Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[BryonD]

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.

I consider that a very fair interpretation.

I seem to recall WotC presenting their non-open "open" license against the OGL as being 6 of one / half a dozen of the other. So I don't think they would agree that they ever meant to imply *THAT* OGL, they just meant *AN OGL*.

 

[Mark CMG]

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

Yup. They were gearing up prior to that date but waited before making their own official announcement, in deference to old business relationships I suppose, for the release of 4E on June 6th, 2008, because that is also when WotC released the "final" version of the GSL and supplementary FAQ information. Fortunately, Paizo had their ducks in a row knowing that the "final" GSL could just as well prove to be no better than previous versions, as so it turned out to be.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

Even going back much earlier in 2007, some were in discussions with WotC in regard to what the new licensing would look like, and it was clear then that they would not be using the OGL for 4E. Remember, even though they made the official 4E announcement at Genon 2007, rumors had already been flying for months before hand due to sightings of odd releases on Amazon that indicated a transition period.

 

[pawsplay]

I still find it a little crazy that WotC shut down Paizo's Dungeon and Dragon.

 

[AllisterH]

Given how integrated Dragon and Dungeon has become to DDI, not sure how it would work under Paizo control.

My understanding of current DRAGON at least is that all material not only goes through "regular" editorial review but also "rules review" by WOTC and even after that, it something slips through, it then gets updated at the end of the month and it is still possible for it later on to see errata as well.

Here's an interesting question.

What would happen to the 3pp for PF if Paizo funded their own DDI version of Pathfinder.

 

[Wicht]

Alright, I'm not misremembering...

Chris Pramas in November of 2007 was still under the impression that 4e would be OGl and furthermore makes it clear that at Gencon they had been pretty much assured that 4e would be released under the OGL.

When 4th edition D&D was announced at Gen Con, the immediate question that publishers like GR asked was, "What's going to happen with the Open Game and d20 Licenses?" There was a meeting that Friday night and we thought we'd be getting info from WotC then. Turns out they were looking for feedback from existing publishers and they did not yet know what they were going to do with the two licenses. A few things were clear coming out of that meeting. 4th edition would be released under the Open Game License and they wanted to create a new d20 logo that was more of a mark of the quality than the original became.

In the same blog post, Pramas quotes Scott Rouse, writing on ENworld about 4e as saying, ""There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period."

That was November 7, 2007. Shortly thereafter it became clear, if I remember aright, that WotC had changed their mind and would not go with the OGL.

 

[pawsplay]

Given how integrated Dragon and Dungeon has become to DDI, not sure how it would work under Paizo control.

My understanding of current DRAGON at least is that all material not only goes through "regular" editorial review but also "rules review" by WOTC and even after that, it something slips through, it then gets updated at the end of the month and it is still possible for it later on to see errata as well.

Here's an interesting question.

What would happen to the 3pp for PF if Paizo funded their own DDI version of Pathfinder.

I would recoil in horror?

 

[billd91]

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...

I don't have numbers any more than you have numbers indicating that WotC and Paizo aren't competing, so let's just drop that line of thinking, OK?
But maybe you aren't getting out on the message boards enough. Even here I'm seeing people discussing how much better Paizo adventures are than WotC adventures. If you think that's not resulting in some people choosing to buy the Paizo adventures over the WotC ones with their gaming budget, then I don't think we have views of the gaming world even remotely compatible.

 

[Balthaczar]

To late for the earlier poll? My group and I were playing 3.5 Rise of the Runelords. 4e was coming down the line and we were genuinely excited. At the end of Runelords we had planned on switching and going fresh. 4e came out, turned out it was nothing like what we wanted so we stuck with 3.5. I was going to keep doing Ap's and buying pathfinder supplements because of the quality. Switched to ALPHA ,BETA and Final and have not looked back.
I think the style and release strategy of the Essential line answers this threads main premise. While Scott Rouse did say they had a multiyear strategy, and one of those years was bringing in new players, this is a bit of a modification of that. The classes have 3rd edition and a smattering of 2e glued on to 4e style and rules. WOTC also experimented with a 32 page players supplement that seemed familiar. They have felt the competition, they have altered the product lines because of the competition. They defiantly underestimated Paizo. If they thought Paizo was a bigger threat they may not have dithered with the GSL or changed a few things.
apologies for the jumbles, at work and had to interrupt several times thus screwballing my noodle. also since tone does not register, i am not trying to sarcastic or aggressive, i really have enjoyed this thread and contribute what my group has experienced

 

[Aus_Snow]

I don't have numbers any more than you have numbers indicating that WotC and Paizo aren't competing, so let's just drop that line of thinking, OK?
But maybe you aren't getting out on the message boards enough. Even here I'm seeing people discussing how much better Paizo adventures are than WotC adventures. If you think that's not resulting in some people choosing to buy the Paizo adventures over the WotC ones with their gaming budget, then I don't think we have views of the gaming world even remotely compatible.

Some people have a (deserved) reputation for attempted WotC damage control. I wouldn't let it bother you.