Would Paizo ever buy the rights to the DnD brand from Hasbro?


Paizo General Discussion

101 to 150 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I'm a bit vague on the Pathfinder energy drink stuff myself—I don''t read German either. I've only seen one can myself.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
redcelt32 wrote:
One point to consider is this...why in the world would Paizo WANT the rights to DnD? Not that DnD is not attractive, but thats like running Blizzard and wanting the rights to Microsoft. They are doing two totally different things.
I think that's a bit of an overstatement, given that the core of Pathfinder is a slightly tweaked copy-paste of the 3.5 SRD.

At this point, it's way more than "slightly tweaked".

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
redcelt32 wrote:
One point to consider is this...why in the world would Paizo WANT the rights to DnD? Not that DnD is not attractive, but thats like running Blizzard and wanting the rights to Microsoft. They are doing two totally different things.
I think that's a bit of an overstatement, given that the core of Pathfinder is a slightly tweaked copy-paste of the 3.5 SRD.
At this point, it's way more than "slightly tweaked".

The core, as in the basic system.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
redcelt32 wrote:
One point to consider is this...why in the world would Paizo WANT the rights to DnD? Not that DnD is not attractive, but thats like running Blizzard and wanting the rights to Microsoft. They are doing two totally different things.
I think that's a bit of an overstatement, given that the core of Pathfinder is a slightly tweaked copy-paste of the 3.5 SRD.
At this point, it's way more than "slightly tweaked".
The core, as in the basic system.

Even so it's different enough that 3.X vets are the ones most likely to make mechanics mistakes in the game.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
redcelt32 wrote:
One point to consider is this...why in the world would Paizo WANT the rights to DnD? Not that DnD is not attractive, but thats like running Blizzard and wanting the rights to Microsoft. They are doing two totally different things.
I think that's a bit of an overstatement, given that the core of Pathfinder is a slightly tweaked copy-paste of the 3.5 SRD.
At this point, it's way more than "slightly tweaked".
The core, as in the basic system.
Even so it's different enough that 3.X vets are the ones most likely to make mechanics mistakes in the game.

More likely than newbies or AD&D converts? Not in my experience, and the mistakes they make tend to be significantly smaller and less important, I've found, as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Whoa. There's a face I've not seen in awhile...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bagpuss wrote:


More likely than newbies or AD&D converts? Not in my experience, and the mistakes they make tend to be significantly smaller and less important, I've found, as well.

Absolutely so. It was like the experience I had in training people in Mac OS X. The people that needed the most help were those who used Mac Classic as they came in with so many pre-conceptions about OS X being "just another Macintosh operating system". And they kept tripping themselves with System 7-9 expectations. Whereas the Windows users treated it right away as something completely new and different.

When it came to Pathfinder, folks who who had not passed through the 3rd edition era, were less likely to make 3.5 assumptions once they'd gotten the system down.


LazarX wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:


More likely than newbies or AD&D converts? Not in my experience, and the mistakes they make tend to be significantly smaller and less important, I've found, as well.

Absolutely so. It was like the experience I had in training people in Mac OS X. The people that needed the most help were those who used Mac Classic as they came in with so many pre-conceptions about OS X being "just another Macintosh operating system". And they kept tripping themselves with System 7-9 expectations. Whereas the Windows users treated it right away as something completely new and different.

When it came to Pathfinder, folks who who had not passed through the 3rd edition era, were less likely to make 3.5 assumptions once they'd gotten the system down.

And that speaks to how close the two systems are, not that they are different.


LazarX wrote:
Absolutely so. It was like the experience I had in training people in Mac OS X. The people that needed the most help were those who used Mac Classic as they came in with so many pre-conceptions about OS X being "just another Macintosh operating system". And they kept tripping themselves with System 7-9 expectations. Whereas the Windows users treated it right away as something completely new and different.

Bingo.

When a new user comes across an unfamiliar situation, they ask questions or explore to figure out how they should proceed.

When a previous-version user comes across that same situation, they first try whatever worked in the previous version, and become frustrated or upset when it doesn't work (or, worse, when it appears to work but actually does something entirely different).

There's a lot to be said for the old, "You must unlearn what you have learned," trope. Forgetting everything isn't going to be helpful, but neither is assuming - or expecting - that things work the way they did before.


WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN SNEAK ATTACK UNDEAD? I don't know how many times I have screwed this up. Coming from 3.0/3.5 I definitely make more mistakes then someone who has only ever played pathfinder. I mean I don't grapple for fear of losing daylight too fast. I also love prestige classes, despite the fact that they suck in pathfinder. PLANAR SHEPHERD Oh how I miss 3.5 lol...not


Scott Betts wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Absolutely so. It was like the experience I had in training people in Mac OS X. The people that needed the most help were those who used Mac Classic as they came in with so many pre-conceptions about OS X being "just another Macintosh operating system". And they kept tripping themselves with System 7-9 expectations. Whereas the Windows users treated it right away as something completely new and different.

