Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[Morrus]

Not knowing how much WotC estimated the Paizo effect on 4E, and not knowing what effect it actually had, I don't think we can possibly answer that question.

I doubt anyone has any solid numbers they're able to share, so the best we can do is speculate and make numbers up. WotC probably has some solid numbers.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I do not think they needed to. Sure, Paizo has taken customers form WOTC (Those who want a supported ruleset and would otherwise have had to go 4E), but that is not a large number.

And most Paizo customers would not be WOTC customers anyway, especially as WOTC is not selling old PDFs.

I am glad Paizo is doing well with Pathfinder, but saying they are hurting WOTC to a gret degree is not really true, seems more wishful thinking to me.

 

[jaerdaph]

Pulling the older edition PDFs of OOP products, especially the 3e/3.5e products which are pretty much compatible with Pathfinder, is ample proof they have at least noticed Paizo has had some effect.

 

[BryonD]

I wouldn't call it a Paizo effect. After all, the changes to WotC's fan base happened before Paizo went in a new direction.

But, I think they miscalculated when they looked at other forms of gaming (WoW in particular) and figured that they were missing out on a market.

I am NOT saying that 4E is WOW or that WotC tried to make D&D more into WOW.

I AM saying they saw a market based on people pretending to be elves that is vastly larger then their market based on people pretending to be elves and assumed that they could tap into that with the right game play and marketing.

They were wrong.

The appeal of MMOs and the appeal of tabletop RPGs are very different animals. It may be true that a lot of tabletop RPGers also enjoy MMOs and get a lot of the same fun from both. But the reverse is not true. So trying to tap into the non-tabletop market is a hard sell.

There seems to be some assumption that being a gamer is just a matter of marketing. I don't believe that for a second. There are gamers and there are non-gamers. There may be a wide range within "gamers", but there are still a lot more people who are flat out *not gamers*. But a lot of these *not gamers* will maintain a subscription to WOW, play semi-regularly and enjoy the game, but would never consider sitting around a table at a scheduled time and place to play face to face make believe without graphics, automated controls, and guild chat.

There will always be new gamers between new young blood coming up and the occasional older person who has never really been exposed. And marketing to these people is a good thing. Getting as many gamers actively gaming is a good thing. But trying to market to non-gamers is just a poor allocation of resources.

They tried, and they got a huge slug of interest. But they lost some portion of "gamers" and the "non-gamers" who dove in turn out not to have nearly the same longevity or spending habits. (addictions )

This isn't to say that 4E doesn't appeal to gamers. Again, there are a wide range within gamers, and clearly 4E very strongly appeals to some.

That doesn't mean there are no longer dominant. 90% is better than 85%, even if both are dominant. I don't think they were 90% before, and I don't think they are near 85% now. But the point is, simply being the biggest one doesn't give enough information.

D&D has lost a chunk of its market base and would be better off it it had more.

They can't change at this point. They pretty much have to dance with the one they brung. Trying to go back now would just lose more than they recovered.

But they miscalculated. Or maybe they just took a shot and didn't get lucky. Certainly going after the WOW market was an appealing brass ring. Maybe they considered the risk worthwhile. And a hit there would have been immense.

I do not think WotC is really in competition with other RPG companies. They are in competition with other entertainment.

I don't think this really works out. The two pieces have some truth to them. But you can't really put them together like that. You can't ignore the change in scale between the two.

Other RPG companies are much bigger blips on the D&D part of WotC's radar then WotC is on any part of Blizzard's radar. Wotc is in competition on both sides of the equation. And they take their eye off other RPG companies, and the fan base those other companies are nipping away at, at their own peril.

 

[Truth Seeker]

As many as said here. Some tried it and some didn't.

Me, I gave it many chances to win me over. Many chances...but the thought of neglecting all the previous 3.5 stuff.

Really did hurt.

Second...jumping into a brand system, just totally. Was not a fun idea, the majority of my gaming buddies did not want to switch ( a few bought the books), but no one plays it outright within that body (except of course, one fellow plays it, whenever someone else outside our group is running it #4E#).

But no one...wants nothing to do with it. And no one else has petitioned anyone within the group to get it.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Of course they underestimated them. They are now competing with their own IP, rebranded by another company and sold in direct competition with their own products. In some areas, it's a competition they are losing, too.

The suggestion that WotC is not "competing" against Paizo is fallacious. It assumes that those customers who purchased Pathfinder products were never going to purchase 4E products, no matter what. Take away that unjustified and breathtakingly dismissive assumption - and that argument has no clothes -- and no logic.

It's one thing to say that some players would stick with 3.5 and won't buy 4E and so they are not "WotC's potential customers" for 4E. But that's not what has happened with Pathfinder. Paizo has sold a new game based upon the old, and most people who are playing it don't bother to even use 3.5 books within their Pathfinder games at all.

If that's not competition in RPGs, then I don't know what is.

Pathfinder and D&D are not competing products in the marketplace, even though now both are being sold on the shelves of major book retailers and not just in hobby game stores? The presence of competitors on the shelves of mainstream book sellers is a new phenomenon for WotC. It is as clear a sign of real competition in the marketplace that exists. To hand wave away the presence of those books on the shelves of Big Box Retailers and describe that product as "not in competition" with D&D? I think that's a plainly nutty statement, that's what I think it is.

