Pathfinder 1E Did WOTC take one for the team, help Paizo?

[delericho]

I suspect ignorance and a certain mild disdain for the periodicals, rather than any real malice.

I would be absolutely astounded if there was any malice in this at all. At worst, Wizards don't care.

1. WOTC announces that the magazines are to move online. October will be the first issue.

2. Paizo announces two new magazines - Call them "Wyvern and Labyrinth" (See Monte's post: http://p222.ezboard.com/Whu-whu-Dra...icID=5683.topic)

The problem with this is that there will have been a non-competition clause in the original licensing agreement. Even if there was not, launching a new magazine (even if it is Dragon in all but name) is a massive undertaking, and almost certainly doomed to failure.

I think the only problem with this theory is the idea that WotC would have had any legal power to transfer Paizo's subscriptions over to them. The subscription information Paizo has is their property, it is unlikely it would be part of the license, therefore there would be no way for WotC to "transfer" everyone's subscriptions from Paizo, without paying Paizo for the information, which would likely cost WotC more than those subscriptions were actually worth.

If Paizo didn't transfer the information, they would be responsible for supplying me (and other subscribers) with our magazines. Cheaper for them to transfer the information. (Also, I bet the licensing agreement between Wizards and Paizo covered that, for precisely this scenario.) Also, the terms of the subscription agreement will specifically grant Paizo the right to share subscribers' personal information with a third party specifically in order that said third party can fulfil the subscription. (This is a necessity, as without it they could not deliver to UK (and probably other EU) subscribers, as our Data Protection act forbids that sort of thing without prior permission being sought and granted.)

 

[BadMojo]

I think it was Monte Cook who pointed out that Paizo was very clear to point out that Pathfinder isn't a magazine in a "doth protest too much" sort of way. The stance of "it's not a magazine but a monthly, subscription-based book" is kind of odd, which makes me agree with the non-compete clause theory and also really makes me wonder when WotC found out about Pathfinder.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think the only problem with this theory is the idea that WotC would have had any legal power to transfer Paizo's subscriptions over to them. The subscription information Paizo has is their property, it is unlikely it would be part of the license, therefore there would be no way for WotC to "transfer" everyone's subscriptions from Paizo, without paying Paizo for the information, which would likely cost WotC more than those subscriptions were actually worth.

I disagree entirely. As a lawyer, I literally cannot conceive of a terminable license to print a magazine in which 100% of the content must be pre-approved and becomes the copyright of WotC, without a similar provision for subscriber data and deposits at the termination of the license.

No how; no way. I would be flabbergast if the contract did not provide for it. As a practicing lawyer, I would go do far as to call it negligence if the issue was not at least brought to the attention of the client. (What parties decide as between them is, of course, up to them).

I am, moreover, quite certain that when Paizo started their license, they received the existing subscriber database info from WotC; and I'm pretty damn certain they received some amount with respect to subscriber deposits, either by way of statement of adjustment to license fees owed to WotC, outright cash, or both. After all, an existing subscription is a liability to a magazine publisher.

In short - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Wrathamon]

Alas, no. WotC just recently renewed the computer game licenses for D&D to Infogrames. So they aren't taking all licenses in house, and are specifically licensing out some forms of digital content.

And, that was a very bad idea... infogrames/atari has been on the way out for sometime now. They would have been better off licensing it to another publisher.

 

[Hussar]

I would point something out here that no one seems to be twigging on.

Paizo knew about this since before Christmas. Paizo ended it's multi-year subscriptions in November IIRC. That tells you pretty much exactly when they knew about this.

WOTC was under no obligations whatsoever to release anything. That they did so just before GAMA shows that perhaps, just maybe, they were giving a bit of a helping hand.

 

[Hussar]

Did a little fact checking. Paizo started offering 6 month subs and discontinued the multiyear subs in October of last year. So, considering that the license apparently was up in September, it seems that WOTC informed Paizo that the license wouldn't be renewed last year.

Something I doubt they had to do. If WOTC really was the rat bastards that people are trying to make them out to be, they could have waited until about now, told Paizo that they weren't renewing the license and let Paizo go circling down the drain.

The sad thing about all this is even if it is true (and I'm not saying that it is) that WOTC took one for Paizo, they can never take credit for it. If they say that they did it to help Paizo, it makes them look even worse because people will just start screaming about spin doctoring.

 

[madelf]

The Digitial Initiative may have been there, but that doesn't explain why they didn't let Paizo keep the magazines around.

But a scheme to effectively force the bulk of the subscribers to jump onboard with the Digital Initiative, in order to keep getting the sort of content theyre used to, does.

If the magazines were still out there, WotC would get their license fee and a trickle of people joining up for their new web offerings. With the magazines gone, WotC figures they'll be able to sweep up a large percentage of the Dragon and Dungeon readers, bringing them online in a natural transition, and make more money.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Did a little fact checking. Paizo started offering 6 month subs and discontinued the multiyear subs in October of last year. So, considering that the license apparently was up in September, it seems that WOTC informed Paizo that the license wouldn't be renewed last year.

Ordinarily, license terms that can be renewed come up for renewal about 6 months prior to the conclusion of term. (6 months prior to end of term is a rule which arises in leasing and a line of cases dealing with relief from forfeiture - it has no application in this arena but it's a drafting habit of lawyers which is very widespread nonetheless).

The term was to conclude by end of this April (or with May's issue - which is the same thing). It was extended to September's issue (to be released in August). This four month extension was a courtesy by WotC so that the Savage Tide Adventure Path could conclude.

That would put 6 months prior end of April 07... to late October 06. Sounds about right.

 

[Piratecat]

If WOTC really was the rat bastards that people are trying to make them out to be, they could have waited until about now, told Paizo that they weren't renewing the license and let Paizo go circling down the drain.

Well, of course they aren't. they're regular gamers just like we are.

Your point is a fantastic one. Warning Paizo a year ahead of time is ethical and more than reasonable by my standards. I'm still tremendously disappointed about the loss of the magazines, but accusing WotC of impropriety seems completely mistaken.

 

[caudor]

I agree. I can't imagine the same folks that make the game we all enjoy would suddenly turn against the D&D community. Why would they? Most, if not all of them, are gamers too.

I think they are simply following a business plan. Whatever is coming is probably going to be big. The word I think was used in the announcement was 'evolution'.

Something to think about.