Bingo.

When a new user comes across an unfamiliar situation, they ask questions or explore to figure out how they should proceed.

When a previous-version user comes across that same situation, they first try whatever worked in the previous version, and become frustrated or upset when it doesn't work (or, worse, when it appears to work but actually does something entirely different).

There's a lot to be said for the old, "You must unlearn what you have learned," trope. Forgetting everything isn't going to be helpful, but neither is assuming - or expecting - that things work the way they did before.

That's exactly my experience with Pathfinder. I had "mastered" 3.5 to the point that I barely needed books at all, but the changes in Pathfinder tripped me up all over the place until just recently. For a long time, I refused to play anything other than a human ranger or fighter because the changes were tripping me up so bad.

Whereas, we have a few new players, whom Pathfinder is literally their first TTRPG, and they took to the system very easily, and are having none of the problems I was having.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed an unhelpful post.


Regarding the german energy drink can, it just says:
Beginners Box
For Real Heroes!
and: Get it! (to the right, over the QR code)
So, it is a promo item, I´d say.
I´ve never heard of that product until today - but then, I´m neither into energy drinks nor the target audience for the beginners box. Still, never stumbling upon them is kinda strange, as I look at the Ulisses page somewhat regularly.

Shadow Lodge

Josh M. wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Absolutely so. It was like the experience I had in training people in Mac OS X. The people that needed the most help were those who used Mac Classic as they came in with so many pre-conceptions about OS X being "just another Macintosh operating system". And they kept tripping themselves with System 7-9 expectations. Whereas the Windows users treated it right away as something completely new and different.

Bingo.

When a new user comes across an unfamiliar situation, they ask questions or explore to figure out how they should proceed.

When a previous-version user comes across that same situation, they first try whatever worked in the previous version, and become frustrated or upset when it doesn't work (or, worse, when it appears to work but actually does something entirely different).

There's a lot to be said for the old, "You must unlearn what you have learned," trope. Forgetting everything isn't going to be helpful, but neither is assuming - or expecting - that things work the way they did before.

That's exactly my experience with Pathfinder. I had "mastered" 3.5 to the point that I barely needed books at all, but the changes in Pathfinder tripped me up all over the place until just recently. For a long time, I refused to play anything other than a human ranger or fighter because the changes were tripping me up so bad.

Whereas, we have a few new players, whom Pathfinder is literally their first TTRPG, and they took to the system very easily, and are having none of the problems I was having.

Yeah, that confusion is precisely because Pathfinder is so close to 3.5. So, as I said...slightly tweaked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Absolutely so. It was like the experience I had in training people in Mac OS X. The people that needed the most help were those who used Mac Classic as they came in with so many pre-conceptions about OS X being "just another Macintosh operating system". And they kept tripping themselves with System 7-9 expectations. Whereas the Windows users treated it right away as something completely new and different.

Bingo.

When a new user comes across an unfamiliar situation, they ask questions or explore to figure out how they should proceed.

When a previous-version user comes across that same situation, they first try whatever worked in the previous version, and become frustrated or upset when it doesn't work (or, worse, when it appears to work but actually does something entirely different).

There's a lot to be said for the old, "You must unlearn what you have learned," trope. Forgetting everything isn't going to be helpful, but neither is assuming - or expecting - that things work the way they did before.

That's exactly my experience with Pathfinder. I had "mastered" 3.5 to the point that I barely needed books at all, but the changes in Pathfinder tripped me up all over the place until just recently. For a long time, I refused to play anything other than a human ranger or fighter because the changes were tripping me up so bad.

Whereas, we have a few new players, whom Pathfinder is literally their first TTRPG, and they took to the system very easily, and are having none of the problems I was having.

Yeah, that confusion is precisely because Pathfinder is so close to 3.5. So, as I said...slightly tweaked.

I do want to point out, for those who've already forgotten/weren't playing back in 3.5, that the issue of experienced players getting the rules mixed up existed before PF, because of house rules. People who play for a long time get used to their house rules, and occasionally mix them up with the RAW.

3.5 and PF are similar. Extremely similar. So similar that distinction between them, in most cases outside of PFS/LG/organized play, is smaller than the changes people make between RAW and their games. As a result, people can continue to use their previous house rules without modification and barely if at all notice a difference.


