Pathfinder 1E Paizo no longer publishing Dungeon and Dragon

[Erik Mona]

Are you stating, publically and on the record, that you were a principal party to the negotiations that took place and are privy to all details about the conversation concerinng the license re-up? Because in my experience, the Advertising & Marketing Director isn't usually the principal party to all negotiations. Usually, that position takes a role only after some of the more important conversations have already taken place.

Wait wait wait...since the license was up for renewal, WHO decided it was a natural stopping point. Was this in any way a mutual decision between both parties, or did WOTC dictate that they were making the decision and Paizo had no opportunity to make a counter offer or persuade them otherwise?

The original announcement covered this. The licenses are owned by Wizards of the Coast. They decided to do something else with the brands. It wasn't a matter of negotiation, because it wasn't an issue of offers and counter-offers. It was an issue of Wizards of the Coast making a decision about the best future for their brands, and deciding to do something other than renew Paizo's license to product print versions of the magazines.

This is within their rights (actually, it's the definition of their rights) as the license-holder. As a company who has dealt with lots of licenses before, we've always known that something like this could happen, which is one reason we've diversified our business over the last few years.

I should also point out that Wizards of the Coast very graciously agreed to extend Paizo's license to produce the magazines for four more months to ensure that we printed the conclusion of the Savage Tide Adventure Path. They didn't need to do that, and for all of the heat they are taking online here and elsewhere, it's important to point out that extending the license for this purpose was a decision made in the best interest of the audience, and one for which we are thankful.

I will repeat, there is no cloak-and-dagger shennanigans going on here. We remain on good terms with Wizards of the Coast and wish them the best of luck. My understanding is that Wizards wishes us the best of luck as well. In fact, it says that specifically in the announcement.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC

 

[PaizoPhil]

As if there are no "suits" at Paizo

Wow, I can't remember the last time I wore PANTS to work, let alone a suit

The Paizo Dress Code only forbids one item - kilts. Past that, we are about as anti-suit-mentality as you can get...

 

[Mark Plemmons]

Look at Kenzer - they publish a successful magazine, but their own adventures (officially licensed no less) apparently don't sell squat.

Really? I had no idea. Guess I'd better stop working on Kingdoms of Kalamar product.

 

[Ranger REG]

The original announcement covered this. The licenses are owned by Wizards of the Coast. They decided to do something else with the brands. It wasn't a matter of negotiation, because it wasn't an issue of offers and counter-offers. It was an issue of Wizards of the Coast making a decision about the best future for their brands, and deciding to do something other than renew Paizo's license to product print versions of the magazines.

This is within their rights (actually, it's the definition of their rights) as the license-holder. As a company who has dealt with lots of licenses before, we've always known that something like this could happen, which is one reason we've diversified our business over the last few years.

I should also point out that Wizards of the Coast very graciously agreed to extend Paizo's license to produce the magazines for four more months to ensure that we printed the conclusion of the Savage Tide Adventure Path. They didn't need to do that, and for all of the heat they are taking online here and elsewhere, it's important to point out that extending the license for this purpose was a decision made in the best interest of the audience, and one for which we are thankful.

I will repeat, there is no cloak-and-dagger shennanigans going on here. We remain on good terms with Wizards of the Coast and wish them the best of luck. My understanding is that Wizards wishes us the best of luck as well. In fact, it says that specifically in the announcement.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC

Trust me, nobody would agree with Mistwell wanting to assign partial blame to you guys.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

"Why don't I just email them?" You asked.

Then you're proving to them that the internet is the way to get information. They just want you pay for their information.

If you want something IN PRINT, then ask for them IN PRINT.

That's a really good point, actually. I definitely want to see something in print, but yeah- emailing them isn't really a good way to make that statement.

 

[Tortoise]

Here's another 2 coppers for the pile.

I'm very disappointed with this news. I like having a physical magazine to sit back, relax and read, especially both Dungeon and Dragon. This is important to me for several reasons, but one is that I'm staring at computer screens at least 12 hours a day and it is nice to get away from that. Besides, what good does this do for those unfortunate enough not to have access to online materials (and yes, there are some)?

I'll avoid making any rash statements about where my money will be rechannelled and instead examine the situation over the remaining months of my two subscriptions.

Note to WoTC: I don't understand your reasoning, but currently it strikes a negative chord. Please reconsider.

