Paizo buying Might & Magic(IP) or the reverse?

[DamionTurner]

I'm an old geek that loves both Pathfinder and Might and Magic franchises.

And since Hasbro owns Magic the Gathering and D&D.. I feel Paizo should buy Might & Magic(TM) or the reverse being bought buy the company that owns Might and Magic.

The laws and game styles are very similar (current skill systems using untrained,trained,Expert)

Imagine Grand Master skills in Pathfinder!

Secondly potions.. alchemy is a big thing in both Pathfinder and Might and Magic.. imagine curing blindness or scared ect with potions... And imagine black potions adding permanent stat bonuses in pathfinder.. or coloured barrels in pathfinder.

Not to mention the extra monsters and spells like "hour of power" and "devine intervention" "scrapmetal" "Armageddon" "soulsteal".. if Paizo bought the rights to Might and Magic franchises then Paizo could be number one not second in TTRPG's

What do you think?

[Claxon]

Paizo already has their own card game for Pathfinder and has licensed video games to OwlCat Games.

I'm not sure what you think Paizo would gain, except maybe some specific IP that they probably already have something similar too.

Sorry, but there's basically no benefit to this.

[Val'bryn2]

What benefit is there to Hasbro to sell? Can't see any

[DamionTurner]

The benefits are far more then a "card game" the lore and game mechanics alone will be a boon to Pathfinder Second Edition

If I was able to share a pdf of the Might and Magic 7 For Blood and Honour (MM6 is technically a better game but MM7 has better mechanics)

[DamionTurner]

Hasbro doesn't own Might and Magic.. I think Ubisoft does.

[DamionTurner]

I think some people confuse HEROES of Might and Magic with Might and Magic.. two totally different game styles..

[Claxon]

Paizo is interested in creating and selling their own lore.

I doubt as a company they have interest in picking up someone else's. It's not a benefit to them.

Maybe if there were a huge demand in the market for Might and Magic to make a comeback it could be profitable, but to my knowledge there's not.

And game mechanics also aren't really a thing they need either.

It's not like they could directly apply them to PF2. And if they could, they probably wouldn't actually need to purchase anything.

General game mechanics are actually really hard to use as intellectual property, it's generally specific names that are protected.

I'm sorry, but there is seriously no benefit to Paizo for PF2. Not in lore. Not in mechanics.

[Val'bryn2]

No, you still aren't understanding: Paizo is Hasbro's biggest rival in TTRPG, why on Earth would the company that already produces an RPG sell the rights to ANOTHER company, especially given how free Wizards is with producing, essentially, one-off setting books. If they wanted a Might and Magic game, they would produce it themselves. As to your proposal of Hasbro buying Paizo, they would just kill off Pathfinder. TSR learned about competing in-house brands back in the 90s, Hasbro isn't going to need a repeat of that lesson

[NielsenE]

I loved Might and Magic, and HoMM, back in the day; however I never felt they had impressive lore, or storytelling. Very little of their IP felt new/innovative for the genre. Most people's nostalgia for the game had nothing to do with the world//lore/etc, so its not like an IP that would be useful for a cross-over to an established RPG.

[DamionTurner]

Claxon wrote:

Paizo is interested in creating and selling their own lore.

I doubt as a company they have interest in picking up someone else's. It's not a benefit to them.

Maybe if there were a huge demand in the market for Might and Magic to make a comeback it could be profitable, but to my knowledge there's not.

And game mechanics also aren't really a thing they need either.

It's not like they could directly apply them to PF2. And if they could, they probably wouldn't actually need to purchase anything.

General game mechanics are actually really hard to use as intellectual property, it's generally specific names that are protected.

I'm sorry, but there is seriously no benefit to Paizo for PF2. Not in lore. Not in mechanics.

I disagree.. for one Pathfinder wasn't created in a vacuum.. it's based on the OGL from WOTC. It's adapted rules from that game.. and all games borrow from each other.. but obviously intellectual property rights exist so I doubt Paizo will be releasing "Might and Magic" games unless they bought the IP.. but like I've already said.. there is a alot of crossover between the two.. do you honestly think skill levels like untrained,trained,expert, legendary.. appeared out of nowhere?

