# Pathfinder Online Layoffs; Ryan Dancey Leaves Company



## Superchunk77

Hate to say it, but I called this from the very start of their kickstarter. Way too many red flags for a game of this magnitude.


----------



## Ravenheart87

Unexperienced team, small funds, full sandbox pvp, not listening to the fans, asking for subscription even in the alpha, using a unique system despite being called Pathfinder... This game was doomed from the beginning.


----------



## DLIMedia

Yeah, honestly, I can't imagine anyone being surprised at this. 

The demos I've seen haven't exactly blown anyone's socks off, either.


----------



## jimmifett

It sounded lame from the first kickstarter, like a watered down version of other mmos like DDO


----------



## Ravenheart87

DLIMedia said:


> The demos I've seen haven't exactly blown anyone's socks off, either.




Demos? There is a fifteen day trial. I thought I'll put my prejudice away and give it a chance. I'll copy-pasty my comment from MassivelyOP:

_Pathfinder Online is a new record holder for me with the shortest MMO session after I wanted to delete a game.

Character creation starts with selecting race and looks. There aren't too many options yet, which wouldn't be a problem in early access if there was at least a single human male face that doesn't look like a retard or a rapist. I didn't check other races, but I'm convinced that PFO might be the first game to do something against the "sexy elf chick" stereotype since Mialee from D&D3e Player's Handbook. Boy, that illustration still gives me a few weeks of erectile disfunction.

After selecting the least ugly face you arrive in an empty generic forest, and start reading boring texts, doing short kill quests, getting mauled by monsters, talking to bland NPCs, trying to wrap your head around the advancement system, etc... Oh yeah, there is pvp too, but for that you'd need to find other players which game seriously lacks.

One of my favorite parts of the game is combat, where animations, sounds, and the attacks' effects live their own little lifes totally independent from each other. Advancement is level- and class-less, you spend your XP to buy feats, which you can combine as you wish. That sounds good on paper, but... I usually say that I hate talent trees, but I'm not judging them any more because but this game has a feat jungle with no visual help to make it at least a bit transparent. So if they managed to capture something from pen and paper Pathfinder it's being bloated and hard to digest.

While PFO might have some other features other than being ridiculously boring and empty, the first hours weren't enough to convince me that I want to do anything else besides clicking on the red X on the upper right corner. I feel pity for those who were ripped off during the Kickstarter and I can't imagine if there's really someone out there paying subscription for this._


----------



## Waller

Ouch. Unlike others I am surprised.  I wasn't following it closely.  But I never expected Paizo of all people to be involved with an undelivered  Kickstarter.  I hope they manage to get the funding and pull it through, because you don't want a failed Kickstarter on your company's list of achievements.


----------



## billd91

Software R&D is always risky, that's why people should always consider investing in it very carefully. I dropped a little money on the kickstarter knowing there was a good chance I wouldn't see much from it just to see how well the project could do. I'm not really disappointed, but then I also kept my investment to no more than I was willing to lose.


----------



## Greybird

Absolutely not surprised.  They were entering into an oversaturated market with an outdated business model that nearly every other competitor has abandoned.  They were making a game that was 15 years out of date.  In the era of Ultima Online, this could have been popular, but today?  Few people were interested.  The fans of the license looked at their core design concept and pointed out the flaws, but they refused to listen (not only was it a bad design concept, but the concept didn't match the 'feel' of Pathfinder itself.)

This left them with an unmarketable product that would have to be redesigned from the ground up to be profitable, and now they're surprised that nobody wants to invest money into it.

The only sad thing, in my book, is the squandering of the license.  Paizo could have done great things with the Pathfinder license.  Give it to Harebrained Schemes.  Give it to Larian Studios.  Give it to Beamdog.  If you insist on an MMO, talk to Trion Worlds.  They'd probably all love to work with a well-documented setting like Pathfinder, and they have proven (in advance) that they can make great games that do justice to their licenses.


----------



## lyle.spade

I took part in the Kickstarter way back when because I was then a tabletop PF player, and while not a computer gamer was interested in seeing PF stories and setting 'ported online. I am happy with the paperkback Thornkeep book I received, and the other books and such, and suppose I'll use them at some point in the future. Over the long duration of this process I lost interest in PF and switched to 5e, and yet still held out hope for a decent computer game I could dabble with on my own.

When I was able to get access not too long ago I was really disappointed. The graphics were lame; movement was jerky; and gameplay was flat as a board. It reminded me of a lame(r) version of Star Wars Galaxies, about 7 years ago, when I got a trial membership for a week and was bored silly, stuck on that stupid station, after a few sessions.

I don't have a sense of schadenfreude over this, and I hope that people will not pile on and gleefully spout "I told you so" over what is a business failure that's led to people losing their jobs. That said, it's a crappy game, and deserves to be a failure as it stands now. Bummer.


----------



## Cristian Andreu

A sad thing. I participated in both Kickstarters with a pretty decent amount of money (also got a buddy in for the second), so I had a lot of hopes for this game. Though I was a bit underwhelmed when the first playable versions came out, I'm a very patient man and thought to check back in a couple of years. I do admit I felt some degree of unease at the pace and manner in which things were developing, but I wasn't quite expecting this to happen, to be honest.

At least I got a nice and fully autographed Thornkeep book out of it.

Best of lucks to Paizo and the Goblinworks staff. Even if it didn't work out, the attempt was inspiring.


----------



## BrockBallingdark

Like everyone else, not surprised whatsoever.  Also like lyle.spade's last post, I lost interest in PF and moved on to 5E.


----------



## Valador

Guess Paizo should stick to milking the work someone else created the foundation to...


----------



## JeffB

Wow.

I have not followed this at all but knew it was taking a long time, and periodically they were looking for more cash and whatnot.

What does this mean for people who supported the KS and other funding? SOL?

