Pathfinder is 3.5 cleaned up a bit.
That's it.
Paizo's success is far more than that. (I'm a big fan of theirs, but the game itself doesn't fit my needs).
The methodology is somewhat opaque, but from what ive been able to glean, those often cited quarterly sales figures of "pathfinder" are likely to include sales of the AP (which they consider their flagship product, not the game itself). Just as sales of one PH, one MM and one DMG will count as three sales of D&D. (from what I could find out, it's not even unified as to whether the game stores report on dollar value or on unit sales).
I don't think paizo just "continue the strategy that WoTC abandoned" as you put it. Their whole approach was innovative, responsive, well planned and executed and always focussed on quality. If they, or someone of their calibre, weren't on the scene when the resistance to 4E manifested, the RPG world would be very different.
They're more than just recipients of good fortune, they sell quality products that people want and they respond quickly and well to criticism. I'm firmly of the view that their other lines (excluding the RPG) would be doing just as well as they are now if WoTC had revoked the dungeon and dragon licenses but continued with 3.5. They'd just be selling us something else other than the game.
|
Pathfinder is 3.5 cleaned up a bit.
That's it.
Paizo's success is far more than that. (I'm a big fan of theirs, but the game itself doesn't fit my needs).
The methodology is somewhat opaque, but from what ive been able to glean, those often cited quarterly sales figures of "pathfinder" are likely to include sales of the AP (which they consider their flagship product, not the game itself). Just as sales of one PH, one MM and one DMG will count as three sales of D&D. (from what I could find out, it's not even unified as to whether the game stores report on dollar value or on unit sales).
I don't think paizo just "continue the strategy that WoTC abandoned" as you put it. Their whole approach was innovative, responsive, well planned and executed and always focussed on quality. If they, or someone of their calibre, weren't on the scene when the resistance to 4E manifested, the RPG world would be very different.
They're more than just recipients of good fortune, they sell quality products that people want and they respond quickly and well to criticism. I'm firmly of the view that their other lines (excluding the RPG) would be doing just as well as they are now if WoTC had revoked the dungeon and dragon licenses but continued with 3.5. They'd just be selling us something else other than the game.
Yes they sell a quality product. Thanks in large part to the experience they had when they worked for WoTC as Dragon and Dungeon Magazine.
Which is my point. WoTC was doing it the smart way, then sold off the section with the most profit potential to focus on creating a new product that they could have a monopoly on.
Paizo kept doing largely what they had been doing when they were owned by WoTC. Focusing on producing quality supplementary material for the d20 system through the OGL.
I don't know enough about it, but I thought paizo was spun off well before the magazine licenses were revoked. WoTC's misstep (if that's how it turns out) occurred well after that.
The problem for WoTC was that not enough people liked 4E. If they did (or if paizo weren't so skilled), the OGL wouldn't have been an issue.
The OGL is irrelevant to WoTC's quality and I'm not sure that the reason players didn't like 4E was that there were bits missing they wished could be filled by 3PP.
My main point, though, is that we don't have any data. Anecdotal evidence isn't much use in determining what's actually happening and why.
Anecdotal evidence isn't much use in determining what's actually happening and why.
Hmm... except that interpreting anecdotal data and making business decisions from it is pretty much part of the job description of every company's marketing department...
Using anecdotal information I have concluded that 4e is a market failure and that Pathfinder is a market success.
I think that's a pretty good analysis of "what's happening."
I've talked to dozens of people and have my own experience to draw on to explain 4e's lack of appeal to PF fans and PF fans appreciation of Paizo's approach.
I think that's a pretty good analysis of "why."
YMMV, of course.
...
You can hardly be surprised that WotC are not keen on relaunching OGL as it was, on balance, bad for WotC. So anyone expecting nu-OGL is probably going to be disappointed.
...
I guess we'll find out soon enough. But I think competition from Paizo is just the tip of the iceberg for Wizards. If I'm understanding Dancey's ENWorld posts correctly, then Wizards is really up against it--their distribution network is dissolving, their delivery medium (hardbound books) has an uncertain future, and their market is declining. Any one of these alone can (and has) killed much bigger and much better-run operations than D&D under WotC.
So I doubt their OGL decision will be made in isolation. I recall reading somewhere that Mearls was going to address the D&D business model in the months leading up to 5E's release. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with.
EDIT: BTW, Aubrey, your PbP games are freaking awesome. I've been following them for a couple of years now.
Anecdotal evidence isn't much use in determining what's actually happening and why.Hmm... except that interpreting anecdotal data and making business decisions from it is pretty much part of the job description of every company's marketing department...
I don't know what you mean by "anecdotal data" but the point is none of us have access to the information required to make any meaningful statements about whats happening in the market or why.
Using anecdotal information I have concluded that 4e is a market failure and that Pathfinder is a market success.I think that's a pretty good analysis of "what's happening."
I've talked to dozens of people and have my own experience to draw on to explain 4e's lack of appeal to PF fans and PF fans appreciation of Paizo's approach.
I think that's a pretty good analysis of "why."
