|
Personally, I like 4E in theory but WOTC is killing my pocketbook and I don't need everyting in print form. (Though I dearly enjoy it more.) Pathfinder is my happy middle ground. But that's personally.
After August it looks like Wizards is shifting how they release material. I am not sure how long this will last as most of it deals with the Essentials line (which you know about), but it appears as though the last part of 2010 and the first part of 2011 are mostly free of hardcovers.
Everything seems to sit in the $20 price point, which is much easier than the $35-$40 price point, I have to say.
Oddly, I don't see one of the major releases on there, Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow. It is intended to cover the Shadow power source and has an expected release date in March. It will be softcover as well and retail at $19.95.
I hope this lasts, as it would be more affordable for me. And if they take the time to slow down rules releases and focus on things like the Gazetteers and modules, that would be awesome. Though, in reality, I don't expect that. I would just be happy if the new rules were released in digestible chunks like the Shadow power source book appears to be.
Where's Obvious Troll is Obvious when you need him?<SNIP>I don't think that's shown all that well. You are comparing an RPG (Pathfinder) with a miniatures strategy game (4e). I'd consider them to be different hobbies. </SNIP>Reporting as ordered!
Reporting as ordered!
Every single printed book they sell should contain an offer (probably a code/serial number) for a free pdf of the same material, not only for subscribers as it is now. Because anyone who wants to get a 'free' pdf will find it on the internet anyway, legal or not, but by offering it from within the book, they achieve multiple goals:
I can totally see that one:
Customer "Cosmo ? The free pdf code on the back of my book doesn't work"
Cosmo "Well, it looks like it was redeemed 3 weeks ago."
Customer "WTF ? I bought it today !"
Cosmo "Sorry, either the store manager or some random customer used it. No, we can't send you a new one. Maybe some Bella Sara cards instead ?
Oh come on, so they make it 'scratch-off' protected or so. And if anyone wanted to 'steal' the free pdf, he can just google it instead of walking around in a game store trying to look inconspicuous ;)
|
Adding fuel...er...more interesting anecdotes...to the fire...er discussion:
Pathfinder Rising
Months ago we made the decision to stock every Pathfinder product. There was a certain resistance to Paizo, based on their business model, that was becoming illogical. Strong sales of Pathfinder rulebooks were a sign that we were missing out. There were players coming off their D&D 4E campaigns, groups that had formed upon the release of the new edition, that were searching for something different. I was one. Stocking everything Pathfinder put it on equal footing with D&D 4 and bizarrely, defied the rule that supplements were poor selling books for game masters. I believe it was because of the excellent writing.
We now see that Pathfinder and D&D 4 are taking turns each month as best seller.
|
After August it looks like Wizards is shifting how they release material. I am not sure how long this will last as most of it deals with the Essentials line (which you know about), but it appears as though the last part of 2010 and the first part of 2011 are mostly free of hardcovers. Everything seems to sit in the $20 price point, which is much easier than the $35-$40 price point, I have to say.
Well, that's good but now I have a problem. I don't feel like spending another mint on the Essentails line just to get new builds. And the $10~ a month money tap that is DDI grates on lean months. Also, I wonder how many new players are going to be confused which books (boxes) to buy. Should they get Players Handbook 1-3, or just the Essentials? What's really, and really not core, etc. Like I said, I'm unclear as to the actual benefit WoTC is going to get from their Essentails line.
I dread to think what the retailers think.
"People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players."That's really not true.
4e set out to have clear, defined, objective rules throughout the entire game. You can almost write a computer program which can run the entire encounter.
You mean like Neverwinter Nights 1/2, Baldur's Gate I/II, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, Tomb of Elemental Evil?
No wait, that's 3.5.Go troll elsewhere.
I don't think that at all, in face I would point to the lack of open source compatability with 4e as a large reason for its failure. And yes I do mean failure. When windows vista came out and most people chose to continue using XP microsoft saw this as a failure as did the rest of that community. What we have is much the same situation.
4E is not a failure.
Also, I've yet to enter a chain bookstore and not see both D&D4 and Pathfinder products, though obviously much more of the 4e.
So how do you define 'failure', then?
Furthermore, one thing I think that sets these two monoliths apart is their business and distribution model. While D&D does have digital distribution, it is strictly subscriber based, and it has strong physical distribution. Some stores I talk to, while carrying PF products, malign the inability to keep and maintain stock, the competition with PF's own online store (including digital) let alone amazon, and getting product not until well after its official release and everyone has already sought fulfillment through other avenues. The APG will be available at gen con IF you're at gen con. For me I won't likely get a copy until September.
