Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6664285" data-attributes="member: 5834">Very likely. You are incorrect. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Hasbro bought the brand. Companies like Hasbro purchase dominant games. Primarily they wanted magic when they purchased WotC. The dominant TTRPG was a nice add on. Hasbro was very interested in maintaining a dominant position in the TTTRPG market if D&D was to continue to be funded. The company failed to do that. It took a huge amount of revenue from D&D. Try to slant it anyway you want it, I know how business works. You don't want someone taking any pieces of your pie.  Extremely relevant. Pathfinder does not help the D&D brand. It took its market share. Do you really not understand business to the point where you can't admit that taking someone's market share is not something any company wants? You're flat out wrong. Not only wrong, but making an ignorant comment. No business wants someone taking their market. Pathfinder took D&D's market. It did not share it. It did not build it. It splintered the market taking revenue directly from D&D and into Paizo's pockets. It would be the equivalents since you are using MMORPG's of someone taking an older version of WoW, keeping it going, and taking half of Blizzard's money as they try to launch a new WoW.You're taking a very wrong position. I'm quite sure it's because you don't want to admit the economic failure that was 4E. It was a failure. No game that allows a competitor to take a system and splinter your market is a success. WotC has handled licensing exactly as I expected since it happened. Why? Because I do business and study business as part of my education. I know how business works. It is never, ever smart to allow a competitor to take market share from you and the revenue associated with it. That is exactly what Paizo did.To you this is a hobby, to WotC/Hasbro it is a business. Games that lose market share are business problems that need to be corrected.So now you're talking about something else which is leveraging D&D's intellectual property in the CCG, novel, and other media market. That does not change the fact that the TTRPP was an economic failure. That Paizo took a huge chunk of their market share. It will not stop them from killing the TTRPG if it fails to take back market share. We're talking about the TTRPG, not the intellectual property in other areas.Paizo hammered the TTRPG game division. 4E failed to maintain market share. TTRPG does not do video games as far as I know. Do you know differently? We're talking the TTRPG here. We're talking licensing. WotC has handled licensing exactly like a company that did not like another company taking market share from the TTRPG D&D division. Sorry, Hasbro may keep D&D's intellectual property for novels, movies, and video games. If the TTRPG doesn't take back market share or at least maintain what they have, they'll have zero problems killing it. They would probably love to turn D&D into a board game, a MMORPG, and movies and kill the TTRPG. Hasbro probably barely cares about the TTRPG division. The hammer blow Paizo dealt 4E further soured them on things like an OGL and funding the TTRPG division.It is quite clear. You take 50% of someone's market share, they'll be unhappy. Very unhappy. I'd love to see run a business and see what you would do if another company like Paizo did what they did. I'd love it. I'd love to see the excuses you would make like you're doing now to try to pretend that it didn't happen.Paizo probably too anywhere from 30 to 50% of D&D's TTRPG market. TTRPG's are funded by TTRPGs. That's where their budget comes from. Businesses don't fund projects to lose money. They certainly don't look to lose market share. Pretending WotC is happy that Paizo exists is not in any way provable. By every business model I know, that is bad, extremely bad. WotC acted exactly like a business that was not going to let that happen ever again.They're is definitely a battle by the business people. I guarantee as much as Mike Mearls and the designers are friends with some of Paizo's designers. The business people at Hasbro are not happy campers. Why would you think a corporation would be pleased that another company using a game system you owned wholly at one point was able to build a dominant rival that took your market share? Or are you trying to argue that Paizo didn't take a large portion of WotC's D&D customer base? Once Hasbro purchased D&D, it became a not so small industry. Bean counters own D&D now. Corporations do not work like small companies owned by people that like the hobby. Corporations work with budgets. They watch revenue streams. They carefully watch market share. They monitor metrics like sales, revenue, and how much it costs per dollar of revenue and profit. Corporations are interested in control of intellectual property on all levels. Control the product, keep competitors from taking market share, keep costs controlled, leverage intellectual property into as many revenue streams as possible. Sorry, Tony Vargas. You're favorite game was bought by a megacorporation. Hasbro is worth 9.8 billion dollars. Their specialty is games. Each company under its umbrella is closely monitored and given directives for market share, sales, and other metrics they must meet to maintain value. I'm certain Mearls has been in on those fun meetings with the bean counters. If you don't meet Hasbro's metrics, they will be unhappy. Corporate metrics are annoying facet of business operations. I imagine it is even tougher in something as subjective as the TTRPG market. If you don't think that Hasbro was pissed when Paizo took a big old bite of their TTRPG market share, you're willfully lying to yourself.Personally, I'd like to see how much revenue Paizo took in pure numbers. I bet it was quite shocking when it happened and completely unexpected. It probably occurred over a fairly long period of time, probably three years or so as Paizo took more and more of the TTRPG market revenue. That's why 4E's licensing was so restrictive. And why 5E's licensing will be equally restrictive. Mearls and company may be agreeable to an OGL because as you said, they're game designers that like the hobby first and foremost. They are probably friends with many Paizo people. But the chances of Hasbro's legal team and corporate management signing off on an OGL are about 0% in my opinion as a student of business.You're right. No matter what happens, Hasbro is going to keep D&D's intellectual property to leverage into video games, novels, and movies if they can. Right now I see guys like Mearls and Crawford trying to rebuild D&D's brand to ensure it will be there for future generations. Because Hasbro bean counters don't care a great deal about the TTRPG. If it fails, they'll write it down and store the intellectual property for other uses or sale to some hobbyist with a lot of money that will pay top dollar for the intellectual property.Business is business as they say. The reason I take the position I do because I've seen companies fail for the exact same reason WotC failed: loss of market share. It's a big deal in business. Any mistake that costs you market share is going to bring about major changes. This is a common business problem that if not corrected usually leads to the dissolution of the company or division. That's why I'm happy 5E has seems to have been well received by the D&D fan base. As much as I like Paizo, D&D is still the game I grew up on. I'd like to see the TTRPG stay viable. It's in dangerous corporate hands at the moment. I hope Mearls and company can execute a vision that makes the Hasbro corporate guys happy enough to grow the game and keep it going.</blockquote>

Verification