Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081008If all they wanted was more 3.x content, they didn't need to remake 3.x, they just needed to keep the pipeline flowing.  But because a 'dead system' loses consumers, Paizo needed to make an evergreen product to keep the fanbase engaged.  And at the time, there was a significantly vocal group who hated the idea of another edition, remember no one knew what 4e was going to be like except a select few in the playtests, and that had changed radically with each progression.  And so Paizo smelt an opportunity and being very smart business people, they capitalized on the fan backlash and made bank.

If nothing else, Paizo are great business men.

IIRC people were mostly fine with another edition as a lot of 3.5ed flaws were getting publically griped about a lot, they just weren't fine with a "burn it all down and start over from scratch" edition.

Quote from: Daztur;1081045IIRC people were mostly fine with another edition as a lot of 3.5ed flaws were getting publically griped about a lot, they just weren't fine with a "burn it all down and start over from scratch" edition.

No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081052No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

Agreed and seconded. Not only that to be fair Wotc were upfront about how different 4E was going to be and some gamers who predicatively hated changed acted angry and outraged at how different 4E was from previous editions. If I'm told something is going to be different from the start being angry about it later just makes me look like a petty whiny  idiot especially if I was warned ahead of time. Now if Wotc had advertised a Pathfinder edition and gave the fans 4E then I could understand the anger and outrage as I would have been feeling both right along with them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081034Until the business burns down, I reserve judgement.  But again, I think that PFRGP 2e is going flop, but not do much damage.

Again seconded though I think we maybe pleasantly surprised. Then again given as how too much influence Pathfinder society play has on the development of rules post core release that group could always ruin what was a good thing imo.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081052No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

4e released June 2008, Pathfinder released August 2009

People had more than a year to develop an opinion about 4e before buying Pathfinder.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081052No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

Bullshit.  Another lie.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10810754e released June 2008, Pathfinder released August 2009

People had more than a year to develop an opinion about 4e before buying Pathfinder.

Yup.

Also, before any 4E rules had been released, we had been informed that 4E would have no OGL, instead having the GSL.

Additionally, when Paizo made their decision to develop Pathfinder, the GSL still contained the poison-pill clause.

The original or advertised version of this non-compete clause was that, if you published under the GSL, you couldn't publish under the OGL any more.

It got later revised to "product lines" rather than entire publishers - i.e. Paizo, publishing "Pathfinder Adventure Path" under the OGL would have to rename the product (ostensibly, naming it something other than Pathfinder) to publish it under the GSL.

Further, the GSL was neutered, as it only provided for fantasy products - a non-fantasy GSL, allowing sci-fi, modern or superheroes, was promised, but I'm unsure if that was ever delivered.

Finally, the license was subject to mandatory updates, unlike the OGL, meaning that it could be changed at any point, and if your current product no longer complies with the license, you'd be forced to pull it from market.

Many prominent 3rd-party publishers realized they were being served a shit-sandwich - or, more appropriately, being promised a shit-sandwich, since WotC's inept bungling of the GSL kept delaying the release of the license, thereby delaying any development of products for 4E by those folks who still remained interested in doing so - and publicly stated that they wouldn't be using the GSL, therefore, not developing anything for 4E.

Hell, the GSL itself didn't get released until June of 2008, despite nearly a year of speculation about it, preventing any 3rd-party launch product (probably WotC's intention), and seriously delaying development.  What business can commit to a development lull like that?

One can't help but think that this may have affected a lot of folks' decision to migrate to 4E.  Quite frankly, had WotC kept the OGL for 4E, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that Paizo wouldn't have developed their RPG, and instead, published dual-stat material for 3.5 and 4E.

Quote from: kythri;1081077Bullshit.  Another lie.



Yup.

Also, before any 4E rules had been released, we had been informed that 4E would have no OGL, instead having the GSL.

Additionally, when Paizo made their decision to develop Pathfinder, the GSL still contained the poison-pill clause.

The original or advertised version of this non-compete clause was that, if you published under the GSL, you couldn't publish under the OGL any more.

It got later revised to "product lines" rather than entire publishers - i.e. Paizo, publishing "Pathfinder Adventure Path" under the OGL would have to rename the product (ostensibly, naming it something other than Pathfinder) to publish it under the GSL.

Further, the GSL was neutered, as it only provided for fantasy products - a non-fantasy GSL, allowing sci-fi, modern or superheroes, was promised, but I'm unsure if that was ever delivered.

Finally, the license was subject to mandatory updates, unlike the OGL, meaning that it could be changed at any point, and if your current product no longer complies with the license, you'd be forced to pull it from market.