If you think your "pretty good analyses" are likely to be accurate, I don't see how you feel qualified to claim that at all. We don't know about D&D's sales figures, their targets or any of the other relevant information. Did the DDI subscription offset declining revenue from book sales? Did the release of essentials increase the player base substantially? What proportion of RPGers play 4E? What proportion were WoTC aiming for? What is the size of PFCRB print runs? Is sales of either game increasing, decreasing or remaining flat?
There is lots of information required to analyse a situation as complicated as this and we don't have access to most of it.
YMMV, of course.
What does YMMV even mean here? If you mean "I have an opinion which you may not share" well...yes, that's my point. We have opinions but no decent reason to think they're accurate.
We have opinions but no decent reason to think they're accurate.
Well, my opinions have been a pretty solid guide to what's actually been happening in the marketplace, so I think that's a pretty decent reason to think they are accurate.
From the release of 4e I have been predicting that 4e would have a short shelf life and that it would lose market share.
From the release of Pathfinder I have been predicting that Pathfinder would attract frustrated gamers who dislike 4e and prefer the Pathfinder game and would grow marketshare.
A year ago I predicted Pathfinder would overtake 4e in sales.
I based all of this on my "anecdotal data analysis."
All of it has turned out to be accurate. I think that's a decent enough reason to satisfy me.
We have opinions but no decent reason to think they're accurate.Well, my opinions have been a pretty solid guide to what's actually been happening in the marketplace, so I think that's a pretty decent reason to think they are accurate.
From the release of 4e I have been predicting that 4e would have a short shelf life and that it would lose market share.
From the release of Pathfinder I have been predicting that Pathfinder would attract frustrated gamers who dislike 4e and prefer the Pathfinder game and would grow marketshare.
A year ago I predicted Pathfinder would overtake 4e in sales.
I based all of this on my "anecdotal data analysis."
All of it has turned out to be accurate. I think that's a decent enough reason to satisfy me.
Look, I'm not really arguing with you - I pretty much agree. Those are very similar to my thoughts.
My point is, we can't say which is selling better, 4E or PF, because those numbers aren't available. We can't say whether most newcomers to PF are from 4E or whether they're new to RPGs completely. You and I just aren't in the loop and it's best to remember that your "accuracy" is equally subjective as your anecdotal evidence.
'animosity' and 'dark motives' may be a bit strong, but you ascribe certain fairly benign and helpful motives to the marketers ( 'all they were trying to do was ...') but couldn't it be that they also had a motive of trying to suggest that the then most popular game system in the tabletop rpg world was not as good as its fans thought it was?
I think they were trying to demonstrate that they understood that the game was not as good as it could have been, and that most of their fans thought the same - thus, the grappling bit. Grappling was one of the most widely-cited issues with the system; it was widely considered harder to parse than it ought to be.
If they were talking about something that none of the fans thought was an issue, you might have a point. But they were talking about grappling, for crying out loud.
And that they used mild ridicule as a tool in that marketing? That they wanted to project that game they were launching was 'better' than the current 'game?
Of course they were trying to project the idea that the new game was better than the old game.
( the statement about one game being overall better than the other rarely works and can be inflammatory, it's like saying my baby is prettier than yours)
No, it's like saying, "Hey, our old product was pretty cool, right? Well if you liked that, you're going to like our new game even more. We took the bumpiest parts of the old product and smoothed them out."
If you read anything into it beyond that, it's on you.
But isn't the failure of the marketers to foresee that interpretation a pretty obvious failure.
But isn't the failure of the marketers to foresee that interpretation a pretty obvious failure.
Yes. The marketing team failed to accurately anticipate the reaction of their audience.
It is my opinion that they overestimated the levelheadedness of the D&D player base. Any successful marketing to that base will bear in mind that a great many of the people they are speaking to will tend to be over-invested, over-entitled, and uninterested in nuance. These are traits that are present in everyone, certainly, but I think that they are more intensely felt in the D&D community, especially as relates to D&D itself.
'animosity' and 'dark motives' may be a bit strong, but you ascribe certain fairly benign and helpful motives to the marketers ( 'all they were trying to do was ...') but couldn't it be that they also had a motive of trying to suggest that the then most popular game system in the tabletop rpg world was not as good as its fans thought it was?I think they were trying to demonstrate that they understood that the game was not as good as it could have been, and that most of their fans thought the same - thus, the grappling bit. Grappling was one of the most widely-cited issues with the system; it was widely considered harder to parse than it ought to be.
If they were talking about something that none of the fans thought was an issue, you might have a point. But they were talking about grappling, for crying out loud.
Sure, that might be the case. But they had the same attitude when talking about treasure, monsters, classes, and parts of combat.
As the saying goes, once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times (or more) is enemy action. Maybe you don't agree with me but that attitude, combined with actions that told me plainly that they didn't want me as a customer, definitely affected my decision on which system to choose.
Can they make up for that? Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the fact that the part of the players didn't like 4E is their fault rather than designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?
|
WotC was known as a profit driven company with a spotty track record for living up to their promises well before they took over the D&D brand. Everything they have done since then has done nothing but reinforce that negative image.
LOL.
You do realise what site you're posting on, don't you?
You do realise who owns this site, don't you?
You are familiar with the contents of their CV, aren't you?
I must say, I'm glad you like Pathfinder, given your eagerness to slander its creators and owners.