Note to Paizo: I'm in for a subscription if you start up an OGL fantasy gaming magazine with content easily useable for my game. I like both magazines, though I favor Dungeon.

Jim R.

 

[Mistwell]

And what concluding reason to say that Paizo share the blame?

That they did not fought? WotC owns the brands. Like fighting your dad for his Porsche.

That they give in to the higher licensing fee or modification to the licensing regarding revenue sharing? Sounds like WotC still holding a grudge when they tried to renew the Dune license but failed. The abused becomes the abuser.

I'm sorry but we have no evidence to assign blame to ANYONE here. And yes, if WOTC wanted to change their agreement when the licensing came up for renewal, that is perfectly normal. That is why you set time limits in a licensing deal, to allow for an evolution of the agreement at some fixed point. If Paizo could not come to an agreement with WOTC during the negotiations, and you are looking to "blame" someone for that, then Paizo shares some of that blame.

You assuming motives, like "abuse" and "grudge", are just plain old speculation with no evidence at all to back them. For all we know, this WAS in Paizo's best interest. They sure are repeating loudly and often that all is peachy keen with them, upcoming year is the best year ever, blah blah blah. Why isn't it at least a possibility in your mind that this had to do with both sides failing to come to an agreement during negotiations rather than just pointing the finger at one side for cutting off the other?

 

[Mycanid]

Wow ... ... the thread is still going fast and furious.

People's noses have obviously been tweaked more seriously than I thought at first!

 

[Mistwell]

It probably has something to do with the notion that, back in 2002 Wizards decided to divest itself of the magazine line because it thought that it was eating into the market for their other products (chiefly their design and development "core" products).

Now, all out of the blue, they have decided that they actually do want to put out both a magazine line and regular print product once more.

But it's not out of the blue. There was a set date for the license to end. Paizo and WOTC both knew that going in. Paizo has a new product line (two actually) all set to go to pick up from here. They are ending exactly at the end of the scheduled run for their Dungeon magazine adventure path. This was all clearly planned a while ago, and not out of the blue. The out of the blue part is us not knowing about it in advance, not WOTC and Paizo.

Many of us (at least myself) question the notion that they are suddenly capable and ready of handling both, when clearly in the past they thought there was a major disconnect between the pursuit of the two.

Not suddenly.

At least one insider- who was there at the time WotC (or, perhaps more appropriately these days, Hasbro) was originally discussing giving the magazines the axe, and the reasons behind it- has suggested this might in fact be the reasoning (the insider is Monte, whose posts on his own board are linked elsewhere in this thread).

I love Monte, and trust him a lot. I will be sure to check out his comments. But he is not an insider at WOTC, and has not been for quite some time. He's speculating probably, like the rest of us.

Heck, I bet there are plenty of people who would willingly eat crow if it turned out not to be the case, but so far, WotC ain't talkin'.

[EDIT- Joshua has already posted something addressing this, so I suppose a rebuttal didn't end up being necessary. ]

24 hours. That's it. That's how long this has been. I think it is early to jump to conclusions.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm sorry but we have no evidence to assign blame to ANYONE here. And yes, if WOTC wanted to change their agreement when the licensing came up for renewal, that is perfectly normal. That is why you set time limits in a licensing deal, to allow for an evolution of the agreement at some fixed point. If Paizo could not come to an agreement with WOTC during the negotiations, and you are looking to "blame" someone for that, then Paizo shares some of that blame.

On what ground? WotC owns the brands. They can do what they want with it. You want a small company like Paizo to surrender to the will of the corporation and take a loss in their share of the revenue? Tell me, are you willing to take a pay cut knowing that at your present salary is enough to meet your living? :\

You assuming motives, like "abuse" and "grudge", are just plain old speculation with no evidence at all to back them. For all we know, this WAS in Paizo's best interest. They sure are repeating loudly and often that all is peachy keen with them, upcoming year is the best year ever, blah blah blah. Why isn't it at least a possibility in your mind that this had to do with both sides failing to come to an agreement during negotiations rather than just pointing the finger at one side for cutting off the other?

What other interest or option is open for them? Bring WotC to court? :\

If WotC want Dragon and Dungeon back, fine. But if they want to go all-digital, that's NOT fine with me. (Been a long time since I used the mad smiley.)