137ben wrote:

I do want to point out, for those who've already forgotten/weren't playing back in 3.5, that the issue of experienced players getting the rules mixed up existed before PF, because of house rules. People who play for a long time get used to their house rules, and occasionally mix them up with the RAW.

3.5 and PF are similar. Extremely similar. So similar that distinction between them, in most cases outside of PFS/LG/organized play, is smaller than the changes people make between RAW and their games. As a result, people can continue to use their previous house rules without modification and barely if at all notice a difference.

I agree with this in some regards, although I think the statement is a little bit too general. I mean yes, some of our house rules from 3.5 were quite game changing (we had divine metamagic completely banned, and for good reason). While others were quite small and unnoticeable (combining use rope and escape artist...because...well....duh). However, pathfinder changed ALOT of things from 3.5, not as much as 4th ed, but enough that it is dubbed 3.75.

In fact, lots of our house rules don't even apply to pathfinder (like the two I just listed.) The invention of the CMB/CMD made grapple a non chore, and actually useable by anyone without a degree in dndology.

I don't think experienced players are getting caught up on major differences, I know I don't. However it is the subtleties, like a rogue now being able to sneak attack undead, or the changes to a paladins smite, these are the things we slip up on. The changes that while subtle are what clearly define pathfinder as the better system. The utilizing of alternative 3.5 rules (weapon groups, max hp at first level to name a few) that only help to amplify the overall playability of the game. These changes, while minor, are many; and many minor changes definitely lead to a very different system. Just the other day I found one that I missed, Rangers can HIPS in any of their favored terrains! That is SO much better than the "natural terrain" that my 3.5 players handbook says. I played a ranger not to long ago and didn't even bother to read the changes to half the class features. I just assumed most of the similarly named ones were the same! Shame on me!

Anyways, I think you get my point. The changes, while minor, do create some confusion for experienced players, and this is honestly why I believe that players who are indoctrinated into TTRPGS with pathfinder ultimately end up as better players than people who have 2 3 or even 4 systems worth of knowledge stored up in their memory banks. Just my 2 copper pieces.


Yeah, it gets even more confusing for people who started with 3.0, moved on to 3.5, and then on to Pathfinder. Add to that that the rules are based around exceptions. For example, in 3.0 you could ready a partial charge, in 3.5 you cannot, and in Pathfinder you cannot, though you can with a feat. And players can get so used to having a certain feat they forget the rule the feat broke.

That said, I'd be reluctant to say that 3.x players will make more mistakes than entirely new players, though I agree their minor mistakes might continue for longer. Our group continues to mix things up only because we alternate 3.5/PF games weekly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hear you Rhatahema, I vividly remember the monkey grip of 3.0, and now we have the titan mauler archetype to sate our 2 handing fury! It's true, maybe I worded myself poorly. I do think older players have an easier time learning the system than a new player, I just think our mastery over it takes longer. I mean its the same with anything that is close but not exactly the same.

Anyone who has switched companies without switching fields can tell you that. You pick up bad habits (and good ones) and they can often be tricky to break!

Although we've gotten quite off topic, I think in the end Paizo purchasing DnD is very unlikely and not beneficial. As much as I loved forgotten realms richness, or the amazing dragonlance world, I really am enjoying exploring Golarion without any regrets currently. I think if Paizo started producing APS from either of those lines it would instantly create competition with themselves, and honestly there is no point. Paizo writers are doing awesome, and have pushed to the forefront in an industry where they were definitely the underdog. Kudos paizo, you don't need DnD materials, the OGC/OGL was more than enough, and you're well on your way to a MUCH better system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sarf is right (naturally, how can someone that handsome be wrong?) about settings. One of TSR's big problems towards the end was creating too many settings to manage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the abundance of settings was AFAIK one of the things that broke TSRs neck. Let me see if I can recall them all... Greyhawk, Mystara (+ Red Steel), Forgotten Realms (with Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur and Maztica being part of that, but the first two being settings in their own right), Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape, Birthright, and several minor lines, like Council of Wyrms, Lankhmar, Odyssey, Monstrous Arcana. That´s 8 major settings, with three or four being more or less standard RPG fantasy. Many products were boxed sets as well (Al-Qadim was published with 10 boxes, with 14 products total), which cost a lot. An overabundance of settings, high production costs, fracturing of ones own market - no, not a good strategy. So, knowing that, it is only logical that Paizo would not touch a second setting, but rather concentrate on their primary setting and pour all of their creativity into that.

So, between Hasbro most probably not selling and a forbidding price tag if they would, paizo won´t buy. Furthermore, fans would clamor that theit preferred setting came back to life, creating more conflicts and instantly recreating a fractured market. Nope, won´t happen.


