Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[Obryn]

I think you're clear enough, I just can't a discern a point, other than, "I hate what you are saying."

Then you're missing my point completely, and given that I think it's about as clear as I can be, that's where it will have to rest.

So ... are you saying that in this case anecodates = data, or are you saying you're making a decision based on no data? And what would Karl Popper say?

No, I'm saying that I personally have little doubt. I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't believe, and I'm not saying that my belief has any weight here. I'm not inclined to debate the point, though I think there's certainly room for such a debate. Seriously, getting from where we are now to useful data is easy on this point.

I've been pretty clear in my terminology so far - namely, that a collection of anecdotes, collected without methodology, is useless data. (This includes walking around to hobby shops and asking people, convenience samples, and self-selected volunteer information, among many other types.) And that no matter how many you collect, without methodology or rigor it will always be useless data. You're conflating the definitions of "anecdotal data" and "Real data composed of anecdotes." These are very different things.

Without our histories, that is, without our personal, subjective anecdotes, we have nothing at all. I think I think, therefore I think I am.

Less broadly, there is no reason I can discern to suspect the information under discussion means anything other than what it seems to: Pathfinder dominates 4e in the 3pp market. You may quibble with my approach to this conclusion, but if you agree with the conclusion, I am disinclined to join the quibble. If you say I am right, then I will say you are right, too. But if you say I am right, but for the wrong reasons, I am not going to justify my reasoning to you, because neither you nor I have much to gain from that. It is acceptable to me to be disunited in mind. My whole purpose in my remarks was to persuade someone, perhaps several people, to consider the case. Since you have now stated you agree with my original argument, my motivation to speak with you on etiology, at this time, at this place, has evaporated. I do not need to persuade you, and I do not care to be persuaded by you.

I didn't enter into this thread to argue the specific point that Pathfinder 3pp sales likely vastly outnumber 4e 3pp sales. Again, for whatever reasons, I think that is likely true. (I think there are probably at least four reasons, any one of which could be sufficient.) I entered into it because the plural of anecdote is not data - just like I said in my very first post on the topic.

-O

 

[Gorbacz]

In other news, first we get this:

Well, yeah - we deliberately specialize in 4E adventure paths because the massive gap in the market there benefits us. Frankly, it's an awesome gap, and we'll have another two 4E APs to fill it very soon.

I daresay that we could not sell a Pathfinder AP because there are so many of them. It would certainly be a very expensive experiment, given that we spend tens of thousands on an AP over the course of its lifetime.

aaand then we get this: (from http://www.enworld.org/ap/)

EN Publishing is proud to present three fantastic adventure paths for use with DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® and PATHFINDER™!

ZEITGEIST: An original fantasy adventure path with hints of steampunk for D&D 4th Edition and PATHFINDER RPG. Starting in Spring 2011.

And even a PF Compatibility License too! Woot! ;-)

 

[ggroy]

And what would Karl Popper say?

** On a tangent **

In my experience, I've found that some individuals who like to invoke Karl Popper's falsification all the time, frequently like to use it in conjunction with Occam's Razor.

Essentially for these particular individuals, they don't want to believe. Popper + Occam are their own personal "weapons in trade", for rationalizing their disbelief in anything and everything.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

In other news, first we get this:



aaand then we get this:

ZEITGEIST: An original fantasy adventure path with hints of steampunk for D&D 4th Edition and PATHFINDER RPG. Starting in Spring 2011.

Rats, beaten to it.

The Auld Grump

 

[Nagol]

In other news, first we get this:



aaand then we get this: (from D&D ADVENTURE PATHS)

EN Publishing is proud to present three fantastic adventure paths for use with DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® and PATHFINDER™!

ZEITGEIST: An original fantasy adventure path with hints of steampunk for D&D 4th Edition and PATHFINDER RPG. Starting in Spring 2011.

And even a PF Compatibility License too! Woot! ;-)

As was discussed by Morrus here

 

[ruemere]

Let the best AP sell.
Let all the other ones succeed, too.

And let's hope that ENWorld doesn't get SLAPPed once GSL is revoked [1].
Morrus is unlikely to be able to shell money to cover lengthy legislation.

Regards,
Ruemere

[1] The WotC/Hasbro can play nice.

 

[Morrus]

I obviously can't speak for WotC - I don't know any more about their position on the GSL than is publically available. But I'm going to hazard a wild-assed-guess as to what they probably thing reading this thread. This is, of course, utterly a guess.