But that's exactly the problem. With DDI, you have the equivalent of a pdf of all rules of all books in a nicely referencable format. With Paizo, you do get the PDF, but only when you buy it from them as a subscription. This actively hurts the FLGS.
Of course, a paizo-equivalent of DDI would be the best way, but I doubt that's realistic quite some time, and while there will be some open source alternatives, they won't be competitive against DDI because paizo cannot reasonably allow them to use all of their material and the artwork. This would impact their core business too hard.
So... =/
Whatever your feelings about 4e might be, they are competing with PF for largely the same players. 4e/PF has fractured a good deal of my friends, though some play both. There is roleplay in any system, and there has never been rules ajudicating it and therefore no bookspace regarding it. People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players. So if that's what you're trying to say, you're flat wrong."People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players."
That's really not true.
4e set out to have clear, defined, objective rules throughout the entire game. You can almost write a computer program which can run the entire encounter. They did this for many reasons - they thought it'd help them if they created rules which played like an MMO, they wanted to help organized play, etc. The result is that they ended up with an engineer's schematic of how to run a game.
Roleplaying, however, isn't based on precision. It's organic. In 3x, a fighter's player doesn't have to ask myself "do I use my special attack this round or use it three rounds from now?" It is simply NOT NOT NOT true that every system is equally valid. Sometimes you use a hammer, sometimes you use a screwdriver. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
4e and Pathfinder are fundamentally different games. I'm not saying one is better than the other anymore than I'd say that a hammer is better than a screwdriver, but don't mistake the fact that a hammer isn't better than a screwdriver with the error that they are equivalent.
I'm not sure why the post you're quoting got deleted.
Nothing of what you're saying stops players from roleplaying. At all. At. All. I have roleplayed the hell out of a character in 4e, and I've done nothing but combat in PF. I'm not saying they're equivalent systems, obviously I have my preference, but you can roleplay in ANY system, and 4e is no different.
Also, it is ironic that you make your case about the game being like a computer game, because that was one of the design goals of THIRD EDITION! To have rules to ajudicate every situation and rely less on the DM. There have been a ton of videogames based on 3rd ed/d20 and as far as I know none based on 4e. The same arguments you are making are the ones that the 2nd ed grognards throw at me about 3rd/3.5/PF and I think we can agree that our preferred system has not prevented us from roleplaying.
Oh come on, so they make it 'scratch-off' protected or so. And if anyone wanted to 'steal' the free pdf, he can just google it instead of walking around in a game store trying to look inconspicuous ;)Every single printed book they sell should contain an offer (probably a code/serial number) for a free pdf of the same material, not only for subscribers as it is now. Because anyone who wants to get a 'free' pdf will find it on the internet anyway, legal or not, but by offering it from within the book, they achieve multiple goals:
I can totally see that one:
Customer "Cosmo ? The free pdf code on the back of my book doesn't work"
Cosmo "Well, it looks like it was redeemed 3 weeks ago."
Customer "WTF ? I bought it today !"
Cosmo "Sorry, either the store manager or some random customer used it. No, we can't send you a new one. Maybe some Bella Sara cards instead ?
Whatever your feelings about 4e might be, they are competing with PF for largely the same players."People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players."
That's really not true.
But it is really, really true. Even if you look at the whole rpg market, 4E and PF occupy the same niche in there (as opposed to GURPS, Shadowrun, Traveller/Diaspora, ... )
4E is not a failure.
So how do you define 'failure', then?
Fair enough. I would say they failed in their own design and business goals. They failed to keep their own audience with the changeover. They failed to achieve the very balance they sacrificed the majority of d20 rules for. They failed to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day. Something's prevalence does not necessarily denote its success, see my Vista example. I'm typing this on a vista laptop, but I nonetheless prefer XP. Vista/4e has failed to win hearts and minds. Hearts and minds.
The system has succeeded in a miriad of ways as well. By making every book by design legal with every other release they force brick and mortar stores to keep an entire arsenal in stock, whereas PF really has at this point 3 core products (core book, GMG, bestiary) and thus has much less of a shelf presence dispite, IMHO, a more robust catalog if you include APs which are rarely stocked.
"People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players."That's really not true.