I wonder if it is as simple as all that. I mean, it's the official story, sure, but still. Take a look at the average 2nd edition book. It's black and white, with just colour cover. It's pretty thin, usually 32 pages, possibly 64. The production costs were nowhere near what they are today. Otherwise put, one book today got people several books back in the day, even adjusting for inflation and stuff, both on the producing and the consuming ends.

When they did 3rd edition, they made quite a few changes, specifically to not end up as TSR did. One of them was that they decided that "adventures don't sell". Admittedly, this was probably a large part of the OGL coming into being, that other companies should make the adventures while they made the more profitable rules, but still it ignores a pretty serious factor: Adventures help sell other stuff. Apart from Dungeon Magazine, they put out adventures at the start and toward the end of 3rd. Had they done so earlier, I find it quite likely they would have built a far stronger product in whole.

Another thing they decided was that "Many players, one DM, so we will make more money by selling to the players instead of only to the DMs". This, too, is pretty questionable. First, I suspect that most groups work roughly like mine: One person collects each game. Then, of course, there is option bloat after releasing hecatombs of rule books aimed at player options, and thus many DMs' heads spun and they said "core only".

You know what happened instead of the setting bloat of TSR? Well, third HAD no real official setting due to going with Greyhawk that they did not support. FR was always second fiddle after NO SETTING, and Eberron third. Instead of getting setting books and adventures for said settings, the only thing that came out until the end was in sight was "MOAR PLAYER OPTIONS GUH!" Eventually, they had done Complete <whatever>, Races of <whatever>, Heroes of <whatever>, Monsters of <whatever>, Terrains of <whatever> and so on, so they needed to get more and more experimental (incarnum, dragon magic). There was eventually no more good places to go. So it became time for a relaunch, so they could print EVEN MORE PLAYER OPTIONS GUH! Also, for each massively cool new player option written, they generally never supported it again at all. With a bit more thought to using said options, third would have been a far stronger game.

I am not saying I know best. I am merely putting it out there that it must be possible to find a middle road somewhere. Paizo has done very well in this, with adventure modules, player options and setting books. Still, they did Distant Planets (and people are clamoring for more ever since) and left it along the wayside, same as happened with Dragon Empires, which is sad, but perhaps understandable given their publishing model. More specifically: If they were to return to Dragon Empires, the old material will be hard to get, so they would either have to republish it or many people would not have it, and thus would probably not buy the books.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
distant planets by the wayside...

a quick paraphrase.

DP has been used fairly frequently, since it came out, both in modules and APs. I agree that there have been calls for more use via the forums, but saying it has been laid by the wayside doesn't seem to track with its actual use.


Settings were a problem, but not the biggest one. I mean, of that list AL-QADIM, KARA-TUR, MAZTICA, MYSTARA, RED STEEL, GREYHAWK and LANKHMAR (SPELLJAMMER as well IIRC) were not supported by TSR for at least 5 years before the company finally collapsed. DRAGONLANCE only had a couple of products published at the end of that period (actually after WotC took over; I still have the 15th anniversary adventure book for 2E which must have come out in 1999) and almost nothing at all for a few years before that. DARK SUN's second incarnation was cancelled almost immediately after it appeared in 1995 due to poor sales. PLANESCAPE didn't last that long either. I think RAVENLOFT had had a few new things at the end of the TSR period, but again not very much.

When TSR went down, FORGOTTEN REALMS was its real only going concern (and actually doing really well IMO, with Steven Schend's stuff). BIRTHRIGHT had kind of wound down at that point as well.

Also, still owning a large number of 2E products, the big campaign setting boxes were excellent value but a lot of the stand-alone books were very cheap. As said above, they were black and white and printed on low-to-okay quality paper. The 3E stuff, in comparison, was published on glossy paper, often in hardcover even when it was extremely short. It also cost a lot more: I remember getting THE GRAND HISTORY OF THE REALMS (pretty much my last 3E purchase of any kind) home and nearly taking it back for a refund. It was disgustingly short for the money, it recycled art (some of it from the wrong campaign setting) and was a pale shadow of the original online article that spawned it.

Setting bloat might have contributed to TSR's downfall, but I don't think it was the main problem. The main one was simple mismanagement of the company and probably keeping 2E going for a bit too long after it stopped making them lots of money. They should have probably considered their own 3E around the time they were working on ALTERNITY.


Werthead wrote:


Setting bloat might have contributed to TSR's downfall, but I don't think it was the main one. The main one was simple mismanagement of the company and probably keeping 2E going for a bit too long after it stopped making them lots of money. They should have probably considered their own 3E around the time they were working on ALTERNITY.

