Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frozen DM" data-source="post: 4120458" data-attributes="member: 35841">Is this really true though? If we talk name recognition in more hardcore gamer circles, sure. But we also need to consider that a large part of the market might not be as industry-savy as the hardcore players. Example, my girlfriend role-plays regularly, is a fan of fantasy literature and total geek. But she wouldn't recognize any of those other games in the slightest.&nbsp; And the Coke Pepsi comparison, do WoD, GURPS and Champions actually compete for the same market share as D&amp;D? To continue the analogy, this is like comparing Coke to Sunny D, Crush and Brisk. All are drinks, but different kinds. Personally I think Pathfinder will find it's niche. I think this will be a small niche, on par with games like True20 or Warhammer FRPG. But to compete against D&amp;D? I don't think so. D&amp;D has market penetration and name recognition beyond the typical gamer sub-culture. D&amp;D is also the game with the greatest chance of acquiring new players from outside of the hobby. Pathfinder will quite possibly do very well in the short term, supporting Paizo's existing fans (those willing to convert away from 3.5) and possibly drawing fans who are not happy with the changes being made in 4E. But long term, it won't compete directly with D&amp;D, just like True20 and Warhammer (which I use as examples as very well-designed and fun games I wish I played more of) don't compete. My other concern is in the design side. I agree with many people that Paizo has a stable of some of the finest story-tellers and adventure-writers in the business. I've spend countless months playing through their previous adventure paths. But is anyone aware of what their design experience is like? Do they have the mathematical background to handle complex game design and analysis? Just something I wonder when trying to improve a game many people recognize as having many small, mechanical problems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frozen DM, post: 4120458, member: 35841"] Is this really true though? If we talk name recognition in more hardcore gamer circles, sure. But we also need to consider that a large part of the market might not be as industry-savy as the hardcore players. Example, my girlfriend role-plays regularly, is a fan of fantasy literature and total geek. But she wouldn't recognize any of those other games in the slightest. And the Coke Pepsi comparison, do WoD, GURPS and Champions actually compete for the same market share as D&D? To continue the analogy, this is like comparing Coke to Sunny D, Crush and Brisk. All are drinks, but different kinds. Personally I think Pathfinder will find it's niche. I think this will be a small niche, on par with games like True20 or Warhammer FRPG. But to compete against D&D? I don't think so. D&D has market penetration and name recognition beyond the typical gamer sub-culture. D&D is also the game with the greatest chance of acquiring new players from outside of the hobby. Pathfinder will quite possibly do very well in the short term, supporting Paizo's existing fans (those willing to convert away from 3.5) and possibly drawing fans who are not happy with the changes being made in 4E. But long term, it won't compete directly with D&D, just like True20 and Warhammer (which I use as examples as very well-designed and fun games I wish I played more of) don't compete. My other concern is in the design side. I agree with many people that Paizo has a stable of some of the finest story-tellers and adventure-writers in the business. I've spend countless months playing through their previous adventure paths. But is anyone aware of what their design experience is like? Do they have the mathematical background to handle complex game design and analysis? Just something I wonder when trying to improve a game many people recognize as having many small, mechanical problems. [/QUOTE]

Verification