Monte Cook back at wizards

[Sonny]

And the most important question: Why do we assume that a person who purchases a Pathfinder book is a lost customer for WotC?

Very good point. I think our idea of it may be a bit skewed since we've seen so many edition war threads around here. But I can tell you I've purchase pathfinder rpg books and am still primarily playing 4e, still have my sub to insider so I'm not a lost customer.

I do feel sometimes I am an exception since I've also purchase Hackmaster's new Monster book and PHB, C&C rulebooks, etc... I'm also as likely to buy a new 4e book as a pathfinder book if the subject sounds interesting enough.

Either way I do feel Wizards knows what they are doing and making these changes for good reasons. Even if they won't share the data they're basing it on.

 

[billd91]

And the most important question: Why do we assume that a person who purchases a Pathfinder book is a lost customer for WotC?

I wouldn't characterize them a definitively lost customer, but I think it's realistic to assume that a substantial proportion of PF buyers aren't 4e customers and some of them are so because of the presence of PF. I think it's also reasonable to assume, whatever the exact percentage of customers lost or now shared is, PF has made substantial inroads into the pre-4e WotC customer base at 4e's expense.

Whether or not the customer is completely lost, however, that's money spent that 4e failed to attract. Each customer is only spending a particular buck once. So whether or not an individual is a customer of both (or many other) games, they are in competition.

 

[Dannager]

Whether or not the customer is completely lost, however, that's money spent that 4e failed to attract.

So is popcorn at a movie theater.

WotC isn't losing money until someone does not buy something they would have purchased had it not been for an alternative offering. If they're buying Pathfinder books and not buying 4e books, then yeah, that's money WotC might be losing. But if they're buying Pathfinder books and 4e books? Then it might be the movie theater popcorn getting the snub.

The only thing we can say for sure is that, either way, it's not bad news for Pathfinder.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wouldn't characterize them a definitively lost customer, but I think it's realistic to assume that a substantial proportion of PF buyers aren't 4e customers and some of them are so because of the presence of PF. I think it's also reasonable to assume, whatever the exact percentage of customers lost or now shared is, PF has made substantial inroads into the pre-4e WotC customer base at 4e's expense.

Whether or not the customer is completely lost, however, that's money spent that 4e failed to attract. Each customer is only spending a particular buck once. So whether or not an individual is a customer of both (or many other) games, they are in competition.

Yeah, I don't think we can draw ANY conclusions. For example:

I never bought ANY 3e or 3.5 products at all. I tend to buy most of the 4e books. I haven't bought any PF books.

Sonny buys PF and 4e books, I'll assume he bought 3.5 books too.

My sister bought 3.5 books, bought 1 4e book, and hasn't bought any PF books.

Someone somewhere bought 3.5 books and now only buys PF books.

Some other guy somewhere never bought 3.5 books and now buys PF books.

Now, if we knew how many people fell into these different categories we'd have some idea of what's going on. Lets assume we can rely on the PF and 4e sell about the same that tends to come from what market data we have. In theory EVERY one of those PF customers could be people that weren't buying 3.5. Realistically not, but the possibilities range all the way from PF hasn't hurt 4e one bit, to PF took away half of 4e's cookies. We don't even know relatively how much 4e sells vs how much 3.5 sold in its last year. WotC might in theory be perfectly happy if 4e simply increased sales enough above the decay curve of 3.5 to pay for its development. Note that no reference there need even be made to PF, and you'll note that Mearls sounded almost puzzled by questions about competition from PF, though clearly he realizes it sells well.

Yes, it goes without saying that WotC will look at Paizo's sales and think about how to get that business. That doesn't mean they are desperate or think 4e somehow 'failed'. Nor does any of that indicate that the intelligent response to Paizo would be to abandon the half of the customers you've got and go after the other half that the other guy has.

And lets not kid ourselves here people. While we have probably all played older editions of various games because that's what we had, or there was some specific reason for it, nobody really wants the current version of a game they like to become the past version. WotC DEFINITELY doesn't want that, because if they release some 5e I don't like, I won't buy it. They don't want that. Any 5e that comes out WILL have to please the 4e (IE actual paying customers today) before all else. Don't kid yourselves about that.

 

[Imaro]

WotC DEFINITELY doesn't want that, because if they release some 5e I don't like, I won't buy it. They don't want that. Any 5e that comes out WILL have to please the 4e (IE actual paying customers today) before all else. Don't kid yourselves about that.