One of the things I like about Paizo's model is that their primary income source (the APs) isn't stuck in a cul-de-sac the same way as companies that focused on their rulebooks have done.

With the TSR/WotC model, it's all about getting as many books possible out of the door while the edition is active, then rebooting once you're out of ideas in order to generate interest in a new edition. With Paizo's, it's a lot easier to sit back and leave the rules relatively static (with the occasional hardback of additional options) and not run into the point where you're forced to reboot into a new edition just to come up with a new product to put on the shelves.

The fact that means we as customers are constantly adding to our Pathfinder collection instead of having to shove it aside and start from scratch generates a great deal of customer loyalty, too, where the former model tends do more damage than good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sleet Storm wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Sleet Storm wrote:
Haha:) get ready for DnD the ENERGY DRINK.
Hmm.... Tell me more. Does every drink come with xp and loot? If I drink 10 do I level up? If WoTC is involved does my level of system mastery get rewarded by knowledge that the blue drink is balanced but green is OP?(red is a trap, ofc) They have to be sold in editions of course.... Great, now I've got a lot of bad jokes and references in my head.
No but it comes in Potion Flasks.

It'll come in flavors Bear's Endurance, Haste, Divine Power and Time Stop.

And to fight that hangover there will be Stone to Flesh and Raise Dead


Lisa Stevens was the person at wotc tasked with working out what had gone wrong with TSR. She's previously expressed the view that setting bloat was one of the major factors in the company's demise. In addition, some of those boxed sets actually cost more to produce than they sold for.

Lisa wrote:
.....the splitting of the customer base is the #1 reason why TSR went out of business. It would take me a couple of hours to explain why this was the case, but as the person responsible at WotC for taking the old TSR data and analyzing it to see why they went belly up, the biggest cause that I found was splitting the customer base into segments. Whether it was D&D vs. AD&D. Or Forgotten Realms vs. Ravenloft vs. Greyhawk vs. Dragonlance vs. Birthright vs. Dark Sun vs. Planescape vs. Mystara vs. Al-Qadim vs. Spelljammer vs. Lanhkmar vs. any other setting book that they produced. Splitting the customer base means lower sales on any particular product which means lower profit margins which eventually means going belly up.


A more pertinent question would be, can and will Hasbro look at the potential for buying Paizo? And don’t, for one minute, entertain the idea that they do not have enough money to do so, they do, and if they buried Pathfinder (The way TSR buried Dangerous Journeys) they could make D&D the only product on the market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I recall someone asking Lisa and/or Vic that some time way in the past - four or five years ago - and both being very adamant that no amount of money would be enough, they were not interested.

I doubt that's changed. Yes Hasbro can probably afford Paizo's market value and then some. But if they can't get Lisa/Vic to sign on the dotted line, the amount of money is relatively irrelevant.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

All the money in the world won't help you if the item isn't for sale.

Goes for Paizo and the D&D brand itself.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

All the money in the world won't help you if the item isn't for sale.

Goes for Paizo and the D&D brand itself.

THEY WILL NEVAR TAKE ME ALIVE!!!


Steve Geddes wrote:

Lisa Stevens was the person at wotc tasked with working out what had gone wrong with TSR. She's previously expressed the view that setting bloat was one of the major factors in the company's demise. In addition, some of those boxed sets actually cost more to produce than they sold for.

Lisa wrote:
.....the splitting of the customer base is the #1 reason why TSR went out of business. It would take me a couple of hours to explain why this was the case, but as the person responsible at WotC for taking the old TSR data and analyzing it to see why they went belly up, the biggest cause that I found was splitting the customer base into segments. Whether it was D&D vs. AD&D. Or Forgotten Realms vs. Ravenloft vs. Greyhawk vs. Dragonlance vs. Birthright vs. Dark Sun vs. Planescape vs. Mystara vs. Al-Qadim vs. Spelljammer vs. Lanhkmar vs. any other setting book that they produced. Splitting the customer base means lower sales on any particular product which means lower profit margins which eventually means going belly up.

That was part of the mismanagement though. Producing campign setting boxed sets and selling them at a loss was a stupid thing to do. Producing several campaign settings that are all strong sellers and you can shift product lines in each of them is certainly a good idea, especially if they do not cannibalise one another, but not if they are: I'd argue that FORGOTTEN REALMS, RAVENLOFT and PLANESCAPE all appeal to different markets, whilst FORGOTTEN REALMS, GREYHAWK and DRAGONLANCE would all appeal to the same, despite minor changes of focus. Someone who really hates sub-Tolkien, medieval fantasy worlds (even well-done ones) are never going to buy a FORGOTTEN REALMS product, but they might buy a PLANESCAPE one.

