Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[Morrus]

WotC on the other hand kept the fact that they were even working on 4e tightly under wraps, and went so far as to deny it, even as their game designers were plugging away.

I have to agree. I think that was a misstep.

 

[BryonD]

The matter of liking something or not, in entertainment products is mostly a matter of choice or preference among alternatives -granted that the market exists more or less. Liking something or not, in this case is not an absolute thing.

I am not contradicting myself. The keyword here is preference.

Well, you did contradict yourself because you first praised gamers for trying things and then you turned around and said that the presence of Pathfinder stopped people from giving 4E a fair assessment.

Your update to "preference" is accurate, but it is not the point you previously made.

But, as far as preference goes, you are still steadfastly ignoring the reality that the preference to NOT play 4E was clearly in place before PF existed as an option.

Yes, 4E and PF are competitors in a marketplace and I'm certain that some non-zero amount market claim goes both ways. I acknowledged that from the beginning. But if the ~50% had been WotC's and PF needed to take it away, PF would have never come into being in the first place. The fact that WotC had already lost a big share of the market made the environment right for Paizo to step in. Paizo did not take 50% of "their (WotC's) market". They took part of the base that WotC lost all on their own.

 

[Crothian]

Just curious, but has the way Paizo helped 3rd parties enhance the Pathfinder portfolio help Paizo's profits? And do we know if not helping third parties for 4th edition has helped or hurt Wizard of the Coast's profits, at least with respect to Dungeons & Dragons?

I suspect Paizo knows it does, and Wizards thinks it knows its better off going alone.

I think the 3pp has helped Piazo more then Wizards. Wizards was at the top of RPG pyramid for a long time and through the ogl helped create many of these smaller companies. Paizo though by embracing the 3pp increased their market share but having all these smaller companies and their fans come to them. That was a brilliant move that I think really helped Paizo move near the top of the market.

 

[xechnao]

...

I see your point. Obviously Pathfinder has had the opportunity to claim existent territory and so it did. I am not ignoring this. I have pointed this out more than one time.

The deal is though that a D&D line is not only rules. There are many Pathfinder or 3.x players that play Pathfinder or 3.x due to the adventure paths that are made with these rules.

Also, who knows. If Pathfinder did not exist Wotc could have treated Essentials more radically and successfully towards their fans that thought 4e went too far in some points.

The fact though that Wotc did this effort with Essentials demonstrates that the market and competition functions in a dynamic way. Nevertheless Pathfinder has managed to become a powerhouse in expense to Wotc's dominance.

 

[BryonD]

Agreed, although most of those people say 4e sucks without even trying it, based on preview material

If I based my PF view on preview/playtest material I would have said OMG they overpowered everything (just like people say about 4e), like the racial hit points, extra powers for clerics, etc, etc.

Fair enough. There is plenty of room for debate over what qualified as "trying it". I certainly have not played Essentials. I've read that some of the changes made all along are specifically intended to address concerns of mine. But that ship had sailed.

I certainly don't think all 4E fans dropped 4E when Warhammer 3E came out. Does that make 4E fans closed mined? (Not that you used that term...)

Seriously, a key part of my point is that people had walked away from 4E BEFORE PF was announced. Well, PF was announced BEFORE 4E was released. So obviously the point is not that people had played for a year and then concluded they didn't like it based on that.

How much have you tried Pathfinder?
How much have you tried Fantasycraft?
How much have you tried the latest version of GURPS?
How much have you tried Warhammer 3E?
How many 4E fans do you expect to abandon their current games to test Goodman's new game for a solid 3 month assessment?

Part of the market reality is that you have to make people want your game based on previews. I've seen your point before, and it seems odd to me that 4E somehow is seen as being shorted when it doesn't get what would be extremely special treatment by any other games standards. I'd even say that 4E got way more than a "fair share" of preview consideration. I'd expect the guys over at Crafty Games would kill just to get people to spend 25% of the time "previewing" Fantasycraft as the typical gamer spent previewing 4E.

Bottom line, 4E got more than a fair share of exposure and a lot of people didn't see what they wanted.

 

[BryonD]

Also, who knows. If Pathfinder did not exist Wotc could have treated Essentials more radically and successfully towards their fans that thought 4e went too far in some points.

Sure. But we can play "what if" all day. To me a much better what if would have been a 4E that was intended to appeal to 3E fans from day 1.

The fact though that Wotc did this effort with Essentials demonstrates that the market and competition functions in a dynamic way. Nevertheless Pathfinder has managed to become a powerhouse in expense to Wotc's dominance.