Hmm... yeah I think I do. I wonder if you do though.
Hmmm....<checks Charter Subscriber status>, <checks regular Facebook contacts; Dancey? check. Stevens? check. Selinker? check. et al>
Okay, then.
According to you, prior to taking over the D&D brand, WotC "was known as a profit driven company with a spotty track record for living up to their promises".
So, would you care to describe to us all, the various ways in which those Paizo/Titanic owners/staff (and any others I've missed), who were staff at WotC prior to the acquisition of the D&D brand, have broken their promises to you?
If you're correct, that their unprofessional behaviour is so well-known, it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide evidence of Lisa, Ryan, Mike (and the rest) personally screwing you over. Right?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But isn't the failure of the marketers to foresee that interpretation a pretty obvious failure.
My toothpaste tells me it's a new, improved formula.
My washing powder tells me it washes whiter than ever.
The sauce in my cupboard tells me it tastes better than ever.
My reaction to reading this, is to go "Hmm, we'll see."
What I don't do, is hurl myself to the floor, beat my fists on the ground till they're bloodied stumps, wail like a banshee, soil myself, start an internet trolling campaign to ruin distributor orders, stand by the till loudly berating the product to wreck retail sales, force my local shops to close, demonise the producers of my toothpaste/washing powder/sauce, insult the inegrity of shoppers who use that toothpaste/washing powder/sauce, make up lies about what was said to me, then demand recompense for being 'insulted'.
And carry that grudge, burning away in my gut as a football-sized ulcer, for the next four years.
If you were to witness someone behaving that way, what adjectives would you use to describe them?
Would you ever predict that a person could behave that way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My toothpaste tells me it's a new, improved formula.My washing powder tells me it washes whiter than ever.
The sauce in my cupboard tells me it tastes better than ever.
My reaction to reading this, is to go "Hmm, we'll see."
But do those companies say "Our previous toothpaste didn't taste very good" or "Our washing powder didn't get out grass stains" or "Some of you thought our previous sauce had a funky aftertaste"?
No.
They set just say "We're better now" without drawing your attention to what may have been deficient with their previous offerings. If WotC wanted to include information to contrast their 4e offerings with previous, that's good material for designer notes included in the game, sidebars, other things not directly tied to getting you to buy the new edition. And even then, you don't want to lampoon what went before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?The designer who could do that would be the richest man on the planet.
"I can teach anybody how to get what they want out of life. The problem is that I can't find anybody who can tell me what they want."
|
I'm generally of the philosophy that people who were offended by those commercials were mostly *looking* for a reason to be offended. I'm more surprised that the nerd rage still boils 4 years later on that commercial...
You would be wrong, I am one of the people who felt offended. I was not looking for a reason to be. I was kind of excited for a new version at the time (I did not know how much was changing). Also, you might want to check what your saying. There is a difference between being mad and angry years after, and just talking about the past mistakes and hope that they don't make new ones. Just because people are talking about it, dosen't mean anyone is raged about it.
|
|
They are clearly not the same thing, WotC clearly has no animosity towards 3.5, and it's a little silly to imagine all these dark motives for them when all they were trying to do was show that they understood where some of the "sticking points" of the previous edition were.
And, by and large, they did. The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.
Drop the drama Scott. Also stop trying to make things more that what people are saying. Lastly don't tell me I can't tell the difference between trying to get me to buy the new stuff cause the ,last stuff was bad or just telling me "maybe we can make it better". I don't like being insulted by WoTC or you.
one: Saying they did it wrong doesn't not mean anyone thinks they have "Dark motives" Give your hyperbole a rest. IT means they got it wrong.
two: If you marking campaign is making your potential customers feel they did something wrong, it is a fail. end of story. The fact that you think it is some how the customer's fault that they took the ad the wrong way, shows you better not get a job in marketing. You don't alienate any customers ever... That is wrong.
last: the fact that you can hear that there are quite a few people that feel this way and yet you still think WoTC did nothing wrong, just shows that you are blind to ANYTHING they might do wrong, and makes the rest of your opinions regarding any of this subject matter not worth the time to read.
I didn't feel offended even though I was a pretty strong supporter of v3.5 and I felt the video was pretty funny. It highlighted many of the problems (yes, they're problems with the system) of v3.5 and previous experiences I had with 2E/AD&D. Grapple rules, for one, were just plain ridiculous. The people who really got offended need to take a step back and really look at how serious you were taking it. Really, guys it's just a game. Don't sweat the small stuff, and videos like that ARE small stuff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the fact that the part of the players didn't like 4E is their fault rather than designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?
The world according to Scott. You don't like the new game? Clearly you are in the wrong. You think Wizards may have have made a mistake? No, that just means you don't understand them.
I am taking that a bit too far, but honestly, Zmar you have hit it on the head. When your product turns off customers, it is not the customer's fault. When your actions turn off customers, again it is not the customer's fault. This isn't a person saying the wrong thing and then saying "Well, f' em if they cant take a joke". This is a business whose existence is reliant on those customers. You don't do stuff and hope they go along. You find out what they want and give it to them. Sometimes you do it well, sometimes your don't, but it is never the customers fault if your stuff isn't good enough for them.
