Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6252180" data-attributes="member: 37579">That's not entirely true.Pathfinder tied D&D in the third quarter of 2010, which is July to September. That's when WotC had just started to release Essentials but also includes several big 4e releases such as Dark Sun and Psionic Power. ANd while ICv2 says this was when they tied, Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens (who shares the distributor with WotC and also sold D&D books on paizo.com) says this was when Pathfinder started passing D&D. Which means sales were likely dropping before then. This is very likely what prompted Essentials in the first place. Essentials was caused by dropping sales in an attempt to get new players in and boost sales. And sales did not slow until early 2011 when they cancelled three books and delayed two others. Of course, ignoring the existence of Castles & Crusades and other retro games that were out half a decade before Pathfinder.I still disagree with this statement. It takes a year to get books on the shelf, including writing time and planning. Essentials came out in Fall 2010 so it had to have been planned in the Fall of 2009, a year after D&D 4e came out and very, very shortly after Pathfinder was launched but still well before it was, well, Pathfinder. So Paizo cannot take all the heat as players were evidently leaving the game before Pathfinder was really more than a cosmetic reboot. It took a year (again, Fall of 2010) before Paizo really offered something new. Prior to that it was all updates. It is handy being able to stick with a previous edition and another company and continue getting support, but that's not really necessary. New content is nice but you could always just play with what you had. Especially with the amount of content WotC released for 3e (let alone 3rd Parties). A new edition alway has to be better than the previous and encourage people to switch. If the new edition is not better it doesn't matter if there is new support or not, people will just run with what they have. Paizo is making good money now and has grown in leaps and bounds. But not everyone who dropped 4e went to Paizo; there is a large number of people who just stuck with 3e or moved onto an entirely different system. Had there not been a Pathfinder, I think 4e would have still ended. It might not have been as quick, but I imagine it still would have ended. There were simply too many other problems and factors at work.  This is true. Although, Paizo is having a harder time of it now that they've become so large. They had to switch from forums tied to playtesting to a survey because there was simply too many people testing and responding. But the fact the staff even acknowledges the forums, let alone regularly posts, is a huge improvement over WotC. New =/= good. You can make a game comprised of only new ideas and that is no guarantee of quality. And many times, old ideas are solid. Ideas that have stood the test of time and keep popping up are often the best. But 5e does have new ideas. Bounded accuracy. Advantage. Adding balance to simplicity. Inherent modularity over a simple core. A classic feel with better math. All those elevate the edition and give it the best chance of success.Can you provide a link to where we were told WotC is running on what they can generate? Is it WotC as a whole or each brand individually? The latter is bad for D&D but the former is good as MtG continues to make a staggering amount of money and should be able to easy support some extra D&D team members. Oh, and there are more than 5 people on 5e now. Keep in mind, the profit mandates placed on WotC were reported to have happened in 2004-5 when work on 4e began. Hasbro received a new CEO in 2006. So there's a good chance the policies have changed. Where have they said that? In a GenCon panel I remember Mearls and Crawford talking about how it's better for the company if the edition is not changing every five years, but they expected reprints with revisions and updates.</blockquote>

Verification