And man..Lisa gave a bit of a guilt trip to current "subscribers" about keeping those 3 people remaining there/employed....she's generally more professional than that.


----------



## billd91

JeffB said:


> Wow.
> 
> I have not followed this at all but knew it was taking a long time, and periodically they were looking for more cash and whatnot.
> 
> What does this mean for people who supported the KS and other funding? SOL?
> 
> And man..Lisa gave a bit of a guilt trip to current "subscribers" about keeping those 3 people remaining there/employed....she's generally more professional than that.




A lot of the benefits were for things like early enrollment and beta access to the game and I've been receiving messages about that right along. So I don't think I'd say anyone supporting the kickstarter are SOL based on what was offered.


----------



## Dog Moon

Greybird said:


> Give it to Harebrained Schemes.




I'm currently playing through Shadowrun Hong Kong and even though it wouldn't be the MMO Paizo was looking for, I know if they had Harebrained Schemes do a Pathfinder rpg computer game, it would be an awesome game.

I've had no real interest in the Pathfinder MMO, though I know when I put money in for the Kickstarter it was only for the Emerald Spire pdf.  I got the pdf and am fine with it.  Sucks though that a campaign that got over $1.3 million is still failing.  Sadly, they apparently need another 1-2 million.  Seems like something wasn't right from the beginning.  I suppose good luck to them to finding the money and good luck to everyone who put in money; let's hope it wasn't wasted.

*I'm not saying I told you so because I have never said anything positive or negative about the project other than I wasn't interested.*


----------



## TreChriron

My best wishes to everyone at Goblinworks who had to go seek out new opportunities. May you all land squarely on your feet and in good fortune.

My best wishes to Paizo to continue making products a GIANT bunch of people love. I think it was smart to make this a separate endeavor as software dev does pose risks that publishing does not come close to touching.

To all those snarky, horrible and mean commentators: Way to kick someone when they are down.

Has everyone forgot how amazing it was when Paizo took up the 3.x torch and revitalized a segment of our hobby that seemed like it was going to disappear? That these same people were the care-takers of Dragon and Dungeon magazines when WOTC might have dropped them? How this niche company with a passion for gorgeous and fun Adventure Paths grew into a JUGGERNAUT pumping out an incredible number of works based on what their fans wanted? Has there ever been a company this fan-focused?

Damn people. You just crapped all over not only one of the most significant groups of creators in our hobby, but one of the best champions of gaming fans that ever existed. If it isn't obvious I COMPLETELY disagree with you and am appalled at your meanness.


----------



## JohnnyZemo

I supported both Kickstarters, but never had an interest in playing the game. In the second Kickstarter I got a nice Emerald Spire Superdungeon hardcover book, some cool miniatures, a Pathfinder Tales paperback, and a bunch of Flip-Mats to go along with the Superdungeon. So, I am happy with what I got out of the Kickstarters.


----------



## Meliath1742

This goes to the top of Paizo as far as it being an ill conceived idea. A completely new game is risky even for giants like Sony. And as stated this is an extremely full market...MMO's are everywhere!


----------



## Benji

I've never bought Pathfinder Product, played Pathfinder or been part of the community: during the 'edition wars' I just ran Mutants & Masterminds or Old World Of Darkness and waited for 5th. But I've always wished Paizo good luck, because they made some damn good product during the 3rd era and seemed to always be trying new stuff. It's sad for them the MMO didn't work. I  have no idea why it didn't: I don't play any type non-tabletop games, it's a world I left a long time ago. Sorry to hear it though, hope it doesn't have a knock-on to their adventures/Product. I'd agree with Tre, let's not get to vicious and put the boot in to far unless Paizo staff at some point laughed at your pain.


----------



## lyle.spade

JohnnyZemo said:


> I supported both Kickstarters, but never had an interest in playing the game. In the second Kickstarter I got a nice Emerald Spire Superdungeon hardcover book, some cool miniatures, a Pathfinder Tales paperback, and a bunch of Flip-Mats to go along with the Superdungeon. So, I am happy with what I got out of the Kickstarters.




Ditto and ditto and yup. Perhaps that's a side note to this that's not getting any attention: the setting for the MMO is good. Thornkeep is interesting and could make for a solid homebase for a new campaign, or a good place to plug into an existing one. The levels beneath the town are worth exploring - and who doesn't like good, pre-fab dungeons for use when your creative juices are a little low? Same goes for the massive Emerald Spire dungeon.

Again, I don't play PF anymore - too crunchy, too many books to keep track of - but translating those locations and encounters into 5e, or another game, would be easy.

This is the positive on which I've (easily) settled as one of the KS backers. I'm happy with what I got, and glad that they developed interesting story fluff, regardless of the MMO's fate.


----------



## Umbran

Valador said:


> Guess Paizo should stick to milking the work someone else created the foundation to...





Folks,

Let us refrain from threadcrapping, please and thank you.


----------



## JohnnyZemo

lyle.spade said:


> Again, I don't play PF anymore - too crunchy, too many books to keep track of - but translating those locations and encounters into 5e, or another game, would be easy.
> 
> This is the positive on which I've (easily) settled as one of the KS backers. I'm happy with what I got, and glad that they developed interesting story fluff, regardless of the MMO's fate.




Sounds like we are in the same position.  I've played lots and lots of Pathfinder, but I am at a point now where I appreciate the relative simplicity of 5E or even Dungeon World.  I'm running some 13th Age and Dungeon Crawl Classics as well.


----------



## ZeshinX

An MMO was not a good choice for Pathfinder RPGs first foray into video games.  A stand-alone, offline adventure like a Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights or Skyrim would have been far more likely to actually reach fruition (still iffy, but more likely)....though if I recall there's some kind of licensing snag with OGL and video games (could be wrong).