Why can't WotC create adventures that outshine Paizo? People are saying paizo does so well because the numbers take the adventure paths into consideration... Well, why can't wizards create awesome adventures and compete? Or is that the customers fault too for not giving their adventures enough credit?
|
|
... designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?The designer who could do that would be the richest man on the planet.
If WotC missed the mark with 4E, it's not necessarily their fault. We have to consider the fact that they were trying to produce the best game they could, that would appeal to the D&D commmunity as a whole. .
This is not true. It is there fault. See this is where people are confusing things. Wizards is not an Olympic runner trying his best to to beat the other guy. Wizards is a company, whose job it is to sell things people want. If your job was to wash the floor and you washed the wall and then said "I tried my best" you would be fired. That is what happens when customers buy something else. They "fire" you.
Now.. is this ok? Yes, that is how companies work. Sometimes they do good, sometimes they do bad, but to say it isn't their fault is silly. If they want to do better then need to hire better writers, designers, etc. They need to change focus to be more in line with customers. They need to market their stuff in a way that will not offend/piss off/alienate any potential customers. This is the way business works. it is never the customers fault for the business's shortcomings.
|
|
I didn't feel offended even though I was a pretty strong supporter of v3.5 and I felt the video was pretty funny. It highlighted many of the problems (yes, they're problems with the system) of v3.5 and previous experiences I had with 2E/AD&D. Grapple rules, for one, were just plain ridiculous. The people who really got offended need to take a step back and really look at how serious you were taking it. Really, guys it's just a game. Don't sweat the small stuff, and videos like that ARE small stuff.
That may be the reason we have different opinions. You thought the grapple rules were ridiculous, I didn't. You thought the video was funny, I didn't. You telling me I am wrong to have taken it that way. Well, guess what, you are making the same mistake. For you, its ok. You a person who I care nothing about. I will just ignore you from now on. But, your existance is not reliant on me caring about your opinion.
Wizards on the other does rely on people like me. Telling enough of us we are wrong, means no wizards....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.
Drop the drama Scott. Also stop trying to make things more that what people are saying. Lastly don't tell me I can't tell the difference between trying to get me to buy the new stuff cause the ,last stuff was bad or just telling me "maybe we can make it better". I don't like being insulted by WoTC or you.
If ever we needed evidence, that some people are incapable of telling the difference between a statement of fact, and an insult, here it is. You just proved his point. Well done.
Let's run with that suggestion; let's have a hypothetical conversation between the company and the over-entitled fan.
Designer: "The new edition will be so much better!"
Fan: "How will it be better?"
Designer: "...umm...I can't tell you."
Fan: "What do you mean? Why can't you tell me?"
Designer: "...I'm not allowed to discuss it."
Fan: "Why not? I want to know. I DEMAND to KNOW!"
Designer: "Our PR dept has told us that some players are too prone to self-identifying with their edition of choice, to make themselves feel like a complete human being, rather than having a healthy sense of self-worth, so it's best if we avoid any mention of specific mechanics."
Fan: "That's ridiculous! I'm an adult! I can discuss something as abstract as game mechanics in an objective, calm and reasonable manner. I demand you tell me what changes you're making to the game!"
Designer: "You're sure you're fine with this?"
Fan: "Of course I am! Do I look like a child? I'm a grown man, with a PhD, and 20 years experience playing D&D. I'm perfectly capable of weighing up potential rules changes."
Designer: "Okay...well...over the last eight years, one of the most common complaints, whether by post, or email, or via the forums, was the grapple rules. Many people found them difficult to understand or didn't cover certain situations well...."
Fan: "WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHHHH!!!! MAKE HIM STOP! BWAAAAAHHH! HE'S CALLING ME STUPID! I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU! GO AWAY! YOUR GAME STINKS! BWAAAAHHHH!! I WANT MY MUUUUUMY!"
Designer: "Sheesh! What is wrong with these people?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But isn't the failure of the marketers to foresee that interpretation a pretty obvious failure.Yes. The marketing team failed to accurately anticipate the reaction of their audience.
It is my opinion that they overestimated the levelheadedness of the D&D player base. Any successful marketing to that base will bear in mind that a great many of the people they are speaking to will tend to be over-invested, over-entitled, and uninterested in nuance. These are traits that are present in everyone, certainly, but I think that they are more intensely felt in the D&D community, especially as relates to D&D itself.
Whenever I hear the "answer" to a failed objective to be described as "the target audience was too stupid" or "too irrational" I get a pretty good idea of where the lack of intelligence or rationality actually is.
|
|
The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.Drop the drama Scott. Also stop trying to make things more that what people are saying. Lastly don't tell me I can't tell the difference between trying to get me to buy the new stuff cause the ,last stuff was bad or just telling me "maybe we can make it better". I don't like being insulted by WoTC or you.If ever we needed evidence, that some people are incapable of telling the difference between a statement of fact, and an insult, here it is. You just proved his point. Well done.
Let's run with that suggestion; let's have a hypothetical conversation between the company and the over-entitled fan.
Designer: "The new edition will be so much better!"
Fan: "How will it be better?"
Designer: "...umm...I can't tell you."