"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before. The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share. Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"

From their point-of-view it probably seems that supporting 3PPs with an open license, etc., has lost them revenue - and if the anecdotes in this thead are anything to go by, we're talking a LOT of revenue.

I think we can all argue until we're blue in the face about alleged sales figures, possible benefits to WotC to diverting more resources to support 3PPs, and so on. But if I were to hazard that guess, this is what I would imagine they're thinking.

 

[Gorbacz]

I obviously can't speak for WotC - I don't know any more about their position on the GSL than is publically available. But I'm going to hazard a wild-assed-guess as to what they probably thing reading this thread. This is, of course, utterly a guess.

"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before. The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share. Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"

From their point-of-view it probably seems that supporting 3PPs with an open license, etc., has lost them revenue - and if the anecdotes in this thead are anything to go by, we're talking a LOT of revenue.

I think we can all argue until we're blue in the face about alleged sales figures, possible benefits to WotC to diverting more resources to support 3PPs, and so on. But if I were to hazard that guess, this is what I would imagine they're thinking.

This might as well what they are thinking, sure, but here is what they *should* be thinking:

"Well, it looks like that by a combination of our own catastrophic marketing, business, communication and design blunders we've contributed to a situation where a medium-sized 3PP is now breathing on our neck."

The OGL existed since 2000 and no company that published games based on it (True20, M&M, C&C, etc.) ever got close to WotC in 8 years. It's not about the OGL, it's about Wizards being stupid.

 

[BryonD]

"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before. The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share. Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"

I completely agree that this is their point of view and so that answers the issue, conversation over.

BUT

I do think it is wrong. I think PF is taking very little of "their" market.
The day PF was announced hordes of gaming fans who already knew they were not going to be playing 4E were thrilled. (Also, hordes of gaming fans who knew they were not going to be playing 4E were apathetic, as demonstrated by the numbers on non-PF 3X hold-outs.)

I'm not claiming the groups are black and white with a wall of force between them. There is overlap and competition. But there was already a solid "I want to play RPGs and 4E ain't it" market place. WotC's market share of that was 0%. If that market had not existed as a clear foundation to build on, Paizo would not have invested in PF. WotC can't lose something they don't have.

And, by the same token, Paizo's biggest fear may be a 5th edition that both carries the D&D brand name and DOES appeal to the people who are not interested in 4E.

 

[Mark CMG]

I obviously can't speak for WotC - I don't know any more about their position on the GSL than is publically available. But I'm going to hazard a wild-assed-guess as to what they probably thing reading this thread. This is, of course, utterly a guess.

"Well, we did the OGL and third-party-support thread thing before. The main result from that that we can see is that [according to claims in this thread] we were instrumental in creating our own competitor who is now allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share. Tell me again why we should do this a second time?"

From their point-of-view it probably seems that supporting 3PPs with an open license, etc., has lost them revenue - and if the anecdotes in this thead are anything to go by, we're talking a LOT of revenue.

I think we can all argue until we're blue in the face about alleged sales figures, possible benefits to WotC to diverting more resources to support 3PPs, and so on. But if I were to hazard that guess, this is what I would imagine they're thinking.

If most of the talent that inhabits Paizo, many who formerly worked at WotC, worked at Kenzer, Hackmaster would be looking like PF (not that HM isn't a fun game in its own right). If most of the talent that inhabits Paizo, many who formerly worked at WotC, worked at EN Publishing, WotBS would be one of two dozen successful APs (not that WotBS isn't great all on its own). If most of the talent that inhabits Paizo, many who formerly worked at WotC, worked at Green Ronin, M&M would be the system more readily competing with D&D in the FLGSs and elsewhere (not that it isn't doing well, and in part a testament to some former WotC talent). The OGL is being used as a boogeyman and it is foolish to believe that the talented people at Paizo wouldn't be right where they are today without it.

I don't actually believe that WotC doesn't realize this. It might be convenient for them to allow others to believe they blame the OGL because then they can continue to avoid using the OGL and pursue their isolationist policies while pushing the DDI. Creating the OGL isn't their problem, it's turning away from the OGL, because now they cannot cultivate (without investment) new talent to replace the talent they lost over the years. There are plenty of inteliigent people at WotC who know the OGL isn't the monster that has been created, it is the talent pool, much of which now performs under the Paizo banner (not that Paizo doesn't also have non-former-WotC talent also).