Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fearsomepirate" data-source="post: 8231200" data-attributes="member: 7021420">Well, I've maintained since 2015 that Paizo had no good options, since it staked its product identity on somebody else's brand.Any product that fails to meet revenue expectations and has to be pulled from the market well before its planned EOL is a failure. For example, as much as D&amp;D 3 can be called a design success, from the simple fact that people continued to play variants for 15 years, it resulted in people getting fired and Hasbro rebooting not just the game, but the entire business model, in a shockingly short time.A failed business model is one that, if pursued to its end, bankrupts your company, forces you to shut down a division, kills the entire brand, etc. A famous example is AD&amp;D 2e's publishing model. Another is 3.5's model of crapping out full-sized hardback rules expansions (&gt;= 150 pages) every couple months. Of course, that business model collapsed in a short time as well. Resulting in Hasbro shoveling the entire thing into a landfill, pretending it never happened, and rebooting again.What people want is to not have their current product become a piece of crap due to mismanagement.I think most companies that have relied on rules expansions to drive revenue recognize this has a short life cycle. The first expansion sells like gangbusters, the second less so, and there is some Nth expansion which is not even worth the paper it is printed on, at which you reboot the core rules, not necessarily because the core rules themselves are bad, but because you figure you can sell a Monster Manual II more easily than a Monster Manual VIII, and you need new rules that are sufficiently incompatible with the old ones to justify telling people to buy new supplements.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fearsomepirate, post: 8231200, member: 7021420"] Well, I've maintained since 2015 that Paizo had no good options, since it staked its product identity on somebody else's brand. Any product that fails to meet revenue expectations and has to be pulled from the market well before its planned EOL is a failure. For example, as much as D&D 3 can be called a [I]design[/I] success, from the simple fact that people continued to play variants for 15 years, it resulted in people getting fired and Hasbro rebooting not just the game, but the entire business model, in a shockingly short time. A failed business model is one that, if pursued to its end, bankrupts your company, forces you to shut down a division, kills the entire brand, etc. A famous example is AD&D 2e's publishing model. Another is 3.5's model of crapping out full-sized hardback rules expansions (>= 150 pages) every couple months. Of course, that business model collapsed in a short time as well. Resulting in Hasbro shoveling the entire thing into a landfill, pretending it never happened, and rebooting [I]again[/I]. What people want is to not have their current product become a piece of crap due to mismanagement. I think most companies that have relied on rules expansions to drive revenue recognize this has a short life cycle. The first expansion sells like gangbusters, the second less so, and there is some Nth expansion which is not even worth the paper it is printed on, at which you reboot the core rules, not necessarily because the core rules themselves are bad, but because you figure you can sell a Monster Manual II more easily than a Monster Manual VIII, and you need new rules that are sufficiently incompatible with the old ones to justify telling people to buy new supplements. [/QUOTE]

Verification