Fan: "What do you mean? Why can't you tell me?"
Designer: "...I'm not allowed to discuss it."
Fan: "Why not? I want to know. I DEMAND to KNOW!"
Designer: "Our PR dept has told us that some players are too prone to self-identifying with their edition of choice, to make themselves feel like a complete human being, rather than having a healthy sense of self-worth, so it's best if we avoid any mention of specific mechanics."
Fan: "That's ridiculous! I'm an adult! I can discuss something as abstract as game mechanics in an objective, calm and reasonable manner. I demand you tell me what changes you're making to the game!"
Designer: "You're sure you're fine with this?"
Fan: "Of course I am! Do I look like a child? I'm a grown man, with a PhD, and 20 years experience playing D&D. I'm perfectly capable of weighing up potential rules changes."
Designer: "Okay...well...over the last eight years, one of the most common complaints, whether by post, or email, or via the forums, was the grapple rules. Many people found them...
Apparently you have not grasped anything I have said, or you have but still want to make this more than what it is. Either way there is no more value in continuing to read your posts. Thank you.
That may be the reason we have different opinions. You thought the grapple rules were ridiculous, I didn't. You thought the video was funny, I didn't. You telling me I am wrong to have taken it that way. Well, guess what, you are making the same mistake. For you, its ok. You a person who I care nothing about. I will just ignore you from now on. But, your existance is not reliant on me caring about your opinion.Wizards on the other does rely on people like me. Telling enough of us we are wrong, means no wizards....
And that's all it took eh? I don't see anywhere in my post saying that your wrong for feeling the way you did. I suggested to step back and realize that it's not as serious as many people seem to think it is. That doesn't mean "Your wrong for feeling hurt" or whatever. Just saying it isn't bad as all that or that all people make them out to be.
|
|
Apparently you have not grasped anything I have said, or you have but still want to make this more than what it is. Either way there is no more value in continuing to read your posts. Thank you.
So please enlighten us all.
Tell us how you would unveil a new edition of the game, and encourage players to try it, while avoiding any mention of game mechanics.
You are not allowed to reference the mailbag of complaints, not allowed to refer to the most frequently asked questions.
Your grand unveiling would consist of "Err...yeah. New edition. Comes out soon. Buy it. Or not. Whatever."?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.Drop the drama Scott. Also stop trying to make things more that what people are saying. Lastly don't tell me I can't tell the difference between trying to get me to buy the new stuff cause the ,last stuff was bad or just telling me "maybe we can make it better". I don't like being insulted by WoTC or you.If ever we needed evidence, that some people are incapable of telling the difference between a statement of fact, and an insult, here it is. You just proved his point. Well done.
Let's run with that suggestion; let's have a hypothetical conversation between the company and the over-entitled fan.
Designer: "The new edition will be so much better!"
Fan: "How will it be better?"
Designer: "...umm...I can't tell you."
Fan: "What do you mean? Why can't you tell me?"
Designer: "...I'm not allowed to discuss it."
Fan: "Why not? I want to know. I DEMAND to KNOW!"
Designer: "Our PR dept has told us that some players are too prone to self-identifying with their edition of choice, to make themselves feel like a complete human being, rather than having a healthy sense of self-worth, so it's best if we avoid any mention of specific mechanics."
Fan: "That's ridiculous! I'm an adult! I can discuss something as abstract as game mechanics in an objective, calm and reasonable manner. I demand you tell me what changes you're making to the game!"
Designer: "You're sure you're fine with this?"
Fan: "Of course I am! Do I look like a child? I'm a grown man, with a PhD, and 20 years experience playing D&D. I'm perfectly capable of weighing up potential rules changes."
Designer: "Okay...well...over the last eight years, one of the most common complaints, whether by post, or email, or via the forums, was the grapple rules. Many people found them difficult to understand or didn't cover certain situations well...."
Fan: "WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHHHH!!!! MAKE HIM STOP! BWAAAAAHHH! HE'S CALLING ME STUPID! I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU! GO AWAY! YOUR GAME STINKS! BWAAAAHHHH!! I WANT MY MUUUUUMY!"
Designer: "Sheesh! What is wrong with these people?"
Sometimes people post things that are remarkably revealing about their attitudes and biases without realizing how revealing it is. This is a good case in point. In creating the ridiculous untrue straw man of the 3.5 fan here, you've done an excellent job in revealing your own depth of arrogance, condescension and smugness. Thanks for letting us know how you really feel about people you disagree with. Not that I hadn't figured it out already, but this should open other folks' eyes.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
WoTC is asking us to give them money.
If they can't write adventure paths as well as Paizo, perhaps they shouldn't have sold off the elements of Paizo that produce these products that are now outselling them.
Why are you making excuses for the 800lb Gorilla?
The edition wars were a self inflicted wound. WoTC shot themselves in the foot when they tried to kill the OGL.
If Paizo tried the same thing tomorrow, I would be out. It isn't about brand, it is about product and support.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently you have not grasped anything I have said, or you have but still want to make this more than what it is. Either way there is no more value in continuing to read your posts. Thank you.So please enlighten us all.
Tell us how you would unveil a new edition of the game, and encourage players to try it, while avoiding any mention of game mechanics.
