Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[BryonD]

Morrus said "allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share".

Key words "our market share". "The market" <> "a given companies market share"

If you use the actual context, my point is completely clear.

 

[xechnao]

Morrus said "allegedly taking more than 50% of our market share".

Key words "our market share". "The market" <> "a given companies market share"

If you use the actual context, my point is completely clear.

Ok, so it is what billd is saying.
But why insisting on that point about people that would not follow 4e Pathfinder or not. This point supports the other argument.

 

[BryonD]

Ok, so it is what billd is saying.
But why insisting on that point about people that would not follow 4e Pathfinder or not. This point supports the other argument.

Because it supports the point I'm making.
And it is logical.

 

[xechnao]

Because it supports the point I'm making.
And it is logical.

Nope it is contradictory and creates confusion. This point supports the premise that Wotc and Pathfinder have different target markets. Which means that they do not compete for market share.
What you are saying now is that what you wanted to say all along is that Wotc and Paizo are competitors and both can claim a market share from a market that does not just belong to Wotc anymore.
These are two different arguments. If you were the Wotc CEO and your share holders asked you about the situation and any strategic parameters of it weighting on decisions to make you would have to be less confusing about this matter.

 

[pemerton]

<snip post>

Azgulor, you make an interesting point here, but I think any response will get lost in this thread, so I've started a new thread on the 4e board.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't see anything in that which explains why people would play a game they don't like.

Well, for my friends that prefer to play 3E over 4E, it is because they enjoy my DMing style and the campaigns I present. They enjoy the Friday nights we spend together.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Clearly, for 3E it worked. But would it work for 4E? My reflex answer is: of course, why would it be any different? But that may be wrong.

OW! My jaw just hit the table. *j/k, BD*

But also, we keep hearing of 3PPs doing well in PF and not in 4E. (The exception of ENWorld clearly noted). Maybe this yield = X% and X is not the same for 3E as it is for 4E. Fiery Dragon was a solid name in the 3PP field during 3E. They produced a 4E product and recently said that it did not sell well at all. Why not? And they seem to be extremely typical. (Again, ENWorld seems to be the classic "exception".)

Perhaps 4E fans (as a collective market, I'm certain major exceptions exist) are not nearly as inclined to buy 4E stuff. I know I've been in numerous discussions in which it was more than obvious to me that the typical 4E fan sits down at the table with very different expectations than myself. Maybe that plays into it.

For me the expectation have certainly changed. I don't buy many rulebooks anymore (actually AV1 was the last I bought). I really enjoy the use of DDi and WotC has effectively locked out competition from that resource. 3PP have more difficulty getting my money for rules that cannot integrate into the tool I mainly use to play 4E.

Where they can (and do) find my money is adventures. Even adventures not written for my system of choice.

 

[Beginning of the End]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5492657-post279.htmlAnd 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.

A few points:

(1) The OGL is designed to funnel support from a wide diversity of producers to the game system at the top of the food chain. As a business strategy, this is only effective as long as you continue producing that game system... which WotC didn't do.

(2) Which is not to say that WotC couldn't update and improve that game system. 3.5 is the proof of that: They updated from 3.0 and yet the OGL-created network of producers continued to support them. Their first mistake with 4th Edition was making what was essentially a completely new fantasy roleplaying game, which meant that they were simultaneously (a) abandoning the advantages of the network of support they had built for themselves and (b) leaving a void at the top of that network's food chain that could be filled.

(3) Despite the radical change in the game system, they probably would have still made it work if they had continued supporting the OGL with 4th Edition. The network of support would have likely made the transition with them.

(4) They might have even made it work with something like the GSL (OGL-like support that had a built-in cyanide pill where they could cancel the license at any time), which would have allowed them a more graceful exit from the OGL-era. Notably, Piazo wanted to support 4th Edition. It was only when WotC completely bungled the licensing process that they started looking for a different solution. This was WotC's second huge mistake.

This is not a case of the OGL being a flawed business strategy. This is a case of WotC's new business strategy being inferior to their old business strategy combined with a complete botching of the transition between the two.

tl;dr: WotC could have gotten away with abandoning the OGL or they could have gotten away with publishing an entirely new fantasy RPG. They couldn't get away with doing both simultaneously.

 

[xechnao]

tl;dr: WotC could have gotten away with abandoning the OGL or they could have gotten away with publishing an entirely new fantasy RPG. They couldn't get away with doing both simultaneously.

3.5e is OGL. For 3.5e they could not abandon the OGL .

This is not a case of the OGL being a flawed business strategy. This is a case of WotC's new business strategy being inferior to their old business strategy combined with a complete botching of the transition between the two.

Maybe yes, maybe not. The deal is that if 4e were OGL competitors could mix and match 3.5e and 4e and the new edition could be in even tighter competition than it is now.

 

[Beginning of the End]

3.5e is OGL. For 3.5e they could not abandon the OGL.

What does that have to do with anything that I posted? I didn't discuss the "just continue publishing 3.5" option at all in my post.

The deal is that if 4e were OGL competitors could mix and match 3.5e and 4e and the new edition could be in even tighter competition than it is now.

You appear to be suggesting that if 4E as it exists today had been released under the OGL that WotC would find itself in meaningful competition with some sort of bastardized 3E/4E hybrid. And that this hybrid would somehow be even more successful than Pathfinder is in the real world.

On what are you basing this conclusion?