Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[malraux]

I would have been shocked if Paizo didn't end up going in the pathfinder direction, regardless of what WotC did. Going dual system would be rather difficult, and of the companies around in 08, Paizo was in the best position to attempt to hold the 3e gaming crowd. Now unless there was really good reason to believe that the residual 3e market just wouldn't be there, I think the best choice for Paizo would have to be something like pathfinder. They get better control of their own destiny.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Ah. You see, when I look at 4e, that's not what I see at all. I think they saw that online games had revealed some things about game design, in general, that were popular, and they decided to tap into some of that wisdom.

There seems to be some assumption that being a gamer is just a matter of marketing. I don't believe that for a second.

I've seen no notable effort to market specifically to MMO players. I merely see design elements that draw things from MMOs that are applicable to the tabletop. Design is not marketing.

But trying to market to non-gamers is just a poor allocation of resources.

Marketing to non-gamers is the only way they have to get new people into the hobby. You'd prefer the market leader engaged in navel-gazing, Orouborous-style business?

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

The latter, of course, is true. The former remains an unsupported assertion - we don't have the sales information to tell.

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.

The change in scale between the two is pretty much the point.

When you get up on, say, a lazy Saturday morning, and you consider what you're going to do with your time, do you first ask yourself what RPG you're going to play today, or do you ask yourself if you're going to BBQ or go to the movies or maybe play an RPG?

RPGs are a niche market, and WotC already has dominance, we are agreed on these points, yes?

Well, then by definition, if WotC were to out-perform every other RPG, forcing them out of the market entirely, then they will less than double their business. That's a whole lot of work, for a clearly limited return. In a luxury market, once you have dominance, competing within that market is an exercise in diminishing returns - squabbling over crumbs. If it wants to grow to greater success, WotC needs to pick at something bigger than itself.

I will see if I can find the post that made this clear to me, as it was extremely well-put.

 

[Stalker0]

I think dropping the OGL has hurt WotC in multiple ways. It lost those of us who supported the concept. It opened the door for Paizo to continue with a very good, well supported rules set.

While I liked the OGL, I think its important to note that it was the OGL that has allowed Paizo to directly compete with WOTC in the way they have. Without it, games like Pathfinder couldn't exist to compete with the DND brand.

 

[malraux]

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.

I've seen World of Darkness and a bunch of other games on Borders/B&N shelves in the 2000's. WotC has always had competitors.

 

[Truth Seeker]

And yes, Eric Mona did openly thanked Wotc for that. At last year's Ennie Awards.

While I liked the OGL, I think its important to note that it was the OGL that has allowed Paizo to directly compete with WOTC in the way they have. Without it, games like Pathfinder couldn't exist to compete with the DND brand.

 

[General Lopez]

While I liked the OGL, I think its important to note that it was the OGL that has allowed Paizo to directly compete with WOTC in the way they have. Without it, games like Pathfinder couldn't exist to compete with the DND brand.

The OGL also helped grow the industry to where it is now. The launch of 3E and the OGL was one of the best sales periods for the hobby. The OGL also allowed companies to create complimentary items to WotC products. WotC has never been known for there adventures. WotC also has stated that adventures were not very profitable. This is where company's like Paizo, Necromancer games, and Goodman games came in. They filled the role that WotC did not want to fill. Who fills the 4E adventure role now? Pathfinder exists now because of WotC decisions that pushed Paizo to create it.

 

[Reynard]

I am flabergasted by the suggestion by some that Paizo/Pathfinder some how does not compete with WotC/4E or threaten its customer base.

Paizo/Pathfinder competes directly with WotC and 4E and "steals" customers is through their adventure paths and modules. Not to put too fine a point on it, WotC gave Paizo the tools to steal customers by making an edition that is not particularly backward compatible or even easily converted. People love Paizo modules and adventure paths, for the quality of their design, the art, and the fluff. So they purchase them. IF those modules and adventure paths could be easily used with 4E, then WotC would reap the benefits of Paizo's talents without even having to have an official partnership. But it isn't, and since what actually happens at the table matters, some people, because they use and prefer Paizo's modules and adventure paths, choose to use Pathfinder instead of 4E.

