Quote from: Seanchai(Seanchai contemptuously and snarkily faps away at his keyboard in frothing geek rage :haw: )

Seanchai

Need a hug, sugar plum?
 
The third-party-support for 4e will be less numerous and inspiring than it ever was for 3e, and will be shorter-lived by far. I understand the reality of this is difficult for you to accept, doubting Thomas that you are, but the climate for the rpg industry has changed.

Oh, and if Paizo doesn't sell at least 10,000 copies of Pathfinder, I'd be amazed. They'll likely sell more than double that. :cool: They'll eventually produce some 4e material, but Paizo's clever enough to realize that while the market for 4e is strong, it is also very temporary, with a most unforgiving license for third-party publishers. They won't put all their eggs in one basket. They can acquire more long-term revenue from Pathfinder, and fiddle with 4e for the short period of time it's in print.

The 4e core rules will surely sell much more than Pathfinder, but it's mostly irrelevant, as 4e will only be in print a short while, say...five or six years or so. And you're right, there's a good possibility of another edition for Pathfinder. If there is, it means there's a strong demand for their product, a product released under the OGL that 3.x was released under, which only proves my point even further.

It's important to realize that 4e is an experiment. Hasbro is attempting to switch D&D over almost entirely to a subscription-based service. They're not yet able to do that, so 4e is the compromise for where they really want to go.

Also keep in mind that Hasbro is trying to promote the GSL, which is the license for 4e, but most publishers are rejecting it. However, a clever publisher could, for example, use the OGL to create a mostly-compatible 4e game, with Vancian magic, and a more traditional tone and setting, though Hasbro is hoping few publishers realize that. That, right there, is an example of an OGL-variant game. If even one publisher succeeded at doing that, other publishers would follow suit. There'd be more OGL-variant games, more 3.x-derived games, and more 4.x-derived games. Ironically, the OGL could actually help promote 4e, though Hasbro is too short-sighted to realize it....

I haven't played D&D since the heyday of Ad&D 1e.  I have played a couple of D20 variants, and I've read, but never played 3e. All that said, I think senchai is 100% right, and mildly entertaining to boot. I might even check out 4e, myself, it sounds kind of neat. Whatever, I'll almost certainly give it a read.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that it would be absurd to suggest that 4e will be a "flop" in the sense of not turning a profit for WoTC.  But that's usually not the standard in most businesses (especially at WoTC's scale) for judging "success".  

Success in business usually consists in not just making a profit, but making MORE profit than you used to.  And that's going to be the real question: whether 4e actually manages to be MORE successful than 3e was.

...for Hasbro.

Pre-Hasbro-WotC reaped the initial profits of 3e while Hasbro-WotC had to make do with the long tail of 3.0 and the spike of 3.5.

So yes, 4e can very well be a success in every sense for Hasbro.


No one argues that 3e was a huge success for WotC despite the fact that they didn't manage to get D&D back to the level of success it has had during TSR's best days.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambYou're correct, of course. 4e will do well.....initially. But the thing to keep in mind is that there's no real future in 4e for third-party publishers since Hasbro has made it pretty clear that they now reject the OGL and everything it stands for.

(...)

As a result of all this, we're going to see some pretty major fragmentation of the rpg industry. Pathfinder is the first symptom of this fragmentation.

(...)

We're going to see more OGL products. We'll also see more third-party game companies marketing their own systems.

Maybe I am missing your point but how is that any different from the time before d20/OGL?

Game companies and designers came up with their own systems all the time. Sometimes they were innovative and original (Ghostbusters, Amber), sometimes they were clones (Palladium, Arduin), and sometimes they were in between.

Also: Why do you think that WotC's weal and woe will rely on the success and/or abundance of third-party publishers? Didn't TSR, White Wolf, Games Workshop, Steve Jackson, etc, up to WotC itself arrive at their spots all by themselves?

I predict that I will be mildly interested but won't end up buying or playing it.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeNo one argues that 3e was a huge success for WotC despite the fact that they didn't manage to get D&D back to the level of success it has had during TSR's best days.

Heck, nothing short of the uninvention of MMORPGs could get D&D back to the level fo success it had during TSR's best days. The gaming market has changed; even though CRPGs, MMORPGs, and other computer games don't scratch the same itch as tabletops, their very existence means that there's another big player in the hobby games market looking for players, and the pie's got to be shared with it.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeMaybe I am missing your point but how is that any different from the time before d20/OGL?

