Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[Bluenose]

I wonder what basis for comparison you are using for placing Paizo in some "minor" league not ready for the big time game yet?

They have more employees than most RPG companies, excepting WotC and WotC, as has been pointed out, is much more than RPGs. I wonder how Paizo's numbers stack up against WotC RPG department.

They have the sales. They are, as I'm sure you read earlier, the #2 RPG in the market at the moment. Subject to change, sure, but nothing to be sneezed at.

They most certainly have experience. I doubt there are many RPG companies with more experience in the industry.

I'm pretty sure his comparison is with other 'hobby game' companies; WotC, Games Workshop, FFG, to name three of the big ones. Paizo aren't even close to that size. And incidentally, number two in the market according to ICV2 for printed books across their whole range; I don't think anyone really knows what pdf sales are like across the industry, or how much is sold directly by the companies that do that.

By the way, what is the figure for full-time employees at Paizo?

 

[Intense_Interest]

By the way, what is the figure for full-time employees at Paizo?

According to Erik Mona, about 26 full-time employees.

 

[Wicht]

I'm pretty sure his comparison is with other 'hobby game' companies; WotC, Games Workshop, FFG, to name three of the big ones. Paizo aren't even close to that size.

Except he compared Paizo to White Wolf and Catalyst in making his "league" comparison.

But how many people does FFG employ? I would be surprised if it was much more than 30. And Games Workshop does not have as many employees as they used to have iirc. Even game companies like Mayfair and Days of Wonder probably don't employ much more than Paizo fulltime, if that. WotC is sort of the exception to the rule when it comes to number of employees in a "Hobby" company. But again, a better comparison is between Paizo and WotC's RPG department.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

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.

To me that's a very cynical view of their marketing. It came off to me as "Here are some things in 3.5 that we thought weren't fun, could be more fun, or caused some confusion. And we tried to improve them for 4E."

I thought Paizo did the same thing in hyping up Pathfinder. They saw points of 3.5 that they thought could be improved on and then tried to improve them for Pathfinder.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except he compared Paizo to White Wolf and Catalyst in making his "league" comparison.

But how many people does FFG employ? I would be surprised if it was much more than 30. And Games Workshop does not have as many employees as they used to have iirc. Even game companies like Mayfair and Days of Wonder probably don't employ much more than Paizo fulltime, if that. WotC is sort of the exception to the rule when it comes to number of employees in a "Hobby" company. But again, a better comparison is between Paizo and WotC's RPG department.

Games Workshop has its own stores. If anything I'd guess it's an order of magnitude bigger than WoTC.

RPGs are niche productions, played by people who don't spend much money. Of course almost all RPG companies are tiny. (I'd expect Paizo's main rival to be White Wolf unless they've given up when bought out by the owners of Eve)

 

[Shazman]

You always expect them to say that the follow-up is better, otherwise, why would anyone want it when it's a replacement (in the case of BSG, it's not a replacement at all, it's a continuation, so the comparison is dubious).

It's how you say you've improved it.


Really? I didn't want that drama? Then why was I playing a D&D game which has always had save or die moments? Does WotC think I was somehow not choosing to play of my own free will? It's a bit patronizing. So was the grappling video. Those are ways not to say it.

The comment about wizards getting to crit with spells, that's a much more upbeat and positive way to spin a change that they consider an improvement. "Hey, this is cool. Now other classes get to do it too!" That was good, this is better. Not that was bad or something "you don't want". And that is partly why I thought 4e marketing was surprisingly clumsy and amateurish and annoyed me to an increasing degree with the 4e launch.

I agree. It's one thing to say, "We think this thing in the new edition is better because, etc." That's the right way to do it. It's another to say "You know that game that you've been playing for years, and enjoy playing. Well, that game isn't fun. I mean who wants to use profession skills anyway. That's not fun. This new edition is going to stop all of that badwrongfun you've been having. We can't tell you how or why, but it's awesome." That is the wrong way to do it, and it is unfortunately the way WotC did it. They may not have been quite that blunt, but they strongly implied that 3.5 wasn't fun. If you liked 3.5 and were having fun with it, you aren't going to take that too well.

 

[AllisterH]

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.


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.

Huh?

Really...you actually thought this was insulting?

I honestly don't see ANYTHING wrong with what WOTC said here...

You know...here's a challenge then...take a statement from this design and development and make it a statement that you would consider not to be insulting

 

[billd91]

Huh?

Really...you actually thought this was insulting?

I honestly don't see ANYTHING wrong with what WOTC said here...

You know...here's a challenge then...take a statement from this design and development and make it a statement that you would consider not to be insulting

I thought the saving throw bit was patronizing. But it's easy to edit.

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.

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, too much drama for a single roll according to many comments from our customers. We agree.

That's gone in the new edition.

 

[AllisterH]

There's a difference there?

The only difference in tone is that the latter EXPLCITLY is saying "we changed it because of YOU" whereas the former doesn't come out and say it.

So if WOTC had said/added "we changed this BECAUSE of you" to everythingit wouldn't be seen as insulting

 

[billd91]

There's a difference there?

The only difference in tone is that the latter EXPLCITLY is saying "we changed it because of YOU" whereas the former doesn't come out and say it.

So if WOTC had said/added "we changed this BECAUSE of you" to everythingit wouldn't be seen as insulting

There's a difference. The first quote is telling me I didn't want it (that's the danger with talking to the collective with the plural "you" - it's a personalizing pronoun - people identify with it, think it means them personally). The second is saying that many customers didn't want it and they have chosen to agree with those customers. So, yes, there's a difference in tone. Saying that I didn't want something or that something is un-fun is different from saying that many customers didn't want something or found an element problematic.