Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[AllisterH]

*chuckle*

I'll defend Wicht here...

He's obviously referring to D&D specifically when talking about cross gamer appeal (and you're right...I have seen many a people at least interested in Darksun who normally don't play 4e).

As a D&D focused messageboard, we always tend to forget at times that WOTC is more than D&D.

 

[Wicht]

That looks more like an opinion to me, not a fact. I've seen a large number of non-4e players state they are looking forward to buying the new Red Box set, and others say they are looking forward to buying the Dark Sun setting. The interest level in Gamma World seems high as well. Earlier, it seems like many non-4e players bought WOTC miniatures.

And of course, lots of people play Star Wars, Heroscape, MTG, Axis & Allies, Duelmasters, etc..

So it sure looks to me like WOTC had, and continues to have, plenty of cross game appeal. In fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet WAY WAY WAY more people in the world buy WOTC products than Paizo products, even if you entirely eliminated Dungeons and Dragons 4e from the equation. So as far as selling to the larger percentage of the gaming population, I'd guess WOTC wins that hands down.

I'm sorry Mistwell, I thought it was obvious I was talking about Role Playing Games, most specifically fantasy role playing games of the Dungeons and Dragons genre. I apologize for confusing you. If we factor in both board and card games, then of course, Paizo is still small potatoes.

I must disagree however about the number of non-4e players that seem enthused about buying essentials. Have you looked at this thread? There is more unanimity about us non-4e players not buying essentials than anything I have ever seen in any thread asking preferences from a sub-group. I think most of us are pleased WotC is trying to make some changes but that is not going to compel us to buy it.

 

[IronWolf]

I think you are over generalizing. I don't think most of us Pathfinder players think of WotC as "evil," even if we don't agree with their apparent gaming philosophy. There are some who do , of course, just as there are WotC supporters who are convinced Paizo doesn't deserve any recognition as they are just building with toys WotC gave to them. But for me personally, and I think it is a general consensus, I don't by WotC products, not because I dislike them (I wish them and the brand all the best), but because they don't make anything I want. Paizo does and so I buy from them.

I'll just agree with Wicht here. It seems Pathfinder players are often getting lumped into this stereotype that we all think WotC is "evil". I just don't see that as being the case as much as it is we don't agree with their current gaming philosophy as Wicht has said.

I don't like the path WotC took with 4e. But I don't think WotC is evil, I just don't agree with their direction. I wish them success with 4e and I am happy to see a large number of players happy with 4e. It just wasn't the choice for me.

 

[Mark CMG]

As a D&D focused messageboard, we always tend to forget at times that WOTC is more than D&D.

Indeed. I think I saw somewhere that there are hundreds of employees, and they have all sorts of other game lines both card and board games and more. Even with the phasing out of the SW stuff, they're still a very busy company with a very large parent, too. This practically guarantees that D&D will be around in some form or another no matter how things play out from year to year, and that's a good thing.

 

[BigWeather]

For me the defining moment was WotC killing off Dungeon (and, specifically, removing Paizo from Dungeon). I've always been an adventure lover, in fact I play sparingly but love to read the adventures and the fluff and Dungeon was such a great addition to my hobby when it started in 1986. The quality dipped very noticeably prior to Paizo taking over and then, once they did, it came roaring back as good as ever. Paizo, particularly late in 3.x, increasingly became the face of D&D for me. I understand that WotC can do what they want with Dungeon but it felt like a betrayal to have my favorite magazine of all time, under perhaps the best stewardship it had ever seen, killed like that. Add in that Paizo was very smart to offer transitioning of Dungeon subscriptions to their AP (I believe I got the first four issues "free" this way -- and was thereafter hooked) and I'm not sure that WotC fully saw what was coming. Maybe it wasn't this way for others, this is all in my opinion of course.

My interest in D&D had waned some with 2e (particularly late in that edition's span) but the OGL brought me back *big time* (the adventure-y fluffy parts, that is). So that getting killed off didn't make me a very happy camper either.

