Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[SteveC]

I think WotC chooses NOT to design adventures like Paizo. I don't think its a case of CAN'T. Since the start of 3e, WotC drastically reduced the number of modules they released (generally leaving that to 3pp). In 4e, its still the same but now the entire game seems to be targetted to newcomers (as others have said, the grassroots level) and therefore modules design has to follow that tenant as well. Thus simple adventures are a necessity for WotC. Its also my opinion that WotC believes veteran players tend to write their own stuff and therefore there is a smaller market segment to appeal to, which in turn produces diminished returns in adventure designs of that area. Lastly, since Paizo already designs adventures of this type, the market segment is even that much more smaller and competing just doesn't make sense.

Remember, the expectation of sales for WotC is a lot different than the expetation of sales for Paizo.

You simply can't compare the two, because each company is focusing on a different segment of the market which is by choice, not because they can't.

I think this is a good point, but WotC has put out some excellent adventures (Red Hand of Doom immediately comes to mind) but if I remember the folks who put together the adventures I enjoyed for 3X, they tended to be the Paizo people, so I don't necessarily know if they have the talent in-house at the moment to make them.

I think 4E is incredibly easy to write the mechanics of an adventure for. You pretty much have a road-map for the encounters and treasures spelled out for you in the DMG's encounter creation rules.

What's more difficult, and has mostly eluded the 4E adventure writers is the story, whether that's an interesting backstory for the adventure, well motivated villains, or even exceptionally interesting set pieces for the adventures.

My group still talks about the gnome village that was the first adventure for Shackled City. The WotC adventures just haven't had something to match that kind of backdrop. Frankly, they haven't had something as interesting as EnWorld's Fire Forest either.

Is that intentional? I hope not, but what I do know is that when my group finishes up Burning Sky (and that's going to take a while...) I don't have a similar replacement for them. That saddens me greatly.

I can only think that an incredible adventure path as a kick-off for the new edition would have sold a lot of people who were on the fence at the time.

--Steve

 

[IronWolf]

And yeah, here is another place that WoTC could definately learn. $9.99 core books. The core book, the Bestiary, this book, and the Advanced Player's Guide are all $9.99. That's a hell of a deal for it.

Agreed! That $9.99 for core rulebooks in PDF format is an excellent price point! Makes it easy for me to own the hardback and justify spending some more money to have the PDF for easy access when I am on the computer or away from my books. It is also a great way for me to get my hands on an anxiously awaited book (APG, I'm looking at you) while I wait for my hardback to ship.

 

[Shazman]

Entirely my opinion...I don't think WotC understimated the effect.

I think what we are talking about is what would have been the state of things if WotC had brought Paizo in as a partner from the start of 4E. The posible forms I think that may have manifested as were: renewing Dungeon and Dragon for Paizo; working with Paizo to develop and possibly host DDI; and/or having Paizo as a third party publisher of 4E materials, or as an official publisher. And would there have been Pathfinder.

First, I don't think Paizo would have been able to develop or host DDI. So that's probably a non-issue. As far as allowing Paizo to keep Dungeon and Dragon: I don't think it would have been economically feasible or beneficial for either WotC or Paizo to do so, considering the plan of making it an integral part of DDI.

As far as Paizo as a third party publisher or official publisher? I think WotC is exactly where they want to be as far as 3pp's are concerned. I don't think they necessarily wanted to eliminate 4E products from 3pp's, but I also don't think they'd really care if there weren't any 3pp 4E products. They don't mind that there is, just as long as they could finally and truly control the type of D&D products in the market. With the limited amount of official 4E products (compared to the height of 3E), I really can't imagine what 4E products Paizo could have published that would have been financially worth it (for Paizo or WotC). As far as selling WotC's 4E products, Paizo already does that...so no real change or effect there.

As far as Pathfinder, maybe Paizo wouldn't have developed it or maybe they still would have, but I don't think it's a factor. Pathfinder has not stolen players from 4E and is not a competitor of WotC. Pathfinder came out well after 4E...and well after the fan base was already polarized. I think people that picked up Pathfinder (for the most part), were those who had already decided they didn't want to go the 4E route, but still wanted 3E support. WotC has lost nothing because of Pathfinder. 3E fans have gained significantly because of Pathfinder. Not necessarily a Win-Win, probably more of a Win-Didn't Lose scenario...which is probably all that really matters as far as WotC is concerned.

However, I do believe that some of WotC's actions since the release of 4E has cost them customers. That's where the underestimations or miscalculations occured. Quite likely, those actions only cost them customers that may have made occasional purchases of 4E products, and some DDI subscribers. But, even occasional purchases equate to money, and although not a lot, probably not insignificant. Where they hurt themselves the most in my opinion, was in losing possible DDI subscribers. At a recurring $10/month per customer, DDI could potentially make WotC more money than all of the 4E products (books) sales combined (and maybe already does?). Marketing should be done with the goal of bringing in those lapsed gamers in order to get them subscribing to DDI. Selling books is secondary (except as a hook to bring them in). Fixing the things that are keeping fans from getting a DDI sub should be priority. I think they've done this somewhat with the Essentials line, but they have further to go yet (namely pdf's).

