Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6218816" data-attributes="member: 6694112">Taking the wayback machine to April of that year, Paizo was interested in doing some 4e products alongside the Pathfinder RPG.Then the initial version of the GSL was released. And that's all she wrote.I think you're greatly overestimating that PR hit.Paizo doing their own thing was certainly fodder for internet arguments, but even then people understood that Paizo would be shy about hitching their wagon back to WotC after what happened with Dungeon and Dragon.Which isn't to say there weren't a bunch of arguments about dragonborn, the GSL, tieflings, WotC's "tone," square fireballs, the GSL, WoW, AEDU, missing races/classes, and the GSL. Paizo came up, but I honestly remember talking more about Necromancer Games.Yeah, if they can't even capture the people who travel to the D&D Experience, they're pretty hosed.But I think there are simpler answers to why that didn't translate to the rest of the gaming populace than blaming it all on Jason not liking your favorite edition. A lot of people looked at 4e and decided it wasn't for them or Pathfinder never would have gotten off the ground.It's not scientific, but at least a little illuminating, to look at the "What would you be playing if Pathfinder didn't exist" thread. I don't claim to have percentages, but a lot of people weren't going to play 4th regardless of Pathfinder. Looking through, there's a mix of not spending any money in the hobby and dividing the hobby far beyond a simple 4e/Pathfinder split.It's entirely possible that, even if Paizo had somehow gotten on the 4e bandwagon (despite the delays and the GSL), we'd be having this conversation about Kenzer or Malhovac or Goodman or Green Ronin or some other company. Someone had to do it eventually, Paizo was just forced to take the initiative.Would 4e have done better without competition? Basic economics says yes. But that's a long way from proving that the game industry as a whole is better run as a monopoly.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>

Verification