Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9166793" data-attributes="member: 8461">We didn't see that, no...with WotC. We saw it with Paizo, which sold 3.5-compatible materials for two years before switching to PF1 (which was 3.5 with a facelift).I'm nervous when we start talking about actual sales numbers; while it's probably accurate to say that WotC sells more (now) than Paizo does, this tends to lead to questions of "how much (is relevant)?" Which leads to questions of "didn't PF1 outsell 4E at some point?" at which point we're back into an edition war. Again.That's leaving aside the salient point (which I was making before) that WotC needs to sell larger amounts of product, not because they're trying to keep the lights on, but because their corporate overlords demand larger annual returns (i.e. the ROI thing). "Sustainable" and "profitable" are different issues in that regard, because when the metric shifts from $100M being the target goal in 2007 to being "undermonetized" in 2023, then that's going to impact how many sales is considered "sustainable."No one is arguing otherwise. This isn't about whether or not WotC's current strategy was working, but the idea that their previous strategy had to fail. It didn't, and ideas that it did are a zombie idea: it just keeps shuffling along despite having been killed already.Again, that's a separate issue (much like the ethical conduct thing that was introduced as a tangent).</blockquote>