What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

[Bedrockgames]

Just to go back to the OP for a second - why can't WOTC go back to 3.5, ask yourself this - Why didn't Paizo?

If 3.5 was still viable as a vehicle for profit, why would Paizo, a pretty savvy bunch of businesspeople, take the risk of developing a new system?

I have no idea how much Pathfinder cost to bring to market, but, it is my opinion that it can be summed up as the mathematically exacting term of <i>a lot</i>. Now, if 3.5 was still perfectly fine, as is being suggested in the OP, then why bother? Why spend all that money on something that very well might not work when there is a perfectly viable option right there to be used?

After all, 3.5 is OGL, and it's already been shown that you can repackage the Players Handbook and sell it. Why wouldn't Paizo save themselves a WHOLE lot of hassle, reissue the Core 3 with new art and new flavour text and be done with it?

Unless, of course, 3.5 was largely played out and there truly did need to be something new in order to get people buying again.

So, in answer to the question, "What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?", I'd simply point to Paizo and say, "Well, if it was a viable option, why didn't they do it?"

I think there are a few possible answers. First there were some legitimate mechanical concerns with 3E (and the game had been pushed a little too far by many of the splats on top of that). This bothered some, and didn't bother others. But clearly there was a demand for some more balance in the system. Paizo was answering this demand.

Another key reason, IMO, is Paizo wanted to set up something distinct enough that their control of the Pathfinder log and license would matter. If they just remade 3E, then all they would be doing is putting out the old SRD document and arguable they wouldn't have much of an IP claim to their own line.

Personally I think Pathfinder is a bit different than 3E, but not by a whole lot. It still looks and feels like the same game to me (it is even less different from 3E than 2E was for 1E IMO).

Effectively Pathfinder has repackaged and sold 3E. It is more like a 3.75. And they have made it very profitable. The key thing for me is they eliminated a lot of the junk that came with the splat books and refocused the game on flavor and putting out great adventures (something I had been calling for all through 3E). They balanced it out a bit, but I think on the whole most fans of 3E aren't as obsessed with the balance issue (personally I wanted a touch more balance in 3E than it had, but the balance in 4E just goes way too far for my tastes---I think there is a fine line between balance and making choices matter).

 

[gamerprinter]

Just to go back to the OP for a second - why can't WOTC go back to 3.5, ask yourself this - Why didn't Paizo?

If 3.5 was still viable as a vehicle for profit, why would Paizo, a pretty savvy bunch of businesspeople, take the risk of developing a new system?

I have no idea how much Pathfinder cost to bring to market, but, it is my opinion that it can be summed up as the mathematically exacting term of <i>a lot</i>. Now, if 3.5 was still perfectly fine, as is being suggested in the OP, then why bother? Why spend all that money on something that very well might not work when there is a perfectly viable option right there to be used?

After all, 3.5 is OGL, and it's already been shown that you can repackage the Players Handbook and sell it. Why wouldn't Paizo save themselves a WHOLE lot of hassle, reissue the Core 3 with new art and new flavour text and be done with it?

Unless, of course, 3.5 was largely played out and there truly did need to be something new in order to get people buying again.

So, in answer to the question, "What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?", I'd simply point to Paizo and say, "Well, if it was a viable option, why didn't they do it?"

Paizo actually said why, and I agree (I don't have a link to such). If you're going to spend money getting a hardback printed version for the Core rules, why just settle for what is already in the SRD. Game developers are game developers why not tweak the rules to fix issues one may have had with the previous game. Why not improve combat maneueverability, improve the base classes, combine skill sets, etc.

Sure they could have just reprinted the 3.5 core rules, Mongoose Publishing did that with a smaller format softbound version - obviously that did not 'catch on'.

Paizo stated it was viable, but 'why not' was there best answer. I'm glad they went the way they went. I like PF better than 3.5.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think what Paizo has done is freaking fantastic. They put out great stuff and they deserve their success. They are working their asses off and it shows.

That's not really what I was getting at though. The original question is why doesn't WOTC re-release 3.5. My answer is pretty simple - it's not economically viable. If it was a good money making route to go, Paizo would have been all over it. They'd be stupid to not do it. If it was viable, then spending a whole parcel of money on developing something that might not work would be blindingly stupid.

I would never call the people at Paizo bad businesspeople.

Does anything think that a republished 3.5 would actually have succeeded?

 

[gamerprinter]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think what Paizo has done is freaking fantastic. They put out great stuff and they deserve their success. They are working their asses off and it shows.

That's not really what I was getting at though. The original question is why doesn't WOTC re-release 3.5. My answer is pretty simple - it's not economically viable. If it was a good money making route to go, Paizo would have been all over it. They'd be stupid to not do it. If it was viable, then spending a whole parcel of money on developing something that might not work would be blindingly stupid.

I would never call the people at Paizo bad businesspeople.

Does anything think that a republished 3.5 would actually have succeeded?