----------



## Zil

JeffB said:


> Wow.
> 
> I have not followed this at all but knew it was taking a long time, and periodically they were looking for more cash and whatnot.
> 
> What does this mean for people who supported the KS and other funding? SOL?
> 
> And man..Lisa gave a bit of a guilt trip to current "subscribers" about keeping those 3 people remaining there/employed....she's generally more professional than that.




As JohnnyZemo and others have said, there were still lots of out of MMO goodies such as the Thornkeep and Emerald Spire adventures, miniatures, and various contributed bonus PDFs that went along with the Kickstarters.  I have no regrets at buying in to both Kickstarters.

I wonder if part of the problem is that for some folks, such as myself, Pathfinder is about adventures whereas Pathfinder MMO seems to focus more on building a player based crafting, settlement, conflict based economy.  There is no adventure in the traditional sense other than the conflict generated between players/settlements or dealing with monster escalations or monsters who happen to be guarding resources you want to collect.  I know they really didn't want to focus on traditional "theme park" MMO content generation, but there may be some things they could have done.  For instance, I wish the monster escalations were a bit more interesting in that they would eventually evolve into random lairs that were effectively dungeons/castles/cave-based lairs with bosses to make them a bit more interesting.  

Anyway, I still hope that Goblinworks manages to pull through and I wish them all the best.


----------



## Zil

ZeshinX said:


> An MMO was not a good choice for Pathfinder RPGs first foray into video games.  A stand-alone, offline adventure like a Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights or Skyrim would have been far more likely to actually reach fruition (still iffy, but more likely)....though if I recall there's some kind of licensing snag with OGL and video games (could be wrong).




Yes, I would buy into that: a story based game set  somewhere in Golarion like Riddleport or Absalom or the like.


----------



## Ravenheart87

ZeshinX said:


> An MMO was not a good choice for Pathfinder RPGs first foray into video games.




An MMO wouldn't have been a bad choice, if they make a PvE Pathfinder MMO which actually fits the tabletop game, ie. you are adventuring in groups and fighting monsters instead of each other. But no, they had to go with a PvP fantasy EVE clone.


----------



## vonschlick

I supported the second kickstarter at Guild level and started a settlement, but eventually sold off my settlement/characters. I am new to MMOs so I wasn't so disappointed at first, but as I tried other games and watched the direction PFO was going in, I felt more and more disappointed. We were a small settlement and were getting killed by pvp every time we left the settlement. Goblinworks was also making it next to impossible to get higher level equipment, upper level training, etc. because we were so small. It just wasn't going in the right direction so most of our settlement members gave up and sold our accounts over a one week period.

My two biggest complaints were that it wasn't Pathfinder at all and the art sucked. I think if it was closer to the Tabletop game and/or had kicka$$ art, I would have still been giving it a chance.

Do I feel ripped off? No, not at all. I got a bunch of tangible stuff from the kickstarter and I was able to sell my account for almost as much as I paid for it. I just feel bad that it was my first MMO and it just didn't work out.


----------



## Agamon

I feel bad for those affected by this, but honestly, I felt bad for everyone involved with the Kickstarter back when it first appeared.

Man, poor Dancey isn't exactly batting 1.000, is he?

d20 licence leads to d20 bust
D&D OGL leads to Paizo taking over market share
CCP's WoD MMO crashes and burns
now Pathfinder Online...

At least he helped fund L5R's start.  I forgive him the rest of that stuff, because 5 Rings is awesome.


----------



## EthanSental

Where are the usual people who seem to enjoy posting how D&D 5e is failing and WoTC is going  under when they lay off people?  Under their same stupid mindset and comments, Paizo is minutes away from going under.

I saw the twitch feeds and wasn't impressed and after seeing many players comments about the current state of the game, Im not surprised either at this development.  I would imagine it was a difficult decision, eating ones pride and having to lay people off in a small company like this.


----------



## Dannager

EthanSental said:


> Where are the usual people who seem to enjoy posting how D&D 5e is failing and WoTC is going  under when they lay off people?  Under their same stupid mindset and comments, Paizo is minutes away from going under.




To be fair, this isn't Paizo. This is GoblinWorks. My understanding is that they are entirely separate entities. There is obviously a lot of overlap between the two in terms of IP and creative input, but Paizo spun GoblinWorks off deliberately in order to minimize the impact on their core business should an outcome like this come to pass.

I certainly don't agree that WotC deciding to lay a couple people off is indicative of anything in terms of product success, but I also don't think this is an analogous situation. Imagine if Turbine laid off most of their staff. Who would take that as an indication that D&D as a product line is failing? Pretty much no one, because Turbine is responsible for Turbine's product.


----------



## EthanSental

I think that's my point in that people just  jump feet first and think the world is ending due to a layoff without much thought or care put into their posts.

I initially thought PF online would be a great system, sounded great and I was enjoying PF then as well.  I do think they overstepped their ability to deliver and know it about a year into it.


----------



## Feeroper

I really wanted to like this game. I backed both KS's and hoped that it could grow up from its proposed humble start. I'm sad to see it turned out this way and hope anyone affected by the layoff finds new work quick.

Having said that, I used up my early enrollment allotment from the KS, and I just could not get into it. I had hoped to see some significant improvements to jump back in, but it just seemed to stay the same. I think the reliance on subscriptions during the alpha/beta phases was a bad call. I understand that they needed the funding, but the expectations will be different from the customer now if they are paying month to month. The game was not much of a looker too. They had a booth at Gen Con next to the Paizo booth that was running this game, but it looked pretty rough still. 

Hope their luck changes.


----------



## Koloth

This illustrates why companies often create subsidiaries when doing new projects.  If the projects succeeds, the subsidiary gets absorbed back into the main company or sold off for a large profit.  If if fails like this, the damage is limited. 