Many prominent 3rd-party publishers realized they were being served a shit-sandwich - or, more appropriately, being promised a shit-sandwich, since WotC's inept bungling of the GSL kept delaying the release of the license, thereby delaying any development of products for 4E by those folks who still remained interested in doing so - and publicly stated that they wouldn't be using the GSL, therefore, not developing anything for 4E.

Hell, the GSL itself didn't get released until June of 2008, despite nearly a year of speculation about it, preventing any 3rd-party launch product (probably WotC's intention), and seriously delaying development.  What business can commit to a development lull like that?

One can't help but think that this may have affected a lot of folks' decision to migrate to 4E.  Quite frankly, had WotC kept the OGL for 4E, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that Paizo wouldn't have developed their RPG, and instead, published dual-stat material for 3.5 and 4E.

Well Goodman Game's DCC did actually switch to 4e and nearly collapsed until they managed to create their own game for the DCC product line. Now-a-days they have been making 5e classic conversions but they are not part of the DCC line anymore.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10810754e released June 2008, Pathfinder released August 2009

People had more than a year to develop an opinion about 4e before buying Pathfinder.

What does what to do with anything?  This is a major logical fallacy to prop up an incorrect statement as it deliberately omits actual information that we could EASILY find.  Are you THAT desperate to make me look wrong?

Let me explain:  By ONLY using the release date it implies that 4e magically dropped with 0 announcements.  No one ever knew it was coming until 2008 when it popped onto store shelves, before then not a SINGLE person knew.  That Paizo losing the Dungeon and Dragon magazine contract in 2007 happened with no reason given.  But that's incorrect, distributor's knew, Paizo DID know, the information was out there, hell WoTC released a preview book that very few actually bought stating the intention, but had no examples, EVERYONE AT GENCON 2007 KNEW!

PEOPLE KNEW OF 4e SINCE 2007 ONE YEAR BEFORE IT CAME OUT.  Also, Pathfinder had been out in 'beta' since 2008, the OFFICIAL release was 2009.

So please stop trying to obfuscate the facts.  It makes you look foolish, and we all know you're not.  My statement stands, as I WAS THERE in the thick of it.  Gamers were losing their minds at the idea that 4e MIGHT be different and a good chunk of them claimed that Pathfinder was going to be to the 'second coming' of D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081103What does what to do with anything?  This is a major logical fallacy to prop up an incorrect statement as it deliberately omits actual information that we could EASILY find.  Are you THAT desperate to make me look wrong?

Let me explain:  By ONLY using the release date it implies that 4e magically dropped with 0 announcements.  No one ever knew it was coming until 2008 when it popped onto store shelves, before then not a SINGLE person knew.  That Paizo losing the Dungeon and Dragon magazine contract in 2007 happened with no reason given.  But that's incorrect, distributor's knew, Paizo DID know, the information was out there, hell WoTC released a preview book that very few actually bought stating the intention, but had no examples, EVERYONE AT GENCON 2007 KNEW!

PEOPLE KNEW OF 4e SINCE 2007 ONE YEAR BEFORE IT CAME OUT.  Also, Pathfinder had been out in 'beta' since 2008, the OFFICIAL release was 2009.

So please stop trying to obfuscate the facts.  It makes you look foolish, and we all know you're not.  My statement stands, as I WAS THERE in the thick of it.  Gamers were losing their minds at the idea that 4e MIGHT be different and a good chunk of them claimed that Pathfinder was going to be to the 'second coming' of D&D.

How stupid are you? You said people bought into Pathfinder when they didn't even know what 4e was like. 4e was out a year before Pathfinder. Literally no one could buy into Pathfinder before 4e for one whole year.

The only ones who didn't know exactly what 4e was like before buying Pathfinder were those who never bothered to check the existing 4e product or reviews before buying PF.

Quote from: kythri;1081077...
One can't help but think that this may have affected a lot of folks' decision to migrate to 4E.  Quite frankly, had WotC kept the OGL for 4E, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that Paizo wouldn't have developed their RPG, and instead, published dual-stat material for 3.5 and 4E.

Buried in the thread, is a link to Pazio's blog where they admit they absolutely would not have done a pathfinder RPG, had WOTC just been a little more on the ball with rolling out the GSL.

When you look at the series of missteps WOTC made that led to PF success, is really is quite impressive how they could do so many own goals in a row like that.