You are not allowed to reference the mailbag of complaints, not allowed to refer to the most frequently asked questions.
Your grand unveiling would consist of "Err...yeah. New edition. Comes out soon. Buy it. Or not. Whatever."?
Paizo did it pretty well.
What WoTC did was equivalent to Microsoft releasing a new Windows that was not compatible with any previous versions and stating they would provide no support for the transition.
They did it because they wanted something that wasn't open, so they could control it. Which was incredibly stupid when you depend on people playing your game in order to expand your market.
One game you can play for free, one game requires an investment.
If you play the free game, you will still need to buy accessories like modules/settings/etc...
4E came out of the gate with a huge blitz. It was the 800lb Gorilla, you couldn't even find any Paizo product on the shelves of your FLGS, let alone your major booksellers.
My FLGS didn't even know what Pathfinder was when I first asked if they carried it, and they didn't stock any until Core had been out for a year. Now they have equal space in the store.
It wasn't a pure rejection by 3.5 players. Many 3.5 players were very skeptical of Pathfinder, regarding it as another 3PP. But it has been clear throughout the focus has been on getting more players at the table rather than more money out of each individual player.
Both are ways to make money. WoTC used to understand that.
|
|
And that's all it took eh? I don't see anywhere in my post saying that your wrong for feeling the way you did. I suggested to step back and realize that it's not as serious as many people seem to think it is. That doesn't mean "Your wrong for feeling hurt" or whatever. Just saying it isn't bad as all that or that all people make them out to be.
That may be the reason we have different opinions. You thought the grapple rules were ridiculous, I didn't. You thought the video was funny, I didn't. You telling me I am wrong to have taken it that way. Well, guess what, you are making the same mistake. For you, its ok. You a person who I care nothing about. I will just ignore you from now on. But, your existance is not reliant on me caring about your opinion.Wizards on the other does rely on people like me. Telling enough of us we are wrong, means no wizards....
Sorry Diffan, I didn't mean I was really going to ignore you. I meant that to show how it doesn't really matter to you, if I care about your opinion. Wizards is different. It should matter to them. My posts are in response to people who are saying they did not make a mistake and that those of us who felt they did are overreacting. That is what you chimed into. People who are saying I am wrong to feel that way. I am making it clear that as a customer making me feel offended, is not the right thing for the business to do, and I am doing exactly what I should be doing as a consumer, going elsewhere due to it and making my displeasure known. (Well that is what I did, it's over now, but they could make the same mistake again which is why it was brought up in the first place.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes people post things that are remarkably revealing about their attitudes and biases without realizing how revealing it is. This is a good case in point. In creating the ridiculous untrue straw man of the 3.5 fan here, you've done an excellent job in revealing your own depth of arrogance, condescension and smugness. Thanks for letting us know how you really feel about people you disagree with. Not that I hadn't figured it out already, but this should open other folks' eyes.
"...the ridiculous untrue straw man of the 3.5 fan..."
What straw man?
I've met them, in person, trying to wreck the sales of 4E at my local store. Threatening and belittling anyone going near the 4E display. Trying to put my FLGS out of business for the 'insult' of carrying 4E.
These people exist. They exist on this forum. They exist on this thread.
And you're making a large assumption, that I'm not a 3.5/PF fan myself.
Check my tags. I was a subscriber to PF, before PF existed.
I don't play 4E, I've no vested interest in defending it, except for the fact that I have a vested interest in the gaming hobby as a whole.
Whatever causes a schism in the gaming community is bad for the whole community.
So when I see people telling lies about the history of the industry, or 'things you can't do in 4E' (and many things said are lies, since they are easily verifiable as untrue, even by a person who doesn't play 4E), or when I see someone working very hard to justify taking offence at a neutral discussion of mechanics, when I see someone condemning WotC for daring to change the perfect 3.5 ruleset, while simultaneously praising Paizo for changing the same subsystems for the same reasons, then I will call BS on it.
And you've still to answer my previous question.
In what way did Lisa, Ryan, Mike or other Paizo employees who were WotC employees at the time of the TSR takeover screw you over?
If you consider WotC to be inherently untrustworthy, due to what you consider the underhanded actions of those in place in the early-to-mid 90s (your words, not mine), then why are you here?
Snorter, you may have had experiences with people that you found to be irrational, but I simply do not believe for one microsecond that you had any experience remotely similar to the quotes you posted above. That is such an exaggerated and caricatured "conversation" that it does not deserve merit.
My comments about WotC's reputation go back well beyond any D&D activity. I played MtG and did some tournament play. My brother ran a collectibles store and sold WotC product.
My experiences with WotC is exactly as I have described, and if you think I am the ONLY person on earth who believes WotC manipulated the MtG market for profit at the expense of players and collectors... well, you simply haven't been paying attention.
Go ahead and continue to play the 4e apologist. I don't care.
I like 4e. In fact I am just about to head out to play my by-monthly 4e game right now. I expect to have a good time.
But I prefer PF for the reasons I've stated.
|
|
WoTC is asking us to give them money.
If they can't write adventure paths as well as Paizo, perhaps they shouldn't have sold off the elements of Paizo that produce these products that are now outselling them.