Now, if you want to really ask a question about something that WotC may have underestimated...start a thread asking if WotC underestimated the impact of pulling pdf's...

I've heard a number of people state that they tried 4e, didn't like it, and switched to Pathfinder. How is Pathfinder not stealing customers from 4E? It is stealing them. We just don't know how many it's stealing.

 

[Steel_Wind]

If you have all of the DMG's, then I'm not sure the GMG is going to bring anything to the table (pun intended) that you don't already have.

You are discounting 50 pages of NPC statblocks, magic items and -- above all -- a BOAT LOAD of exceedingly useful tables for everything under the sun -- including an extremely robust Random Magic Item series of charts -- in all their 1st edition glory.

GMG is not just a DMG2 or Advanced Gamemastery Guide. While it does cover those essnentials, it's true value lies in the things I have noted above, imo.

 

[radferth]

I think this is a good point, but WotC has put out some excellent adventures (Red Hand of Doom immediately comes to mind) but if I remember the folks who put together the adventures I enjoyed for 3X, they tended to be the Paizo people, so I don't necessarily know if they have the talent in-house at the moment to make them.

I think 4E is incredibly easy to write the mechanics of an adventure for. You pretty much have a road-map for the encounters and treasures spelled out for you in the DMG's encounter creation rules.

What's more difficult, and has mostly eluded the 4E adventure writers is the story, whether that's an interesting backstory for the adventure, well motivated villains, or even exceptionally interesting set pieces for the adventures.

My group still talks about the gnome village that was the first adventure for Shackled City. The WotC adventures just haven't had something to match that kind of backdrop. Frankly, they haven't had something as interesting as EnWorld's Fire Forest either.

Is that intentional? I hope not, but what I do know is that when my group finishes up Burning Sky (and that's going to take a while...) I don't have a similar replacement for them. That saddens me greatly.

I can only think that an incredible adventure path as a kick-off for the new edition would have sold a lot of people who were on the fence at the time.

--Steve

It is my belief that what WotC underestimated was not specifically Paizo, but the effect of greatly decreasing the number of 3pp adventures being published. When wizards was switching from the OGL to GSL, I think they were trying to shake folks like Green Ronin and Mongoose, who were primarily publishing crunch books and rules variants (Freeport notwithstanding). I assume they were hoping to keep folks like Necromancer, Goodman, and Paizo publishing adventures. I think WotC didn't realize what a positive effect having so many talented folks writing adventures for 3E was, and how effectively licensing issues would end up chasing said talent away from writing 4E adventures. To be sure they are some doing so, and the system would have turned some of these writers off regardless of licensing, but 4E would be in much better shape if they could have figured out how to keep more of these guys on board.

 

[Henry]

You are discounting 50 pages of NPC statblocks, magic items and -- above all -- a BOAT LOAD of exceedingly useful tables for everything under the sun -- including an extremely robust Random Magic Item series of charts -- in all their 1st edition glory.

GMG is not just a DMG2 or Advanced Gamemastery Guide. While it does cover those essnentials, it's true value lies in the things I have noted above, imo.

However, I thought the above post was in the context of "made of win for any fantasy game." In which case, all of the above are Pathfinder-specific. In my case, I can't say, as I haven't read it, but most of my skimming had me putting it down in the store because I play some Pathfinder, but don't DM it, and if I were to DM it most of the NPC stablocks, random magic tables, etc. wouldn't be of much use to me because of my old 3.5 material.

 

[Henry]

For the original question: Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect? I think they might have been surprised at Pathfinder's success, but I doubt the numbers estimates were enough to make them regret it.

From what I've seen, Paizo is still thriving off of "long tail" consumer base, rather than taking a huge bite out of the market. For a small business, this is a fantastic position to be in; I know I'd rather have 50,000 loyal fans nation-wide buying most of my stuff for years on end, and just having to concentrate on quality, than having a half-million fans buying a fraction of my stuff when it fits their needs and when the mood strikes them -- and having to keep investors happy in addition to recessions, market whims, and quality control.

I don't mean this as insulting to Paizo, quite the contrary -- if they keep the target fanbase they've identified happy, I don't think they have anything to worry about.

 

[Crothian]

For the original question: Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect? I think they might have been surprised at Pathfinder's success

I think Paizo might have been surprised by their success too

 

[Perram]

I think Paizo might have been surprised by their success too

I don't think ANYONE expected the Paizo effect, especially not Paizo themselves.

 

[Alzrius]

However, I thought the above post was in the context of "made of win for any fantasy game." In which case, all of the above are Pathfinder-specific.

Well said, and quite right.