4e set out to have clear, defined, objective rules throughout the entire game. You can almost write a computer program which can run the entire encounter.
You mean like Neverwinter Nights 1/2, Baldur's Gate I/II, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, Tomb of Elemental Evil?
No wait, that's 3.5.Go troll elsewhere.
You and I both know that those games all had to use a specially selected subset of the actual rules of the game. For example, illusions were removed from them.
1) That's false
2) Nothing but lack of writing them in prevented them from being there.
Of course, in the future, the sales of Pathfinder and 4e both will be eclipsed by the sales of Golarion goblin plushies.
dude that would be badass. I want one!
Of course, in the future, the sales of Pathfinder and 4e both will be eclipsed by the sales of Golarion goblin plushies.
All hail the fact-bringer, bringer of facts.
It's too bad all the 2e lovers were driven out long ago. They were big fans of the "2e is for roleplaying, 3e is for combat-loving munchkins" arguments.
I still get that from some 2e grognards I know. And they continue to be full of it.
|
|
But it is really, really true. Even if you look at the whole rpg market, 4E and PF occupy the same niche in there (as opposed to GURPS, Shadowrun, Traveller/Diaspora, ... )
Yep. Technically you could argue that Warhammer Fantasy and Dragon Age are also sitting in that nitch but at much smaller percentanges.
Chief Technical Officer
|
That said, having two monoliths as opposed to one doesn't particularly serve the gaming community at large in many respects. There is a lot of great stuff out there, but a lot of it is tiny and doesn't make money or barely sustains its niche, and eventually evaporates. I think we as gamers, as discerning consumers, owe it to ourselves and to the industry to diversify.
I honestly think that having two companies competing for market leadership is just about the best thing that can happen to any given industry. That kind of competition gives both companies more incentive to innovate and produce quality products, and that tends to increase the size of the market, as it helps keep existing customers as well as attracting new customers. And *that* gives the smaller companies a bigger audience to attract.
The fact that Coke and Pepsi dominate the cola market certainly doesn't keep smaller companies from making great beverages.
"People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players."That's really not true.
4e set out to have clear, defined, objective rules throughout the entire game. You can almost write a computer program which can run the entire encounter.
You mean like Neverwinter Nights 1/2, Baldur's Gate I/II, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, Tomb of Elemental Evil?
No wait, that's 3.5.Go troll elsewhere.
You and I both know that those games all had to use a specially selected subset of the actual rules of the game. For example, illusions were removed from them.
In theory, you could just reverse the releases of 4E and previous editions, and the same arguments could apply to 3.5, because your bias on what is the appropriate game and/or mechanics would be based on 4E. So in an alternate universe, someone would be stating illusions or charms lasting forever is not acceptable, and somehow detracts from the immediate enjoyment or focus of the game. 4E has these components, but are expressed in different terms.
As to computer games, if you have rules, they can be created.
|
It's too bad all the 2e lovers were driven out long ago. They were big fans of the "2e is for roleplaying, 3e is for combat-loving munchkins" arguments.
Ahh, the 2e vs 3e arguments. That brings back fond memories of edition war carnage.
Hey, here's an idea for a new type of edition war. What if we switched gears, left 4e and PFRPG alone, and focused on all the CCG systems better than Bella Sera. Here goes:
Lame ponies are lame. :)
Any takers?
Much the same way that you can buy a hammer and a screwdriver both at the same store and they are often bought by the same people. Still, a hammer is not just as good at being a screwdriver as a screwdriver is.
And, frankly, based on my own observation, there really is a schism in the market. Most people play -either- 4e or Pathfinder. The market is split. Only a few die hard gamers play both. Most people don't have the time, desire, or money to learn two completely different systems - let alone organize all their friends to do so with them.
Yeah, good point. People who play World of Darkness totally don't play d20. Or MtG. Or any other number of in depth and unrelated gaming systems.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ahh, the 2e vs 3e arguments. That brings back fond memories of edition war carnage.
They seem almost quaint now, don't they?
Hey, here's an idea for a new type of edition war. What if we switched gears, left 4e and PFRPG alone, and focused on all the CCG systems better than Bella Sera. Here goes:
Lame ponies are lame. :)
Any takers?
Bella Sara competes in an entirely different market. It's a Collectible Card Game. The other so-called CCG's belong to an entirely different category, which I just made up, called "Suck Card Games." As you can see, by the name, those card games suck. Ergo, ipso, facto, Bella Sara is the best game in its market.
