Quote from: flyerfan1991;644227I don't think Paizo is having enough issues with cash flow to consider doing a 2.0 to boost their bottom line.  Paizo seems to be comfortable enough using their subscriber base to keep themselves going without rocking the boat too much.  They've got a good thing going; the last thing they'd need is to pull a 4e on their current formula.

Generally speaking, you only need (or only SHOULD need) a core book for a game once every five years at MOST.  That means the short term profits are in the "splat" stuff.  And by developing the subscription-for-modules model, Paizo has given modules new life.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;644319Generally speaking, you only need (or only SHOULD need) a core book for a game once every five years at MOST.  That means the short term profits are in the "splat" stuff.  And by developing the subscription-for-modules model, Paizo has given modules new life.

JG

From what Erik Mona has said in interviews, I've gathered that Paizo makes a profit from the subs alone.  That means it gives Paizo the freedom to work on items that are important to them without harming the bottom line, such as the Bestiary Box and the minis (with WizKids).

Quote from: James Gillen;643103Assuming that that audience really, really wants a new edition to begin with.

JG

I know a few players that definately do not want a new version of pathfinder.
They would have been happy to stay with 3.5 but Pathfinder is newer and perhaps a bit of an improvement.

That being said, I wish to hell they would try something new.

I am so sick of 3X

There is certainly a split in the online fanbase between those wanting a new edition of Pathfinder and those who don't.

Quote from: Bill;644351They would have been happy to stay with 3.5 but Pathfinder is newer and perhaps a bit of an improvement.

These are probably an  interesting audience block to study from our point of view, people who did not really want to change but did anyway because Pathfinder is "newer".

Quote from: jadrax;644374There is certainly a split in the online fanbase between those wanting a new edition of Pathfinder and those who don't.



These are probably an  interesting audience block to study from our point of view, people who did not really want to change but did anyway because Pathfinder is "newer".

Personally I consider 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder to be essentially the same game system. But there are definately fans of each.

Quote from: Bill;644382Personally I consider 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder to be essentially the same game system. But there are definately fans of each.

In terms of mechanics I would agree. But this is all about actual product rather than system.

I.e. who bought the Pathfinder core books and why. Which is probably going to break down into 4 or 5 major categories.

I suspect what you may get in the long run isn't so much different editions as different presentations of Pathfinder. The beginner's box was a good example of providing a subset of the Pathfinder core and seems to have succeeded to a certain extent in not being crippleware. I can see scope for, say, cheap and cheerful pocket editions of the major Pathfinder rulebooks, for example.

I suspect if they do make a new edition it'll be a matter of juggling about the material in the expansion rulebooks - the Advanced Player's Guide, Bestiaries, various Ultimates and so on. It'll be sold as shifting the absolute cream of the supplemental material into the core so that the core rulebook can consist of the most tried-and-tested, solid and enjoyable features of the game line. Then they come out with new versions of the expansion rulebooks comprising of stuff which didn't make it into the core book, perhaps trimming away less inspired ideas to make room for new material. Rinse and repeat every few years, and perhaps issue cheap and cheerful "update patches" for those who don't want to buy a new core book, and that might work. I think it's correct to say that between the subscription model and a fanbase who'll be naturally suspicious of new editions that PF will wait longer than average before bringing out a new edition, and I think when they do it it'll be presented as an updated revision rather than as a bold departure. ("PF1 was 3.75E, PF2 is 3.80E!")

Certainly, I think the wise thing for Paizo would be to stay put for however long they are making a steady and prosperous profit.  But this really depends on not caring if you're number 1 or number 2 (or number 5) as long as you're still doing well; and I could see how it might be very tempting to get into an arms race with WoTC once 5e comes out, to try to stop them from taking away the (ultimately not that important) title of "first place".

RPGPundit

Quote from: Warthur;644394I suspect what you may get in the long run isn't so much different editions as different presentations of Pathfinder. The beginner's box was a good example of providing a subset of the Pathfinder core and seems to have succeeded to a certain extent in not being crippleware. I can see scope for, say, cheap and cheerful pocket editions of the major Pathfinder rulebooks, for example.