I totally agree, that good adventure and setting support are vital to the success of any edition. Some games manage with virtually no support beyond the core rules, relying on every GM creating their own homebrew material, but these games will always be niche players in the market.
Early efforts at scenario writing for 4E suffered poor reviews, as being just a bunch of fights strung together. Why oh why couldn't they include some of the characterization and plots of Paizo adventures?
Paizo staff (as much as I love them) aren't the only writers in the business. While a 4E/5E product from Jacobs/Reynolds/Mona/etc may be off the cards, there are lots of people out there who would write for WotC if they had the chance.
A restrictive GSL doesn't prevent WotC creating their own material in-house, nor from hiring the best of the 3PP to freelance for them.
However, the existence of the less-restrictive OGL means that many of the best writers have already committed themselves to writing 3.5/PF/OGL content, and are therefore too busy, or would rather have their name on a product for their own 3PP that will remain evergreen.
Furthermore, if and when they have created good content for 4E, it is hidden behind a pay-per-view subscription wall, so only those invested in the current system ever get to see it. That makes it hard to spread the word, if and when the official material does become rich in plot and characterisation.
Therefore, I believe a more lenient licence is required. Should it go as far as the OGL? Will it go as far as the OGL? I predict not. While it was ideal for filling the need for adventures and campaign settings, it soon became clear that some 3PP were using it to create standalone games, something that was outside of the intent of the OGL.
If you read the interview with Ryan Dancey, or kept up with his postings to date, it is clear that he intended for WotC and 3PP to enjoy a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship, where the 3PP created material for settings that were deemed too niche or unprofitable for WotC to cover, and those who played in them would need to buy a PHB, DMG and possibly MM from WotC.
The launch of standalone games, keeping to the RAW of the OGL, while lawyering their way around the RAI, meant WotC made nothing from groups playing these games.
I can't see WotC risking the same thing happening with 5E, though they may adopt a new licence somewhere between the OGL and GSL, which more clearly sets out the intent, and allows for the creation of 3PP adventures and campaign settings, and the creation of new genres in the 5E rules, while preventing the creation of any standalone game that does not require the purchase of an official PHB, DMG and MM.
Why are you making excuses for the 800lb Gorilla?
I see a lot of people denouncing WotC for moving away from the OGL when launching 4E. While I can understand why 3PP would stay away from the GSL (and I urged Paizo to do so, in the thread they set up requesting feedback), I find the emotional reactions ridiculous.
All blame is aimed at WotC, but no-one seems to consider why they believed they had to move away from the OGL.It was intended to be a mutually beneficial agreement between WotC and 3PP, so why would they move away from a beneficial agreement, unless it had been poisoned, and no longer working as intended?
Why is the blame not aimed at those 3PP who pissed in the pool?
|
|
All blame is aimed at WotC, but no-one seems to consider why they believed they had to move away from the OGL.
It was intended to be a mutually beneficial agreement between WotC and 3PP, so why would they move away from a beneficial agreement, unless it had been poisoned, and no longer working as intended?
Why is the blame not aimed at those 3PP who pissed in the pool?
Frankly, most of us don't think the pool was poisoned. WoTC could have done exactly what Paizo did, and likely would have had more success than Paizo did given that they had the infrastructure Paizo had to build.
They also could have not sold off the magazines and switched to the model that Paizo used.
Most of us view the change to 4E as WoTC thinking "We rhink our position is strong enough to kill off our competitors, if we kill the OGL we will be the only game in town."
When they did it, they were basically the only really viable table top game in town. White Wolf had faded and Dark Heresy was niche, and so the only other players in the market were also using the d20 system.
What they failed to understand was the other systems faded because the OGL meant that the D20 system was the default for new players.
Instead of building on that, they abandoned it. Many people realized they were loyal to the system, not the brand.
If you know D20, you know a ton of other games that your group can also play.
If you know 4E, you know only what WoTC publishes.
They thought this would mean more money from them as the only game in town. They forgot they came back from bankruptcy by embracing the OGL model and making themselves the default system again.
|
|
Snorter, you may have had experiences with people that you found to be irrational, but I simply do not believe for one microsecond that you had any experience remotely similar to the quotes you posted above. That is such an exaggerated and caricatured "conversation" that it does not deserve merit.
I think it paraphrases the reaction perfectly.
Yes, of course it's a caricature. But like any caricature, it stings because it is formed around a core nugget of truth.WotC suggest there may be things worth changing in the 3.5 ruleset, and produce a lighthearted video to illustrate the point = insult taken, and fans burn with righteous indignation, of the power of 10,000 Hiroshimas.
Paizo suggest there may be things worth changing in the 3.5 ruleset, and carry out an long in-depth dissection of those rules, on a public forum, where the intelligence, experience, integrity and the parentage of the writers and players of every edition (OD&D to 3.5) is savaged and ripped apart by some of the most rabid trolls in the gaming community = pats on the back all round, job well done, good to see the community spirit, makes one glad to be alive in such a period of cooperation...
The ridiculous bias in the perceptions between the two events is staggering.
If one thousandth of one percent of the bile and vitriol from the PF playtest forums had been allowed to leak into the 4E marketing, it would have been a sacking matter.