I'm not saying other CCG's suck. I'm just saying that they belong in the "Suck Card Games" category. The term is widely used in retail circles and among players of CCG's, and isn't just b@+!$~&$ I made up to troll on the internet.
I look at it as the difference between a truck and a cheese stick. Some may say that I made this analogy up and it makes no sense, I say that a truck and a cheese stick are objectively different, and therefore, so are the two categories I made up.
I would say they failed in their own design and business goals. They failed to keep their own audience with the changeover. They failed to achieve the very balance they sacrificed the majority of d20 rules for.
I disagree. 4E is much more newbie-friendly and consistent in the rules than either 3.5 or PF. This goal they achieved. They did lose part of their own audience, but this is probably because 1) OGL allows their older product to compete and 2) the internet keeps the old splatbooks accessible.
4E is not (by far) perfectly balanced, but it does not show the insane differences that are inherent in 3.5-based games (Wizards + CoDZilla vs. Melee Chars).
They failed to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day.
Encounter powers and At-wills? Yes they did.
The system has succeeded in a miriad of ways as well. By making every book by design legal with every other release they force brick and mortar stores to keep an entire arsenal in stock, whereas PF really has at this point 3 core products (core book, GMG, bestiary) and thus has much less of a shelf presence dispite, IMHO, a more robust catalog if you include APs which are rarely stocked.
So you argue that having less books for sale is a good thing? That you want fewer supplements instead of more? How does this help the business?
Because my opinion isn't based on what game came first. If it were, I'd be praising 1e.
Fooled us.
My opinion is based on well-known game design theory.
Ah, appeal to authority. Didn't see that one coming.
|
|
After August it looks like Wizards is shifting how they release material. I am not sure how long this will last as most of it deals with the Essentials line (which you know about), but it appears as though the last part of 2010 and the first part of 2011 are mostly free of hardcovers. Everything seems to sit in the $20 price point, which is much easier than the $35-$40 price point, I have to say.Well, that's good but now I have a problem. I don't feel like spending another mint on the Essentails line just to get new builds. And the $10~ a month money tap that is DDI grates on lean months. Also, I wonder how many new players are going to be confused which books (boxes) to buy. Should they get Players Handbook 1-3, or just the Essentials? What's really, and really not core, etc. Like I said, I'm unclear as to the actual benefit WoTC is going to get from their Essentails line.
I dread to think what the retailers think.
I agree. The owner of my local store is bothered and slightly scared by the whole thing. But he is also hopeful.
Ultimately, I think all of the future marketing will focus clearly on Essentials, placing it in the forefront of a consumer's mind. At least I hope. :) But I am worried there might be some confusion, though I suppose that is a danger anytime you release a set aimed at beginners while the older material is still very prominent and easily obtained.
I am wondering if the PHB 1 is going to be phased out or reprinted in the future. I am not sure. The designers are saying that everything from here on out will be designed with Essentials as the model in manner that does not eliminate the other books. I want to trust them on this.
I am not sure how much of the new previews for Essentials you have seen, but some of the changes seem "bigger" than just some alternate builds. For instance, the specialist wizard they previewed (one of two new builds in the red box set) has a spellbook from which they prepare not only daily and utility spells, but encounter spells as well. At the levels they receive those powers the XP charts use the plural term, insinuating the wizards will gain multiple powers in that category.
Additionally, some of the at-wills they previewed are interesting in that they do not inflict damage while incurring a specific effect. I was intrigued by those power in particular as each come from a different school of magic. Oh yeah, schools of magic are back.
I find that version of the wizard to be very cool, personally. The changes seem major but, based on what I saw, the standard wizard would be well-balanced and work just fine with it. Which is good.
All of that said, the Heroes of Shadow and the setting material should work fine with the earlier material.
|
|
I honestly think that having two companies competing for market leadership is just about the best thing that can happen to any given industry. That kind of competition gives both companies more incentive to innovate and produce quality products, and that tends to increase the size of the market, as it helps keep existing customers as well as attracting new customers. And *that* gives the smaller companies a bigger audience to attract.
Truer words, truer words. The spirit of good competition is always a great time for the buyer. Paizo and WoTC are both showing their A games in the last few years. 4E might have been a market splitting choice by WoTC but they sure as hell were commited to it. Paizo stepping into to furnish the d20 market was just cherry on the cake.