When Might and Magic has Untrained, trained, expert,master,grand master in skills..

Also Paizo's world lore is not iconic enough (imho) and having enroth continents and zones would be awesome.

Thirdly.. like I've mentioned.. the spells are very iconic and rememberable and could easily be added to Pathfinder.

Not to mention afew additional monsters that exist in M&M.

[DamionTurner]

NielsenE wrote:

I loved Might and Magic, and HoMM, back in the day; however I never felt they had impressive lore, or storytelling. Very little of their IP felt new/innovative for the genre. Most people's nostalgia for the game had nothing to do with the world//lore/etc, so its not like an IP that would be useful for a cross-over to an established RPG.

I never mentioned Hasbro buying Pathfinder.. I suggested Paizo buying Might and Magic to compete with Hasbro. (As Hasbro is merging D&D and Magic the Gathering)

[Claxon]

I agree I doubt Paizo would be be releasing Might and Magic games, but I never said they would. But they also have no need to.

The name has no serious pull or draw for the masses. I get that you like it, but that doesn't mean it's worth it for Paizo to invest money into it. The fact that there's a lot of crossover is exactly why there's no value. What would Might and Magic bring to Paizo that they don't already have?

Specific names of places and people not covered by OGL. Everything else can be virtually stolen with little change as long as they don't use the same names.

I think the skill levels exist because it's a pretty normal human convention. If it was something "special" it would be intellectual property and Paizo would have had to pay someone to use it. I'm assuming they didn't or wouldn't, and would have come up with slightly different names if they needed to.

It fine to borrow things from other games. Paizo does it. Hasbro does. Everyone does it. No one creates these game is a complete vacuum on their own. The question is do you have to pay someone for it and is it worth paying for?

The answer is, there's not enough value to be generated from purchasing the name Might and Magic for Paizo to make any money off it.

[WatersLethe]

I don't want to be mean, but I think this post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry, Paizo's finances and motives, and game design in general.

I encourage you to look into publishing a PF2 module or package with Might and Magic flavor or rules that you are looking for while dodging copyrights from the owners of Might and Magic. You'll likely get further than you think, and that project would be far more likely to happen than something from Paizo's end.

[Val'bryn2]

The thread's title is literally "Paizo buying Might and Magic(IP) or the reverse?" The reverse is Hasbro buying Paizo. And again, if Hasbro owns it, and Paizo wants to buy it to compete, why would Hasbro be interested in helping a competitor?

[DamionTurner]

Claxon wrote:

I agree I doubt Paizo would be be releasing Might and Magic games, but I never said they would. But they also have no need to.

The name has no serious pull or draw for the masses. I get that you like it, but that doesn't mean it's worth it for Paizo to invest money into it. The fact that there's a lot of crossover is exactly why there's no value. What would Might and Magic bring to Paizo that they don't already have?

Specific names of places and people not covered by OGL. Everything else can be virtually stolen with little change as long as they don't use the same names.

I think the skill levels exist because it's a pretty normal human convention. If it was something "special" it would be intellectual property and Paizo would have had to pay someone to use it. I'm assuming they didn't or wouldn't, and would have come up with slightly different names if they needed to.

It fine to borrow things from other games. Paizo does it. Hasbro does. Everyone does it. No one creates these game is a complete vacuum on their own. The question is do you have to pay someone for it and is it worth paying for?

In your humble opinion, which I respect your right to make it but your not thinking long term.

If Paizo ever want to compete with D&D and get a bigger market share then they can't be just better than D&D.. but iconic too..

I absolutely love Pathfinder Second Edition.. but it's small compared to the monstro that is D&D .. WOTC has a stronger IP and that's a fact.. WOTC could sell empty cereal boxes with Dungeons and Dragons on it .. and it would sell.

Pathfinder 2e is much,much MUCH better than D&D5e and it doesn't matter.. because the name is not rememberable.. but Might and Magic is rememberable.. it is iconic.

So if Paizo bought that .. a game that has been reduced to cheesy mobile games from its current owner.. it's not being used as a AAA game because the company that owns it is dirt, and is treating the game like dirt.