Game companies and designers came up with their own systems all the time. Sometimes they were innovative and original (Ghostbusters, Amber), sometimes they were clones (Palladium, Arduin), and sometimes they were in between.

Also: Why do you think that WotC's weal and woe will rely on the success and/or abundance of third-party publishers? Didn't TSR, White Wolf, Games Workshop, Steve Jackson, etc, up to WotC itself arrive at their spots all by themselves?

These are all fair questions. The arrival of 3e and the OGL completely transformed the mental climate of the rpg industry into something new. Back in the "old days" when game companies were creating their own systems, there really weren't as many people publishing stuff. But when d20 and the OGL came out, people suddenly realized, "holy crap, we can be publishers too!" That realization encouraged people to embrace 3.x and the OGL, and helped to solidify D&D as a brand.

Don't get me wrong...3.x would have been successful anyway, but it was even more so because of d20 and the OGL.

Quote from: WarthurHeck, nothing short of the uninvention of MMORPGs could get D&D back to the level fo success it had during TSR's best days. The gaming market has changed; even though CRPGs, MMORPGs, and other computer games don't scratch the same itch as tabletops, their very existence means that there's another big player in the hobby games market looking for players, and the pie's got to be shared with it.

This statement bears notice. Hasbro wants the MMORPG market. There's money to be made there, and if they manage for D&D to become mostly an online subscription-based service, they'll do so. They can't do it yet, because they aren't ready and the fan base isn't ready for it, but they're eyeing the MMO market hungrily, and you can bet there's a high probability that's where the D&D brand will be focused within another decade. The Digital Initiative is the first evidence of that.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe third-party-support for 4e will be less numerous and inspiring than it ever was for 3e, and will be shorter-lived by far.

So how many times have you won the lottery now? Oh, that's right - none. Your amazing powers of prediction must just be limited to just 4e...

I know you've got your hate on, then a pair of blinders, then some ear plugs, but seriously, dude, take a look around. How many publishers stuck with 3e after 3.5 was released? Is there really a line at the door of the folks who are doing OSRIC?

I know you don't grok such things as math or understand ratios, hence the claims about the size of your winky, but let's try some anyway.

Let's say that 50,000 people stick with 3.5 and that the rest (4,450,000) move on to 4e. Let's also say that if Paizo sticks with 3.5, they can capture 75% of that market, but if they move to 4e, they'll only get 5%.

That would mean that they'd have 37,500 3.5 customers. Sounds good, right? Now let's see how many 4e customers they'd have. Why, it's 222,500. Hmmmn...222,500 versus 37,500 customers.

I wonder which would bring in more money. Let's ask the puppets on Sesame Street, as you surely don't know...("Ve have more customers vith 4e blah blah blah").

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI understand the reality of this is difficult for you to accept, doubting Thomas that you are, but the climate for the rpg industry has changed.

Some aspects have. Others have not.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambOh, and if Paizo doesn't sell at least 10,000 copies of Pathfinder, I'd be amazed.

Prepare to be amazed.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThey'll eventually produce some 4e material, but Paizo's clever enough to realize that while the market for 4e is strong, it is also very temporary, with a most unforgiving license for third-party publishers. They won't put all their eggs in one basket.

Yeah. 'Cause the 3e and 3.5 markets were long term. And, clearly, publishers were hesitant to climb aboard the 3e and 3.5 bandwagon...

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe 4e core rules will surely sell much more than Pathfinder, but it's mostly irrelevant, as 4e will only be in print a short while, say...five or six years or so.

Well, so will the Pathfinder rules. You don't seriously think Paizo's going to go longer than that without updating the core rules, do you?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambAnd you're right, there's a good possibility of another edition for Pathfinder. If there is, it means there's a strong demand for their product, a product released under the OGL that 3.x was released under, which only proves my point even further.

It would prove your point if demand for the product was the reason for the new edition. However, that's likely not to be it.

Consider that most folks who will be playing Pathfinder will get the core rulebook. It's designed to be useful for players and GMs. That set - players and GMs - will also get the little $2 setting book for players. However, when it comes to the actual Pathfinder adventures, well, only the GMs will be getting those.

That means the most successful model will be based around selling core books and supplements. Eventually, Paizo will hit the same wall WotC has: there's nothing new left to publish books about. Also, Paizo can charge more for core books. So reboots are fiscially attractive even if actual demand is low.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambAlso keep in mind that Hasbro is trying to promote the GSL, which is the license for 4e, but most publishers are rejecting it.