Choice fundimentally is our benefit. WoTC product is becoming too costly and doesn't 'quite' scratch my itch, conversely Paizo's outstanding effort offered me an out. I remember when it was White Wolf vs WoTC, but they really were fighting for market share of two different gamer demographics back then.
That said, having two monoliths as opposed to one doesn't particularly serve the gaming community at large in many respects. There is a lot of great stuff out there, but a lot of it is tiny and doesn't make money or barely sustains its niche, and eventually evaporates. I think we as gamers, as discerning consumers, owe it to ourselves and to the industry to diversify.I honestly think that having two companies competing for market leadership is just about the best thing that can happen to any given industry. That kind of competition gives both companies more incentive to innovate and produce quality products, and that tends to increase the size of the market, as it helps keep existing customers as well as attracting new customers. And *that* gives the smaller companies a bigger audience to attract.
The fact that Coke and Pepsi dominate the cola market certainly doesn't keep smaller companies from making great beverages.
Interesting. Valid point, though I'm not sure I buy your theory of Trickle Down Gaming :P. For those smaller companies to survive someone still needs to buy their stuff. Period. That's all I was calling for. I love Paizo and I love Pathfinder (why do I keep saying this?) but I think monoliths tend to breed brand loyalty, and brand loyalty breeds closed-mindedness. I know people that only drink Pepsi products, which is asinine, because Faygo is also tasty.
I like all kinds of games and all kinds of systems. If you like D&D you should try...Zombie Dice, or Puerto Rico. That's kind of what I'm trying to get across. Having two big competitors indeed widens the market, draws in brand new players, brings back old players, and all the other wonderful things you imply. It is still up to the consumer to decide to try a product by those other small companies, and that's all I was calling for.
There really is just SO much good stuff out there for people who enjoy all kinds of games. I worked at my FLGS for a few years, and people really group by niche. The warhammer players in the back, the yu-gi-oh players in the front, the roleplayers in the RP rooms, etc. The most satisfying thing working there was seeing people who are so into their own tunnel vision version of the hobby, who ONLY play this one thing, bust out and decide to try something completely different. I think, when it comes down to it, we all just want to PLAY.
On a (somewhat) related note, I've decided to spend what little gaming time I have on Pathfinder. As much as I appreciate (and will miss) some aspects of 4E, it's been fired from my table. Pathfinder is just the stronger overall package (IN MY OPINION -- no claims of objective reality here, thanks).
I'm not sure why the OP wants to compare anyway. There's a big enough market for players of both Apple and Orange, and no real danger of either putting the other out of business even were that a corporate goal.I think it has a lot to do with letting WotC know that they have lost a portion of their sales base. If their product is losing in sales to, basically, an old product of theirs they don't have IP rights over, it makes them realize they made a mistake. A lot of people felt left in the lurch by the changeover to 4e and betrayed by a company they patronized. It's always know the team you're rooting for is winning.
To us an analogy, it's like we were all playing in a casino and they told us our chips are no good and to get out, where across the street another casino is honoring our chips and giving us pie.
I like pie.
Why would the OP need sales figures in order to let WotC they made a mistake? WotC has their sales figures; they can decide for themselves.
Also, although I patronized TSR/WotC for decades, and was mightily disappointed by the transition to 4e, I neither know nor care if they made a mistake. All that impacts me is that they made a decision that cost them my business and that of some fraction of their original fan base. How many new players did 4e get them? Was it a net gain? A comparison of sales figures might tell us, but really, why do we care? Shouldn't WotC's success only matter to WotC?
I'm a long time comic book fan. For many years, movies based on comics were very different from the comics themselves, the theory being that if a comic sells 30,000 copies a month, that's only a small fraction of the number of ticket sales needed to make the film viable, so we have to change the property to give it wider appeal. Sometimes the result completely alienated the comic fans, but did the producers care? They did not, because the movie made an acceptable return in spite of the fanboys like me.
Bottom line is, bigger audience = success, even if you lose your entire original audience in the process.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
On a (somewhat) related note, I've decided to spend what little gaming time I have on Pathfinder. As much as I appreciate (and will miss) some aspects of 4E, it's been fired from my table. Pathfinder is just the stronger overall package (IN MY OPINION -- no claims of objective reality here, thanks).
I wonder about the retention rate for 4e. My entirely personal experience is that I wanted a new edition of D&D, was gung-ho for 4e being that new edition, and played it for over a year before deciding that PFRPG was the new edition that I liked better.