Also Paizo's price of the pie will be reduced even further when D&D releases its next movie in 2024.. already confirmed and merchandising made.

So "what can Paizo gain from buying Might and Magic" the name alone will be a massive boost to Paizo!

The answer is, there's not enough value to be generated from purchasing the name Might and Magic for Paizo to make any money off it.

[DamionTurner]

DamionTurner wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I agree I doubt Paizo would be be releasing Might and Magic games, but I never said they would. But they also have no need to.

The name has no serious pull or draw for the masses. I get that you like it, but that doesn't mean it's worth it for Paizo to invest money into it. The fact that there's a lot of crossover is exactly why there's no value. What would Might and Magic bring to Paizo that they don't already have?

Specific names of places and people not covered by OGL. Everything else can be virtually stolen with little change as long as they don't use the same names.

I think the skill levels exist because it's a pretty normal human convention. If it was something "special" it would be intellectual property and Paizo would have had to pay someone to use it. I'm assuming they didn't or wouldn't, and would have come up with slightly different names if they needed to.

It fine to borrow things from other games. Paizo does it. Hasbro does. Everyone does it. No one creates these game is a complete vacuum on their own. The question is do you have to pay someone for it and is it worth paying for?

In your humble opinion, which I respect your right to make it but your not thinking long term.

If Paizo ever want to compete with D&D and get a bigger market share then they can't be just better than D&D.. but iconic too..

I absolutely love Pathfinder Second Edition.. but it's small compared to the monstro that is D&D .. WOTC has a stronger IP and that's a fact.. WOTC could sell empty cereal boxes with Dungeons and Dragons on it .. and it would sell.

Pathfinder 2e is much,much MUCH better than D&D5e and it doesn't matter.. because the name is not rememberable.. but Might and Magic is rememberable.. it is iconic.

So if Paizo bought that .. a game that has been reduced to cheesy mobile games from its current owner.. it's not being used as a AAA game because the company that owns it is dirt, and is treating the game like dirt.

Also Paizo's price of the pie will be

...

By reverse.. I ment Ubisoft buying Paizo (which I don't want)

[Perpdepog]

I don't see the value for Paizo either. They already had to scale back on output for their other major line, Starfinder, from monthly adventures to bi-monthly, and I think a reduced number of rulebooks each year. I'm personally glad they did, the level of output that Paizo's staff had to do previously--Starfinder rulebooks, monthly adventures, plus the monthly Pathfinder adventures, Player's Guides, and Campaign Setting--was insane, and IIRC was leading to a lot of writer burnout.
Regardless, them picking up another IP would only split their focus even more, which in turn means fewer releases for their other product lines, which in turn leads to less revenue overall. Unless Might and Magic was fantastically popular and in demand, which it's not, the outcome would only be less money for Paizo, and fans starting to drift away as the release schedule we've all come to expect starts drying up for their own in-house products.

Not to mention, I don't really see the similarities outside of some very general, surface-level fantasy tropes being shared between systems, and that's hardly unique to Might and Magic and Pathfinder. Using names to represent tiers of proficiency isn't terribly unique to either of those games, either. Fate does it, the superhero RPG Icons does it, I want to say Cypher does it... I could likely go on. Using words to represent how good someone is at a thing is just human nature and lends itself well to a form of gaming shorthand.

[DamionTurner]

In your humble opinion, which I respect your right to make it but your not thinking long term.

If Paizo ever want to compete with D&D and get a bigger market share then they can't be just better than D&D.. but iconic too..

I absolutely love Pathfinder Second Edition.. but it's small compared to the monstro that is D&D .. WOTC has a stronger IP and that's a fact.. WOTC could sell empty cereal boxes with Dungeons and Dragons on it .. and it would sell.

Pathfinder 2e is much,much MUCH better than D&D5e and it doesn't matter.. because the name is not rememberable.. but Might and Magic is rememberable.. it is iconic.

So if Paizo bought that .. a game that has been reduced to cheesy mobile games from its current owner.. it's not being used as a AAA game because the company that owns it is dirt, and is treating the game like dirt.

Also Paizo's price of the pie will be reduced even further when D&D releases its next movie in 2024.. already confirmed and merchandising made.