I was a backer of the 2nd KS.  The other stuff included with the KS makes it hard to classify the KS as a bad loss.  IMO, the game graphics were right out of the mid 90s at best.  The game mechanics and training missions seemed rather clunky and crude.  It didn't help that during one of the training missions, the game ate the pack of 'special' stuff characters received near the start.  Lost interest soon after that.  Even after many years of playing, 10 year old Guild Wars 1 is still a better game with better graphics.

Hopefully, they can find a partner or buyer to complete the game to modern standards and then offer all current and past subscribers and KS backers some number of free trial months in the completed game.


----------



## TheSwartz

I might be the oddball. I don't like pathfinder at all, I actually backed the (second) KS cause I had hoped it'd live up to it's hype.

That being said, I'm not surprised at all that it failed. Within 20 seconds of playing the game after it finally came out was an enormous disappointment. In my opinion, they need to cut their losses and completely give up now. It's seriously the worst game I've played in over a decade.


----------



## chibi graz'zt

Pathfinder having layoffs?!?!? Hmmm....


----------



## MoonSong

Agamon said:


> I feel bad for those affected by this, but honestly, I felt bad for everyone involved with the Kickstarter back when it first appeared.
> 
> Man, poor Dancey isn't exactly batting 1.000, is he?
> 
> d20 licence leads to d20 bust
> D&D OGL leads to Paizo taking over market share
> CCP's WoD MMO crashes and burns
> now Pathfinder Online...
> 
> At least he helped fund L5R's start.  I forgive him the rest of that stuff, because 5 Rings is awesome.



You know, 1 & 2 kinda look like successes to me...


----------



## Dannager

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> You know, 1 & 2 kinda look like successes to me...




If unintended, adverse outcomes for your employer at the time can be considered "successes", sure.

So on that note, I mean, sure, it's possible that PFO's present turmoil will lead to a positive outcome for the wider RPG community down the road, but it's certainly not the outcome the stakeholders were hoping for.


----------



## rknop

Agamon said:


> d20 licence leads to d20 bust
> D&D OGL leads to Paizo taking over market share




You're wrong about these.

People seem to remember the glut of mediocre d20 products and the crash that followed.  But that's not all that happened.  There were some real gems in there, and an entire industry that wouldn't have existed without the whole OGL/d20 thing.  It's analogous to the dot-com bust of the late 1990s.  There was a LOT of crap produced (in both booms), and eventually it crashed because people realized it was crap and wasn't worth it.  But some things persisted.  Would you say that the entire public coming-out of the Internet, as represented by the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, was a bad thing?  Things like Google, Amazon.com, and the entire web ecosystem we have right now-- including ENWorld-- either where the gems that survived that crash, or things that came out of what the boom built.

And.  Paizo taking over the market share.  That was the OGL _functioning as intended_.  If you read what Dancy said about the OGL when it first came out, part of the purpose of it was so that one company couldn't kill the core roleplaying game by either going under, or by making bad decisions.  it almost happened with the TSR nightmare of late-2e era.  And, it _would_ have happened, with 4e.  Yeah, a lot of people liked 4e, but more people didn't, and Hasbro/WotC mishandled it pretty seriously.  Yet, D&D didn't die-- because the OGL _allowed it to continue_, in the form of Pathfinder (and some other 3e derivatives).  The purpose of the OGL was bigger than just a business push for WotC, it was for the health of gaming.  And it worked in spaces.  Yeah, PO has been pretty much a disaster that a lot of us saw coming for a long time.  But all of us owe Dancy a debt for having pushed the OGL through WotC back in the 3e days, because that was a huge boon and a huge gift to our entire hobby.


----------



## Zil

chibi graz'zt said:


> Pathfinder having layoffs?!?!? Hmmm....




The layoffs were at Goblinworks.  It's a different entity from Paizo, but Lisa Stevens is the CEO of both (she was appointed acting CEO of Goblinworks after the departure of Ryan Dancey).

From the FAQ section of the release today:

Q:  Is Paizo taking over running Goblinworks?
A:  No.  Goblinworks is a licensee of Paizo's. While Lisa Stevens is also the CEO at Paizo, Paizo is not "taking the reins" or increasing its involvement in Pathfinder Online in any way (they are busy enough as it is!). Goblinworks is currently seeking investors or an acquisition to move the game forward. Paizo itself is focused on their tabletop offerings.


----------



## Nylanfs

rknop said:


> You're wrong about these.
> 
> People seem to remember the glut of mediocre d20 products and the crash that followed.  But that's not all that happened.  There were some real *gems* in there, and an entire industry that wouldn't have existed without the whole OGL/d20 thing.




Oathbound


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Just a point of fact that while Paizo is connected here, they deliberately set up Goblinworks as the company to handle Pathfinder Online, most likely (I suspected) to isolate the costs and liabilities from Paizo proper....which was a good decision. So while this is clearly the death-spiral for Goblinworks, I think Paizo has made sure it doesn't get impacted.


----------



## Greybird

Ravenheart87 said:


> An MMO wouldn't have been a bad choice, if they make a PvE Pathfinder MMO which actually fits the tabletop game, ie. you are adventuring in groups and fighting monsters instead of each other. But no, they had to go with a PvP fantasy EVE clone.




It wouldn't have been a bad choice, but it wouldn't have been the best choice.  Pathfinder is a household name amongst pen-and-paper gamers, but it isn't amongst video gamers.  They needed to have a well-received game or two to get their brand name into the video gaming market before embarking on a project in an oversaturated portion of that market that would have required brand recognition to get a foothold.

As to the developers - I feel sorry for the staff.  I feel sorry for the coders, the artists, and the writers who suddenly find themselves out of a job.  I do not have much sympathy for the project leads or Paizo, though.  They made a series of terrible decisions, and were told - repeatedly, and from many sources - that they were making bad decisions and had little chance of success.  They ignored all of that and insisted that doing it anyway.  The knowingly took this route, wasted investors' money, and destroyed the company.  That isn't something I feel deserves sympathy.


