Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cybit" data-source="post: 5810135" data-attributes="member: 66111">I think there are a couple of other factors as well1) DDI -- regardless of what people may think about it, this is a big concern.&nbsp; Although bottled water and various other pay programs show that it is possible to compete with free with very high quality; due to the nature of the fanbase of D&amp;D, and the aging of that fanbase, I find that this will be much, much harder to do in 2014 as opposed to 2003.&nbsp; WotC honestly would not be able to compete with a free Character Builder / Monster Builder for a new edition.&nbsp; Everyone talks about the pay tools that succeeded in 2003, but, this is 2012.&nbsp; The computer savvy of the average person has grown immensely, and many of the enthusiasts of D&amp;D in 2003 are now skilled programmers themselves in 2012.&nbsp; &nbsp; Paizo had the immense luxury of having the vast amount of game design already done for them, and their market already built for them, and thus, did not have to spend nearly as much money developing Pathfinder as Wizards did.&nbsp; For those arguing that PF has the OGL, if I understand the D&amp;D OGL correctly, please note that PF is required to have an OGL, because they are using the 3.5 OGL themselves.&nbsp; This is not an option for them.&nbsp; &nbsp; 2) Paizo isn't coming back unless Pathfinder fails catastrophically.&nbsp; This is now a personal issue between many at Paizo and WotC, due to the way the transition to 4E was handled by WotC management (in a word: poorly), and the ensuing decisions regarding the GSL and Dragon/Dungeon.&nbsp; 3) Pathfinder 2.0; Wizards pulled a Nintendo and created their own biggest competitor.&nbsp; True fact: It was the Nintendo Playstation originally.&nbsp; Nintendo very publicly shifted away from Sony at a trade show, in a very embarrassing fashion, and provoked Sony's CEO enough to get Sony to launch the Playstation on their own.&nbsp; By PO'ing their fanbase and leaving their tools in the hand of a competitor, they managed to shoot themselves in the foot.&nbsp; It would be foolish to do this again.D&amp;D is no longer the undisputed king of RPGs; as brought up by a previous poster, the OGL makes sense when you are the only real game in town.&nbsp; Not so much.&nbsp; Heck, if 5E caught on, Paizo could simply adopt the rules for Pathfinder, saving themselves millions of dollars in development, and launch Pathfinder 2.0, saving all of their own money for developing IPs and adventures and maps.&nbsp; &nbsp; I personally hope they don't do OGL, and instead just actually seek partnerships with many publishers to bring new IPs to the table under the 5E umbrella.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cybit, post: 5810135, member: 66111"] I think there are a couple of other factors as well 1) DDI -- regardless of what people may think about it, this is a big concern. Although bottled water and various other pay programs show that it is possible to compete with free with very high quality; due to the nature of the fanbase of D&D, and the aging of that fanbase, I find that this will be much, much harder to do in 2014 as opposed to 2003. WotC honestly would not be able to compete with a free Character Builder / Monster Builder for a new edition. Everyone talks about the pay tools that succeeded in 2003, but, this is 2012. The computer savvy of the average person has grown immensely, and many of the enthusiasts of D&D in 2003 are now skilled programmers themselves in 2012. Paizo had the immense luxury of having the vast amount of game design already done for them, and their market already built for them, and thus, did not have to spend nearly as much money developing Pathfinder as Wizards did. For those arguing that PF has the OGL, if I understand the D&D OGL correctly, please note that PF is [B]required[/B] to have an OGL, because they are using the 3.5 OGL themselves. This is not an option for them. 2) Paizo isn't coming back unless Pathfinder fails catastrophically. This is now a personal issue between many at Paizo and WotC, due to the way the transition to 4E was handled by WotC management (in a word: poorly), and the ensuing decisions regarding the GSL and Dragon/Dungeon. 3) Pathfinder 2.0; Wizards pulled a Nintendo and created their own biggest competitor. True fact: It was the Nintendo Playstation originally. Nintendo very publicly shifted away from Sony at a trade show, in a very embarrassing fashion, and provoked Sony's CEO enough to get Sony to launch the Playstation on their own. By PO'ing their fanbase and leaving their tools in the hand of a competitor, they managed to shoot themselves in the foot. It would be foolish to do this again. D&D is no longer the undisputed king of RPGs; as brought up by a previous poster, the OGL makes sense when you are the only real game in town. Not so much. Heck, if 5E caught on, Paizo could simply adopt the rules for Pathfinder, saving themselves millions of dollars in development, and launch Pathfinder 2.0, saving all of their own money for developing IPs and adventures and maps. I personally hope they don't do OGL, and instead just actually seek partnerships with many publishers to bring new IPs to the table under the 5E umbrella. [/QUOTE]

Verification