Paizo's Starfinder.

[Full Bleed]

As some of you may know, Paizo is launching a new game next year: Starfinder

I know that Smiteworks does not have the licensing to produce official Pathfinder DLC, but I have to wonder if Paizo might be open to seeing Starfinder supported at its launch on a VTT platform like FG. And, who knows, that consideration might even open some other doors for official Paizo licensing.

With WotC licensing 5e to both FG and Roll20, it seems like Paizo might be at risk of missing the proverbial boat in the VTT space. For example, I'd wager that Pathfinder took a participation hit on FG after official 5e support was available. And given that the Sci-Fi RPG market is already an outlier compared to the dominate Fantasy properties, I suspect that getting deep market penetration for Starfinder at launch has to be high on their wish list.

I see opportunity on both sides of the fence.

[Trenloe]

I'd wager that Pathfinder took a participation hit on FG after official 5e support was available.

Not significantly: https://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...)#.V66yXI-cFaQ

But, yeah, getting official FG support for any Paizo product would be cool.

[Full Bleed]

Not significantly: https://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...)#.V66yXI-cFaQ

Not sure what that chart shows me. What's the year-over-year results look like? That chart shows all of 2015. Smiteworks didn't have the license until April 2015. And in order to compare anything we'd need to see 4/14-3/15 compared to 4/15-3/16. What did migration look like as more official 5e content became available on FG?

Further, how about transmission of 4e players to 5e after licensing? Again, I'd wager that in addition to a gradual trend of 4e migrations to 5e, official licensing could be attributed to an acceleration on this platform. The point being that it's not just about movement from Pathfinder to 5e, but from unlicensed games to licensed games.

I have to concede that given the success of 5e in general I'd be shocked if there wasn't a significant uptick completely unrelated to licensing. For example, on Amazon, there are no less than 8 products ahead of the best selling Pathfinder product: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-...nv_b_3_16215_1

And I know that the bulk of Paizo's sales are direct and via subscription, but you don't fall that far behind 5e on Amazon and not feel the pinch.

That said, the numbers Smiteworks needs to focus on is all comparative and trending analysis. That's what's going to interest and sway Paizo to change their position on licensing to VTTs. 1-2 years ago Paizo thought they were going to be moving into the digital space in a big way with their successfully kickstarted MMO. That initiative failed miserably leaving them with a void... all the while WotC was busy reversing *their* position and has now licensed to the top two commercial VTT's out there. If Paizo isn't rethinking their policy right now, they will be soon. And I happen to think that Starfinder is a property that would allow them the same sort of testing grounds 5e-on-FG provided WotC.

[Trenloe]

LOL! Remind me never to wager with you. "I'd wager that Pathfinder took a participation hit on FG after official 5e support was available." I think it's pretty clear that, month-on-month there wasn't much decline in Pathfinder games, despite the near 4-fold increase in 5E games once 5E has office support on FG. Personally, I think month-on-month is good enough to get an idea if people jumped ship from their games (whatever system) to 5E. Most games on FG won't last a year and some groups will change systems multiple times in a year, so looking at it year-on-year introduces other unknown factors in RPG trends, etc.. 5E official support occurred in April, there was a slight dip (-11%) in PF games being played in June, but July and April they were back up to their pre-5E support monthly level. Seem to suggest that that there was no significant participation hit and that 5E brought in (back?) new FG players, or existing players started playing 5E in addition to their current games.

[Talyn]

I can only hope they reconsider their stance about wanting their own Paizo-only VTT. That didn't work out so well for WotC and honestly, who wants a VTT that only plays one (two if we count Starfinder next year or whenever) game when everything else out there plays anything you can imagine.

[damned]

The commentary about Fantasy Grounds and 5e was largely about the massive jump in participation numbers for the hobby rather than a cannibalisation of the PF player base or numbers.
Sales of PF is another story and while related to participation wont always trend the same way. You dont keep rebuying rulebooks you already have and PF has been out for a long time now so most PF players already have their core rulebook purchases made.
5e will definitely have affected every other ruleset because it is the gorilla in the industry but it was fantastic to see that it grew the industry far more than cannibalised it.

[Full Bleed]

I think it's pretty clear that, month-on-month there wasn't much decline in Pathfinder games, despite the near 4-fold increase in 5E games once 5E has office support on FG. Personally, I think month-on-month is good enough to get an idea if people jumped ship from their games (whatever system) to 5E.

You think? You think people stop playing a system cold-turkey when they've been playing it for years? I'd argue just the opposite. That month-on-month isn't of much value. Dipping your toe into the 5e water is very different than abandoning a competing system. And there are too many monthly/seasonal/micro variables to quantify without a lot more information (i.e. everything is down in December. Darn you Santa!) Overall, I think most gaming migration/trends take time (especially in our age of "Adventure Paths"). The elasticity in gaming is probably of more value (which, btw, is what I'd be selling to Paizo if I was Smiteworks). And I see a notable (if questionable) degradation in Pathfinder's elasticity in that small sample size (see below).