----------



## Jester David

I wanted to like this MMO. The idea of a player driven one was cool. But the game just failed to grab me and I felt lost half the time. There's sooooo many skills and it's not clear what does what or how to advance.


----------



## Malshotfirst

Terrible execution, completely unplayable. I was hoping this would pan out well, but now there's not a chance I'll play again.


----------



## Henry

Nylanfs said:


> Oathbound




To this I would add:
Mutants & Masterminds
The OSR movement
The Fate RPG (by virtue of FUDGE's OGL adoption)


And two of my personal favorites:
True Sorcery by Green Ronin
Grim Tales RPG (which sadly very few people use any more since Savage Worlds became popular)

Quite a few gems indeed.


----------



## Henry

camazotz said:


> Just a point of fact that while Paizo is connected here, they deliberately set up Goblinworks as the company to handle Pathfinder Online, most likely (I suspected) to isolate the costs and liabilities from Paizo proper....which was a good decision. So while this is clearly the death-spiral for Goblinworks, I think Paizo has made sure it doesn't get impacted.




Yeah, people shouldn't get the two confused - though I am sad to hear it, I also wasn't terribly surprised. All the video demos i had seen really left me underwhelmed, kind of like that old game Shadowbane? It was lacking the polish of even DDO (which i didn't consider very sharp for the short time i played it).

Also, when Lisa was standing in for all the MMO talks at Gencon, and Ryan was never mentioned, it gave me suspicions that all was not well. Unfortunately, it appears I was right.  hope he's OK, and the personal issues get resolved.


----------



## mosaic

Too bad.  I supported both Kickstarters, got some nice limited-release Pathfinder books, maps and minis as rewards.  I played Pathfinder Online for a while, had fun, but realized I'm more of a pen-and-paper guy myself.  But I certainly don't feel ripped off or like the Goblinworks team failed me.  It was always an experiment, one that everyone knew was going to be expensive.  Had it succeeded, it would have been something really, REALLY fun.  I guess it didn't end up being fun enough for a critical mass of people.  Bummer.  But I am in no way bitter, nor does this in any way diminish my respect for any of the developers or the Pathfinder brand.  Not everything in life succeeds, folks, and if you don't try something new or take any chances, you end up doing the same mediocre thing forever.  The glee and gloating "I told you so's" with which some folks are greeting this news - news that is a setback for our RPG community as a whole, and news that means a group of folks who wanted to take RPGs to a wider audience are now out of work - saddens me.  I've never understood why some people seem to need to see someone fail to find their own validation.


----------



## delericho

That's a shame, if not really a surprise. I hope those who have lost their jobs find alternate employment soon.


----------



## neobolts

Even people I know who are big Paizo/PF fans were confused by this game when it was announced. A combat system _not_ rooted in 3e, an older MMO model, and a PvP focus made it confusing from the start. It's never good when companies in this hobby have setbacks...but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't skeptical from the start.

I feel bad for the KS backers. It's always 'buyer beware', but when backing a big gaming brand like PF no one thinks about it failing once funded. The risk level is presumed to be very low.


----------



## jaycrockett

Do we know how many people were actually on staff, that got laid off from Goblinworks?


----------



## Kinak

I backed the first Kickstarter and received everything promised. And we're running through Emerald Spire right now, which wouldn't exist except for the second Kickstarter. So I feel the opposite of ripped off, actually.

Best wishes to those who have lost their jobs and, just as much, those who are remaining to pick up the pieces.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Agamon

Dannager said:


> If unintended, adverse outcomes for your employer at the time can be considered "successes", sure.
> 
> So on that note, I mean, sure, it's possible that PFO's present turmoil will lead to a positive outcome for the wider RPG community down the road, but it's certainly not the outcome the stakeholders were hoping for.




Right, that was my point.  Customers might be happy with the results of those things, WotC at the time, not so much.


----------



## Yanko128

JohnnyZemo said:


> I supported both Kickstarters, but never had an interest in playing the game. In the second Kickstarter I got a nice Emerald Spire Superdungeon hardcover book, some cool miniatures, a Pathfinder Tales paperback, and a bunch of Flip-Mats to go along with the Superdungeon. So, I am happy with what I got out of the Kickstarters.




I want to bring this up, and I have seen this from a number of people so please do not take it personally JohnnyZemo. There were a lot of people pledging because they wanted the table top stuff, but had no interest in the MMO. And the KS "stretch goals" were mostly aimed at PF fans, not MMO fans. So in essence they were selling a game that is nothing like PF to PF fans. And it offered nothing to MMO fans that other games don't do better. So from the start you have a very narrow market.


----------



## Starfox

From one point of view the game is now improved. Less risk of newbs coming to mess up your persistent world.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel

I'm a big fan of Paizo but this:
_Some delays in getting the game to market coupled with some anticipated funding falling through have left us about 75% short of the money we need to finish the game and bring it to Open Enrollment._

and this:
_The team has brought the ball down the field to the red zone, and now we just need somebody to punch it over the goal line._

Seem a little inconsistent. 

As far as prospects for a sale, is there really enough here, from code to community to future income potential, that a real videogame company would be interested in purchasing it?  I guess we will see but it seems pretty dim at the moment.


----------



## Mistwell

TreChriron said:


> To all those snarky, horrible and mean commentators: Way to kick someone when they are down.
> 
> Has everyone forgot how amazing it was when Paizo took up the 3.x torch and revitalized a segment of our hobby that seemed like it was going to disappear? That these same people were the care-takers of Dragon and Dungeon magazines when WOTC might have dropped them? How this niche company with a passion for gorgeous and fun Adventure Paths grew into a JUGGERNAUT pumping out an incredible number of works based on what their fans wanted? Has there ever been a company this fan-focused?
> 
> Damn people. You just crapped all over not only one of the most significant groups of creators in our hobby, but one of the best champions of gaming fans that ever existed. If it isn't obvious I COMPLETELY disagree with you and am appalled at your meanness.




