I have a suspicion that it would (at least short term) cost more than double to produce such a thing, and would unduly link their product to one outlet.
I don't think it's wise for Paizo to pursue such a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They just did it
I am surprised. But also looking at the products being offered there it's currently only bounties, not APs.
Which isn't to say they wont do APs, but they're way more complex and that's why I wouldn't think it fiscally prudent.
But I guess time will tell.
|
The bounties are clearly testing the waters. We'll see. But yeah, because FVTT doesn't have teams that do content, they are kinda forced to do it themselves if they want some presence on the platform, and it was loudly requested for some time.
A good indication of that is that the blog post announcing it have been one of the busiest comment section since some time.
I could definitely understand the appeal, but they're going to need additional people to create the content, and take extra time after the physical publishing and PDFs are released.
And it's unclear (IMO) how strong the demand will be once the pandemic has ended and people can return to playing in person.
I guess I just see it as risky. Especially if they focus on producing content for one outlet. That outlet could then create some sort situation against Paizo where they have leverage, which could be very unfavorable.
Of course, with big risk it could also revolutionize the way publisher like Paizo do business, with such virtual products become de rigueur.
It's definitely innovative in the sense that I don't think it's the norm for major publisher to produce this kind of content, but not without substantial risk too.
I could definitely understand the appeal, but they're going to need additional people to create the content, and take extra time after the physical publishing and PDFs are released.
And it's unclear (IMO) how strong the demand will be once the pandemic has ended and people can return to playing in person.
I guess I just see it as risky. Especially if they focus on producing content for one outlet. That outlet could then create some sort situation against Paizo where they have leverage, which could be very unfavorable.
Of course, with big risk it could also revolutionize the way publisher like Paizo do business, with such virtual products become de rigueur.
It's definitely innovative in the sense that I don't think it's the norm for major publisher to produce this kind of content, but not without substantial risk too.
Worth mentioning there are several companies already doing the same specifically for Foundry VTT. Ex: Cubicle 7 and Free League.
Worth mentioning there are several companies already doing the same specifically for Foundry VTT. Ex: Cubicle 7 and Free League.I could definitely understand the appeal, but they're going to need additional people to create the content, and take extra time after the physical publishing and PDFs are released.
And it's unclear (IMO) how strong the demand will be once the pandemic has ended and people can return to playing in person.
I guess I just see it as risky. Especially if they focus on producing content for one outlet. That outlet could then create some sort situation against Paizo where they have leverage, which could be very unfavorable.
Of course, with big risk it could also revolutionize the way publisher like Paizo do business, with such virtual products become de rigueur.
It's definitely innovative in the sense that I don't think it's the norm for major publisher to produce this kind of content, but not without substantial risk too.
I've never heard of either of those before. I'm not sure if that's the publishing company or the game system.
Edit: Looking into it those are the publishers, and I'm not really familiar with any of their products, though I am familiar at least with the settings. The Dr. Who game and the Warhammer (not 40K) setting I am of aware of.
Worth mentioning there are several companies already doing the same specifically for Foundry VTT. Ex: Cubicle 7 and Free League.I could definitely understand the appeal, but they're going to need additional people to create the content, and take extra time after the physical publishing and PDFs are released.
And it's unclear (IMO) how strong the demand will be once the pandemic has ended and people can return to playing in person.
I guess I just see it as risky. Especially if they focus on producing content for one outlet. That outlet could then create some sort situation against Paizo where they have leverage, which could be very unfavorable.
Of course, with big risk it could also revolutionize the way publisher like Paizo do business, with such virtual products become de rigueur.
It's definitely innovative in the sense that I don't think it's the norm for major publisher to produce this kind of content, but not without substantial risk too.
I've never heard of either of those before. I'm not sure if that's the publishing company or the game system.
Edit: Looking into it those are the publishers, and I'm not really familiar with any of their products, though I am familiar at least with the settings. The Dr. Who game and the Warhammer (not 40K) setting I am of aware of.
They're the actual publishing companies. I think Free League just had the highest funded TTRPG Kickstarter ever for The One Ring at over 2 million dollars.
|
|
I could definitely understand the appeal, but they're going to need additional people to create the content, and take extra time after the physical publishing and PDFs are released.
And it's unclear (IMO) how strong the demand will be once the pandemic has ended and people can return to playing in person.
I guess I just see it as risky. Especially if they focus on producing content for one outlet. That outlet could then create some sort situation against Paizo where they have leverage, which could be very unfavorable.
Of course, with big risk it could also revolutionize the way publisher like Paizo do business, with such virtual products become de rigueur.
It's definitely innovative in the sense that I don't think it's the norm for major publisher to produce this kind of content, but not without substantial risk too.
Of course, it's a risk. Hence why they are testing with very small products that were quick to make, and so didn't cost a lot, and if they fail they will leave it at that, but if they prove there's enough demand to be worth it, they will be the starting point of a new initiative that will gradually scale up in scale until they find the limit on the return on investisment.
When something is risky, you try it on a small scale, you don't just dismiss it. That's how you miss on opportunities and stall.
Well, the context of the OP was asking about Adventure Paths specifically, which would be starting big.
I was dismissing that idea.
But trying out the small scale bounties so they can gauge level of interest and understand the time and cost to produce the material is reasonable.
But honestly, people dismiss ideas like this all the time for many reasons, and while it's true you could miss a good opportunity that's something for business growth focused people to weigh.
Unless or until providing this sort of material becomes the norm and expected, I wouldn't say it's a missed opportunity. People chose Paizo for their APs and the continuation of 3.5 (originally) and are now invested. Even if Paizo came late to the party, I suspect they wouldn't stall or lose, unless the refused to come to the table once other major players were doing it (and really that means Wizards).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
once other major players were doing it (and really that means Wizards).
The WotC Organized Play (Adventurer's League) and Dungeon Master's Guild already provide Foundry-ready modules. Paizo is catching up, not leading the way.
once other major players were doing it (and really that means Wizards).The WotC Organized Play (Adventurer's League) and Dungeon Master's Guild already provide Foundry-ready modules. Paizo is catching up, not leading the way.
I didn't mean to imply that they were. Rather I was saying that unless Paizo refused to come to the table once it's expected to provide such content then it honestly doesn't matter. At least in my view.
I think very few people choose a game system based on the availability of digital content for virtual table top. Rather I expect most people have a myriad of reasons to play a specific game, and consider it a boon if VTT materials are available for it.
In this case Paizo is entering the market on a very small scale to see how it works.
In the case of Wizards, it's unclear to me if their offerings are on the same scale as what Paizo is currently doing, or if it's closer to Adventure Path scale.
Adventure Path's I think is what most people (at least Paizo fans) would want because that it was attracted many of us in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think very few people choose a game system based on the availability of digital content for virtual table top. Rather I expect most people have a myriad of reasons to play a specific game, and consider it a boon if VTT materials are available for it.
I have a different perspective: I think people who are using a specific VTT form their impressions about which game system to play based on how active that system is on that VTT and how much material is available.
VTTs are similar to your FLGS: if all you see being played is D&D, you're not as likely to pick up Pathfinder. But if you see Pathfinder being played every Thursday night, it will increase your interest in playing Pathfinder.
In the case of Wizards, it's unclear to me if their offerings are on the same scale as what Paizo is currently doing, or if it's closer to Adventure Path scale.
That kind of comparison is impossible because of the different business models of the two Organized Play entities connected to WotC and Paizo. WotC encourages fan-made material, while Paizo controls their IP in a different way. Much of what is available for D&D online is material that is not available for Pathfinder because of these different business models.