Quote from: Rhedyn;1078845Yeah D&D really set a weird standard for "what an edition is". Like Savage Worlds has been out for 16 years and is arguably on it's 4th or 5th edition, but it's still all compatible with one another.

   3rd Edition set a weird standard, really, although I think there may be predecessors. None had the kind of scope or impact of 3E's 'rebuild the game from base premises', though.

QuoteIt's weird how few "long" running RPGs are still around that didn't radically change their game several times like WotC D&D. Fate, Savage Worlds, and idk if I count GURPS 4e (somehow both alive and dead).

   BRP has seen a renaissance in the past few years, and though tweaked in various directions, it's recognizably the same game.

Quote from: Omega;1078560Also what players actually hate is edition treadmills and being forced to re-buy the damn game. And some just dont want to have to relearn a new system, especially when the old one was working just fine. Only the cattle players will happily walk into the edition treadmill slaughterhouse. The rest are going to resist. A little, or alot.

Our expectations for edition release were set by TSR / WotC, but also at the time, there seemed to be an unacknowledged belief by some that these are not actually new editions (upgrades) but new games (by those happily sticking with OD&D, Basic, etc), and the only one that was really had a lot of negative push back was 4e (the revised 3.5 being so similar to 3.0 got some negative push back but that seemed minimal).

It is not to the benefit of game companies to treat new editions as separate games, because they want you to buy the new system, the new versions of books, and the next wave of official accessories. What we've seen though is that in many cases, older edition games get 'third party support' more.

But parallel to these edition releases, we have market changes where the big companies that were entirely reliant on retail before (and that's a huge, huge investment risk) have so many more ways to sell that are lower risk (some of which are still in a state of change). The changes in methodologies could also have a huge impact on how edition releases are treated into the future.

Quote from: Omega;1078826Actually we have now and then. Just not often. Few board games have tried to gouge the fans with edition treadmills. FFG recently got on that kick and Privateer has as well and both have met with resistance. Alot of resistance.

Why?

Because the game was changed too much and in MonPoc's case, partially incompatible minis that are no longer pre-painted and assembled. Now its a "hobby game". And the rules dumbed down while jacking the price tag to absurd levels for what you get.

Now I am hardly an expert on board games and on the other hand every time I go into a book store they seem to be selling a different flavour of Monopoly depending on the "popular" IP at that moment.  Now that is a continuous treadmill of printing and reprinting the same game over and over that a RPG just can not even match.

QuoteIn other cases another contributor is a new edition comes out too soon after the first. And there may be more resistance if it leaves the prior edition unfinished in some manner.

As noted before. It is not that gamers dont like change. They dont like too much change and they sure as hell dont like too soon change.

My problem with that statement is that you are not describing "gamers" you are describing "people".

Quote from: Lynn;1078866Our expectations for edition release were set by TSR / WotC, but also at the time, there seemed to be an unacknowledged belief by some that these are not actually new editions (upgrades) but new games (by those happily sticking with OD&D, Basic, etc), and the only one that was really had a lot of negative push back was 4e (the revised 3.5 being so similar to 3.0 got some negative push back but that seemed minimal).

It seems to me that the edition releases by TSR can be explained by something happening within the company.  Gary wanted to cut Dave out of the rules so came up with ADnD, Williams wanted to cut Gary out of the rules so came up with 2e.

The WotC era is a little different though, definitely more bean counter focused.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078902It seems to me that the edition releases by TSR can be explained by something happening within the company.  Gary wanted to cut Dave out of the rules so came up with ADnD, Williams wanted to cut Gary out of the rules so came up with 2e. The WotC era is a little different though, definitely more bean counter focused.

I wouldn't discount those being reasons, but there could be marketing reasons as well.

Early on, they had to keep scaling up to fulfill demand, but it could also be that they were finding new sales to be quite expensive and harder to convert new customers. The cartoon seemed like a good move to rectify that, but my understanding was that was costly (and perceived as risky).