If SPELLJAMMER and LANKHMAR were part of the problem for TSR, that's rather concerning. That would indicate TSR's money problems that led to its collapse began seven or eight years before the company went down. You'd think they might have engaged in a bit of self-analysis in that time and figured out what was going wrong.


I'm no economist, but with a quick search, Hasbro's revenue was over 4 billion in 2012 with 5,500 employees full time and part time. The D&D brand is a commodity that will bring Hasbro a reliable revenue stream over a long period of time. It may not be a fortune, but I'm sure it makes them money and they realize that gamers are reliable customers that if they made a 6e or whatever down the line it could make them money.

Paizo has what? 15? MAYBE 20 full/part time staff members that aren't freelance? Yes, Paizo is one of the biggest RPG names, but its comparative. As well as Paizo is doing its like being the biggest kid in the 4th grade class. You're the biggest but still small. This isn't meant to demean what they've accomplished just to point out "one of the biggest" in the RPG world is still not big in the corporate world.

The point being, I can't imagine Paizo being able to come up with the type of capital necessary to get the rights to the D&D brand. Paizo would have to have make some pretty impressive business maneuvers to pull together the cash to make an offer Hasbro would consider. Hasbro would also have to be pretty desperate to need that money for the short term. I don't see it happening.

As for Hasbro buying Paizo? Paizo would have to go public which I don't see happening or Hasbro would have to resort to extremely aggressive tactics (possibly taking a short term loss) to force out their smaller competitor(s) and force them to sell which AFAIK they've played fair and haven't done thus far. Even then, Paizo wouldn't necessarily sell to them and could go to other companies. "Wal-marting", "Starbucksing", "Budweisering" etc. out competitors probably wouldn't work anyway because this isn't a normal product and gamers (when it comes to RPGs) don't act like normal, fickle, consumers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:

I'm no economist, but with a quick search, Hasbro's revenue was over 4 billion in 2012 with 5,500 employees full time and part time. The D&D brand is a commodity that will bring Hasbro a reliable revenue stream over a long period of time. It may not be a fortune, but I'm sure it makes them money and they realize that gamers are reliable customers that if they made a 6e or whatever down the line it could make them money.

Paizo has what? 15? MAYBE 20 full/part time staff members that aren't freelance? Yes, Paizo is one of the biggest RPG names, but its comparative. As well as Paizo is doing its like being the biggest kid in the 4th grade class. You're the biggest but still small. This isn't meant to demean what they've accomplished just to point out "one of the biggest" in the RPG world is still not big in the corporate world.

The point being, I can't imagine Paizo being able to come up with the type of capital necessary to get the rights to the D&D brand. Paizo would have to have some pretty impressive business maneuvers to come up with the cash to make it remotely worth Hasbro considering it and Hasbro would probably have to be pretty desperate to need the money for the short term. I don't see it happening.

As for Hasbro buying Paizo? Paizo would have to go public which I don't see happening or Hasbro would have to resort to extremely aggressive tactics (possibly taking a short term loss) to force out their smaller competitor(s) and force them to sell which AFAIK they've played fair and haven't done thus far. Even then, Paizo wouldn't necessarily sell to them and could go to other companies. "Wal-marting", "Starbucksing", "Budweisering" etc. out competitors probably wouldn't work anyway because RGPs isn't a normal market and RPGers when it comes to RPGs don't act like normal, fickle, consumers.

We have pretty much gone past the days where one company can be said to "corner" or even define the RPG market. The D20 explosion has come and gone, and while you have a lot of games out there that use it as it's core, we're starting to see a resurgence of companies inventing their own custom systems intead of hitching their wagons to another company's success. Of all the big names of the past, Steve Jackson Games is pretty much the only survivor who hasn't been bought out, broken up, shutdown, or otherwise reorganised.

Hasbro isn't going to buy Paizo out to suppress it, because in a small industry like paper and dice gaming, you really can't afford to piss off a sizable part of your potential customers. 4th Edition is pretty much the showcase of this argument. Similarly they recognize the inherent value of the D+D brand, and they think long term. It's not going to be firesaled out at a price that Paizo can afford to pay, even if it was inclined to do so. (We've had extensive discussion on why a D+D purchase would not be the golden goose for the company.)

I do think that the days of transition for the hobby aren't over. How long can paper and dice gaming continue to be a growing or even sustained fad in a population that seeks it's entertainment in ways more and more digital. The hobby doesn't' grow on the old grognards that refuse to change, it grows on the young who come into it.


Sissyl's post was a bit to long to quote the relevant sections, but beyond Distant Worlds material showing up in various AP's and campaign setting books, their have also been some Tian Xia material put out in some of the Campaign setting books and even in some AP's. It's not getting whole books but they are letting a bit more trickle out.

