Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3484386" data-attributes="member: 2525">The most telling thing to me in this interview is the timing of the announcement with relation to Paizo.Some folks suspected earlier that WOTC was taking the hit for Paizo, and that sure seems to be the case from the implications in this interview.I really do not think the plan, well in advance, was to announce this change at this time.&nbsp; I think the original plan was to hold off on the announcement until the final magazines were out, just like was done with The Starategic Review magazine becoming Dragon Magazine.&nbsp; Either that, or the issue before the last issue.It then sounds like Paizo negotiated to make the annoucement earlier, because they wanted to get the jump on getting current subscribers educated on their new products.WOTC agreed out of their stated friendship with Paizo.&nbsp; But, that doesn't mean they were suddenly prepared a month or two early for this announcement.&nbsp; So, they did what they thought was the next best thing and just let Paizo take the spotlight.&nbsp; Which backfired.&nbsp; And I also blame WOTC for agreeing to the early announcement if they were not prepared for it.&nbsp; Friends or not, if Paizo didn't ask for this change in schedule early enough for WOTC to prepare for it, then WOTC should have just told Paizo no and to suck it up.I wouldn't at all be surprised if the way I just laid it out is the way it went down.&nbsp; In which case, if Paizo also knew well in advance that the license was being cancelled, then it really is at least partially their fault for pushing to run the announcement earlier than planned.I know blamming Paizo for anything in this is extremely unpopular.&nbsp; But, there it is.&nbsp; My opinion - in all likelyhood the PR problems and lack of information on the new DI is because WOTC was pushed to make the announcement much earlier than expected by Paizo, who could have negotiated that part much earlier with WOTC so both parties were prepared at the same time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3484386, member: 2525"] The most telling thing to me in this interview is the timing of the announcement with relation to Paizo. Some folks suspected earlier that WOTC was taking the hit for Paizo, and that sure seems to be the case from the implications in this interview. I really do not think the plan, well in advance, was to announce this change at this time. I think the original plan was to hold off on the announcement until the final magazines were out, just like was done with The Starategic Review magazine becoming Dragon Magazine. Either that, or the issue before the last issue. It then sounds like Paizo negotiated to make the annoucement earlier, because they wanted to get the jump on getting current subscribers educated on their new products. WOTC agreed out of their stated friendship with Paizo. But, that doesn't mean they were suddenly prepared a month or two early for this announcement. So, they did what they thought was the next best thing and just let Paizo take the spotlight. Which backfired. And I also blame WOTC for agreeing to the early announcement if they were not prepared for it. Friends or not, if Paizo didn't ask for this change in schedule early enough for WOTC to prepare for it, then WOTC should have just told Paizo no and to suck it up. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the way I just laid it out is the way it went down. In which case, if Paizo also knew well in advance that the license was being cancelled, then it really is at least partially their fault for pushing to run the announcement earlier than planned. I know blamming Paizo for anything in this is extremely unpopular. But, there it is. My opinion - in all likelyhood the PR problems and lack of information on the new DI is because WOTC was pushed to make the announcement much earlier than expected by Paizo, who could have negotiated that part much earlier with WOTC so both parties were prepared at the same time. [/QUOTE]

Verification