Pathfinder 1E Is PAIZO becoming the next Wizards?

[jmucchiello]

I'm not sure that WotC losing the Star Wars license is the same as Paizo losing the d20 STL (Paizo still has access to and uses the OGL). In fact, as far as I can tell, the two situations are entirely different. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that they're at all similar.

I think Windjammer was referring to Paizo losing the Dragon and Dungeon Magazine license. The comparison there is much closer.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Wizards bought the rights to the brand, not to ownership of creative credit for D&D. The credit they get is for 3e and 4e respectively, which are built upon an earlier product created by another company same as Paizo has done with Pathfinder.

Paizo in my eyes gets extra credit too because they built their own brand from scratch, and then managed to strategically leverage it into a high place in the "gamer" market- No easy feat.

On an off note I'm happy to see that Wizards is finally starting to really work on what the D&D Brand means in the public eye.

This.

Also I'm just a little excited about that last part. I havent given WOTC any money since the release of 4E. I am looking forward to the Ravenloft 4E based boardgame that's coming out. It wont get me to play 4E as an RPG, but as an expandable board game? Yeah, that might do it....

 

[Scribble]

Also I'm just a little excited about that last part. I havent given WOTC any money since the release of 4E. I am looking forward to the Ravenloft 4E based boardgame that's coming out. It wont get me to play 4E as an RPG, but as an expandable board game? Yeah, that might do it....

I think Wizards largely let the brand image kind of sit stagnant. Sure we, as gamers might have an image of what D&D is, but the public still had an image of the game as it was in the 80s really. (And even that was influenced by external forces- Jack Chic et al...

 

[hexgrid]

Nope. Without Paizo, no Pathfinder. Pretty simple, really.

Sure, but without 4e/end of the d20 license/botched GSL, also no Pathfinder, or reason for 3rd parties to switch to it.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

This is just laughably wrong.

If you were right, then Microsoft would be some second-rate company. After all, they didn't own or make the PC...IBM did. They just produced software that worked with it. Software that they didn't even originate -- Bill Gates bought another OS and updated it to make DOS.

Ken

Ownership of the base system is the necessary part, otherwise they are just building on something someone owns. Think of it like putting an antenna on top of someone else's building. Sure, you have a nice antenna that is high up, but without the tall building, your antenna isn't that great.

 

[carmachu]

I wonder if they could end up as "hated" in some circles as WotC, or Games Workshop or similar companies. This usually seems to come with the territory of being succesful and market leaders, but maybe Paizo's marketing and business decision can avoid that? Or they can't get there because they won't become market leaders in the first place?

False deliema. GW isnt hated because its sucessful. Its hated becuase it intentionally does items to piss off its customer base. And refuse to listen to them.

Pazio will follow most of say privteer press, who does keep a sharper ear to its customer base, and responds to them. The are very approachable, akin to PP. Where as WOTC is somewhat(and GW is tone deaf).

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sure, but without 4e/end of the d20 license/botched GSL, also no Pathfinder, or reason for 3rd parties to switch to it.

Hehe. I can see this going back and forth for pages. I mean no, that's not what I'm wanting to do, however. Um.

I agree with what you're saying there, but I guess what I meant was that Pathfinder was not a direct result of all that, but a deliberate choice by the folks at Paizo. Not to imply it was at all a bad choice, by the way. But either way, it was purely optional*, and upon taking that option, they instantly swayed the majority of current or potential 3pp publishers.


* As well as being not so much a totally easy, obvious option right in front of them, but one requiring initiative and effort. And, possibly, risk -- though that's a little hard to call one way or the other, in hindsight.

 

[Kafen]

For some reason, it seems like it's only the fans who really care who's number 1, or who's number 2, or who's "the new WotC" or "the true competitor to White Wolf", etc. etc. It never sounds like the industry professionals even care about measuring themselves against each other like this... it's only the fans on message boards who feel the need to try and rank everybody.

It's as though they need justification to like what they like. As though it'd be somehow wrong to play Pathfinder if it wasn't for the fact that "they're the NEW WotC!"

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter who's doing what more successfully, or more old school, or catering more to the "true fans", or is the new this or the new that". So long as all the companies are fiscally viable and are still able to put out product... where they fall on any sort of scale doesn't matter.

Good point... The Publishers will be the ones to decide who 'wins' by which ones survive. Poll data need not apply...

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

This is just laughably wrong.

If you were right, then Microsoft would be some second-rate company. After all, they didn't own or make the PC...IBM did. They just produced software that worked with it. Software that they didn't even originate -- Bill Gates bought another OS and updated it to make DOS.

Ken

Apparently I called Paizo second rate?

What I did say is that in order to really make it to the top like WotC or to a lesser extent White Wolf, they need their own system, not one from another company. Your comparison is a little off. If D&D equals Windows, then 4e D&D equals Windows 7. Pathfinder would be what would happen if someone took Windows Vista (if it were open source) and tailored it to what they felt Vista should be like. PCs would equal Pen and Paper RPGs, RPGs in general would be computers.

 

[carmachu]

I think Mustrum has a point. If Paizo shot for greater business success and changed from what they are now, like becoming a publicly traded company that has to answer to stockholders, would the fans become disgruntled that Paizo "sold out" and lump the same hate on them that they do WotC? I believe history tells us "Yes." Look to Metallica (even before the band started hating on pirates) for an example of disgruntled fans who got mad because "their band" went mainstream.

Depends. If they became tone deaf, and didnt listen or were as accessable as they are now to their CUSTOMERS, then yes they would start having a bunch of disgrunted folks.

If they were even more successful, but maintained the same(or better) level of customer service, public relations, and accessability to its customer base, then no.

Games workshop is a prime example, even more so(as I do and have seen WOTC employees out and about on various boards) then WOTC, of a company that has earned every bit of its hate and disgust by its fans.
I mean, I cant think of another company gaming wise thats that tone deaf. I mean in the digital age they have- cut off webstores from buying via carts, closed their webboards, closed off any and all available hints of upcoming products, that they wont even say a thing until its 3 months to launch.

To say nothing of not having anyone come out on boards and speak. GW is the ultimate in its earned disgust, simply by its own actions.