So "what can Paizo gain from buying Might and Magic" the name alone will be a massive boost to Paizo!

The answer is, there's enough value to be generated from purchasing the name "Might and Magic" for Paizo to make any money off it.

[DamionTurner]

I'm not a third-party publisher (nor would I want to be) but I honestly feel that the franchise of Might and Magic has alot to offer Paizo. And even if Paizo doesn't want to rebrand Pathfinder (which I respect) then borrowing some of the mechanics from M&M would improve the game of Pathfinder)

Further adding on the nonmagical alchemy reagents system to cure status affects would be a good thing.

Adding permanent stat bonuses to rare coloured barrels (could do a fortitude check to see if you drink it all.. or make some poison or debuff barrels for risk/reward.

Adding weapon affects like sticky acid or elemental buffs to weapons ect.. could have a corrosive risk to weapons so there's a risk.

The iconic spells would be awesome.

Path 2e already has lich's in the game which is in M&M.

Adding an acromage type pubgame would be fun. (Or adding a card desk to do a society skill check) to win a pub game for boons

And this is just scratching their surface!

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Val'bryn2 wrote:

No, you still aren't understanding: Paizo is Hasbro's biggest rival in TTRPG, why on Earth would the company that already produces an RPG sell the rights to ANOTHER company, especially given how free Wizards is with producing, essentially, one-off setting books. If they wanted a Might and Magic game, they would produce it themselves. As to your proposal of Hasbro buying Paizo, they would just kill off Pathfinder. TSR learned about competing in-house brands back in the 90s, Hasbro isn't going to need a repeat of that lesson

If there is a company that Paizo has a "rivalry" against, it would be WotC, since both are in the same sort of game genre business, not Hasbro. But it's not really a rivalry when WotC is far more broad in its scope (meaning a wider web of influence and income) and far more successful company, and plus both aren't really "at odds" with one another; that's really a creation of the public opinion.

Otherwise, yeah, I agree: no sale would realistically happen regardless, since neither are in a state to sell off either their company or a franchise.

[DamionTurner]

Oh and my personal favourites.. buying glass bottles raw ingredients for potions and for potions to blow up (as bombs) if you fail to mix them properly...

[WatersLethe]

You should know that all of those mechanics are up for grabs with or without Might and Magic IP. There's no mechanical reason for Paizo to desire Might and Magic IP. So the only other reason would be to acquire the cultural cachet of that IP, and frankly I think you're vastly overestimating that value.

The proposition only has downsides and risk, and is a non-starter based purely on Paizo's lack of financial capability to make such a purchase.

[DamionTurner]

nephandys wrote:

I think you're really overvaluing the brand of Might and Magic in the year 2022.

That's because of the company that owns Might and Magic franchises.

They have undervalued it.

[nephandys]

I think you're really overvaluing the brand of Might and Magic in the year 2022.

[WatersLethe]

nephandys wrote:

I think you're really overvaluing the brand of Might and Magic in the year 2022.

I literally only know about Heroes of Might and Magic from back in the day. I'm uncertain what Might and Magic is if it's distinct from that.

[keftiu]

You can love Pathfinder and Might and Magic. You can worry about Paizo being competitive (but they do pay people for that). Trying to spin all of that into armchair business advice… is a little silly.

Buying a defunct IP is not some corporate wunderwaffe. This acquisition will never happen. The last Might & Magic game was 8 years ago and earned a mediocre 71% review average on Metacritic; I’m not sure what kind of shot in the arm you think it would provide, nor do I think Paizo has a spare 1.3 million dollars (what Ubisoft paid for the rights, and almost certainly less than they would part with it for) just laying around, especially given that they’ve lost several senior staff members due to being outcompeted on wages.

EDIT: Did you make your forum account to post this?

[Saedar]

Yeah. It is cool that you are really into the M&M IP. This may be your solo battle to fight, though. Can't say I see any value in this suggestion outside of just wanting the M&M franchise to be owned by literally anyone else.

[TriOmegaZero]

DamionTurner wrote:

In your humble opinion, which I respect your right to make it but your not thinking long term.

...

The answer is, there's enough value to be generated from purchasing the name "Might and Magic" for Paizo to make any money off it.