Of course't he reverse is true also: it is relatively common for people on this board and elsewhere to lament that Paizo doesn't make 4E compatible adventures, and if they did folks would buy them in a moment. The extent to which one offsets the other is unknown, but I would guess that since Paizo is a smaller company with a lower margin for "success", the customers it gains for Pathfinder via the adventure paths and modules outweigh those it loses from not producing 4E content.

I do think that if Paizo a) lowered the bar to entry via a "lite" or "basic" version of the game, and b) made their non-adventure path module aspect as strong as the adventure path aspect, they could make an even bigger dent in the "D&D" market.

 

[Reynard]

I've seen World of Darkness and a bunch of other games on Borders/B&N shelves in the 2000's. WotC has always had competitors.

But not for "D&D", not in a very long time.

 

[BryonD]

Ah. You see, when I look at 4e, that's not what I see at all. I think they saw that online games had revealed some things about game design, in general, that were popular, and they decided to tap into some of that wisdom.

I would agree with that. But only as a completely separate point that in no way diminishes the on-topic point.
I actually agree that 4E picked up some good mechanical innovations from WOW. There is *some* truth to the "they made 4E like WOW" claim.

But, imo, there is only a smidge of truth to it, and what there is, is good.

But, again, all of that is compatible with my point.

I've seen no notable effort to market specifically to MMO players. I merely see design elements that draw things from MMOs that are applicable to the tabletop. Design is not marketing.

I don't think they are marketing to "MMO players" so much as they are seeing that MMOs can market to the general market rather than then gamer market, so we should be able to as well. And they have made mistakes in their reasoning there.

Marketing to non-gamers is the only way they have to get new people into the hobby. You'd prefer the market leader engaged in navel-gazing, Orouborous-style business?

You are not understanding what I mean by non-gamers. There are a LOT of people, an overwhelming majority of the population, that are not even a prospective gamer.

Name calling the practice of targeting valid markets doesn't stop it form being a superior approach.

As I said, there are and always will be prospective gamers who, for one reason or another are not yet. And targeting these people is very important.

New people have been coming into the hobby for as long as the hobby exists. So, the navel gazing of the past has worked so far.

The latter, of course, is true. The former remains an unsupported assertion - we don't have the sales information to tell.

shrug
I'm comfortable with the reasonable doubt levels.

The change in scale between the two is pretty much the point.

When you get up on, say, a lazy Saturday morning, and you consider what you're going to do with your time, do you first ask yourself what RPG you're going to play today, or do you ask yourself if you're going to BBQ or go to the movies or maybe play an RPG?

RPGs are a niche market, and WotC already has dominance, we are agreed on these points, yes?

Well, then by definition, if WotC were to out-perform every other RPG, forcing them out of the market entirely, then they will less than double their business. That's a whole lot of work, for a clearly limited return. In a luxury market, once you have dominance, competing within that market is an exercise in diminishing returns - squabbling over crumbs. If it wants to grow to greater success, WotC needs to pick at something bigger than itself.

Of course, but that is a huge "if". I would suggest that "if" is even into the realms of delusional.

And, what you are leaving out is the downside.

Picking up 30% of other RPG companies market place would be a small help.
But that isn't my point.
LOSING 30% of their existing market to other RPGs would be a major kick in the teeth. And that threat is always real.

Your argument assumes that it is a choice between small growth and big growth. It can also be a choice between small growth and big shrinking.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Let us not forget that many folks may have swayed that decision, base on the cries of abandonment on 3.5 material (there were tons of it) being out there.

Also, that during the early stages of the (first or second?) GSL makeover. That there was too, several 3.5 products put on hold waiting to be released.

A lot of factors (before and after) helped contributed to that decision down that road.

The OGL also helped grow the industry to where it is now. The launch of 3E and the OGL was one of the best sales periods for the hobby. The OGL also allowed companies to create complimentary items to WotC products. WotC has never been known for there adventures. WotC also has stated that adventures were not very profitable. This is where company's like Paizo, Necromancer games, and Goodman games came in. They filled the role that WotC did not want to fill. Who fills the 4E adventure role now? Pathfinder exists now because of WotC decisions that pushed Paizo to create it.