Ryan Dancey claimed, loudly, that tabletop RPGs and D&D in particular were in a death spiral and doomed.  He then also claimed he was going to revolutionize MMO gaming, though he had not earned respect in that field in any way.  

I have sympathy for the people just laid off. I have sympathy for Paizo.  I have sympathy for the fans. 

I find it hard to have sympathy for Ryan Dancey right now, though I am trying.  At heart he's a gamer, like me, so I very much want to sympathize with the fact he's now out of a job as well and one of his dreams just ended.  But he was dishing out some snark during this whole time himself, and there was a lot of hubris involved with both the "TTRPG are dead" and "I will revolutionize MMOs" comments.  When a guy does that, it's hard to generate the sympathy.  But...I am trying.


----------



## rknop

Henry said:


> To this I would add:
> Mutants & Masterminds
> The OSR movement
> The Fate RPG (by virtue of FUDGE's OGL adoption)
> 
> 
> And two of my personal favorites:
> True Sorcery by Green Ronin
> Grim Tales RPG (which sadly very few people use any more since Savage Worlds became popular)
> 
> Quite a few gems indeed.




Note that while once upon a time Fate was an OGL adaption of Fudge, nowadays it's not.  Similar concepts, and they share some metaphorical DNA, but Fate is no longer a Fudge derivative.

One of my favorites of the OGL-licensed 3e knockoffs was Monte Cook's _Arcana Evolved_.  Ran a campaign of that for a while.  Still think I like what he did with the rules better than Pathfinder.


----------



## DaveMage

Yanko128 said:


> I want to bring this up, and I have seen this from a number of people so please do not take it personally JohnnyZemo. There were a lot of people pledging because they wanted the table top stuff, but had no interest in the MMO. And the KS "stretch goals" were mostly aimed at PF fans, not MMO fans. So in essence they were selling a game that is nothing like PF to PF fans. And it offered nothing to MMO fans that other games don't do better. So from the start you have a very narrow market.




Yep.  I supported the Kickstarters mainly for the Pathfinder TTRPG stuff, not for the MMO, which I was not really interested in.

Still, I'm sorry the product isn't finished and almost all of the demos/playtests received so many negative reviews.  I hoped it would have been better.  

Apparently Paizo (like WotC) has shown they are not good at developing computer-based software (see their VTT that is essentially vaporware, lack of substantive tablet apps) in house, but are much better off licensing such things to those who are established.


----------



## EthanSental

Jester Canuck said:


> I wanted to like this MMO. The idea of a player driven one was cool. But the game just failed to grab me and I felt lost half the time. There's sooooo many skills and it's not clear what does what or how to advance.




So the skill system for the online game is like their 2k feats in the table top game.....sounds about right.

Also what strikes me is they couldn't find more financial backers after shopping it around.  To me that sounds like the backers realize the game was going to tank and didn't want to lose their money based on the terrible graphics and game play.


----------



## Zardnaar

Mistwell said:


> Ryan Dancey claimed, loudly, that tabletop RPGs and D&D in particular were in a death spiral and doomed.  He then also claimed he was going to revolutionize MMO gaming, though he had not earned respect in that field in any way.
> 
> I have sympathy for the people just laid off. I have sympathy for Paizo.  I have sympathy for the fans.
> 
> I find it hard to have sympathy for Ryan Dancey right now, though I am trying.  At heart he's a gamer, like me, so I very much want to sympathize with the fact he's now out of a job as well and one of his dreams just ended.  But he was dishing out some snark during this whole time himself, and there was a lot of hubris involved with both the "TTRPG are dead" and "I will revolutionize MMOs" comments.  When a guy does that, it's hard to generate the sympathy.  But...I am trying.





I'm not heh. I thought they were in trouble when they had a million dollar KS. Looks good on paper but games cost around 4 million to design in the PS2 days. At best they would have made something like pillars of eternity which by most accounts is good. For that type of money you are looking at an indie game not a 3D MMO.

Shenmue3 raised 6 million by comparison and they have Japanese backers as well. The average backer chipped in close to $100 each. THats an update of a game last seen on the first Xbox though and if they have some other backers they may not be to far short of the 20 million is costs to design a decent game these days. GTA5 cost 200 million.


----------



## Dire Bare

*Lighten up guys . . .*



Agamon said:


> Man, poor Dancey isn't exactly batting 1.000, is he




Wha?



> d20 licence leads to d20 bust




I think you are forgetting that the d20 bust came after the d20 boom, which launched the careers of many still successful game designers, and launched a number of still successful companies, and gave us a ton of very high quality game products, game lines, including Pathfinder.

The d20 License/OGL was a HUGE success! Not a sustainable one, but a grand success none-the-less.



> D&D OGL leads to Paizo taking over market share




That never really happened. Paizo only outsold D&D when WotC wasn't producing D&D products, and that had nothing to do with Dancey or the d20 License he championed.



> CCP's WoD MMO crashes and burns . . . now Pathfinder Online ...




Software and videogame projects fail all the time, way more than they succeed. It's a tough business. With the online WoD and Pathfinder games, how much of that was Dancey's "fault", if blame even needs to be assigned at all, much less to a single person who is but a part of a larger team.



Mistwell said:


> I find it hard to have sympathy for Ryan Dancey right now, though I am trying.  At heart he's a gamer, like me, so I very much want to sympathize with the fact he's now out of a job as well and one of his dreams just ended.  But he was dishing out some snark during this whole time himself, and there was a lot of hubris involved with both the "TTRPG are dead" and "I will revolutionize MMOs" comments.  When a guy does that, it's hard to generate the sympathy.  But...I am trying.