Why don't you give us a list of "most publishers" who are rejecting the GSL so we can contact you next year, show you the list again, and laugh, laugh, laugh while you turn red.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambHowever, a clever publisher could, for example, use the OGL to create a mostly-compatible 4e game, with Vancian magic, and a more traditional tone and setting, though Hasbro is hoping few publishers realize that.

They don't have to hope - doing so would require more man hours than simply using the GSL.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe arrival of 3e and the OGL completely transformed the mental climate of the rpg industry into something new. Back in the "old days" when game companies were creating their own systems, there really weren't as many people publishing stuff.

Big list o' RPGs Yeah, boy, it wasn't until the OGL that there were a lot of people publishing stuff.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBut when d20 and the OGL came out, people suddenly realized, "holy crap, we can be publishers too!" That realization encouraged people to embrace 3.x and the OGL, and helped to solidify D&D as a brand.

Not quite. People realized, "Holy crap, we can tap into the largest consumer base in the industry without of a lot of man hours wasted on writing, developing, and testing a system!"

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThis statement bears notice. Hasbro wants the MMORPG market. There's money to be made there, and if they manage for D&D to become mostly an online subscription-based service, they'll do so. They can't do it yet, because they aren't ready and the fan base isn't ready for it, but they're eyeing the MMO market hungrily, and you can bet there's a high probability that's where the D&D brand will be focused within another decade. The Digital Initiative is the first evidence of that.

More dumbness. Dude, there's already a D&D MMO. WotC and Hasbro don't need to wait for anything to try and enter the market - they're already there.

And they need to lure tabletop players over to the MMO "darkside"? Really? I mean, it's a numbers thing again and you and numbers, but...Do you realize how massively, massively current MMO players outnumber current tabletop D&D players? If every single D&D player world-wide became a D&D MMO player overnight, the D&D MMO would still be a blip on Blizzard's radar.

If WotC and Hasbro want to break into the MMO, they need to focus on stealing World of Warcraft players, not converting old tabletop fogies.

Seanchai

The Marvel Universe Diceless is an excellent example.

But, on the other hand, I don't think its an applicable one.  D&D, the brand name, is big in the RPG industry in a way Marvel isn't.  Because Marvel has a million fingers in a million pies.  There isn't ONE comic that defines Marvel and Marvels success.  Even big events like Civil War and the like - some tank (Atlantis Attacks) some are huge successes (Age of Apocalypse).  But the success of the Marvel Comics line doesn't hinge on that one series.  Spider clones didn't kill Marvel comics, and noone judges Marvel because an RPG failed.

D&D, on the other hand, as a commercial entity, hinges on the success of 4ed.  Yes, previous editions have and will continue to have life beyond their print runs, but the commercial enterprise of D&D is entirely focused on 4ed.  Theres nothing else to fall back on.  The MMO tanked, and the CCG attempt was fun but futile, and the movies sucked.  Its RPG or nuthin, though the MInis game is becoming equally as important financially as the RPG.

But, that being said, within the RPG industry, the D&D name is a virtual license to print money.  Unless they REALLY fuck up 4ed big time (and I see no signs that they have, anti-posters screeching hyperbole aside), they'll be profitable enough in all likelihood to keep the line afloat, at least for a while.

What could doom 4ed is if third-party 3.5 material starts to outsell 4ed books.

Quote from: SeanchaiMore dumbness. Dude, there's already a D&D MMO. WotC and Hasbro don't need to wait for anything to try and enter the market - they're already there.

Yeah, an MMO that has a miniscule player base, and a horrible reputation, and sucks ass.  They are there, but they need to salt the earth and start over from scratch.  D&DO has been an epic failure.

QuoteAnd they need to lure tabletop players over to the MMO "darkside"? Really? I mean, it's a numbers thing again and you and numbers, but...Do you realize how massively, massively current MMO players outnumber current tabletop D&D players? If every single D&D player world-wide became a D&D MMO player overnight, the D&D MMO would still be a blip on Blizzard's radar.

This is true, and people need to realize this.  The 4ed goal isn't to bring D&D players to MMOs, its to bring MMO players to D&D.