Well first, let's say "D&D's" dominance, not "WotC's".
And second, you are still putting the cause after the effect. WotC's 4E approach turned off a lot of fan base in expense to D&D's dominance. Pathfinder jumped in on that opening.

I readily agree that WotC can't undo their past mistakes and must deal with the new marketplace going forward. Talking about *today*, yeah, Pathfinder is an important factor for today's choices.

But the point I made and you disputed was that PF did not take 50% of WotC's share because WotC had already lost that share. That remains true.

If you want to say that WotC now has to deal with PF when they try to get that share BACK, I'll certainly agree. But that is WotC's fault for not tending to it in the first place.

 

[xechnao]

But the point I made and you disputed was that PF did not take 50% of WotC's share because WotC had already lost that share. That remains true.

If you want to say that WotC now has to deal with PF when they try to get that share BACK, I'll certainly agree. But that is WotC's fault for not tending to it in the first place.

The point is that Wotc could have claimed back part of that share if it were not for Pathfinder. Moreover Pathfinder not only has prevented Wotc from doing so -it also seems that it can claim part of Wotc's share.

This environment makes Pathfinder the powerhouse it is.

Sure, if it were not for Wotc doing 4e the way it did none of this could happen. Also if there were not for the OGL Pathfinder could have not existed and Wotc could have been enjoying a greater share of the market.

 

[BryonD]

The point is that Wotc could have claimed back part of that share if it were not for Pathfinder.

Our back and forth started with you disputing me. You don't get to tell me what my point was.

It is not "their" market. If it was "their" market they would not need to be trying to recover it. That is what I said. That is what you disputed.

Are you now asking to change the subject?

Moreover Pathfinder not only has prevented Wotc from doing so -it also seems that it can claim part of Wotc's share.

This environment makes Pathfinder the powerhouse it is.

Sure, if it were not for Wotc doing 4e the way it did none of this could happen. Also if there were not for the OGL Pathfinder could have not existed and Wotc could have been enjoying a greater share of the market.

Now this, I agree with. But it is compatible with the point I originally made and you disputed.

Now, I will point out that, again before PF was announced, I predicted that 4E would lose its fan base more quickly than other editions. My reasoning was that the existing tabletop gamers would (as a group, individuals not withstanding) simply burn out on the approach more quickly. And the "new", "casual" fans that it did gain would enjoy it and then move on to the next fad. Now, I believe my predictions have been and continue to come true. Now, is my case on that anywhere near as strong as my case that 4E lost fans long before PF was announced? Not at all. This is vastly more open to debate. I believe it. You don't have to. That's cool.

But we can agree that PF is now the king of "tabletop fantasy RPGs not called D&D"* And so as 4E loses fans, PF will be first in line to potentially scoop them up. Of course that makes sense to me. I think PF is a better game. So if your point is that 4E is NOW losing people to PF, I'll just agree.





* - Heh, reminds me of the commercials with things like "TVs #1 new family comedy on Thursday"

 

[BryonD]

Though I will dispute that the OGL is to blame.
It existed, so we can't see an alternate reality.

But I still don't believe people who don't like 4E would play 4E. Maybe without the OGL people play Warhammer. Maybe they stop playing. Honestly, I think the vast appeal of the 3E style was so clear that someone, maybe Paizo, maybe someone else, would have made a whole new game with that spirit and maybe THAT would be the thing.

But I see not playing anything as making more sense than people playing a game they don't like.

 

[xechnao]

Our back and forth started with you disputing me. You don't get to tell me what my point was.

It is not "their" market. If it was "their" market they would not need to be trying to recover it. That is what I said. That is what you disputed.

Are you now asking to change the subject?

No. I just do not get how you say it is not "their" market. Your efforts and especially your definition in this post are... strange. You are saying here that you were correct by saying Pathfinder did not capture part of Wotc's market because if it were so Wotc would not need to make now any efforts towards gaining profits of said market.

Market presence and share is not something of an integer nature. An effort as of taking advantage of a market is an ongoing process. And, as a business entity, you can be achieving this with various degrees of success.

Markets are created and defined by the existence of ways by which they can be reached. If someones can share these ways, then they can share these markets or rather claim their market share. Obviously markets survive and grow by those that reach them so a market is something manageable up to a certain extent.

What I am saying is that if it were not for Pathfinder, Wotc could reach a bigger market and take advantage of it. It is that simple. For Wotc, it is a matter of lost potential regarding their dynamic in the market.

I still do not get what your original point is.