Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[xechnao]

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.

Look at Essentials for example. It is an effort of Wotc to claim these people.
If it were not that someone else, Wotc would have more possibilities on that front.

 

[billd91]

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.

I think what BryonD's getting at is that they are not entitled to that market. It may be their target market, it may be a market they can do well in, but it's not theirs unless the people in the market are actively signing on to their products. That's what defines the market they can call theirs.

At least, that's the impression I'm getting.

And I agree that without Pathfinder, WotC may be reaching a bigger market. And I say, thank goodness for Pathfinder. I'd much rather have a competitive market driving both companies to make better products. WotC has some work to do get my dollar. I'd like to see them do it. Until they do, I'll be spending my dollars on the company that does work for it: Paizo.

 

[BryonD]

I think what BryonD's getting at is that they are not entitled to that market. It may be their target market, it may be a market they can do well in, but it's not theirs unless the people in the market are actively signing on to their products. That's what defines the market they can call theirs.

At least, that's the impression I'm getting.

Yes, the context of the point I initially responded to was not that they were each fighting over a share of a neutral market, but that Paizo had taken part of "their" (WotC's) market. And it is relevant that the market slice we are talking about once WAS WotC's. But it stopped being theirs before PF ever came along.

And I agree that without Pathfinder, WotC may be reaching a bigger market.

I'm certain there is so greater than zero number for which this is true. But it isn't anywhere near the overall piece that Paizo now has.

And, just to further complicate things, keep in mind that a 50/50 market (for sake of argument) is not 50 people over here and 50 over there. It is more likely 40 over here, 40 over there, and 20 playing both.

And I say, thank goodness for Pathfinder. I'd much rather have a competitive market driving both companies to make better products. WotC has some work to do get my dollar. I'd like to see them do it. Until they do, I'll be spending my dollars on the company that does work for it: Paizo.

Amen to that. But keep in mind that Paizo was much smaller not long ago. And there are always smaller companies looking to leap when a big company stumbles. If not for Paizo, someone else. And Paizo can't take their position for granted any more than WotC. (not that I think they are)

 

[BryonD]

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.

Again, you are going on a tangent here.
But I still think you are significantly overestimating the tendency of people to blindly follow WotC.

I haven't given Essentials a "fair" shake. But I'm not going to at this point. At its heart it is still 4E and still has the same root issues. I'd be playing GURPS, Trailblazer, Fantasycraft, or Warhammer 2E before I'd be playing even a vastly improved version of 4E.

I'd love to give Paizo the credit for hurting 4E. I'd love to agree with you.
I really would.

But this is a self inflicted wound. And you can not blame the primary beneficiary of the wound for the wound happening. If Paizo didn't exist we would not be sitting here talking about why 4E was doing so much better. We would be sitting here arguing about why it wasn't Company X's fault 4E wasn't.

 

[xechnao]

Yes, the context of the point I initially responded to was not that they were each fighting over a share of a neutral market, but that Paizo had taken part of "their" (WotC's) market. And it is relevant that the market slice we are talking about once WAS WotC's. But it stopped being theirs before PF ever came along.

Well, this is not what you were saying. It seems you have come up to agree with this by our conversation so far and that's good for me.
But, to be fair, the initial context were about the effects and results of something like OGL to Wotc by Wotc's own perspective.

 

[BryonD]

Well, this is not what you were saying. It seems you have come up to agree with this by our conversation so far and that's good for me.
But, to be fair, the initial context were about the effects and results of something like OGL to Wotc by Wotc's own perspective.

Go back and look at what I replied to and what I said.
Even if you want to claim "by WotC's perspective", all that means is I'm saying their perspective is wrong. Not that I buy that anyone has expressed WotC's POV anyway.

But it is exactly what I said.

 

[xechnao]

Go back and look at what I replied to and what I said.
Even if you want to claim "by WotC's perspective", all that means is I'm saying their perspective is wrong. Not that I buy that anyone has expressed WotC's POV anyway.

But it is exactly what I said.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5492657-post279.html
I do not get why you are so stubborn about it.

EDIT: What does you mean that their perspective is wrong anyway? That PF has not been a problem or a mishap for Wotc's own goals and aims? That Wotc is just paranoid?

And the matter of the argument is not whether it could be another company if not Paizo as you try to spin it. The matter is that with the OGL around it has been proven to be relatively easy for something like Pathfinder to happen to someone like Wotc.

 

[BryonD]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5492657-post279.html
I do not get why you are so stubborn about it.

I stand completely by that post.

EDIT: What does you mean that their perspective is wrong anyway? That PF has not been a problem or a mishap for Wotc's own goals and aims? That Wotc is just paranoid?

You said the whole thing was from WotC's perspective. I'm just replying to your tangent and pointing out that is doesn't really change anything. (and I said "even if")

And the matter of the argument is not whether it could be another company if not Paizo as you try to spin it. The matter is that with the OGL around it has been proven to be relatively easy for something like Pathfinder to happen to someone like Wotc.

Then why did you reply to me in the first place? You replied to ME.

I disputed the claim that it was WotC's market share that was taken.
I STILL dispute that claim for the same reasons I did in the first place. That claim is still wrong.


You certainly seem to be strongly claiming that in an alternate reality without the OGL that people would have gone to 4E. I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence to refute that claim. People left 4E before the OGL alternative you keep pointing at existed. The insistence that they would have abandoned their preferences if not for the OGL seems more than a stretch of wishful thinking.

We already have in reality a period in time that contradicts you. And how you think in your fictional reality non-4E fans would adopt when in the actual reality 4E is struggling to hold fans is hard to imagine.

Again, I am convinced that if the WotC police shut down Paizo and burned and formatted every copy and Pathfinder everywhere tomorrow, the benefit to 4E would be marginal. I still would not play 4E if PF was denied to me. And I don't think people who like 4E less than me would either.

Without PF people COULD find themselves choosing 4E.
But they also COULD find themselves choosing GURPS.
And they could find themselves leaving RPGs for more time playing guitar, or texas hold-em, or painting.
In a universe of options you are stubbornly and baselessly insisting that they would choose the one thing they have clearly expressed they don't want to do.


WotC lost that market share before PF existed.
It was NOT "their" market. It still isn't.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

True for me at the least - the odds of my switching to 4e is lower than my chance of winning the lottery. The odds have not changed since I took a look at the brand new and shiny books at the store. Not my game at all, at all.

If not Pathfinder, I may have picked True20 as my poison of choice, or just continued running Spycraft 2.0 as my generic game system.

The Auld Grump

 

[xechnao]

I stand completely by that post...
I disputed the claim that it was WotC's market share that was taken.
I STILL dispute that claim for the same reasons I did in the first place. That claim is still wrong.

So your point is:
-that Wotc is not entitled to the Pathfinder market even if it is their target market, as billd91 puts it, (and you agree with him)
-the Pathfinder's market is not Wotc's market
So, what is it?

You are not making it clear.