Among my group of players at the time one went to 4e, I went to Pathfinder, and five others just quit outright (and have yet to come back). I suspect that if Pathfinder hadn't been there I'd have left as well, so I guess Paizo didn't cost 4e a customer in my case.

As for revenue (and here I'm referring to D&D not WotC as a whole) I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo's is much more than 5% of WotC's (D&D only, again). Everything I hear from my FLGS is that Pathfinder holds its own and often outsells 4e and while one could argue DDI gives WotC an unseen edge I bet Paizo's subscription revenue is nothing to sneeze at either.

 

[jaerdaph]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the answer to the question is "No, WotC did not underestimate the effect of Paizo and Pathfinder". WotC has taken all the steps to insure that when 5e comes out, nobody will be able to successfully produce a 4e "Pathfinder". The OGL and SRD made Pathfinder possible, and those pieces just don't exist for 4e.

I also believe that only Paizo could have made Pathfinder happen. Only Paizo had the name recognition (thanks to the years of publishing DRAGON and DUNGEON), the creative staff, the and the customer base to make it work. If Paizo didn't produce Pathfinder, there was nobody in the position to produce a continuation of 3.5e. Sure, we would have had a lot more "fantasy heartbreakers" from 3PPs and others, but I believe taken together, all those attempts would not have equaled the success of Pathfinder.

I'm also under no delusions that anything sells more than 4e D&D or even competes with WotC's 800 lb gorilla. But there still was enough of a market for Paizo to tap into to be a successful business nonetheless.

It's kind of like this awesome little candy store around the corner from me. They make the best chocolates, and I would buy a box of their candy over a box of Russell Stovers any day. And even though I know they will never become as large as or make the money that Russell Stovers makes, I still think they have the superior product.

 

[el_vakero92335]

Eww!! Russell Stovers--chocolates filled toothpaste!!

 

[Krypter]

Though I was never a huge fan of 3.5, WotC's 4E marketing campaign was quite insulting. They "fired" their existing customers and Paizo snapped them up with superior customer service, great production values and good deals. That was a huge mistake on WotC's part, and one they're now trying to address with the Essentials line, which bears more of a resemblance to 3.5 than classic 4E.

The cancellation of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon was also a terrible mistake, one I'm not likely to forgive soon.

 

[Fifth Element]

They "fired" their existing customers and Paizo snapped them up with superior customer service, great production values and good deals.

They did? Funny, I play in two groups that were playing 3.5 in 2008, and now both groups play 4E.

 

[olshanski]

They did? Funny, I play in two groups that were playing 3.5 in 2008, and now both groups play 4E.

I suspect that Krypter was referring to the marketing of 4E. 4E was not marketed as a brand new tabletop game, as much as it was marketed as an improvement over 3.5 which was broken and unfun in very many ways. By inference, if you were playing 3.5, you were playing an unfun game that could be improved by going to 4E. If you really enjoyed 3.5, then you were insane.

I have not been able to find any marketing material related to the design of 4E that doesn't talk about the problems of 3.5E.

Here's an excerpt: from the Design and Development article on 4E's Core Mechanic.

Grab a d20. Roll high.
That’s the basic rule of 4th Edition just as it was in 3rd Edition, but the new edition puts that mechanic more solidly in the core of the game than ever.

Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.

That’s gone in the new edition.

Have you played a spellcaster and been a little envious of the excitement of other players when they roll critical hits? Have you wished that you could do that for your spells?

You can in 4th.

Have you ever had some confusion or miscalculation about your normal AC versus your touch and flat-footed AC?

You won’t have to worry about it.

You see, almost everything is phrased in terms of how much better it is than 3.5. The marketing for the game was "STOP PLAYING 3.5, START PLAYING 4.0". I was a hardcore 3.5 player, but I am also human and not immune to marketing tricks. After reading article after article about how crappy 3.5 was, I began to believe it, and I stopped playing 3.5.

Maybe Krypter was referring to something else, but I certainly got a vibe of "your game sucks" from the WoTC marketing department.