Webstore Gninja Minion

MattR1986 wrote:
Paizo has what? 15? MAYBE 20 full/part time staff members that aren't freelance?

It's actually closer to 50.


Liz Courts wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
Paizo has what? 15? MAYBE 20 full/part time staff members that aren't freelance?
It's actually closer to 50.

I was being conservative by only including what I could find for staff and from pictures. I couldn't find definitive things about your full/part time breakdown and for "non-core" staff i.e. not Lisa, James, Jason etc. 50 is a good amount, but I think we can still agree that "big" for an RPG company (50 employees) is good, but still not big when it comes to business.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
Paizo has what? 15? MAYBE 20 full/part time staff members that aren't freelance?
It's actually closer to 50.
I was being conservative by only including what I could find for staff and from pictures. I couldn't find definitive things about your full/part time breakdown and for "non-core" staff i.e. not Lisa, James, Jason etc. 50 is a good amount, but I think we can still agree that "big" for an RPG company (50 employees) is good, but still not big when it comes to business.

The graphics company I used to work for in Manhattan had about 100 people on staff. That just made us a small pebble in a pond.

Paizo looks like a big company because the paper and dice economy is so small by comparison.

Webstore Gninja Minion

MattR1986 wrote:
I was being conservative by only including what I could find for staff and from pictures. I couldn't find definitive things about your full/part time breakdown and for "non-core" staff i.e. not Lisa, James, Jason etc. 50 is a good amount, but I think we can still agree that "big" for an RPG company (50 employees) is good, but still not big when it comes to business.

I'd argue your definition of "core staff", but yeah, 50 employees is a lot for an RPG company, but not large for most businesses. :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Attending the PaizoCon banquet enlightened me to how many people they employ. The poor warehouse crew hardly ever gets mentioned.


Liz Courts wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
I was being conservative by only including what I could find for staff and from pictures. I couldn't find definitive things about your full/part time breakdown and for "non-core" staff i.e. not Lisa, James, Jason etc. 50 is a good amount, but I think we can still agree that "big" for an RPG company (50 employees) is good, but still not big when it comes to business.
I'd argue your definition of "core staff", but yeah, 50 employees is a lot for an RPG company, but not large for most businesses. :)

I wasn't trying to imply anyone wasn't an essential member of the team, just going off who we always see in pictures, interviews, or listed HERE


Terquem wrote:
A more pertinent question would be, can and will Hasbro look at the potential for buying Paizo? And don’t, for one minute, entertain the idea that they do not have enough money to do so, they do, and if they buried Pathfinder (The way TSR buried Dangerous Journeys) they could make D&D the only product on the market.

Paizo is not a publicly traded company. It's a private company owned by Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz. In order for Hasbro to purchase Paizo, Lisa and Vic would have to agree to do so. It's not like Hasbro can sneak in with a hostile takeover, because there are no shareholders to buy stocks from. In the end, Hasbro has to offer an overwhelming amount of money for Lisa to agree - and neither is likely to happen.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not a chance, really.


Werthead wrote:
If SPELLJAMMER and LANKHMAR were part of the problem for TSR, that's rather concerning. That would indicate TSR's money problems that led to its collapse began seven or eight years before the company went down. You'd think they might have engaged in a bit of self-analysis in that time and figured out what was going wrong.

I seem to recall reading an article online (?) at some point where an insider told what he found when he came to TSR HQ in the mid-nineties. According to that, it was a company in agony, not doing any market research, and having tons of old products in the warehouse, without any chance of selling that stuff. So, yes, the problems started way before the crash, probably as early as the late 80ies.


TSR was sold for around 27 million in 1997. Adjusted for inflation around double that would be a ball park figure for D&D. Scuttlebut a couple of years back had Disney offer $100 million a couple of years back and get turned down.

Last I heard Paizo was on around 11.2 million in revenue end of 2012. The danger to Paizo is WoTC manages to produce a version of D&D that is not terribru. Throw in leverage via Hasbro for big stores to stock D&D toys and Hasbro cross brand promotion via the D&D toy blocks crossover and yeah.

They screwed up 4E but D&D survived Lorraine Williams. Making a fixed 3.5 or a better 3.5 could also spell trouble for Paizo if D&DN tanks.


Liz Courts wrote:


I'd argue your definition of "core staff", but yeah, 50 employees is a lot for an RPG company, but not large for most businesses. :)

Actually... A huge majority of businesses in the U.S. have fewer than 20 employees. With 50, Paizo exists within a fairly small slice of companies.


gamer-printer wrote:
Terquem wrote:
A more pertinent question would be, can and will Hasbro look at the potential for buying Paizo? And don’t, for one minute, entertain the idea that they do not have enough money to do so, they do, and if they buried Pathfinder (The way TSR buried Dangerous Journeys) they could make D&D the only product on the market.

