Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 5695961" data-attributes="member: 50895">Yeah, its not economically feasible for most RPG publishers to produce adventure content that is usable by all editions or other games. There is cost savings between printed costs and electronic versions true - but this is hardly the bulk of the cost. Development and playtesting is expensive and time consuming. More often than not, we publishers want to get our products perfected and out the door on the selling market as fast as we can. If after PF development, I had to begin development or alterations for another edition for my products - I would go broke long before I finish. For example, my Kaidan setting is currently developed for PF only. However, I have been approached by Iron Crown Enterprises and several other non-D&D publishers interested in either licensing Kaidan for their system, or asking that I develop the setting for their game. The time it would take for me to learn their rules, or the cost in hiring someone to do that for me is prohibitive to being a successful small publisher. Besides I don't want to water down my market by making my game available to all options - it would hurt PF sales if I did that, and the PF market is my primary market. Why would I want to hurt sales deliberately? Some RPG companies only produce PDF products and not print products at all, even they can't support all editions. Print costs are hardly the main cost for a small publisher, so PDF publication provides no particular benefit that would enable companies to support multiple editions. Only the largest operations like WotC could, and as stated it would hurt sales of their flagship product if they supported all editions, so even they who can afford to do it won't. Don't expect smaller companies to do so. Bill Webb of Frog God Games developed the most recent Tome of Horrors for both SW and PF, however, its because Bill has a particular love for SW that he developed it for that system as well. I don't think it was inherently done to widen his profit margins so much as wanting to support that game as well. Thus it wasn't a financial decision to support both (necessarily). FGG doing so doesn't mean that other 3pp's can afford to do the same.</blockquote>

Verification