have so comparitively few options (particularly if you are a spell caster, with only 5 or 6 spells/powers to choose from, rather than the dozens of spells you could choose from in past editions of the game), as to make 4.0 largely an exercise in monotanous dice rolling.
This is personal opinion (one that I share regarding the spells vs. powers issue) but does nothing to further the discussion if Paizo made a mistake not going 4th.
As to 4.0's success, WoTC's laid off people last I heard, and I think only Crosswiredmind and a few of his friends are actually willing to pay for Gleemax/DDI, which will likely be dropping further in price from its already reduced rate.
Only on this Boards. Go the EN-World and you will find a very big 4th edition community. There was also a Poll on EN-World and it seems that there are a lot of people who are willing to pay for DDI.
Simply put, Pathfinder is a superior system at this point in time. If you're willing to Re-buy the same books you've purchased in 3.0/3.5 for the 4.0 system, you may have a credible system in a few years, but for the time being, there's little that's noteworthy in 4.0. Unless you're one of the loyalists who believe WoTC can do no wrong...
Again that is mostly a personal opinion and does not really help the discussion.
One point though is valid: DMs and Players will have to re-buy splat books for more options and monsters for 4th.
On the other Hand: Paizo has a strong interest to sell books too. So in time we will see Pathfinder Monster Books and maybe Splat Books too.
And for the record: I like 4th and it is great fun to play. But I will only DM 3rd or PF as the system reflects my style of DMing better.
I believe the "hate die down" has vastly more to do with people moving on than it does with people changing their minds and embracing 4E.
And I strongly believe that the very nature of the 4E design philosophy will make the bulk of its fans less inclined to buy 3PP products.
I'm not saying "none". Not by any stretch. But I think it will be a significantly smaller portion of a somewhat smaller pie.
I think someone like Goodman can probably do ok with adventures. And I think Paizo could do ok with adventures. But I'm skeptical of any really strong sales for anything outside of adventures. And I'm even more skeptical that anyone could do better under the GSL than Paizo is and will do with Pathfinder.
Only on this Boards. Go the EN-World and you will find a very big 4th edition community. There was also a Poll on EN-World and it seems that there are a lot of people who are willing to pay for DDI.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/enworld.org
Click on the "max" tab.Enworld's traffic is down 50% since 4E was released compared to the year leading up to the release.
Yeah, the people there are very pro-4E. But define "very big".
You can add compare Paizo.com to the chart. You will see that Paizo has held steady over the same time period and is now right at the same level as ENWorld. So whatever "very big" Enworld does have, so does Paizo. But who knows, maybe the 4E path woudl have seen them trend down the same 50% decline. That would have been bad.
Even with the decision to not publish under the GSL for now, Paizo remains my favorite adventure publisher for 4th Edition. I just have to do a little more work than usual to make use of them.
Me too. I'm just hoping that doesn't change when Paizo converts from 3.5e to Pathfinder RPG. We'll see.
|
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/enworld.org
Click on the "max" tab.
Enworld's traffic is down 50% since 4E was released compared to the year leading up to the release.
Dang. If this site is to be believed, Wizards.com traffic looks bad compared to last year. Too bad you can't plot more than a years' worth of traffic data.
-Skeld
Personally, I feel that the current Beta as it stands is TOO far afield from 3.5; not in a major way, but in some minor ways that take the game a shade too far from the previous incarnation.
I'm glad someone on the inside feels this way. I hope the final version remains closer to the original - it'll make the prospect of conversion less painful.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/enworld.org
Click on the "max" tab.
Enworld's traffic is down 50% since 4E was released compared to the year leading up to the release.Dang. If this site is to be believed, Wizards.com traffic looks bad compared to last year. Too bad you can't plot more than a years' worth of traffic data.
-Skeld
Last year, both ENWorld and Wizards.com were offering us teasers of the coming new edition. So some drop off is to be expected after the 4e release. I don't know how much, but I'm not checking either site 10 times a day any more (or Paizo's, for that matter). But I'm still very pro 4e.
|
|
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/enworld.org
Click on the "max" tab.
Enworld's traffic is down 50% since 4E was released compared to the year leading up to the release.Yeah, the people there are very pro-4E. But define "very big".
You can add compare Paizo.com to the chart. You will see that Paizo has held steady over the same time period and is now right at the same level as ENWorld. So whatever "very big" Enworld does have, so does Paizo. But who knows, maybe the 4E path woudl have seen them trend down the same 50% decline. That would have been bad.
Fair enough, I did not have the data and assumed that EN world has still the same traffic as in 07.
Nonetheless, there is still a vocal 4th edition group there albeit not as large as i thought.