Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

[Mark CMG]

I don't think it's an attempt to discount results, but rather an attempt to discount perceptions that the results or the decisions behind them were inherently "good" or "bad".

When you're dealing with peoples' personal tastes (in games and gaming accessories, in this case), "entirely subjective" is the appropriate phrase, I think.

Except that's not the case being discussed in that we weren't discussing content decisions. (Or are you?)

This right here. Both companies are, like it or not, out to make money from RPGs. Both have their good things and bad things that they've done (both of which are largely dependent on your personal preferences), yet one is typically painted as a white knight and the other a black scoundrel. But it's all business.

I'm sure Paizo has carefully cultivated their friendly reputation as a means to increase profits. That's a legitimate business strategy, and one which WotC has not chosen to pursue. Would WotC be better off going that way? Who knows, and it's probably too late now anyway.

 

[ggroy]

That's it. Reotractive evaluation of decision-making is often unfair, since such evaluation is made with more information than was available when the decision was made.

Better known as "Monday morning quarterbacking."

 

[Fifth Element]

Except that's not the case being discussed in that we weren't discussing content decisions. (Or are you?)

Content decisions or business decisions, no matter. For example, some people don't like the Character Builder going online only, and some don't. It was not objectively a good or bad decision.

Now, it's entirely possible that given what has happened since that move, WotC would not make the same decision if able to do it again (I have no idea if that's actually the case). But that would based on things that have happened after the decision was made.

Same thing with the OGL. Based on the information WotC had at the time (which we're not privy to, of course), it might have made sense to move away from it for 4E. They might not repeat that decision now, but when they made it I'm sure they thought it was a good idea, and any presumption on our part that they should have known better is easy to say from our outside position, when we don't have responsibility for making the decision.

 

[JustKim]

So WotC exercised their legal rights, obtained the subscriber information to their own licensed-out magazines, and you blame Paizo?

And your other main gripe is they try to buy low and sell high?

No, not at all. I guess I wasn't clear.

Regarding the thing with WotC, Paizo denied that they had given our addresses to anyone. Someone else brought forward some proof, and at that point Paizo said they would "look into it". This led to the news that WotC had asked for subscriber information some time ago. I knew it couldn't have been in the time frame Paizo described since my move had been very recent, but that wasn't really important.
What was important was that Paizo claimed to not sell subscriber information, but they clearly did give my name to the Bradford Exchange. I'm not really keen on having my address sold in the first place, but being lied to about it was the deal breaker.

You seem to understand my third point fine, but I guess it's unsatisfactory. We're talking about the company's image, though. Price gouging hurt my perception of the company such that I finally said, that's it, I'll take my business elsewhere. If you were expecting for me to say Paizo put me off by stealing christmas from orphans, I'm happy to report that is not the case. It was just a bad track record of reliability and some business practices I found scummy.

 

[Mark CMG]

Content decisions or business decisions, no matter.

This is false, since it matters to everything I have posted. I also think that delineation and separation is key to this thread. Maybe this is part of the problem with how you view the people with which you disagree in discussions regarding WotC and Paizo issues?

Same thing with the OGL. Based on the information WotC had at the time (which we're not privy to, of course), it might have made sense to move away from it for 4E. They might not repeat that decision now, but when they made it I'm sure they thought it was a good idea, and any presumption on our part that they should have known better is easy to say from our outside position, when we don't have responsibility for making the decision.

And it is your position that such a decision cannot be called "bad" (and it would be "subjective" to call it "bad") because the resultant situation is not what is important, only that they made the decision then with the information they had, so it was neither a "good" decision nor a "bad" decision? I assure you, there is no "presumption" ""that they should have known better" on my part. I am rarely surprised by anyone's capacity to make a decision, "good" or "bad" regardless of what I thought at the time they should have done.

 

[Mark CMG]

Better known as "Monday morning quarterbacking."

Have we met?

I have said it was a "bad" decision when they stopped supporting the SRD, I have said a "bad" decision when they changed the wording of the d20 System License (and I stopped using it immediately), I have said it was a "bad" decision when they first floated the idea of a 4E that was to be hugely different from previous editions (essentially it's a different game, though not a bad game, inherently), I have said that their business model of having regular systematic layoffs was (is) a "bad" decision, I have said that the GSL in its original form (and in later forms) was a "bad" decision (and a poor substitute for the OGL), and I have said that their ever-increasing isolationist policy as an RPG producer is a "bad" decision. I haven't been alone in these feelings. Not everyone has agreed with me either. But I certainly cannot be accused of Monday Morning Quarterbacking as I have never kept those feelings to myself.

 

[Fifth Element]

This is false, since it matters to everything I have posted. I also think that delineation and separation is key to this thread. Maybe this is part of the problem with how you view the people with which you disagree in discussions regarding WotC and Paizo issues?

How can you say it's false? I'm just saying I believe my position applies to both types of decisions being discussed. In both cases, subjective judgments are typically used to evaluate them after the fact, based on one's preferences. Based on your subjective judgment (as an example), moving away from the OGL was a bad idea. It's your subjective judgment, because you cannot have the data necessary to know whether it's true or not. I'm not sure anyone could.

Also please stop making assumptions about my motives; this isn't the first time you've done so. It's impolite and specifically frowned upon here.

 

[billd91]

No, not at all. I guess I wasn't clear.

Regarding the thing with WotC, Paizo denied that they had given our addresses to anyone. Someone else brought forward some proof, and at that point Paizo said they would "look into it". This led to the news that WotC had asked for subscriber information some time ago. I knew it couldn't have been in the time frame Paizo described since my move had been very recent, but that wasn't really important.
What was important was that Paizo claimed to not sell subscriber information, but they clearly did give my name to the Bradford Exchange. I'm not really keen on having my address sold in the first place, but being lied to about it was the deal breaker.

How do you know it wasn't WotC who sold your address once they had it from Paizo?

How do you know it wasn't a credit card company? If you had been paying for stuff from Paizo or WotC with a credit card, that company knows something about your buying habits and, if I remember correctly, can often sell off that information to marketers.

 

[RedTonic]

I'm curious. WotC has been a subsidiary of Hasbro since 1999. How independent is WotC? How much of their decision-making is a result of Hasbro leaning on them to cut costs, increase market share, and in general increase their margin? It's fine to discuss the strategies of the two, but unless I'm missing something, Paizo is not wholly owned by another corporation and is thus beholden to no one but their owners and stakeholders. The fact is that both companies need their versions of the game to be an improvement (at least in players' perspective) over the last versions in order to drive up sales and make money. Paizo is able to make its decisions presumably more independently. But what about WotC?

 

[Mark CMG]

Based on your subjective judgment (as an example), moving away from the OGL was a bad idea. It's your subjective judgment, because you cannot have the data necessary to know whether it's true or not. I'm not sure anyone could.

A decision that results in a bad outcome is generally thought of as a bad decision, and in the case of the WotC moving away from the OGL it was thought by many at the time to be a "bad" decision. That you believe that no one at the time could call it a "bad" decision is ironic since, as I said, I wasn't alone. There were people within and without WotC trying to avoid switching from the OGL to the GSL, and once some within WotC made that "bad" decision, many of those same people who thought it was a "bad" decision did what they could to make the GSL as OGL-like as they could, despite others working against them. You should be able to name at least one of them as an "Original Member of the Rousekateers."