Oh, I actually agree with you. I don't think 3.5 is a viable course for WotC, making PF a slightly different game with a clean slate (as in not including huge piles of existing splats as necessary material) is what make it viable for Paizo.

And if WotC tried to emulate that mentality with there own different version of 3.5 - it would look like they are copying Paizo's plan and I doubt WotC wants to ever appear as a 'follower' in the industry. They would rather lead.

Its not that WotC couldn't do this. It's that they wouldn't do it. And going back to 3.5 is not a solution for WotC, most definitely.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Does anything think that a republished 3.5 would actually have succeeded?

yes, I do. All it needed was a change in direction (toward flavor material like modules) and some fresh paint.

 

[billd91]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think what Paizo has done is freaking fantastic. They put out great stuff and they deserve their success. They are working their asses off and it shows.

That's not really what I was getting at though. The original question is why doesn't WOTC re-release 3.5. My answer is pretty simple - it's not economically viable. If it was a good money making route to go, Paizo would have been all over it. They'd be stupid to not do it. If it was viable, then spending a whole parcel of money on developing something that might not work would be blindingly stupid.

I would never call the people at Paizo bad businesspeople.

Does anything think that a republished 3.5 would actually have succeeded?

I don't know if it would have succeeded or not, but the fact of the matter is that it couldn't have been done by anybody except WotC. The SRD is incomplete. In order to package and publish it as a whole game, it must be completed. That virtually requires the elements that complete it to be different or run a lot more risk of IP infringement.

Once you're already jumping through that hoop, you might as well make other changes to the system to fix perceived deficiencies, streamline play, and so on.

 

[darkseraphim]

They need to stop thinking in terms of Editions, and need to start thinking in terms of Brand Franchise. Every time they reinvent the wheel, another wheel flies off and more old players fall out of the car.

They need to embrace .pdf and print on demand. (I'll refrain from posting my position on piracy to avoid inciting.) They keep thinking that their Current Edition is the new hotness, and that people just need to be convinced that old editions are bad and the Current Edition is something they've just gotta have.

The reality, however, is that players latch onto a system that feels right and stick with it. The solution? Offer all of the products of all of the editions. Reinstate .pdfs. Offer POD lines online. If you're worried about new customer confusion (when you should be worried about new customers *period*, but nevermind), then only offer the Current Edition in storefronts, and offer all of the .pdfs and PODs online.

This is all my roundabout way of saying that they should offer 3.5 in its entirety, in addition to all over versions. Add a "Classic Edition" starburst to old modules etc. to preserve the collectability of the originals.

But above all, instead of telling people what they want, be quiet and start listening to what people want, and provide that. Instead of considering your fractured community a problem to be solved, consider it a diversity of opinion to be embraced. Sell to that diversity by diving into your rich back-catalog of 38 years of D&D goodness.

A lot of us have been waving our money at WotC for years waiting for them to (re-)offer what we want, but have been turned down because they didn't like our particular shade of green. Stop angering people and start catering to them!

 

[gamerprinter]

Granted Paizo is a smaller company than WotC (man for man, I don't know how much smaller it is, but...), but Paizo has mentioned for those asking them to create 4e versions of their APs to offer adventure material for 4e fans. They've stated that currently they are almost undermanned to accomplish their production schedule for just Pathfinder. They'd have to hire out double their current staff (well almost) to do both rulesets - which at this time is out of the question (and more likely forever out of the question.)

With the above thought in mind, how practical would it be for WotC to support all the editions. Even if they could provide the manpower for such a thing, would it be profitable enough to consider.

My answer, I doubt it. So even with WotC being the bigger company, I don't think its in their best interests to support more than one edition.

Now if you're only talking about having access to the older editions in some electronic format only, and not creating anything new for older editions - that might be possible. But would doing so, affect their flagship product, and their sales bottomline too much... Maybe they could support that, but anything more is too costly, and simply not profitable.

I'm sure supporting all past and current editions is not going to happen, and really its not even a practical consideration (nor a profitable one.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To restate my position: I think WotC/Hasbro has what it takes to support multiple RPGs, much like Coke & Pepsi have hundreds of sub-brands each.

I just don't think they have the will to try that business model.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To restate my position: I think WotC/Hasbro has what it takes to support multiple RPGs, much like Coke & Pepsi have hundreds of sub-brands each.

I just don't think they have the will to try that business model.

I don't think, as a division of Hasbro, they can make a compelling argument to their masters. The RPG market is shrinking, not growing, the licensed products most recently released have all gotten a lukewarm reception and there are other divisions that will more obviously generate more profits if Hasbro were to plow more cash into expanding them.

If WotC hadn't been swallowed by Hasbro, maybe they'd try several versions. But there's no way I can imagine convincing a bunch of MBAs who've never played D&D to start publishing competing versions of the same product when investing capital elsewhere is much more likely to create larger dividends.