Quote from: J Arcane;546199I just don't understand how this is even legal.

They're still essentially using the OGL of D&D, and the OGL explicitly denies rights to make video games out of it as I understand it.  Knights of the Chalice got away with it because it's obscure as fuck, but this project is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I believe you are confusing the terms of the OGL with the old d20 system license.  Remember, there used to be two licenses.  I believe it was the d20 system license that had the additional restriction on video games.

Quote from: J Arcane;546199I just don't understand how this is even legal.

They're still essentially using the OGL of D&D, and the OGL explicitly denies rights to make video games out of it as I understand it.  Knights of the Chalice got away with it because it's obscure as fuck, but this project is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

GW has also confirmed it won't use Pathfinder's system at all as the OGL presents issues for the MMO

Quote from: Skywalker;546237GW has also confirmed it won't use Pathfinder's system at all as the OGL presents issues for the MMO

Well, that gets around that problem, but it pretty thoroughly undermines their target audience.  I doubt enough people give enough of a shit about Golarion for it to stand on it's own.

That's about as dumb as the Champions game using only the setting.

Quote from: J Arcane;546238Well, that gets around that problem, but it pretty thoroughly undermines their target audience.  I doubt enough people give enough of a shit about Golarion for it to stand on it's own.

That's about as dumb as the Champions game using only the setting.

It's EXACTLY as dumb as the Champions game using only the setting.  

JG

Quote from: J Arcane;546238Well, that gets around that problem, but it pretty thoroughly undermines their target audience.  I doubt enough people give enough of a shit about Golarion for it to stand on it's own.

That's about as dumb as the Champions game using only the setting.

Paizo's been pretty clear it believes the value of its Pathfinder IP resides in the setting and adventure paths, not in the mechanics of the game. Whether that's true or not, I guess we'll find out with efforts like the MMO at this point. If the game is attractive and gets a reasonable audience, I guess that will make Paizo's point true. If not... well. We'll see.

...this is literally the first time I realized Pathfinder actually had an actual setting.

It's not really my thing, but I just assumed it kind of used an assumed setting.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;546291...this is literally the first time I realized Pathfinder actually had an actual setting.

It's not really my thing, but I just assumed it kind of used an assumed setting.

The corebook mostly does stick to an assumed or implied setting, but all of the source and module mterial takes place explicitly in Golarion.

Quote from: J Arcane;546294The corebook mostly does stick to an assumed or implied setting, but all of the source and module mterial takes place explicitly in Golarion.

Ah, okay. Makes sense, then. I think almost all of the Pathfinder material I have come into contact with has been 3rd party.

Quote from: Benoist;546247Paizo's been pretty clear it believes the value of its Pathfinder IP resides in the setting and adventure paths, not in the mechanics of the game. Whether that's true or not, I guess we'll find out with efforts like the MMO at this point. If the game is attractive and gets a reasonable audience, I guess that will make Paizo's point true. If not... well. We'll see.

If the Paizo shot-callers truly believe this, then they are fucking idiots.  The value is purely in the continuation of D&D 3.X as a living, supported game line; most folks could not care less about Golarion if divorced from the engine.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;546302If the Paizo shot-callers truly believe this, then they are fucking idiots.  The value is purely in the continuation of D&D 3.X as a living, supported game line; most folks could not care less about Golarion if divorced from the engine.

Anecdotally, I know maybe a dozen people who have been using Pathfinder and I don't think a single one of 'em has had a game set in Golarion.  And I didn't even know that was what the Pathfinder default setting was called until this thread.  It's been a "fuck D&D 4, I want to keep playing 3.5, but with some of the suck filed off" thing, so the idea that there's valuable IP there kinda comes at me out of the blue.

A number of people around here play in Golarion by default, because they just play adventure paths as closed-ended campaigns.  Almost as many people are still playing in the Scarred Lands, though.

I have trouble seeing how anyone could think that any 3.X era setting has any IP value - all the ones I've seen are pretty much the same old mishmash of the same old ideas.  Video games have the same problem.

I think a strongly flavoured and unique IP might have a shot in the MMO space, but Golarion sure ain't it.

Quote from: Alathon;547184Anecdotally, I know maybe a dozen people who have been using Pathfinder and I don't think a single one of 'em has had a game set in Golarion.  And I didn't even know that was what the Pathfinder default setting was called until this thread.  It's been a "fuck D&D 4, I want to keep playing 3.5, but with some of the suck filed off" thing, so the idea that there's valuable IP there kinda comes at me out of the blue.

PATHFINDER: The D&D You Like, But With Some Of The Suck Filed Off

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;546302If the Paizo shot-callers truly believe this, then they are fucking idiots.  The value is purely in the continuation of D&D 3.X as a living, supported game line; most folks could not care less about Golarion if divorced from the engine.

Value to who?

(1) Paizo doesn't actually control the mechanics, so basing a business model on the "value of the mechanics" would be foolish.

(2) Paizo's ability to capture a huge chunk of the 3.5 market is almost certainly either a direct or indirect result of their adventure paths and other subsidiary products. Quite a few people produced "slightly improved versions of 3.5" in the wake of 4E, but it was Paizo who captured that market. And they did it by building on the customer base they had created through strong IP.

(3) Everything I've ever heard or read about Paizo indicates that they make the majority of their money from the adventure paths and other subsidiary products. They published the Pathfinder rules as a way for them to continue making money from those adventure paths and subsidiary products.

Quote from: Rincewind1;546197Star Trek MMO, DnD MMO, LotR MMO.....out of 3, LotR was a mediocre success at best, the other two, utter failures, at least commercially (star trek also in gameplay).

I don't know about the others, but D&D Online was a modest success when it launched and then became a massive, industry-leading success when it went F2P. They're launching an expansion later this month.

Quote from: Ladybird;546204They're not doing WoW numbers, but aiming at being number 1 in the MMO market is a stupid goal these days, as EA / Bioware are finding out to their cost...

The eminent death of TOR has also been greatly exaggerated. It's currently the second or third largest MMO on the planet. If it lost half of its peak subscribers? It would still be the third largest MMO on the planet.

Is it as big as WoW? No. Is there any indication it needed to be as big as WoW in order to be a success? No.

Even if the game only manages to retain an average of 50% of its peak subscription base over the course of the next two years it would make $244 million in subscription fees alone.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;547281Is it as big as WoW? No. Is there any indication it needed to be as big as WoW in order to be a success? No.

Even if the game only manages to retain an average of 50% of its peak subscription base over the course of the next two years it would make $244 million in subscription fees alone.

Against a reputed initial development costs of $300m, plus maintenance and support for two years, plus ongoing development... that's a poor return. Bioware could have spent much less than that on their market position.

Quote from: Ladybird;547298Against a reputed initial development costs of $300m, plus maintenance and support for two years, plus ongoing development... that's a poor return. Bioware could have spent much less than that on their market position.

Ah. I see you've been reading the "we just made up a random number and claimed it was the 'real development cost' reports".

The $300 million number was made up out of wholecloth in 2011 and explicitly denied by EA. More recently we've got kooks claiming that they spent $500 million on it. Their source? A vivid imagination.

These numbers are ridiculous. The idea that EA would spend so much money that they would need to have a WoW-size subscription base for a minimum of 4 years before they could even cover their development costs is absurd. It would be like Hollywood spending $2.5 billion to make a movie.

What do we actually know? EA said the game would be profitable with 500,000 subscribers and anything north of $1 million would be "very profitable". Even if those figures are being low-balled, the idea that EA actually needs 20x those numbers in order to be profitable is, at the risk of repeating myself, absurd.