I don't think you understand Paizo's stance.

James Jacobs wrote:

Konradleijon wrote:

what part of copyrighted/trademarked DnD lore/concepts would you have like to be OGL and be able to be added to Pathfinder.

At this point? Nothing. I'm more interested today in doing new content for Pathfinder rather than bringing forward D&D content.

The OGL is great, but so is having your own identity. Whether that's Pathfinder having content that's not in D&D, or D&D having content that only D&D can have.

[DamionTurner]

keftiu wrote:

You can love Pathfinder and Might and Magic. You can worry about Paizo being competitive (but they do pay people for that). Trying to spin all of that into armchair business advice… is a little silly.

Buying a defunct IP is not some corporate wunderwaffe. This acquisition will never happen. The last Might & Magic game was 8 years ago and earned a mediocre 71% review average on Metacritic; I’m not sure what kind of shot in the arm you think it would provide, nor do I think Paizo has a spare 1.3 million dollars (what Ubisoft paid for the rights, and almost certainly less than they would part with it for) just laying around.

EDIT: Did you make your forum account to post this?

I was just googling and Ubisoft has turned the franchise into a cheesy mobile game, but that game still generated over 130 million.

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/67542/ubisoft-financials-q3-fy18/

But if you look at Might and Magic 6 and 7 and compared how much they earned and the influence they had.. then that would turn this agreement on its head.. I wish to reliterate HEROS of Might and Magic is a totally different game to the original Might and Magic franchise.

Google "Might and Magic 6 Mandate of Heaven" for reference.

[James Jacobs]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

DamionTurner wrote:

In your humble opinion, which I respect your right to make it but your not thinking long term.

...

The answer is, there's enough value to be generated from purchasing the name "Might and Magic" for Paizo to make any money off it.

I don't think you understand Paizo's stance.

James Jacobs wrote:

Konradleijon wrote:

what part of copyrighted/trademarked DnD lore/concepts would you have like to be OGL and be able to be added to Pathfinder.

At this point? Nothing. I'm more interested today in doing new content for Pathfinder rather than bringing forward D&D content.

The OGL is great, but so is having your own identity. Whether that's Pathfinder having content that's not in D&D, or D&D having content that only D&D can have.

For the record, that's MY stance, not necessarily Paizo's stance. That's from an "Ask James Jacobs" thread, not an "Ask Paizo" thread. :)

[TriOmegaZero]

Excellent point, apologies for not making that clearer James.

DamionTurner wrote:

I was just googling and Ubisoft has turned the franchise into a cheesy mobile game, but that game still generated over 130 million.

I would attribute that to it being a mobile game more than it being a Might and Magic property.

[keftiu]

If the mobile game is printing money for Ubi… why would they sell it to a hardscrabble tabletop company?

[Perpdepog]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Excellent point, apologies for not making that clearer James.

DamionTurner wrote:

I was just googling and Ubisoft has turned the franchise into a cheesy mobile game, but that game still generated over 130 million.

I would attribute that to it being a mobile game more than it being a Might and Magic property.

Yeah. It's become an unfortunate fact of the video game space that mobile games, often regardless of quality or content, are money makers because of predatory marketing strategies, FOMO and microtransactions two of the foremost. That's not a revenue stream you can translate to a tabletop RPG, and I honestly shudder a bit imagining someone trying to do that.

[DamionTurner]

Most of this thread pushback has been "why would Paizo buy a worthless franchise" yet as soon as I point out that it is making money the pushback has changed to "Why would Ubisoft sell the game"

You can be on the "Paizo won't doesn't want to change or buy a franchise" side but you can't argue the value of the franchise.

Paizo's Pathfinder game is just going to be a niche game, overshadowed by a worser game with a much better IP..

And that's fine if you think Paizo can be sustained as a smaller company surviving as a third party publisher to D&D 5e (as with abomination vaults)

But if you feel Paizo needs to think bigger.. and fight for a bigger slice of the pie.. then it needs fresh ideas and fresh blood.

And buying Might and Magic could give it the shot in arm.

[TriOmegaZero]

Talking down about a 'worse game' doesn't really work when many of the same people making Pathfinder are also name credits on 5E books.