Dancey wasn't among the layoffs. Dancey left Goblinworks prior due to personal concerns . . . and the subtext was that something _not fun_ is going on in Dancey's personal life. Exactly what is none of our business, but I very much have sympathy for the man and whatever it is that he's going through.

Dancey has most certainly come across as somewhat arrogant (or, perhaps, overly proud?) in the past, but that's hardly a cardinal sin to be super-hyped about the projects you champion and believe in. Dancey is cool people, and for some reason gets a lot of unfair hate (normal in this fandom, I suppose), but he certainly isn't perfect or always right. Just because he ended up being wrong in this case doesn't lessen my sympathy for him and the other team members at Goblinworks who are out of a job and a creative project that won't see the light of day.

I wasn't impressed with anything regarding Pathfinder Online, and I'm not sad nor surprised it's vaporware, other than the folks involved who lost out, of course.

_EDIT: Realized my wording wasn't the best . . . Mistwell, I'm not accusing you of laying down the hate on poor ol' Dancey, just that he is often the target of unfair internet rage. Although I do think you are being a bit unfair . . ._


----------



## dd.stevenson

Mistwell said:


> Ryan Dancey claimed, loudly, that tabletop RPGs and D&D in particular were in a death spiral and doomed.




Yeah, I ain't gonna miss that aspect of Dancey's marketing pitch.


----------



## Agamon

Dire Bare said:


> I think you are forgetting that the d20 bust came after the d20 boom, which launched the careers of many still successful game designers, and launched a number of still successful companies, and gave us a ton of very high quality game products, game lines, including Pathfinder.
> 
> The d20 License/OGL was a HUGE success! Not a sustainable one, but a grand success none-the-less.




Not forgetting that at all, but that wasn't my point.  The d20 license ended up not so good for WotC, the company he worked for.  When they created it, it was meant for adventure creation.  When the d20 companies started making rules accessories, WotC made 3.5, which made everything with a d20 label on it virtually unsalable.  That actually was bad for everyone, though a few of the better companies were able to weather the storm.



Dire Bare said:


> That never really happened. Paizo only outsold D&D when WotC wasn't producing D&D products, and that had nothing to do with Dancey or the d20 License he championed.




The OGL begat Pathfinder.  Again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing itself, but it wasn't a good thing for WotC.



> Software and videogame projects fail all the time, way more than they succeed. It's a tough business. With the online WoD and Pathfinder games, how much of that was Dancey's "fault", if blame even needs to be assigned at all, much less to a single person who is but a part of a larger team.




"Fault" is a strong word, involvement is all I'm saying.  I'm not laying blame, just noting that it hasn't all been wins.  L5R also wasn't his "fault", but he certainly had a hand in it's creation.

Not raging or ripping, just pointing out something I thought interesting.


----------



## billd91

Agamon said:


> Not forgetting that at all, but that wasn't my point.  The d20 license ended up not so good for WotC, the company he worked for.  When they created it, it was meant for adventure creation.  When the d20 companies started making rules accessories, WotC made 3.5, which made everything with a d20 label on it virtually unsalable.  That actually was bad for everyone, though a few of the better companies were able to weather the storm.
> 
> 
> 
> The OGL begat Pathfinder.  Again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing itself, but it wasn't a good thing for WotC.




Neither of these negative outcomes (for WotC) were inevitable. Had they not trotted 3.5 out early, d20 licensees and anyone with 3.0 compatible products may have been in better shape for a longer time, fewer 3rd parties would have felt burned. Had WotC not bungled the licensing for 4e, Pathfinder might never have existed.


----------



## rknop

(Aside: it's rather ridiculous that this form replaces a very common term for "the excrement of a bull" with a series of smilies.  Too much overeager puritanism in this country.)



Dire Bare said:


> Dancey wasn't among the layoffs. Dancey left Goblinworks prior due to personal concerns . . . and the subtext was that something _not fun_ is going on in Dancey's personal life.




While this is entirely possible, I have to admit that I seriously doubt this.  The CEOs and companies of the world have cried Wolf way, way, way, way too many times for any of us to believe this any more.  Every time somebody high-up in a company leaves, we're told that it's so they can "spend more time with their family", because they "have personal issues they want to focus on", or because "they want to pursue other interests and opportunities."  But, we have to remember Jon Stewert's "Daily Show" fairwell speech: _Bulls**t is everywhere_.  And these are all bulls**t, to the point that those phrases are all code for the real reason the employee was fired, which is either (1) there were political maneuverings and the employee lost, (2) the employee was flat-out incompetent, but because we worship higher-level manager types in this country we won't say that, or (3) the company was in serious trouble and failing, changes needed to be made, but we don't want to admit that.

Sadly, _sometimes_ its true.  For instance, if you remember _Babylon 5_, the lead actor (Michael O'Hare) left the show after the first season.  JM Straczynski, the show's executive producer, at the time said that it was a mutual decision, and that was because he wanted to take the story in other directions.  All of us smelled the BS in that, and because many people thought that O'Hare's acting was terrible (I didn't, but I'm in a minority on that), they thought it was obvious that he was sacked because his acting was bad.  A couple of decades later, after O'Hare had died, Straczynski told the truth (with O'Hare's blessing for a posthumous reveal).  O'Hare had been suffering with a debilitating illness-- but it was a mental illness, which tends to have more public stigma in our society.  He simply _couldn't_ contlnue with the show.  But, also, he didn't want it announced that he had a serious mental illness.  So, Straczynski did the most gracious thing he could.

It's sad, though, because even though Straczynski was obscuring the whole truth, it really was gracious, it wasn't classic bulls**t.  But, because bulls**t is everywhere, nobody believed it.  Corporate america has cried wolf too often.