As far as hobbies go, role playing games are about as niche as you can get.  Its a tiny base, with a fractured and splintered fanbase.  Many D&D players don't play anything else.  Players of many other games won't play D&D.    And while the fanbase of every other game combined likely doesn't add up to D&D, even factoring into it that a large number DO cross over many games, D&Ds total fanbase likely doesn't equal the number of people who actively play, say, Scrabble, around the world.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralD&Ds total fanbase likely doesn't equal the number of people who actively play, say, Scrabble, around the world.

I'm quite sure that this is true.

Holy shit....this subject really is a sore spot with you, isn't it? Look, if you're gonna keep up with this passive-aggressive shit, then maybe you'd feel more comfortable at RPGnet. You'd blend right in there.

Quote from: SeanchaiSo how many times have you won the lottery now? Oh, that's right - none. Your amazing powers of prediction must just be limited to just 4e...

I don't play the lottery. Next?

Quote from: SeanchaiI know you've got your hate on, then a pair of blinders, then some ear plugs, but seriously, dude, take a look around. How many publishers stuck with 3e after 3.5 was released? Is there really a line at the door of the folks who are doing OSRIC?

Actually, Seanchai...your posts have been some of the most hateful posts on the site for a long while now, and for the life of me, I don't know why. I'm certainly not the only target of your bile, and you obviously have an axe to grind. Maybe you just need to take a break from the Internet..? Because, honestly, these snarky little dick-waving contests you like to engage in are gettin' a little old and tired.

As far as publishers' rejection of 3e.....any idiot could have foreseen that publishers would embrace 3.5 instead. 3.5 is newer, has an OGL, and the game systems for both are almost identical. Going with 3.5 was a no-brainer. 3e and 3.5 are so much alike that leaving one for the other is irrelevant. On the other hand, 4e is an entirely different animal. That's why people are making a big deal about Pathfinder. If Pathfinder does what it should, then both the 3e and 3.5 players can get their game on with it.

And as for OSRIC...? It's gonna sound arrogant to say this, but what the fuck. I always knew OSRIC would never succeed big-time in the market. I totally dig AD&D, and absolutely respect what the OSRIC guys are doing, but it's best not to delve into that issue here, because it'd be a looong discussion. It might be worth a thread of its own though. Another time.

Quote from: SeanchaiI know you don't grok such things as math or understand ratios, hence the claims about the size of your winky, but let's try some anyway.

Seanchai, dear boy...this is the second time you've brought up the subject of my precious cock....without provocation, I might add. You seem rather fascinated with it. Is there something important you'd like to share with the rest of the class..?

Quote from: SeanchaiLet's say that 50,000 people stick with 3.5 and that the rest (4,450,000) move on to 4e. Let's also say that if Paizo sticks with 3.5, they can capture 75% of that market, but if they move to 4e, they'll only get 5%.

That would mean that they'd have 37,500 3.5 customers. Sounds good, right? Now let's see how many 4e customers they'd have. Why, it's 222,500. Hmmmn...222,500 versus 37,500 customers.

I wonder which would bring in more money. Let's ask the puppets on Sesame Street, as you surely don't know...("Ve have more customers vith 4e blah blah blah").

You know what your problem is? You don't listen. Never did I say that Paizo would never publish 4e material. I said there's no future there. The 4e market is temporary. Paizo specifically said they're not creating a 4e version of Pathfinder. Doing so would defeat the entire purpose of creating the game. They might create a Pathfinder 2.0, but I guarantee you it won't be drastically different from Pathfinder 1.0.

On the subject of 4e, Paizo will probably publish some 4e-compatible material....eventually. But any 4e stuff Paizo creates won't outsell their 3.x material. You know why? Three reasons:

(1.) Pathfinder is meant to be mostly 3.x-compliant, and yet there's already a huge buzz about it.

(2.) 4e will be in print for only a handful of years, and because of Hasbro's crappy, restrictive license for 4e, Paizo won't be fiddle-fucking with 4e for very long anyway.

(3.) The 4e GSL is too restrictive and incomplete as well, as WoTC/Hasbro legal hasn't seen fit to fully release it, thus Paizo won't be getting any 4e market for a couple years. While the GSL is in Limbo, Paizo has to release something. They can't put their entire business on hold while Hasbro is fucking around, so they created a 3.x-compliant game. Their 3.x material sells as great as ever, and they've sensed a market for 3.x material, hence we have Pathfinder. This situation is not Paizo's fault. Blame Hasbro for that asshattery. Paizo's just following the only market they can. Asking them to create a proper 4e product by this summer with no time to prepare is lunacy anyway.