In any event, I'm happy I have a new edition of D&D that I like. I'm mostly indifferent to WotC these days, what they do doesn't really have any effect on me.
|
|
I wonder about the retention rate for 4e. My entirely personal experience is that I wanted a new edition of D&D, was gung-ho for 4e being that new edition, and played it for over a year before deciding that PFRPG was the new edition that I liked better.
In any event, I'm happy I have a new edition of D&D that I like. I'm mostly indifferent to WotC these days, what they do doesn't really have any effect on me.
Funny you mention that. I myself am a 4E to Pathfinder convert. (At least, shifting it to my dominate choice.) I find 4E great for pick-up play with new players but far more lacking in depth of character and development from my experience with the 3.X days. To me at least it's worth the effort to put in that extra training to new players to get them use to Pathfinder so I as well as them can enjoy the game more. It's not quite my mindboggling efforts of my college days where I tought people GURPS/HERO system from scratch, but it is just as rewarding.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
For those smaller companies to survive someone still needs to buy their stuff. Period. That's all I was calling for. I love Paizo and I love Pathfinder (why do I keep saying this?) but I think monoliths tend to breed brand loyalty, and brand loyalty breeds closed-mindedness. I know people that only drink Pepsi products, which is asinine, because Faygo is also tasty.
...and that's why we sell more than 20,000 gaming products we *don't* publish right here on paizo.com!
And, once more, I havent' said that 4e sucks. I haven't said it belongs to a group called "games that suck". I haven't denigrated 4e in any way. Fact is, it does some things better than Pathfinder does. For example, if I had to choose between the two to run a tactical sim akin to Heroclix, I'd most certainly choose 4e.
I'm only saying that while there are things that 4e does better than Pathfinder, the opposite is also true. There are things that Pathfinder does better than 4e. And some people are getting their knickers in a twist over that statement.
Obviously, the solution is to see that both systems suck, and analyze them, and then design the perfect successor and take over the world...
|
|
Bella Sara competes in an entirely different market. It's a Collectible Card Game. The other so-called CCG's belong to an entirely different category, which I just made up, called "Suck Card Games." As you can see, by the name, those card games suck. Ergo, ipso, facto, Bella Sara is the best game in its market.
I'm not saying other CCG's suck. I'm just saying that they belong in the "Suck Card Games" category. The term is widely used in retail circles and among players of CCG's, and isn't just b%%%&&~* I made up to troll on the internet.
I look at it as the difference between a truck and a cheese stick. Some may say that I made this analogy up and it makes no sense, I say that a truck and a cheese stick are objectively different, and therefore, so are the two categories I made up.
Thank you! I was hoping by falling back on some imaginary authority to justify your comparisons you would prove all of those other haters wrong! You win the interwebz!
I mean, the majority of the MtG audience know they play a game that can't support resource management like Bella Sara , right? They just can't admit it.
|
|
That said, having two monoliths as opposed to one doesn't particularly serve the gaming community at large in many respects. There is a lot of great stuff out there, but a lot of it is tiny and doesn't make money or barely sustains its niche, and eventually evaporates. I think we as gamers, as discerning consumers, owe it to ourselves and to the industry to diversify.I honestly think that having two companies competing for market leadership is just about the best thing that can happen to any given industry. That kind of competition gives both companies more incentive to innovate and produce quality products, and that tends to increase the size of the market, as it helps keep existing customers as well as attracting new customers. And *that* gives the smaller companies a bigger audience to attract.
The fact that Coke and Pepsi dominate the cola market certainly doesn't keep smaller companies from making great beverages.
+1.
|
"People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players."
That's really not true.
4e player says "Our group roleplays in 4e just fine"
LilithTroll says "Bullship, Gaming theory says that's impossible"
Hmm... which one looks foolish?
"People that play 4e roleplay just as much as pathfinder players, and pathfinder players enjoy tactical combat just as much as 4e players."
That's really not true.
4e player says "Our group roleplays in 4e just fine"
LilithTroll says "Bullship, Gaming theory says that's impossible"
Hmm... which one looks foolish?
Both. I mean, come on, they are pretending to be elves.... ;)
I disagree. 4E is much more newbie-friendly and consistent in the rules than either 3.5 or PF. This goal they achieved. They did lose part of their own audience, but this is probably because 1) OGL allows their older product to compete and 2) the internet keeps the old splatbooks accessible.
