Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[BryonD]

For me, I don't agree with this one. I thought I had a really good grasp on what 4E was going to be from articles, sneak peeks (most of them right here on ENWorld - it's what brought me here in the first place), and the "Classes and Races" and "Worlds and Monsters" books. But when I got my core book set in the mail and read them, it seemed like a whole different animal to me than what I expected. I've heard the same thing from a lot of others. I think we had some idea of what it would be, but as a complete whole, a lot of us were quite surprised.

OK

I'm pretty surprised to read that. But so be it.

I know I kept getting told over and over that none of my complaints were valid because I hadn't seen the "whole context". I got the books and found nothing new. It was exactly what I'd been led to expect. And I know I'm not alone in that.

But, clearly, not everyone experienced the same thing. So, while I will claim that I think the Paizo guys were at least as astute to the game as I was, clearly the final market reaction piece was less firm than my claim.

So I stand corrected on that.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, WotC originally said 4e would be OGL. They then backed off of that, but it had been said.

They tried to use the term "OGL". But they never used *the OGL*.

 

[Umbran]

They just have to attract money from a gamer's budget that would probably have gone to WotC

That's the trick though, isn't it - knowing when that money would probably have gone to WotC instead, as opposed to, say, into a PS3 game?

This is why I mentioned the single-gamer and the multi-gamers. I expect the single-gamers are apt to be the bulk of the gaming population (as they seem to be pretty common around here). I don't know how often those folks are going to cross brand lines once they've made a decision - it implies they're still considering and watching the other company's products.

...and we're seeing that even with 4e players who prefer to buy Pathfinder APs and adapt them rather than buy WotC 4e adventures much less PF and 4e players who would rather buy the PF Advanced Player's Guide than one of the 4e supplements.

You got numbers? I don't have numbers. I just don't see people talking about doing that. I see people talk about how they wouldn't have played 4e if you paid them...

 

[BryonD]

The answer is usually..."PHB (might be ESSENTIALS soon), DMG and then get yourself DDI."

One clear thing that, I *think* PF and 4E fans will agree on is that subscription based services are here to stay.

 

[Perram]

If this helps the thread, here is the announcement for Pathfinder RPG:
paizo.com - Paizo / Paizo Blog / Tags / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

 

[Wicht]

They tried to use the term "OGL". But they never used *the OGL*.

Well, they obviously never used the OGL itself, but it is my recollection that it was originally implied that 4e would use the same license as 3e. I don't think that lasted long, and I may be misremembering, but it is what I seem to remember.

 

[Mark CMG]

Actually, WotC originally said 4e would be OGL. They then backed off of that, but it had been said.

I'd have to see some verification of that because, as a publisher keen to be part of it, my own recollection was that from the start the claim was that while it would not be OGL it would have some similar licensing in place, which became the GSL. Not being a major player I was not in on the conference calls (which proved to be fruitless) but I was in touch with Scott Rouse by phone in November of 2007 and felt from the exchange at that time that nothing close to the OGL was going to be in existence. However, my cynicism in that regard was also predated by my early discontinuation of use of the d20 logo (when they first changed it to include a morals clause). I had thought (and said) even back then that the folks who were gaining traction within WotC licensing decisions were moving away from the OGL. The primary thing they needed to do to really move off was to basically invent new terminology, essentially reclaiming the IP vernacular of D&D, so that it could not be easily cloned via the OGL (as many manage with the broader terms of previous editions that are now in general use throughout many RPGs).

 

[Wicht]

Not being a major player I was not in on the conference calls (which proved to be fruitless) but I was in touch with Scott Rouse by phone in November of 2007 and felt from the exchange at that time that nothing close to the OGL was going to be in existence.

By November, yeah it was clear. I am more thinking of the time period around the original 4e announcement. But again, I may be misrecollecting.

 

[AllisterH]

Oh certainly...subscription based services are the true winners in the edition wars.

(as an aside, while I've heard many a 4e player grouse about the 4e adventures vs paizo adventures...never really heard about grousing about the PF APG vs 4e crunch products

4e players have generally been happy about the crunch...mixed opinions rest on the fluff though)

 

[El Mahdi]

One clear thing that, I *think* PF and 4E fans will agree on is that subscription based services are here to stay.

Yeah, I think it's probably the best way to consistently bring in revenue for games today. Concerning DDI, it may even end up being worth more than the sales of books. Of course, I don't know for sure, because we obviously don't have numbers... But I think you're right, subscriptions are the way to go for the future.