Paizo is not a publicly traded company. It's a private company owned by Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz. In order for Hasbro to purchase Paizo, Lisa and Vic would have to agree to do so. It's not like Hasbro can sneak in with a hostile takeover, because there are no shareholders to buy stocks from. In the end, Hasbro has to offer an overwhelming amount of money for Lisa to agree - and neither is likely to happen.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not a chance, really.

Gary Gygax did not want to sell Dangerous Journeys to TSR. A plethora of frivolous lawsuits which would have bankrupted Game Designer's Workshop forced Gygax to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of money "purchasing" all rights to the game and then TSR shelved it indefinitely.

I'm not saying Ms Stevens or Mr. Wertz are noble or fools, not at all (such statements as “It is not for sale” are really irrelevant in today’s marketplace), but if Hasbro wanted to buy Paizo, they could find a way to make it happen.


Terquem wrote:


I'm not saying Ms Stevens or Mr. Wertz are noble or fools, not at all (such statements as “It is not for sale” are really irrelevant in today’s marketplace), but if Hasbro wanted to buy Paizo, they could find a way to make it happen.

Wow, that's cynical.

Sure, there may be ways for Hasbro to buy Paizo, but the fundamental way to achieve that is to make Lisa and Vic an offer they would be insane to refuse. But given how happy they seem to be running Paizo, either their business fortunes would have to turn drastically against them to the point unloading Paizo is a blessing (in which case Hasbro probably won't want it) or some other sea change would have to occur for them personally. And I'm not holding my breath for either to occur.

Ultimately, I don't believe there's any realistic way for Hasbro to force the issue on their own timeline or, as you put it, find a way to make it happen.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Terquem wrote:


I'm not saying Ms Stevens or Mr. Wertz are noble or fools, not at all (such statements as “It is not for sale” are really irrelevant in today’s marketplace), but if Hasbro wanted to buy Paizo, they could find a way to make it happen.

Wow, that's cynical.

Sure, there may be ways for Hasbro to buy Paizo, but the fundamental way to achieve that is to make Lisa and Vic an offer they would be insane to refuse. But given how happy they seem to be running Paizo, either their business fortunes would have to turn drastically against them to the point unloading Paizo is a blessing (in which case Hasbro probably won't want it) or some other sea change would have to occur for them personally. And I'm not holding my breath for either to occur.

Ultimately, I don't believe there's any realistic way for Hasbro to force the issue on their own timeline or, as you put it, find a way to make it happen.

I think he was implying if WoTC got nasty they could find various ways to sue them into the ground and bankrupt Paizo with legal fees and then make an offer that would be idiotic to refuse from a financial PoV.


Werthead wrote:

That was part of the mismanagement though. Producing campign setting boxed sets and selling them at a loss was a stupid thing to do. Producing several campaign settings that are all strong sellers and you can shift product lines in each of them is certainly a good idea, especially if they do not cannibalise one another, but not if they are: I'd argue that FORGOTTEN REALMS, RAVENLOFT and PLANESCAPE all appeal to different markets, whilst FORGOTTEN REALMS, GREYHAWK and DRAGONLANCE would all appeal to the same, despite minor changes of focus. Someone who really hates sub-Tolkien, medieval fantasy worlds (even well-done ones) are never going to buy a FORGOTTEN REALMS product, but they might buy a PLANESCAPE one.

If SPELLJAMMER and LANKHMAR were part of the problem for TSR, that's rather concerning. That would indicate TSR's money problems that led to its collapse began seven or eight years before the company went down. You'd think they might have engaged in a bit of self-analysis in that time and figured out what was going wrong.

Lisa would know better than me (and probably better than anyone, to be frank). I think her point was that all those campaign settings did end up catering to different markets - but that initially they were all part of the same market.

.
In my opinion you're overestimating how many people enter the RPG bookstore knowing what they want to buy and not inclined to get anything else. I think Lisa's point was that those PLANESCAPE fans you mention would have bought FORGOTTEN REALMS if there wasnt any other option. (Or at least most of them would have).


Speaking of the D&D movies, alot of people don't realize just how much money can be made with "horrible" limited release movies that do most of their damage on DVD and Cable. There are 10's of millions of dollars to be made on appropriately budgeted "direct to video" stuff. For all we know the D&D movies were very profitable. If they weren't, they certainly could have been had they been budgeted well.

101 to 150 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Would Paizo ever buy the rights to the DnD brand from Hasbro? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.