Recently, we've seen the end of web fiction, RPG Superstar and the module line placed on indefinite hiatus, and reports that no new novels have been solicited for the latter half of 2017. Part of this could be the time and effort devoted to Starfinder, of course, but I think it's also realistic to recognize a general tightening of the belt as Pathfinder reaches its 10th anniversary. The peak of Pathfinder's popularity has passed. It's not the new, exciting kid on the block anymore, and it's natural that some customers will jump over to other product lines. This is, in part, while Paizo has had to diversify and launch another RPG (Starfinder) for the first time.
However, I think this could actually be a good thing. First, there's enough existing Pathfinder material such as adventure paths for me to game with for at least two decades! I've barely digested the 70+ Player's Companions and Campaign Setting books, not to mention the two-dozen hardcovers, and much, much more. And I expect that, if fewer products are released each month, it's quite possible that additional care and attention could be given to making them even better. The Pathfinder gaming community may be smaller, but it doesn't have to be less vibrant or exciting.
So that's my provocative thought for this month. What do you think?
Couple of thoughts:
1. Paizo has an established history of tweaking lines as needed to reinvigorate them. They experiment as needed. Sometimes the tweaks work out of the gate, other times they require additional tweaks. The Pathfinder Companion line underwent several such tweaks over the years.
Putting something on hiatus could be a matter of wanting to ensure they don't spread themselves too thin, re-envisioning the role of a contest, product line, etc. as well as a possible ending.
2. You're citing multiple product lines and Pathfinder elements. Things like the fiction line are separate from the RPG. One has little to do with the other. For example, WotC was still churning out Forgotten Realms fiction while 4e RPG product effectively dried up.
3. Paizo adjusts to market conditions as needed. (Begin anecdotal evidence cycle) Yes, 5e is in play, but it's had zero impact in my gaming circles. There are fans that play both, and there fans that move to 5e exclusively. Yet for every forum poster that sings the praises of 5e's limited product line, I can find 10 that are clamoring for more content.
PF fans like content and are used to it. Given the amount of content produced, every line is ultimately competing for consumer dollars. Some lines are must haves, some are nice-to-haves. While I enjoy the fiction line, it's definitely in the latter column for me.
4. Starfinder. If history is any indicator, where most RPG companies would either A) bite off more than they can chew by trying to develop multiple RPGs and supporting lines simultaneously or B) focus on the new at the expense of the original, Paizo is launching Starfinder while adhering to Auntie Lisa's requirements that Pathfinder can't be adversely affected by Starfinder's development. Given limited resources, this means some things have to receive less love but Pathfinder is still receiving regular development and content and all of the main lines are still ongoing (RPG, APs, Companion, Campaign Setting). Honestly, the amount of PF content being produced while Starfinder is headed for lift off exceeds my expectations (and I'm grateful for it).
5. The module line has had its challenges and tweaks over the years previously. With the AP line being the flagship product, the standalone modules have struggled to find a distinct niche. Personally, I would like to see the module line assume a Slow XP progression so that they wouldn't try to cover such a wide level spread in a single volume.
I'd also like to see linked modules like the Price of Immortality modules as those are more useful to me. I also think this would help mitigate some of the issues with low-level adventures outselling higher-level adventures by a significant margin. Also, it would allow GMs to use multiple modules in a specific campaign area. Aside from Falcon's Hollow and the PoI modules I cited, the modules are spread all over the map, which makes it more difficult for a GM running a non-AP campaign to utilize if they've set their campaign in a particular area. (i.e. too much nation/region-hopping. It works for PFS, but less so for the module line)
While I'm an AP subscriber, I use the APs to steal elements from for my campaign. I don't run APs in sequence as written.
6. For PF's ENTIRE EXISTENCE, there have been people saying that the bloom is off the PF rose. They've cited things like "no more design space left", no "new areas to cover", etc. And they've been proven wrong EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
7. Lastly, prognosticators citing Pathfinder's demise or "better" ways for Paizo to run their company are very frequently been proven wrong, usually spectacularly so.
YMMV