Pathfinder 1E You're the CEO of PAIZO. Now What?

[Dannager]

If your analysis is based on WotBS, or even just ENWorld, the I promise you it is deeply flawed.

I haven't done any analysis. I'm just interested in hearing what a publisher who has done exactly what is being described thinks of its viability.

 

[crazy_cat]

Given that this site is run by a company that does exactly what you describe above (a 3pp creating a product for both the 3.X and 4e markets, albeit in PDF-only format), I'd say this would be a good question to pose to the WotBS team. I think your analysis might be potentially flawed.

I'd be very interested if Morrus and the WotBS team could share any info on sales figures for PDF and POD copies of WotBS in compliation and episode by episode.

I've got no evidence to base my assumptions on but I'm guessing sales were good enough to generate decent income for this website - but probably not enough to support a team of full time staff plus freelancers on the scale Paizo employ.

Its also worth noting that WotBS is now offered as part of the $3 monthly subscription to keep this site operating, as well as for sale in its own right - and this was a decision presumably made based on knowledge of the sales figures (again, no definite data to get a real idea of what this means - but maybe the subscriptions generate a stable (possibly lower?) and reliable, and thus more useful income?)

 

[BryonD]

I haven't done any analysis. I'm just interested in hearing what a publisher who has done exactly what is being described thinks of its viability.

Ok, the analysis methodology you suggested (looking at WoTBS as indicative of the market as a whole), would be flawed.

 

[Dannager]

Ok, the analysis methodology you suggested (looking at WoTBS as indicative of the market as a whole), would be flawed.

Perhaps, but not worthless. At the very least, a promising level of sales/interest would be an indication of what is possible.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I am pretty sure Paizo could negotiate a separate license with WOTC, that could not be suddenly canceled without Paizo's agreement.

You could call them and attempt to negotiate a license to publish them.

Last I heard (from Orcus on these boards) no one at Wizards was returning his calls when he was trying to negotiate a separate license.

Last I heard (from Scott Rouse on these boards), Wizard's attitude of the original GSL was that there was little need to make it more publisher friendly as there was a license out there that some publishers have signed and was working for them just fine.

Getting them to negotiate an additional license might not be so easy to get them to the table. Esp considering that Scott Rouse and Linae are no longer there.

 

[The Little Raven]

AFAICT, Paizo is in great hands.

We hardly ever agree, but we're in 100% agreement here.

Lisa helped build the two biggest RPG companies out there: WotC and White Wolf. Now, she's building up a third. I can't really think of too many other people who are capable of such a thing.

If I were Paizo's CEO, I'd resign that role and give it back to Lisa, because God knows I'd frak it up.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So what would you do? What changes would you make, what would you keep, and what new directions would you take the company in?

Well, um, more of the same really. Or, 'Me too!'

Basically, I'd hand it back to them, and make no suggestions whatsoever.

 

[Mistwell]

Is an "excuse" required? When did this happen?

To me, the obvious default is doing your own thing. *IF* something like the OGL lowers the bar far enough to create a better option, then cool.
The GSL is only mentioned because it is, in theory, a surrogate for the OGL. But it fails to meet the standard the OGL established. So, the bar lowering criteria is not met and we return to the default.

Asking Paizo for an excuse now is like asking Steve Jackson games for an excuse for why they were not supporting 2E in 1994.

I am not asking for an excuse. I said I think it is perfectly fine that they don't WANT to support 4e. It does not need an excuse.

What I am saying is the "we won't do 4e because we don't like the GSL" is an excuse. If they wanted to do 4e stuff, they could pick up the phone, call people they know at WOTC, get the ball rolling on negotiating their own license, and make it happen. Much smaller gaming companies than Pazio are perfectly able to do just that, and I have full faith that Paizo could as well if they wanted to.

So yeah, what's with the excuse that the GSL is the reason. If the reason is they just don't want to do 4e, that's fine. But "GSL ties our hands" is an excuse.

 

[Mistwell]

The thing is the GSL is indeed what put them out of looking into 4e. Now they really just do not have the man power or time and really spliting product between two systems is a bad ideal profit wise. As your paying out as much as a single product but seeing half the return over your normal yield

They already wrote the modules/APs I am referring to. Converting a module/AP to 4e takes a LOT less work that writing a new product from scratch. And I am saying that a Paizo 4e module/AP would sell VERY well, because it fills a gap left by WOTC's frankly mediocre modules/APs thus far.

So yeah, good idea, not bad idea. Assigning one employee to convert stuff already written, at significant profit, is a good idea. I'd bet a lot it would be a net positive.

On top of that 4e 3pp products just are not in demand and really do not seem to be profitable for a company to do.

From what I know, modules/APs do just fine. And, with Paizo's reputation for modules/APs, I feel pretty darn sure it would sell well. Are you really saying you think a Paizo 4e module/AP conversion of one of their good existing products would sell poorly?

And as for negotiating a new license well that in it's self has issues. Paizo has done that before but still got burned pretty good

It has no issues that I know of (and I do it for a living). Thousands and thousands of companies do this every day. Many are much smaller than Paizo. Even in this very industry much smaller companies than Paizo successfully negotiate licenses with much bigger companies than WOTC with no issues at all. This is, again, an excuse. If the license is too expensive, that's a different story. If it is too much of a hassle? I'd question that but that's possible. But that it couldn't be done or somehow would be unsafe? Sorry, I don't buy that. It could be done, and it is safe.

 

[BryonD]

Perhaps, but not worthless. At the very least, a promising level of sales/interest would be an indication of what is possible.

"flawed" <> "worthless"

I'm quite confident that the assessment of a fan site based team building a product that is in no small part promoted as "support the site by buying this", would be far less representative than other putting-food-on-the-table companies.