I will give Paizo credit that they really sold the hell out of the base book. They moved a lot of it initially, then getting it on Amazon for really low price, then coming out with those cheapo softback versions. The cost of entry for the quality of goods was really low. They also converted a lot of people to their direct sales of 'subscription' adventures. And yet, comparatively, they've maintained a higher entry price for Starfinder.

Well I do see one mistake and it just reinforces my perception that the Devs do not listen is sticking with the large one core instead of doing the smart business decision and splitting the core into two parts like Wotc. The first print run of their core PF 1E had binding issues and unless the printers they use this time know what they are doing I think it will be more of the same. Recently since I decided to stick with PF 1E I began buying replacement hardcover copies for the core. Two replacements as the softcover is more portable and light just prefer the hardcover. Three copies all but one had binding issues. One the back cover was torn completely from the binding. The second the binding was starting to tear along the spine both on the front and back cover. The third unlike the first two instead of having regular paper binding had glossy paper and held up real well. Yes they will replace defective copies to be sure but why go through that again. Considering that gamers are willing to buy into PF 2E would their been that much of a backlash towards two separate books . all i have to say is thank good for maptack.

Quote from: Lynn;1079007I will give Paizo credit that they really sold the hell out of the base book. They moved a lot of it initially, then getting it on Amazon for really low price, then coming out with those cheapo softback versions. The cost of entry for the quality of goods was really low. They also converted a lot of people to their direct sales of 'subscription' adventures. And yet, comparatively, they've maintained a higher entry price for Starfinder.

Agreed and seconded about the softcovers mostly except if you have problems with one eyesight and need to wear glasses to read they are imo a bit of a pain to read. I can read the hardcovers with or without my glasses. Not so much with the softcover. That being said I give them a big kudos for being honest in their pricing of the softcover. Unlike too many rpg companies and developers who will releases their core and sourcebooks in that same size than price gouge the fans claiming that Hardcover or pocket softcover both need to be sold at 40-60$.

Quote from: Lynn;1079007I will give Paizo credit that they really sold the hell out of the base book. They moved a lot of it initially, then getting it on Amazon for really low price, then coming out with those cheapo softback versions. The cost of entry for the quality of goods was really low. They also converted a lot of people to their direct sales of 'subscription' adventures. And yet, comparatively, they've maintained a higher entry price for Starfinder.

Oh, Paizo's Patherfinder 1e was a stroke of genius, and I'm serious.  Note only did they leverage the OGL to their favour, meaning they had very little work to do (and thus people to pay) they had an in-house artist work on the design exclusively, (Again, less overhead) and then put the core book out, with all the fixings and trimmings of colour, glossy pages for the incredibly cheap price of abut 50CDN.  That's a freakin' STEAL!  But the real genius was not the book, but their storefront, which STILL SOLD THEIR COMPETITORS PRODUCTS AT THE SAME TIME!

They were making money TWO WAYS, on top of all the other side merch.  They were getting money from the 3e grognards who HATED 4e's attempt at changing the game, and they were catering to those who wanted to give 4e a chance.

That's excellent business sense.

And I am dead serious.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079020Oh, Paizo's Patherfinder 1e was a stroke of genius, and I'm serious.  Note only did they leverage the OGL to their favour, meaning they had very little work to do (and thus people to pay) they had an in-house artist work on the design exclusively, (Again, less overhead) and then put the core book out, with all the fixings and trimmings of colour, glossy pages for the incredibly cheap price of abut 50CDN.  That's a freakin' STEAL!  But the real genius was not the book, but their storefront, which STILL SOLD THEIR COMPETITORS PRODUCTS AT THE SAME TIME!

They were making money TWO WAYS, on top of all the other side merch.  They were getting money from the 3e grognards who HATED 4e's attempt at changing the game, and they were catering to those who wanted to give 4e a chance.

That's excellent business sense.