Pathfinder is now Paizo's main project, and the final version of it is due out in 2009. Therefore, they probably won't have any major 4e material out before 2010.

So...since Paizo is forced to release something and not let their entire fucking business be kept on hold at the whims of Hasbro, they can't release 4e stuff until years later. That would be partway through Hasbro's publishing cycle.

Shortly after Pathfinder 2.0 comes out (which will be 90% the same as Pathfinder 1.0), 4e will be going out of print. I explained this to you before. Paizo won't put all their eggs in one basket. Staying only with 3.x or only with 4e is stupid.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI understand the reality of this is difficult for you to accept, doubting Thomas that you are, but the climate for the rpg industry has changed.

Quote from: SeanchaiSome aspects have. Others have not.

Yes.

Quote from: SeanchaiPrepare to be amazed.

I wouldn't count on my amazement if I were you.

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah. 'Cause the 3e and 3.5 markets were long term. And, clearly, publishers were hesitant to climb aboard the 3e and 3.5 bandwagon...

Were..? Are. They still exist. That market will not magically disappear overnight. The existence of the OGL has seen to that. And Pathfinder is evidence of it.

Quote from: SeanchaiWell, so will the Pathfinder rules. You don't seriously think Paizo's going to go longer than that without updating the core rules, do you?

They'll likely update them, but Pathfinder 2.0 won't be a drastic change, and will probably be just as 3.x-compatible as Pathfinder 1.0 will be.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt would prove your point if demand for the product was the reason for the new edition. However, that's likely not to be it.

Consider that most folks who will be playing Pathfinder will get the core rulebook. It's designed to be useful for players and GMs. That set - players and GMs - will also get the little $2 setting book for players. However, when it comes to the actual Pathfinder adventures, well, only the GMs will be getting those.

That means the most successful model will be based around selling core books and supplements. Eventually, Paizo will hit the same wall WotC has: there's nothing new left to publish books about. Also, Paizo can charge more for core books. So reboots are fiscially attractive even if actual demand is low.

They'll likely publish more than just adventure modules, and if they publish Pathfinder 2.0, then so be it. It won't be dramatically different from Pathfinder 1.0, and it won't be compatible with 4e.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhy don't you give us a list of "most publishers" who are rejecting the GSL so we can contact you next year, show you the list again, and laugh, laugh, laugh while you turn red.

The fucked-up thing is that you'd actually derive pleasure from something like that. I weep for you.

Quote from: SeanchaiThey don't have to hope - doing so would require more man hours than simply using the GSL.

Seanchai

You were more entertaining when you were fixating on my cock.

Oh, and if you're still confused about the effect of the OGL on the success of 3e, read what Ryan Dancey had to say...

http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4285&start=15

And here's the quote....

Quote from: Redhammer the OldDo you think the OGL actually helped sales?

Quote from: RSDanceyYes, I'm virtually certain that it did, but probably not the way you're thinking.

Having an "open" version of D&D around didn't move the sales needle very much. Our target demographic shows no qualms about buying into closed platform products (iPod, XBox, cell phones, etc.)

However, we knew that on release, D&D 3 had an uphill battle to fight for marketshare vs. AD&D1 and AD&D2, both of which had massive libraries of content, and huge numbers of players.

The OGL/D20 project allowed the amount of content available for D&D 3 to grow at a rate far faster than anything any one company could have hoped to produce, which gave us a tactical market advantage early on -- rather than making people wait months (or years) for content they might feel necessary before upgrading to D&D3, 3rd parties produced content that eased that transition early in the process. That contributed to a massive shift on the part of the player community out of AD&D1 and AD&D2 and into D&D3 very rapidly.

Ryan

That last quote, SL, is very interesting.  I'd never read/heard it before. What Dancey seems to be saying is that at the time WotC was worried about the previous editions (note the plural!) as a sort of competition. The open nature was supposed to counter the effect of people having libraries of stuff, even if the game was out of print, to use in avoidance of upgrading.

Only now, that license supports the possibility that the previous version (or a close facsimile thereof) can remain in print. Ironic.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralYeah, an MMO that has a miniscule player base, and a horrible reputation, and sucks ass.  They are there, but they need to salt the earth and start over from scratch.  D&DO has been an epic failure.

Indeed.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralThe 4ed goal isn't to bring D&D players to MMOs, its to bring MMO players to D&D.

And, as far as I'm concerned, it's doomed to failure.

Seanchai