I think the problem with your logic is that just because they aim to please their current audience (which let's not forget included many who enjoyed 3.5 before 4e was introduced but don't enjoy 4e) means they will succeed at it.

OAN: It's funny how those who didn't like 4e were considered acceptable losses by many of the 4e fanbase... yet your logic above now all of a sudden assumes it is somehow imperative to please the current 4e fanbase with a new edition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the problem with your logic is that just because they aim to please their current audience (which let's not forget included many who enjoyed 3.5 before 4e was introduced but don't enjoy 4e) means they will succeed at it.

OAN: It's funny how those who didn't like 4e were considered acceptable losses by many of the 4e fanbase... yet your logic above now all of a sudden assumes it is somehow imperative to please the current 4e fanbase with a new edition.

You assume anyone set out with the idea of, or knowledge of, someone being certainly displeased. In any case, I think everyone is pretty well advised at this point in history that NO edition roll will be 100% pleasing to everyone.

The point I'm making is not that MY preferences should be privileged. It is that IN THIS SITUATION, where there is a whole other game that the displeased people are already playing, that it would be foolish for WotC to think that making an about face and going after those people when they have me and all the other people that like 4e already as customers. History is replete with examples of producers of products thinking that they're going to continue to please audience A AND please some other audience B with a product that is everything to everyone. It almost invariably fails miserably.

Now, at some point, when WotC, in the fullness of time, makes a 5e is it reasonable to think that they'll incorporate the lessons learned from 4e in 5e? Of course they would be stupid not to. 5e might well be more pleasing to some fraction of the audience that didn't like 4e, and the way it might do that may be evoking certain things from previous editions. That's different IMO from actually going backwards and creating a 5e that is basically 3.5 warmed over in the hope that it would be a successful strategy. It would also be far different from making a 5e that is yet again entirely different and doesn't build on what was done in 4e at all.

So, IMHO, 5e needs to A) build on 4e, and B) not be rushed out before 4e has run its course. This is purely based on my sense of what is likely to succeed, not on my own narrow preferences. Of course we're all biased, so I'm undoubtedly wrong to some greater or lesser degree, but so it goes.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Now, at some point, when WotC, in the fullness of time, makes a 5e is it reasonable to think that they'll incorporate the lessons learned from 4e in 5e? Of course they would be stupid not to.

But wouldn't this mean that R&D, marketing and sales department work in close conjunction? Could you really imagine sales and marketing given usable hints on what the mysterious Customer wants?

Isn't it more likely to paint the target consumer in broad strokes (age group, education, disposable income) and have R&D guess what this mysterious figure would like?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

But wouldn't this mean that R&D, marketing and sales department work in close conjunction? Could you really imagine sales and marketing given usable hints on what the mysterious Customer wants?

Isn't it more likely to paint the target consumer in broad strokes (age group, education, disposable income) and have R&D guess what this mysterious figure would like?

They already hace some solid data from what people build on the character builder and some data on what people play from the VTT. If they ever get the VTT open to the public then they will have one of the best market research tools ever created for the pen and paper rpgs.

My own view would be that htey should not finalise 5e until they have those tools mature in 4e and they can then fine tune 5e to what ever covers most of their subscription market.

Subscribers are a more stable source of income than any other segment of the gamer coimmunity and that is what they are most likely to persue.

Any one else they get is jam on top.

 

[P1NBACK]

Besides, you're working on some kind of assumption like 4e is horrible bad, going down in flames, ZOMG. Actually it looks like as many people buy 4e as buy PF and there are certainly plenty of people playing it.

lol

Emphasis mine.

Like that's a good indication of 4E success.... "Hey! They're keeping up with a company and former 3PP that's reprinting their old game!"

 

[Walking Dad]

No, it was not.

It may be splitting hairs, but I was perfectly fine never touching a mini when playing 3.0 and just started to pay a bit more attention to the grid, when feet were converted to squares...

So in this case, splitting hairs is ok, as it was a response to a different post...

IMHO 3.0 was not more reliant on a battle grid than ADnD. It started 3 years later...

and this happened in the transition to 3.5 and as far as I remember it was when monte cook already quit.

So what? I asked above, how did you handled big magic bursts and walls without the DM just saying 'it hits them, not them'? And if you did this, you can do the same with other games, too.