I never said they failed in ALL their goals, but some they certainly did. They lost part of their audience because they made a product their audience did not want. If PF had not come out, I would be playing 3.5. Not 4e. Because of the vast library I already have purchased of 3.5, not its availability online because I don't really do that. This is just me, and I know my friends feel the same way, but yeah its anecdotal. Don't take any of this as a blanket statment about the state of the industry or anything, just my view.
Which PF has also fixed, without completely changing everything to be the same and making a product that is, to me, not very fun to play.4E is not (by far) perfectly balanced, but it does not show the insane differences that are inherent in 3.5-based games (Wizards + CoDZilla vs. Melee Chars).
Encounter powers and At-wills? Yes they did.
Except that combat lasts SO freaking crazy long in 4e, and dailies are JUST that much more powerful than encounter or at-wills. Yes. People use their dailies then rest so they can have a combat that lasts less than 4 hours of real-time. Not exaggerating if you've played any higher level stuff.
So you argue that having less books for sale is a good thing? That you want fewer supplements instead of more? How does this help the business?
I said nothing of the sort. At all. I have absolutely no clue where you're getting this from, I am in fact saying the opposite. In a paragraph about how 4e succeeded I mentioned the FACT that 4e has a much larger shelf presence in most stores. This lends to consumers buying with confidence in the continued support of their product if they know nothing else about the two brands.
I posit that WotCs insistance on continual (largely bland, and ever distorting the already fragile balance of 4e) hardcover updates and rules, while theoretically a superior business model, is less kind to the consumer, whereas Pathfinder's small core of books with plentiful advanced OPTIONS and available free online ruleset is more kind. The fact that, while utterly giving away the rules and having an (from anecdotal experience) inferior distribution model, Paizo has managed to upset the apple cart even a little, gives me an immense amount of satisfaction. This is largely based on the perception that consumers are making such choices because of the difference in quality of the content, which may or may not be true and is something pure numbers don't show.
4e players have no proof that their groups roleplay 4e just fine.
Nor do they have any theory which supports their position.
Before, you made half-way reasonable statements which I don't agree with, but one could see there's some logic and consistency behind them. With this, you just crossed the border to gnome-color-explosion insanity.
Do you expect 4E players to present a "Certificate of Fine Roleplaying"? Or a Dissertation on the elements of 'proper' roleplaying?
WAT.
|
|
On a (somewhat) related note, I've decided to spend what little gaming time I have on Pathfinder. As much as I appreciate (and will miss) some aspects of 4E, it's been fired from my table. Pathfinder is just the stronger overall package (IN MY OPINION -- no claims of objective reality here, thanks).
I wonder about the retention rate for 4e. My entirely personal experience is that I wanted a new edition of D&D, was gung-ho for 4e being that new edition, and played it for over a year before deciding that PFRPG was the new edition that I liked better.
In any event, I'm happy I have a new edition of D&D that I like. I'm mostly indifferent to WotC these days, what they do doesn't really have any effect on me.
I think that is a fair question and one on the minds of those at Wizards. I am one of those who play both systems, picking and choosing based on my various needs and desires. I don't tend to favor one over the other.
We have a ton of very loyal 4e players at our local Encounters games and I have introduced more new players to the hobby through 4e than Pathfinder. This happened through the Encounters program and was not something I actively pursued on my part. So I imagine the name recognition played a major part there. They are sticking with the game now, but who knows what will happen in the future.
However, I organize both PFS and Encounters. Both have grown steadily over the last few months. Which is encouraging in many ways. Interestingly, we do have some crossover.
That said, both groups mostly operate with little or no interaction with the other company. Some in both groups appreciate what both companies are doing, but for those who focus, what Wizards does or Pathfinder does has little bearing on the fun they are having. Which is just fine and dandy I think.
As always, this is all very situational. Like you mentioned earlier, all of this is related to locations, environments, and cycles. The ultimate result, gamers are having fun. Which is really the only stat I care about.
4e players have no proof that their groups roleplay 4e just fine.
And all you have to counter the statement is... your personal opinion.
In a fight of biased personal opinion vs anecdote, I lean towards anecdote.Nor do they have any theory which supports their position.
Luckily for you you have logical fallacies to shore up your weakness in the fight!
And, frankly, if what the larger group believes is the truth, it'd be true that all the planets revolve around the Earth.
Ooh, low blow. Apparently appeal to authority wasn't cutting it and Lillith jams in a straw man for good measure.