Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[pemerton]

So what if Paizo took the d20 SRD and based an RPG on them? Anyone can do it, and it's legal, not underhanded. Underhanded is doing things like pulling pdf's of your products with little notice and killing an awesome character builder that people can actually own to force them to use an inferior web based program.

Thos things are legal, too. I mean, WotC does own its intellectual property, and can set the terms on which it licenses others' use of that IP. I don't see any underhandedness.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Like all the other Borders the local store is closing down, with RPGs at 10% off (you get a better discount at Amazon).

All of Pathfinder and most of 4e are gone, within the first week. (There was also a lot more of 4e to sell, so this ain't a race - Pathfinder sold out first because there was less of it to sell.)

Meanwhile, every bit of the latest edition of WHFRP is still there.... The same two main boxes have been sitting there since they first got them in, and they kept adding additions, which also didn't sell. (There may not have been a winner, but there was a loser....)

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannager]

Thos things are legal, too. I mean, WotC does own its intellectual property, and can set the terms on which it licenses others' use of that IP. I don't see any underhandedness.

This.

 

[Maggan]

Meanwhile, every bit of the latest edition of WHFRP is still there.... The same two main boxes have been sitting there since they first got them in, and they kept adding additions, which also didn't sell. (There may not have been a winner, but there was a loser....)

The Auld Grump

Sad I like WFRP3e. Not my preferred edition of WFRP, but it is interesting and good quality.

/M

 

[Talok]

Thos things are legal, too. I mean, WotC does own its intellectual property, and can set the terms on which it licenses others' use of that IP. I don't see any underhandedness.

Maybe not illegal, but it can certainly be seen as underhanded by your customers. In fact, it's pretty clear that a good deal of people did see it as "underhanded".

 

[pemerton]

Maybe not illegal, but it can certainly be seen as underhanded by your customers. In fact, it's pretty clear that a good deal of people did see it as "underhanded".

I thought your point upthread was that legality was sufficient for non-underhandedness. But fair enough - underhandedness is in the eye of the beholder. But then some people might take a similar view of Paizo's building of their business on someone else's game design. (Though obviously many don't.)

 

[DaveMage]

"Underhandedness" (to me) implies malicious intent.

I don't sense any malice in WotC's actions.

Just cluelessness.

(And yes, they have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their IP & products. They don't seem to mind ticking off portions of their customers. It's just business to them. *shrug*)

 

[MrGrenadine]

I thought your point upthread was that legality was sufficient for non-underhandedness. But fair enough - underhandedness is in the eye of the beholder. But then some people might take a similar view of Paizo's building of their business on someone else's game design. (Though obviously many don't.)

No, no one would think that. That would be silly.

 

[Talok]

I thought your point upthread was that legality was sufficient for non-underhandedness. But fair enough - underhandedness is in the eye of the beholder. But then some people might take a similar view of Paizo's building of their business on someone else's game design. (Though obviously many don't.)

They are both legal, but Paizo didn't take actions that were detrimental to their customers, while WotC did. Thus the underhandedness of WotC's actions.

 

[czak]

Yanking the pdfs was frustrating and inconvenient, but I wouldn't call it underhanded. They didn't delete the pdfs off my hard drive or lie to me.