[Perpdepog]

Actually, the pushback is against the idea of Paizo adopting something which A, they already have something very similar to, and B, is a mobile game, meaning all the possible money it's making isn't something they can tap into without a great deal of investment in manpower and resources to diversify into a market they currently don't have any hand in outside of third party devs, like the game for Starfinder. It doesn't make sense.

Also, I'm not sure that a game franchize originally conceived and created in 1986 exactly counts as "fresh blood." That's older than I am, and my blood possesses zero freshness.

[DamionTurner]

New ideas (compared to what Paizo has done) then if you wish to be pendantic.

[DTurner]

And I'm not "talking down" the people that designed D&D 5e, I'm talking down the product compared to Pathfinder 2e.

[TOZ]

Well, I can see your mind is made up.

[Ezekieru]

DamionTurner wrote:

But if you feel Paizo needs to think bigger.. and fight for a bigger slice of the pie.. then it needs fresh ideas and fresh blood.

And buying Might and Magic could give it the shot in arm.

Paizo, as a company, would need to do a LOT more than buying another company's IP to try and get "a bigger slice of the pie" of WotC's market share. The difference between WotC's 1st place and the next company's 2nd place is like trying to drive a car to the moon.

Paizo employees have already confirmed time and time again that PF2 is their most popular product line yet, and their success is exactly that: Success. The overall marketshare is increasing, and bringing every TTRPG up substantially. But Paizo is still limited by their finances and the pricing limitations of the printing world. They would have to do a lot of fundamental changes to their business infrastructure before they could pull big moves like that.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Removed some posts for copy-write infringement

[Dancing Wind]

Quote:

Also Paizo's world lore is not iconic enough (imho) and having enroth continents and zones would be awesome

If Paizo ever want to compete with D&D and get a bigger market share then they can't be just better than D&D.. but iconic too..

So "what can Paizo gain from buying Might and Magic" the name alone will be a massive boost to Paizo!

So if Paizo bought that .. a game that has been reduced to cheesy mobile games from its current owner.. hat game still generated over 130 million

then Paizo could be number one not second in TTRPG's

So, as I understand the business plan you're trying to get Paizo to adopt it is to

Take a successful publishing company which has no experience creating and selling mobile games

have it replace its setting with some obscure different setting

fire all of its writers and graphic artists and hire mobile game developers

and thereby make amazing profits that will allow it to be the largest ttrpg company in the world?

[QuidEst]

A Might & Magic TTRPG is doomed from the start, no matter who does it.

M&M is already Mutants and Masterminds.

---

... Okay, but more seriously.

- I don't know anything about Might & Magic outside of Heroes of Might & Magic, which I think is the norm. I have only ever seen references to HoMM3. So, there's the first problem: the brand recognition is most effective with people who like turn-based army-building fantasy video games, and maybe people who read the Helltaker comics.

- The lore is a mess (being rebooted with no connection to old stuff), and has ended up in a very generic place. The medieval knight faction worships a dragon of light, and the poison-using drow worship a shadow dragon? Not exactly a step up for Paizo. I've seen two only two characters mentioned by someone anywhere outside of a game: Sandro and Solamyr, and it was complaining that they showed up without any personality.

- The creatures pretty much all already exist in Pathfinder. In a lot of (most?) cases, it's monsters from the D&D bestiary.

- Paizo can't afford it. Paizo's revenue is 5 million a year, according to a Google. Call that a ballpark estimate. If there's a mobile game that's made over 20 times that, it's not happening.

- I think it is fair to say the IP isn't worth much. That's because you want it to be used for TTRPGs, where it's immediately worth less. Dark Souls is worth way more as the video games than the Dark Souls spinoff 5e-based TTRPG. If brand recognition translated so well, the Star Wars TTRPG should have absolutely crushed Pathfinder.

I'm just very confused about where the upside is.

I do like the HoMM series, and it's very nostalgic for me, so I did enjoy the thread.

EDIT: The examples you give are also just not selling me on the idea at all, either. Grand Master skills are just Legendary skills. A potion to remove blindness is just... a potion, to remove blindness? We had that in PF1 at least. Same for fear. How is Divine Intervention different from Miracle? I don't really know what your point is with colored barrels.