Yet people who weathered the boards here, where you would face daily accusations of being mentally retarded, for holding a certain view on a game mechanic, will see the 4E marketing, cry out that they have been mortally wounded to the core of their being, and pretend to faint, like a Victorian maiden aunt, getting an attack of the vapours after seeing a piano leg without its cover.
My comments about WotC's reputation go back well beyond any D&D activity. I played MtG and did some tournament play. My brother ran a collectibles store and sold WotC product.
My experiences with WotC is exactly as I have described, and if you think I am the ONLY person on earth who believes WotC manipulated the MtG market for profit at the expense of players and collectors... well, you simply haven't been paying attention.
And the people in charge of the development and marketing of MtG were....?
I'm trying to give you a way out, to take back your insults of Paizo's CEO, but you just keep digging yourself deeper.
Take the hint, grab the life-ring, and apologise.
Are people excited for 5th edition or what?! I have never seen such enthusiasm for such a game.
So the fact that the part of the players didn't like 4E is their fault rather than designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?
What makes you think that the word "fault" even applies to a situation like whether something lines up with one particular person's preferences? If a hot dog stand on the street corner only sells hot dogs, is it his fault if you don't buy from him because you hate hot dogs? Is it your fault for not liking them? Trying to assign blame in this situation just seems petty.
The marketing team overestimated their audience. It happens all the time. Their audience, predictably, went through their routine and in the end WotC wound up with fewer customers (both from "fans" who wailed and gnashed at the pre-release marketing, and fans who heard from other "fans" about how awful they imagined the marketing to be).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the fact that the part of the players didn't like 4E is their fault rather than designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?What makes you think that the word "fault" even applies to a situation like whether something lines up with one particular person's preferences? If a hot dog stand on the street corner only sells hot dogs, is it his fault if you don't buy from him because you hate hot dogs? Is it your fault for not liking them? Trying to assign blame in this situation just seems petty.
The marketing team overestimated their audience. It happens all the time. Their audience, predictably, went through their routine and in the end WotC wound up with fewer customers (both from "fans" who wailed and gnashed at the pre-release marketing, and fans who heard from other "fans" about how awful they imagined the marketing to be).
And of course, from people who played the game and didn't like it as much as other products.
But do those companies say "Our previous toothpaste didn't taste very good" or "Our washing powder didn't get out grass stains" or "Some of you thought our previous sauce had a funky aftertaste"?
Would it be weird to you, at all, if your detergent company had a blurb on their box that said, "We tested our previous product against a wide array of stains and found it didn't remove grass stains as well as we wanted it to. So we tweaked the formula, and now grass stains practically vanish!" You wouldn't give it a second thought, because a) it's just fine as marketing goes, and b) you probably don't really give two craps about the marketing details of your detergent-of-choice; I know I don't. But D&D fans are over-invested, and need to obsessively analyze everything WotC does in their own armchair fashion.
By the way, for an example of a modern marketing campaign that is exactly the sort of thing you're saying is a terrible idea that no company ever does, look no further than Domino's Pizza. They have - and have had for the past two years - national television, print, and new media marketing that actually comes out and says "We heard you tell us that our old pizza tasted bland and cardboard-like, and you know what? It did. We fixed it, and we hope you give our new pizza a try." And it's been incredibly successful.
Drop the drama Scott. Also stop trying to make things more that what people are saying. Lastly don't tell me I can't tell the difference between trying to get me to buy the new stuff cause the ,last stuff was bad or just telling me "maybe we can make it better". I don't like being insulted by WoTC or you.
Oh, cool. I like this post. I point out that a particular subset of D&D fans decided to get offended by 4e's pre-release marketing, and someone responds by deciding to get offended by my pointing it out. That's actually kind of awesome.
The world according to Scott. You don't like the new game? Clearly you are in the wrong.
Yes, because I said that, right? In a post? Somewhere?
Gorgeously, you just got done accusing me of hyperbole and over-dramatization.
Whenever I hear the "answer" to a failed objective to be described as "the target audience was too stupid" or "too irrational" I get a pretty good idea of where the lack of intelligence or rationality actually is.
That wasn't my answer. My answer was "The marketing team overestimated their audience." I wasn't blaming the audience. I placed the responsibility for failing to optimally market at the feet of the marketing team.
Similarly, television series that are fantastic shows are often cancelled due to poor ratings for simply being too intricate or literate for much of the audience to follow. A comedy series that uses nothing but sub-culture jokes could have really excellent writing, but if it overestimates the cultural acumen of its audience it probably won't do all that well.
Also, I love that you just called me, personally, stupid and irrational.
|
|
Drop the drama Scott. Also stop trying to make things more that what people are saying. Lastly don't tell me I can't tell the difference between trying to get me to buy the new stuff cause the ,last stuff was bad or just telling me "maybe we can make it better". I don't like being insulted by WoTC or you.Oh, cool. I like this post. I point out that a particular subset of D&D fans decided to get offended by 4e's pre-release marketing, and someone responds by deciding to get offended by my pointing it out. That's actually kind of awesome.
I don't have a problem with you pointing it out, I have an issue with the WAY you pointed it out, which (unless I am overestimating your intelligence) you know quite well.