And I am dead serious.

Agreed and seconded and unlike too many grognard who sell rpg products had enough common sense to not shit on your competitors products. If your selling both it cuts into profits more importantly as a customer I want any salesperson who sells me something to be objective as possible. If your too damn stupid and stubborn not to do so I am not purchasing from the store or recommending the store ever again.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079020Oh, Paizo's Patherfinder 1e was a stroke of genius, and I'm serious.  Note only did they leverage the OGL to their favour, meaning they had very little work to do (and thus people to pay) they had an in-house artist work on the design exclusively, (Again, less overhead) and then put the core book out, with all the fixings and trimmings of colour, glossy pages for the incredibly cheap price of abut 50CDN.  That's a freakin' STEAL!  But the real genius was not the book, but their storefront, which STILL SOLD THEIR COMPETITORS PRODUCTS AT THE SAME TIME! They were making money TWO WAYS, on top of all the other side merch.  They were getting money from the 3e grognards who HATED 4e's attempt at changing the game, and they were catering to those who wanted to give 4e a chance. That's excellent business sense. And I am dead serious.

Yes, and they were clear that their own direct store was it. DriveThruRPG doesn't have them because Paizo seemed dead set against them.

Pathfinder 2E is going to sink like the Lusitania.

As a fan of Pathfinder 1E, I was amazed at how successful it was.

In a lot of ways, the success and momentum of D&D 5E probably would not have gotten as big as it has if it weren't for Pathfinder being popular both among grognards who disliked 4E and new gamers trying to get into the hobby for the first time.

Plus, D&D was at its lowest point in years during Pathfinder's heyday.

Pathfinder's success largely was helped by D&D 4E's failure.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1079209Plus, D&D was at its lowest point in years during Pathfinder's heyday.

Yeah, great years for Paizo were not necessarily great years for the hobby.

But idk if things like Fate, PbtA, or Savage Worlds would be as big as they are if D&D 5th edition released in 2008 instead of D&D 4th edition. Or if OSR would be as big of a thing as it is now if Pathfinder didn't squash the much easier to play 4e and make one of the most complicated RPGs ever the dominant market holder.

I know plenty of these games release before PF, but RPGs tend to take awhile to build up steam (it's normally years before a consistent group finishes up planned campaigns and can start playing a system they were "sold" on).

Here's a data point of one D&D DM who will be trying PF2 because it seems to fix a lot of things that turned me off PF1. If the first PF2 adventure path is any good, I'll be in for at least one campaign and several books.

If they changed nothing then they would lose fans as many do not want to mainly buy more rehash especially if nothing gets fixed. Change too much and the same happens. As well I think people needs to stop comparing PF 2E with 4E imo.

It's not the same situation back when Wotc released 4E and many fans were turned off by it. Imo PF 2E is being released to compete with 5E. Time to leave the shadow of 4E behind when it comes to talking about  PF 2E. If they simply did a rehash with little to no changes and no flaws fixed I can see the average gamer who left PF to switch over to 5e go:

"Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard check. High level play still being plagued by the rocket tag effect and slow game play at the table check. Different bonuses still not stacking with each other and slowing gameplay check" ( puts down the core PF 2E book back on the shelf and walks away). That is even if they would have got past the the first flaw because many do not want to Fighters simply to meat shield for the casters. Paizo even has competition from a 3pp competitor which may or may go somewhere though not very far if they insist on naming their core book after underwater seaweed. It just the way some talk here and elsewhere that 5E does not exist let alone a success and that fams seem to hate like they did with 4E and that is not the case.

I think Paizo will do fine with PF2. However, the one big concern I'd have if I were them is the legacy subscriptions to the Pathfinder adventure paths from people who were getting it out of laziness at this point. People who had drifted away from the game, tell themselves they get it for reading material and just in case they some day get back to that campaign in their mind. Some of those people may take this opportunity of a shift to a new edition to finally cancel their subscription.