Pathfinder 1E I get the feeling Paizo isn't worried about Wizards of the Coast.

[Umbran]

I knew when I saw 4th edition that it wouldn't last...

So? You say that as if it is some sort of reasonable judgement against it. What is the value of "lasting" - as if a duration set by some guy on the internet matters?

They published a game. It is probably safe to say hat hundreds of thousands of people have gotten millions of collective hours of enjoyment from it. If it repaid the R&D investment, and made some cash, who cares beyond that?

When millions of hours of entertainment aren't enough to be considered a success, I think it is not the game at fault, but the expectations of those judging it.

 

[billd91]

Yes, but it would help if that reason were, well, reasonable, wouldn't it?

You don't generally get entertainment for free. Hobbies, in general, cost money. Such is life.

Are you or Defcon 1 gatekeepers for what is or is not a reasonable opinion? I don't think so. This place might be a whole lot less volatile if people wouldn't constantly attack the validity of their fellows' opinions.

 

[fjw70]

Or that they were very happy with their numbers, and they realize they can maintain those WotC-like levels by releasing a new edition rather than trying to wring out more sales of obscure splatbooks of the old one.

If WotC sold hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of copies of the core 3E, 3.5, and 4E books every five years... why on earth would we think they wouldn't do so again with another edition? If people buy them, then they will produce them and sell them.

It's only us message board people who get all up in arms about it... apparently because we're the only ones incapable of saving $3 bucks a month over the five years to eventually pay for the next set of books.

That is a possibility also.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

So? You say that as if it is some sort of reasonable judgement against it. What is the value of "lasting" - as if a duration set by some guy on the internet matters?

They published a game. It is probably safe to say hat hundreds of thousands of people have gotten millions of collective hours of enjoyment from it. If it repaid the R&D investment, and made some cash, who cares beyond that?

When millions of hours of entertainment aren't enough to be considered a success, I think it is not the game at fault, but the expectations of those judging it.

No, it's the fault of the game.

I'm sure there are people but apparently it wasn't enough. If it was then we wouldn't have pathfinder and all the retroclones in the mix.

When you are comparing it to all the other editions out there then the duration does matter. If it fails to last out the other editions then it's safe to say it wasn't as much of a success as the others. There are always going to be people who buy an edition no matter what, it's how many people continue to purchase the brand that matters.

 

[Umbran]

Are you or Defcon 1 gatekeepers for what is or is not a reasonable opinion? I don't think so.

Seems to me that when someone raises an objection in a largely public forum, that opinion is itself open to scrutiny, judgement, and counter-opinion. This is a discussion board, after all, and not a "I get to say what I want and not have anyone comment on my words" board. If you want that, post it to Facebook or G+ or something and turn off comments.

Using an extreme example as illustration: If you said, "I think I should get into first-run movies for fifty cents," then I think it would be okay for me to say that is unreasonable. I can look at the costs for making films, and for keeping up a theater, and come to the conclusion that the opinion literally can't be founded in reason, as movies at that price point simply couldn't exist. I can look at what people pay for other entertainments, and come to the conclusion that, rarely, if ever, does one get entertainment of any quality for a whopping $0.25/hour, and say that the idea doesn't match up with reality, and call it unreasonable.

So, we can then step back to the case at hand. There is a serious question as to how much entertainment you should expect per dollar spent on game books. If your expectations are too high, yes, I may call them unreasonable.

This place might be a whole lot less volatile if people wouldn't constantly attack the validity of their fellows' opinions.

When your opinion is based on personal preferences and tastes, I won't question the validity. Say, "I don't like what I've seen in the 5e playtests, so I won't buy it!" you won't hear a peep from me. When you start talking about costs, which are measurable and comparable, then we're in another ballpark.

 

[Umbran]

No, it's the fault of the game.

I'm sure there are people but apparently it wasn't enough. If it was then we wouldn't have pathfinder and all the retroclones in the mix.

I don't see how that follows.

You spend a lot of time claiming it was a failure, but haven't actually defined what would have been a success. Put your line in the sand, and we can see if it makes sense.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't see how that follows.

You spend a lot of time claiming it was a failure, but haven't actually defined what would have been a success. Put your line in the sand, and we can see if it makes sense.

I already mentioned those in my earlier post.

 

[billd91]

When your opinion is based on personal preferences and tastes, I won't question the validity. Say, "I don't like what I've seen in the 5e playtests, so I won't buy it!" you won't hear a peep from me. When you start talking about costs, which are measurable and comparable, then we're in another ballpark.

But isn't a statement that a product "is too expensive for me, particularly after all the money I've invested in the previous edition" also a statement of personal preferences and tastes? In this case, a personal estimation of the value of the product? Seems like we haven't really left the ballpark to me.

 

[Dunnagin]

To address the original thread topic, I don't see why Piazo would ever be "worried" about Wizards of the Coast.

If D&D Next is not a roaring success... Piazo will focus on making products for their current customer base as usual.

If D&D Next is a roaring success, they will probably allow third party companies (such as Piazo), to create support products for the game... in which case Piazo can Convert Current Content and Create New Content for that audience (and still serve the Pathfinder crowd, if it is profitable enough).

If Both D&D Next and Pathfinder take a huge downswing (not likely, but lets imagine it), then Piazo can create content for whichever version of the game is most popular... be it OSR or some completely new "fad" game.

Just like any other company, Piazo only has to worry if it Fails To Adapt to the Current Market.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But isn't a statement that a product "is too expensive for me, particularly after all the money I've invested in the previous edition" also a statement of personal preferences and tastes? In this case, a personal estimation of the value of the product? Seems like we haven't really left the ballpark to me.

If all the comments were "I don't want to spend $120 to buy a new edition's books"... that's absolutely cool and valid reasoning. But when they say they that WotC shouldn't make a new edition at all because they'd have to buy new books... and that WotC sucks as a company, doesn't care about it's customers, and Paizo is so much better... yeah, we can point out how much we think that line of reasoning is really lame. Especially when they could easily buy the new editions books by just saving $3 a month if they really wanted to.

If a person out there claims WotC sucks as a company, doesn't know what they are doing, and their products have failed... using nothing but their own opinion of the products WotC produces as their "evidence" to prove these things... they'd better expect other people to poke holes or poke fun. Cause they certainly deserve it.