I suspect if they do make a new edition it'll be a matter of juggling about the material in the expansion rulebooks - the Advanced Player's Guide, Bestiaries, various Ultimates and so on. It'll be sold as shifting the absolute cream of the supplemental material into the core so that the core rulebook can consist of the most tried-and-tested, solid and enjoyable features of the game line. Then they come out with new versions of the expansion rulebooks comprising of stuff which didn't make it into the core book, perhaps trimming away less inspired ideas to make room for new material. Rinse and repeat every few years, and perhaps issue cheap and cheerful "update patches" for those who don't want to buy a new core book, and that might work. I think it's correct to say that between the subscription model and a fanbase who'll be naturally suspicious of new editions that PF will wait longer than average before bringing out a new edition, and I think when they do it it'll be presented as an updated revision rather than as a bold departure. ("PF1 was 3.75E, PF2 is 3.80E!")

I totally agree.

Quote from: RPGPundit;644801Certainly, I think the wise thing for Paizo would be to stay put for however long they are making a steady and prosperous profit.  But this really depends on not caring if you're number 1 or number 2 (or number 5) as long as you're still doing well; and I could see how it might be very tempting to get into an arms race with WoTC once 5e comes out, to try to stop them from taking away the (ultimately not that important) title of "first place".

RPGPundit

At this point "first place" is a rather vain standard when the real measure of success is mere survival.

JG

Quote from: Warthur;644394I suspect what you may get in the long run isn't so much different editions as different presentations of Pathfinder. The beginner's box was a good example of providing a subset of the Pathfinder core and seems to have succeeded to a certain extent in not being crippleware.

The rules in the Pathfinder Beginner's Box are amazing, and I hope some day we'll have a 3PP releasing an "expert" set.

Quote from: Frey;644898The rules in the Pathfinder Beginner's Box are amazing, and I hope some day we'll have a 3PP releasing an "expert" set.

What would be in an expert set?  (ie. Besides higher levels).

Quote from: ggroy;644904What would be in an expert set?  (ie. Besides higher levels).

One of the things that the Beginner Box did really well was to take the textbook style of Paizo's regular offerings and convert it into a graphical, easy to follow format.  I know that my kids' eyes will occasionally glaze over while reading the Core Rules, but the Beginner Box never had that issue.

If Paizo ever came out with an "Expert" version of the Beginner Box that added more of the Core rules/classes in a similar fashion, they'd have another hit on their hands.

Quote from: RPGPundit;644801Certainly, I think the wise thing for Paizo would be to stay put for however long they are making a steady and prosperous profit.  But this really depends on not caring if you're number 1 or number 2 (or number 5) as long as you're still doing well; and I could see how it might be very tempting to get into an arms race with WoTC once 5e comes out, to try to stop them from taking away the (ultimately not that important) title of "first place".

Oh, certainly there's scope for the egos involved to sway things one way or another.

If I were responsible for Pathfinder I'd be thrilled at the game taking first place but I'd also be realistic about it: such things are temporary (even for D&D these days, it seems) and I'd be very aware that a large part of that success really belongs to the previous generation at Wizards, who made a game so robust that it becomes the number one RPG even if it's published by a different company under a different title. And if D&D Next recaptured a large part of the market by shifting back towards something resembling 3.X then I would consider the project to be decidedly exonerated (and consider dual-statting Pathfinder adventures so that they can be used with Next).

At the very least, I hope that Paizo do retain sight of the fact that they've got where they are by providing the most widely-loved and embraced retro-clone of 3.X, and understand that they'd be destroying their own place in the market ecosystem if they moved away from that.

Quote from: James Gillen;644882At this point "first place" is a rather vain standard when the real measure of success is mere survival.

Absolutely. Fighting over who is top dog is a achievement when you're competing in a thriving industry.There comes a point at which a rival failing jeopardizes the survival of the whole hobby as a commercial endeavor. It seems to me that tabletop RPGs have reached that point.