[QuidEst]

DamionTurner wrote:

Also Paizo's world lore is not iconic enough (imho) and having enroth continents and zones would be awesome.

Enroth, the setting so iconic that it was blown up in an opening cutscene and never talked about again? It hasn't been used in twenty years, counting the cutscene. I just don't think it's going to draw more people in than a setting that has been actively developed over more than the last decade, and featured in two games and a substantial line of novels.

Now, if you took the plots, setting, and so on, I think you could run some pretty fun Pathfinder campaigns with them, especially for people who do share your appreciation for Might & Magic (as opposed to the more army-focused Heroes of Might & Magic).

[Rysky]

*blows bubbles out of thinking pipe*

When you get down to it, DnD/Pathfinder are the original microtransaction games, you buy the base game or get it for free, and then you have all the microtransactions for additional content.

More seriously people need to stop crapping on mobile games just because they don't like them, there's an overwhelming market for them and and they're a license to print stupid amounts of money very easily and cheaply.

I'm also not seeing anything put forth that would require buying the M&M franchise (seriously I was like 5 posts in before I noticed this wasn't about Magic The Gathering) aside form wanting the lore. Which not a lot of people know or care about.

So what's the plan other than: Step 1) Paizo uses their hidden slush fund to buy other IPs no one cares about.

Step 3) Profit!

[Claxon]

DamionTurner wrote:

Most of this thread pushback has been "why would Paizo buy a worthless franchise" yet as soon as I point out that it is making money the pushback has changed to "Why would Ubisoft sell the game"

You can be on the "Paizo won't doesn't want to change or buy a franchise" side but you can't argue the value of the franchise.

Paizo's Pathfinder game is just going to be a niche game, overshadowed by a worser game with a much better IP..

And that's fine if you think Paizo can be sustained as a smaller company surviving as a third party publisher to D&D 5e (as with abomination vaults)

But if you feel Paizo needs to think bigger.. and fight for a bigger slice of the pie.. then it needs fresh ideas and fresh blood.

And buying Might and Magic could give it the shot in arm.

Might and Magic IP is virtually worthless. The existence of a predatory mobile game making money doesn't actually change that.

You can literally make that kind of mobile game out of anything.

S#&+, if Paizo wanted to become that kind of s*+&ty company they could make a Clash of Clans rip off (I think it's Clash of Clans) based around the concept of the Kingmaker campaign, and all the warring nation states are just trying to land grab in that setting. You don't need Might and Magic IP at all. Seriously it has very little value to Paizo.

If it was a draw, you can bet Ubisoft would be doing more than putting out a mobile game with the name.

[Themetricsystem]

Harsk as a Fortnite skin when?

[DeathQuaker]

Given I don't think the Might and Magic IP is for sale, discussing this as a possible reality is not really going to be fruitful. I don't even think the owners of the IP are interested licensing it out (which comes with its own pitfalls).

Now, speculatively -- I am a huge fan of the old Might and Magic games (through the first 7). I still remember being a 10 year old in 1986 diligently mapping each area with graph paper. The original concept of the worlds themselves being simulation/crafted fantasy worlds running experimentally by high tech was kind of fun, and the mix of fantasy sometimes later meeting sci fi was cool.

Would I play an RPG set in those kind of worlds? Sure. If I had the interest and energy would I homebrew something to work with that setting/concept using Pathfinder rules? Sure, especially since Paizo has both fantasy and sci fi rules. And M&M made goblins a player race before it was cool! And would I encourage OP to work on their own M&M-Pathfinder 2e homebrew to run at home? Absolutely. You could probably just run a Pathfinder rules game in an M&M-based world with very little adjustment save to limiting/adding classes and races.

Do I need to see, even if we are purely speaking hypothetically, Paizo expend its resources to buy an IP that has only these days a niche, if sometimes rabid, fandom to formally publish tabletop gameplay rules for it? Nah. They are stretched thin enough focusing on their own--newer and very popular among its fans--IPs, and I would fear splitting time between their current line and another IP would be detrimental to their productivity.