Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7680324" data-attributes="member: 2525">Of course it's an excuse in 2015.&nbsp; The retail stores, who sell physical books and have a strong relationship with WOTC due to Magic, asked their supplier to not sell digital copies of the same thing which would compete with their physical book sales.&nbsp; That's a pretty darn good excuse.&nbsp; You might not LIKE it, but that doesn't make it a bad reason from their perspective.&nbsp; And as their sales have been pretty darn spectacular, it's hard to say they were wrong.&nbsp; They've indicated they will get to it (in some format) but are in no rush to do it in this first year or so of the core books.&nbsp; Bad argument - and here is the corollary to demonstrate why: WOTC is now eating Paizo's lunch with 5e, by every metric we know.&nbsp; So now what - do you demand Paizo start doing the things WOTC is doing, and pull the PDFs, because PDFs are pre-5e era of publishing? Of course not - the two businesses use different business models, are in a different phase of their product line schedule, and what works for one might not work for the other.You liking PDFs is not the same as PDFs being the best business decision for WOTC right now.&nbsp; Paizo having success with PDFs 10 years into their product schedule is not the same as WOTC having a lack of success without PDFs in the first year of their product schedule.&nbsp; You have to grapple with the reality that WOTC is experiencing success without PDFs right now.&nbsp; And you'd have to prove they would have more success in this first year if they also sold PDFs - something you cannot prove right now, and which Paizo (who is doing worse than WOTC right now from all reports, and who does not have the same tighter relationship with retailers that WOTC has, and who is not in their first year of sales of their game) does not prove for you.It could just be PDFs are not good business for WOTC in the first year or so, but are good business for Paizo right now.&nbsp; Even if you don't like it, and even if you think it's antiquated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7680324, member: 2525"] Of course it's an excuse in 2015. The retail stores, who sell physical books and have a strong relationship with WOTC due to Magic, asked their supplier to not sell digital copies of the same thing which would compete with their physical book sales. That's a pretty darn good excuse. You might not LIKE it, but that doesn't make it a bad reason from their perspective. And as their sales have been pretty darn spectacular, it's hard to say they were wrong. They've indicated they will get to it (in some format) but are in no rush to do it in this first year or so of the core books. Bad argument - and here is the corollary to demonstrate why: WOTC is now eating Paizo's lunch with 5e, by every metric we know. So now what - do you demand Paizo start doing the things WOTC is doing, and pull the PDFs, because PDFs are pre-5e era of publishing? Of course not - the two businesses use different business models, are in a different phase of their product line schedule, and what works for one might not work for the other. You liking PDFs is not the same as PDFs being the best business decision for WOTC right now. Paizo having success with PDFs 10 years into their product schedule is not the same as WOTC having a lack of success without PDFs in the first year of their product schedule. You have to grapple with the reality that WOTC is experiencing success without PDFs right now. And you'd have to prove they would have more success in this first year if they also sold PDFs - something you cannot prove right now, and which Paizo (who is doing worse than WOTC right now from all reports, and who does not have the same tighter relationship with retailers that WOTC has, and who is not in their first year of sales of their game) does not prove for you. It could just be PDFs are not good business for WOTC in the first year or so, but are good business for Paizo right now. Even if you don't like it, and even if you think it's antiquated. [/QUOTE]

Verification