Most games on FG won't last a year and some groups will change systems multiple times in a year, so looking at it year-on-year introduces other unknown factors in RPG trends, etc.. 5E official support occurred in April, there was a slight dip (-11%) in PF games being played in June, but July and April they were back up to their pre-5E support monthly level. Seem to suggest that that there was no significant participation hit and that 5E brought in (back?) new FG players, or existing players started playing 5E in addition to their current games.

But there are "new lows" in September, November, and December with (potentially) shorter "bounces" over the same period (July, Aug, Oct). As noted, I don't trust the analysis on such a small scale though... which is why I'd want to see year-over-year and hesitate to highlight it at all. But, in general, I could argue a downward trend. Is 3600 the new norm? What was their trajectory before disruption? At any rate, *any* downward trend is not what Paizo would want to see... even if it shows resiliency in the face of 5e's onslaught. Just leaning into the wind can't be how they want to actually oppose the hurricane.

In fact, Starfinder looks to be one way they want to oppose it.

And not letting WotC run away with the VTT market might be another.


So, in circling back to the "Starfinder as gateway to VTT licensing" theory... in looking at how WotC handled their 4e initiatives I see/saw Paizo making some of the same mistakes. And after seeing WotC capitulate and find some success in the VTT industry, I also see Paizo following suit. The question is how and when? 5e provided WotC an opportunity to alter course. What's going to drive Paizo? I can say one thing for certain... Telling them "5e's VTT licensing had no significant effect on them" isn't going to help.


PS: I'd love to see the internal conversation at Paizo about Starfinder's expectations. What does "success" look like?

PSS: What do you all think it will look like here? What's the over-under? How would "official" support affect it? Would the argument be stronger for simultaneous release or delayed release to highlight measurable changes in adoption?

[damned]

No one is arguing against having licensed Paizo products. Everyone wants more licensed products - especially of the #2 system.
Generally the Space systems dont garner nearly as much of a following as the fantasy systems - Star Wars being the only current top 10 Space Game.

[Talyn]

If I recall (and I probably don't ) one of Paizo's objections at the time (year or two ago?) was protecting their IP, same as WotC's issues. SmiteWorks solved that by very solidly encrypting 5E content. The same would be done for Paizo's stuff. Just look at all the PFS games where each GM had to convert a scenario on their own instead of one solidly-produced conversion being on the store. Plus, who knows, Paizo sells sourcebook PDFs at a lower price point than the books, maybe they'd price the VTT versions at that too instead of full hardback price like WotC is doing.

Anyway, this is all just wishful thinking right now. I have a feeling Paizo is going to be stubborn and fulfill their proprietary VTT and have it fail before they wise up.

[Full Bleed]

No one is arguing against having licensed Paizo products. Everyone wants more licensed products - especially of the #2 system.

Sure. This is a discussion about what analytics and property makes that happen. I'm just "pushing" for the fact that I believe that Starfinder could give both Smiteworks and Paizo an opportunity to "hit the reset button" on any previous negotiations that actually make that a possibility. And I was attempting to frame out some analytics that might be of actual use in getting them to the table.

Pathfinder is the #2 system now, but it took 5e to make that happen. They were #1 during 4e's term and probably watching (in dismay) as they continued to fall back during their last serious communications with Smiteworks (and The Orr Group). They had big plans for an MMO and other digital initiatives that have, since, not panned out. And, as such, the line in the sand they drew back then may be shifting. Especially because... as you note...

Generally the Space systems dont garner nearly as much of a following as the fantasy systems

And I totally agree.

Which is why I think it's a property they might be willing to open up. They may not be ready to with Pathfinder (not the least of which would be because they'd have to acknowledge some missteps that have allowed WotC to plant a deep flag in the VTT space in the first place)... but Starfinder? Internally they've got to be sweating its release. It's really more of a "Pathfinder Expansion"... a leverage play on an anemic SciFi RPG market (no doubt bolstered by the response they've gotten from their experiments with SciFi elements in some of their Adventure Paths).

And that's the basis of my PS about what their internal bar for success would be and how does that look on FG? If 3600 is the new norm for Pathfinder, what's unlicensed Starfinder look like? 400? 600? What's licensed Starfinder look like? Whatever the number, Smiteworks should be able to argue something along the lines of 2-3 times the unlicensed number based on 5e's jump alone. That's the sort of thing a "new" product looking for market penetration would want to see. I think they'd be jumping for joy if it could pull close or even with Star Wars on FG.