Pathfinder 1E Paizo Publishing Makes Inc Magazine's Top 5000

[Ahnehnois]

They do run the risk of their customers leaving if WoTC ever make a decent version of D&D again. Apart from that lol.

True. They'll also lose all their money if a bunch of pigs fly away with it.

 

[Gilbetron]

That's really not what that phrase means. On the whole, adventures don't sell -- by definition their market a subset of any core rules. That's what that phrase means.

Let me phrase it differently, as what I said was shorthand. "Modules don't sell, so we should stop selling modules" is really the false concept that was entrenched in the RPG industry for a long time. It was a myopic focus on single SKU sales, and not realizing that you need to be interested in your "product ecosystem" more holistically. As with any success, Paizo's was multi-pronged. They focused on the forest by focusing on the trees, the shrubs, the microfauna, the wildlife, the soil, the irrigation, etc. They create modules that had great games in them that spoke to their core audience, but also made them mini world books, mini fiction books, and cool art galleries. They were smart on the business side by creating a subscription model that increased revenue predictability. The put out rules books for people to buy, but only in more significant chunks and not in a "we need to put out rules every month!" fashion. They kept the support of the SRD (PRD) solid. The put out lots of other "stuff" to support all the little niches of their fans, and paid attention to those that were popular, but didn't axe those that sold weakly.

The core of what they realized is this: A given Pathfinder group uses, say, 10% of the stuff Paizo puts out. The trick is, that 10% varies from group to group.

Previous modules may not have been "crappy" but they were "crappily done". Of course, Paizo *does* benefit from digital distribution and long tail model, as well. I could see the argument that Paizo's model wouldn't have worked prior to 2000.

 

[Morrus]

Let me phrase it differently, as what I said was shorthand....Previous modules may not have been "crappy" but they were "crappily done".

That's a much better summation; that the model back in the late TSR days was crappily done is a matter of record; ex-employees have spoken about it at length, as has Ryan Dancey when WotC acquired the company. The whole business was mismanaged. But there were a lot of damn good adventures put out by that company!

The core of what they realized is this: A given Pathfinder group uses, say, 10% of the stuff Paizo puts out. The trick is, that 10% varies from group to group.

Ah, no, the opposite. That's not the trick. That's fragmentation. That's the opposite of the trick. That's why TSR's model was crappily done. A dozen settings, each being bought by a tiny percentage of the market rather than one setting being bought by a larger percentage. So the overheads for the same total sales were a dozen times what they needed to be. That was a killer. That's why Paizo hasn't created new settings, hasn't made a Pathfinder: Future, hasn't done a lot of things. They're not making that mistake. And their subscription model keeps folks buying, rather than just dipping in. They're avoiding fragmentation, not embracing it.

 

[Wicht]

They're avoiding fragmentation, not embracing it.

That's an interesting observation, especially coupled with your observation about their diversification. But even their new card game points back to the same world and their primary line, as do their novels, comics, etc.

 

[Morrus]

That's an interesting observation, especially coupled with your observation about their diversification. But even their new card game points back to the same world and their primary line, as do their novels, comics, etc.

And I think that's where expertise lies: knowing exactly where the line between helpful diversification and overhead-inducing fragmentation lies.

 

[Gilbetron]

Ah, no, the opposite. That's not the trick. That's fragmentation. That's the opposite of the trick. That's why TSR's model was crappily done. A dozen settings, each being bought by a tiny percentage of the market rather than one setting being bought by a larger percentage. So the overheads for the same total sales were a dozen times what they needed to be. That was a killer. That's why Paizo hasn't created new settings, hasn't made a Pathfinder: Future, hasn't done a lot of things. They're not making that mistake. And their subscription model keeps folks buying, rather than just dipping in. They're avoiding fragmentation, not embracing it.

Honestly, I think they are doing both. It is wrong to say, "Fragment!" as it is to say, "Never Fragment!" Rather, you want to have some fragmentation (Golarion is largely all the D&D settings smushed together) as well as some unification. Or, stated another way, you want a recipe that blends all the different play styles and product consumer types together. Gaming fiction is a fairly narrow "fragment" of the fanbase, but the APs include them.

(I had a much longer reply, but sadly it was eaten by my browser )

I think we largely agree. I think I can sum things up as this: give all the different consumer types a reason to buy most of your products.

If you listen to fans of Paizo talk about APs, you hear lots of reasons they like it. "Oh, I love their APs: they have such great fiction!" or "they have great new monsters!" or "I love the dungeon crawls!" or "I love the NPCs!" or "I love the new settings!". Paizo "AND"s these all together rather than "OR"ing them

 

[Gilbetron]

And I think that's where expertise lies: knowing exactly where the line between helpful diversification and overhead-inducing fragmentation lies.

I think the main realization/discovery by Paizo is that that PDFs and PRDs greatly moved the line so that fragmentation is easier to avoid.

 

[billd91]

Ah, no, the opposite. That's not the trick. That's fragmentation. That's the opposite of the trick. That's why TSR's model was crappily done. A dozen settings, each being bought by a tiny percentage of the market rather than one setting being bought by a larger percentage. So the overheads for the same total sales were a dozen times what they needed to be. That was a killer. That's why Paizo hasn't created new settings, hasn't made a Pathfinder: Future, hasn't done a lot of things. They're not making that mistake. And their subscription model keeps folks buying, rather than just dipping in. They're avoiding fragmentation, not embracing it.

I think Gilbetron may be right. The difference is these products aren't all supporting different and relatively incompatible settings - rather, they support Golarion, one campaign setting, in different ways. The market isn't being segmented, rather, different interests in that market are being supported in a variety of ways without encouraging them to jump ship to a different product. Customers supporting the Companion line or the Chronicles line support it because they like that style of supplement, but the supplements in the other lines are all compatible and may attract a bit of cross line purchasing - unlike attempting to support a lot of different campaigns in which most supplements have limited cross line utility.

 

[paradox42]

Many, many more folks are interacting with companies online than 10 years ago, but I don't think it's a large percentage yet.

Define "large percentage." During the last 12 years, 100% of the game groups I was involved with paid attention to online forums and kept up with industry news. And by "100%" I mean, 100% of the players involved in those groups, not just that every group had at least one involved person who did and then spread the info to others. And this wasn't just for D&D, but also for game groups playing White Wolf stuff (Exalted, in particular, though not exclusively- some WoD stuff was thrown in too).

Perhaps what I should be asking is for a definition of "interacting with companies online."

 

[Wicht]

Define "large percentage." During the last 12 years, 100% of the game groups I was involved with paid attention to online forums and kept up with industry news. And by "100%" I mean, 100% of the players involved in those groups,...

I would suspect your experience is still something of an anomaly.