Is there any data, anything at all, which might tend to indicate Pathfinder 2e is not being well received by Pathfinder fans? Or that their sales are down? Or presales are down? Or Layoffs are happening at Paizo?

Quote from: Jaeger;1081125When you look at the series of missteps WOTC made that led to PF success, is really is quite impressive how they could do so many own goals in a row like that.

Even bigger and more profitable companies can make mistakes. Look at Apple and their insistence on closed source vs pc open source. In the end Microsoft had to bail them out. Palladium Books was in the top ten of rpg companies at one time and is now begging for cash to publish a book. To the point they are willing to offer the consumer a chance to pay to publish a deceased family members name in their upcoming Insider product.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be annoyed if "edition" means "a new game built from the ground up that happens to have the same name as the old game you liked." For most RPGs an edition change keeps the core of that game, just because WotC has rewritten D&D in ways that make it a new game each time three separate times doesn't make that less annoying for a lot of people.

As far as 4ed goes getting sold a whole new game when most people wanted a 3.5ed fix rather than a rewrite that has a lot of issues and is introduced by a horrible grindy adventure path that highlists all of the worst aspects of 4ed and a lot of business end murder/suicide (literally!) you'd get plenty of backlash even without PF.

Quote from: Mistwell;1081146Is there any data, anything at all, which might tend to indicate Pathfinder 2e is not being well received by Pathfinder fans? Or that their sales are down? Or presales are down? Or Layoffs are happening at Paizo?

If Pathfinder 2e does flop, it will take 2-3 years after release to see any fallout visible to us.

It should have at least decent sales on release, just by being the new hotness. How fast that hot mess gets pushed into the old and busted pile - no one can give hard numbers for that.

Quote from: sureshot;1081147Even bigger and more profitable companies can make mistakes. Look at Apple and their insistence on closed source vs pc open source. In the end Microsoft had to bail them out. Palladium Books was in the top ten of rpg companies at one time and is now begging for cash to publish a book. To the point they are willing to offer the consumer a chance to pay to publish a deceased family members name in their upcoming Insider product.

Truth. Own goals are done by businesses of all sizes all the time!

D&D as a brand has really benefited in that it never really had a true "competitor" rpg out there. (PF was a fluke of WOTC's own creation.)

And in spite of the IP/business mishandling someone was always able to $$$ bail D&D out. Ironically it was WOTC both times. Once from TSR misrule, and a second time from itself!

Games that rarely change from edition tend to be small one or two man shows. Or properties that change hands from small publisher to small publisher.

For a company the size of Paizo, the status quo is slow death. All RPGs relentlessly shed players, and Pathfinder isn't replacing those players at a rate to keep up. I'm guessing all their book lines are selling less than they were two years ago, which was less than they were two years before that. They had to make a move unless they want to shrink into a tiny outfit like Chaosium.

Grognards can still play the old game. Or they can make the switch to the new. But expecting the game to remain essentially unchanged, while Paizo continues to release a dozen APs chapters and a half dozen support books a year, is naive delusion.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081117How stupid are you? You said people bought into Pathfinder when they didn't even know what 4e was like.

Yes, they BOUGHT INTO PFRPG because they KNEW It was going to try and continue 3.5, maybe make it 3.75.  The amount of vitriol that 4e got was both incredible and unreasonable, because no one got the full picture, and no wanted it.  They wanted more of the same, because it was a known quantity, and Pathfinder OFFERED it, their entire marketing, from the paid 'Beta' (which was more of a demo, as it didn't really change much on release) from letting their forums evangelize for them, Pathfinder was a stroke of genius.

I have no idea what you're trying to do by trying to obscure the facts.  Pathfinder lost the Dungeon and Dragon Magazine's license in 2007, as WoTC said that their direction for the next version of D&D was going to be more 'in-house'.  Fans began to hate WoTC more than usual (You shoulda seen the vitriol from 3e to 3.5) and began accusing the next edition as a 'home wrecker', immediately hating on it.  Paizo shortly after that started making noise about how their main market had been their adventure books, and claimed that they were going to see about continuing 3.x in some fashion, as they changed the Dungeons and Dragons magazines under the name PATHFINDER IN 2007, one YEAR before 4e came out.

Their fans began asking for some changes and then the term 'Second Coming of D&D' was bandied about.  The 'Open Playtest' for Pathfinder came out in March of 2008, FOUR MONTHS before 4e's core books came out in June.

So players had their hands on a mostly complete version of Pathfinder for at least one quarter of a year BEFORE 4e ever came out.

I'm honestly confused here.  These are the facts.  This is THE timeline as to what happened.