Paizo had legitimacy and a claim to the goodwill of fans as "real" owners of D&D given their stewardship of both Dungeon and Dragon magazine. They have leveraged that goodwill and the OGL into a brand that actually competes favorably in the marketplace with D&D.

Did WotC expect this would happen? Not a frikkin' chance. Did Paizo think this would happen? I expect they HOPED it would happen, but...no. PFRPG's success has exceeded their own best case scenario as well.

 

[El Mahdi]

Entirely my opinion...I don't think WotC understimated the effect.

I think what we are talking about is what would have been the state of things if WotC had brought Paizo in as a partner from the start of 4E. The posible forms I think that may have manifested as were: renewing Dungeon and Dragon for Paizo; working with Paizo to develop and possibly host DDI; and/or having Paizo as a third party publisher of 4E materials, or as an official publisher. And would there have been Pathfinder.

First, I don't think Paizo would have been able to develop or host DDI. So that's probably a non-issue. As far as allowing Paizo to keep Dungeon and Dragon: I don't think it would have been economically feasible or beneficial for either WotC or Paizo to do so, considering the plan of making it an integral part of DDI.

As far as Paizo as a third party publisher or official publisher? I think WotC is exactly where they want to be as far as 3pp's are concerned. I don't think they necessarily wanted to eliminate 4E products from 3pp's, but I also don't think they'd really care if there weren't any 3pp 4E products. They don't mind that there is, just as long as they could finally and truly control the type of D&D products in the market. With the limited amount of official 4E products (compared to the height of 3E), I really can't imagine what 4E products Paizo could have published that would have been financially worth it (for Paizo or WotC). As far as selling WotC's 4E products, Paizo already does that...so no real change or effect there.

As far as Pathfinder, maybe Paizo wouldn't have developed it or maybe they still would have, but I don't think it's a factor. Pathfinder has not stolen players from 4E and is not a competitor of WotC. Pathfinder came out well after 4E...and well after the fan base was already polarized. I think people that picked up Pathfinder (for the most part), were those who had already decided they didn't want to go the 4E route, but still wanted 3E support. WotC has lost nothing because of Pathfinder. 3E fans have gained significantly because of Pathfinder. Not necessarily a Win-Win, probably more of a Win-Didn't Lose scenario...which is probably all that really matters as far as WotC is concerned.

However, I do believe that some of WotC's actions since the release of 4E has cost them customers. That's where the underestimations or miscalculations occured. Quite likely, those actions only cost them customers that may have made occasional purchases of 4E products, and some DDI subscribers. But, even occasional purchases equate to money, and although not a lot, probably not insignificant. Where they hurt themselves the most in my opinion, was in losing possible DDI subscribers. At a recurring $10/month per customer, DDI could potentially make WotC more money than all of the 4E products (books) sales combined (and maybe already does?). Marketing should be done with the goal of bringing in those lapsed gamers in order to get them subscribing to DDI. Selling books is secondary (except as a hook to bring them in). Fixing the things that are keeping fans from getting a DDI sub should be priority. I think they've done this somewhat with the Essentials line, but they have further to go yet (namely pdf's).

Now, if you want to really ask a question about something that WotC may have underestimated...start a thread asking if WotC underestimated the impact of pulling pdf's...

 

[General Lopez]

Other RPG companies are much bigger blips on the D&D part of WotC's radar then WotC is on any part of Blizzard's radar. Wotc is in competition on both sides of the equation. And they take their eye off other RPG companies, and the fan base those other companies are nipping away at, at their own peril.

I agree with this and I think WotC sees it too now. I know essential's is about gaining new players but It seems like it is also geared at trying to get some older players back. They also are launching Dark Sun and just released the Tomb of Horrors last month. Those moves seem to me at trying to get some older players back.

I know everyone always talks about WotC wanting Blizzard numbers. Warcraft was originally supposed to be a Games Workshop game produced by Blizzard. Games Workshop ended up passing on the game so Blizzard found a way to make it by themselves. How different would that industry be if Games Workshop ended letting Blizzard create Warcraft for them? Could the decision to not make sure Paizo came a board with 4E change the future of the D&D industry? It will be fun to look back in 5-10 years to see.

 

[Wicht]

I'd give steel wind xp but can't yet. But thats pretty much how I see the market too at the moment. Those who are continuing to insist Paizo and WotC aren't not in the same league are, I think, basing their assumptions on the state of the market two years ago. Not the state of the market today.

 

[the Jester]

There seems to be some assumption that being a gamer is just a matter of marketing. I don't believe that for a second. There are gamers and there are non-gamers. There may be a wide range within "gamers", but there are still a lot more people who are flat out *not gamers*. But a lot of these *not gamers* will maintain a subscription to WOW, play semi-regularly and enjoy the game, but would never consider sitting around a table at a scheduled time and place to play face to face make believe without graphics, automated controls, and guild chat.

So wait, is there a "gamer gene" or something? And are you saying that WoW players are not gamers, despite often spending far more time at their game than any rpger does? Your post seems to indicate that you don't think people ever acquire new hobbies or interests, and that attempts to grow the gaming market are wasted effort. Is that an accurate depiction of your position?