And, so, I don't believe this.  To me, it's way too much of a coincidence that Dancy leaves mere weeks before PFO lays off basically its entire staff.  Maybe, yes, maybe it's possible Dancy has bad stuff going on in his personal life.  It's far more likely that it had become increasingly obvious that the company was going in a direction that was not going to succeed, and that heads at the top needed to roll.  Almost certainly, the "personal reasons for leaving" is just the routine bulls**t we're always told.

Sometimes the PR that companies put out is true.  But it's tremendously naive to believe it _ever_ unless you have independent confirmation, because at least 95% of the time it's complete BS.

(This goes for internal communications too; if you're inside a company, don't believe the rah-rah or other BS that your managers tell you.  Likewise the crap your administration tells you if you're in academia.  Sometimes it's true, but most of the time it's BS.  In the worse cases, those spreading it don't even realize it's BS.  Jon Stewart was extremely right when he declared that bulls**t is everywhere.)


----------



## Mistwell

Dire Bare said:


> Dancey wasn't among the layoffs. Dancey left Goblinworks prior due to personal concerns . . .




Said every politician bailing on a disaster...ever. Maybe it's pure incredible coincidence that he leaves for personal reasons a mere 2 weeks before the entire company runs out of money and implodes...but all you have to do is ask yourself this: but-for his personal issues, would he still have a job today at the company? Answer is no - they don't have the funds for his salary with or without the personal issues.  He'd have to leave today if he hadn't left two weeks ago, so either way it seems a moot point.



> and the subtext was that something _not fun_ is going on in Dancey's personal life. Exactly what is none of our business, but I very much have sympathy for the man and whatever it is that he's going through.




Maybe.  I have seen no subtext.  Have you seen anything the rest of us have not seen? It was a few words, and it just said personal issues...can't find subtext there.  If there is something really bad going on, then I will have sympathy for him. 



> Dancey has most certainly come across as somewhat arrogant (or, perhaps, overly proud?) in the past, but that's hardly a cardinal sin to be super-hyped about the projects you champion and believe in.




Which is why I didn't say or imply it was a cardinal sin - just harder to generate sympathy for him.  The two things he said were not cool.  You say those things, and when your company implodes on you it becomes harder to be sympathetic - that was a clear risk of him saying those two things, and he accepted that risk when he did that.  Not the same as me saying he's an overall bad person.



> Dancey is cool people, and for some reason gets a lot of unfair hate (normal in this fandom, I suppose), but he certainly isn't perfect or always right. Just because he ended up being wrong in this case doesn't lessen my sympathy for him and the other team members at Goblinworks who are out of a job and a creative project that won't see the light of day.




I don't hate him, and I don't appreciate you implying that's what I said when replying to me.  I don't think anything I said is undeserved. My difficulty having sympathy for him is directly related to what he said, not some undeserved unrelated things.


> _EDIT: Realized my wording wasn't the best . . . Mistwell, I'm not accusing you of laying down the hate on poor ol' Dancey, just that he is often the target of unfair internet rage. Although I do think you are being a bit unfair . . ._




I am trying to be fair to him - I am just not sure he deserves it in this context. To me, it doesn't seem like he earned the karma points over this one.  But maybe you're right.  Certainly if something terrible has happened to him on a personal level then I will have sympathy.  He doesn't deserve anything bad happening to him or his family on a personal level.


----------



## TroyBentonGames

Sad to hear about everyone that lost gainful employment by this. Good luck to everyone lading back on their feet!


----------



## TrickyUK

Really bad news about the lay offs.

However, I also have to say that I tried this game. I can't recall ever deciding to not like a game so fast, and I was really hoping for something different and good.

I find it hard for anyone to honestly think that the game really is any good. If you play any other game out now, even betas, you can see what the current standards are and this game just doesn't reach them. Sorry.


----------



## EthanSental

Tricky110974 said:


> Really bad news about the lay offs.
> 
> However, I also have to say that I tried this game. I can't recall ever deciding to not like a game so fast, and I was really hoping for something different and good.
> 
> I find it hard for anyone to honestly think that the game really is any good. If you play any other game out now, even betas, you can see what the current standards are and this game just doesn't reach them. Sorry.




Which is a reoccurring statement and probably why, as I mentioned earlier, they couldn't find any financial backers after they saw the state of the game.


----------



## Dire Bare

rknop said:


> While this is entirely possible, I have to admit that I seriously doubt this.  The CEOs and companies of the world have cried Wolf way, way, way, way too many times for any of us to believe this any more.






Mistwell said:


> Said every politician bailing on a disaster...ever. Maybe it's pure incredible coincidence that he leaves for personal reasons a mere 2 weeks before the entire company runs out of money and implodes...but all you have to do is ask yourself this: but-for his personal issues, would he still have a job today at the company?




Yeah, it's certainly possible that Dancey bailed a sinking ship or was "encouraged" to leave rather than having real personal issues to deal with. But why assume the worst? It's not like Paizo and Goblinworks are high up on the "evil corporations that love to deceive the populace" list and have given us any reason to doubt what they release publicly. I choose to take them at face value. You choose to see something foul smelling underneath the surface.

While I don't disregard the possibility not all is as amicable as Goblinworks has told us, ultimately, I'm not going to waste mental energy on trying to see harm floating beneath the surface. Why? While it's sad that a pile of folks lost their jobs, it happens every day to good people who recover from such setbacks. And it's in an industry where such job losses are more common than long-term careers with any given company. And the general (gaming) populace, what have we lost? A game. We'll have to move on and play other games.

I hope that all affected by the disintegration of Pathfinder Online and Goblinworks land on their feet and move on to good things, including Ryan Dancey.


----------



## Morrus

Agamon said:


> Not forgetting that at all, but that wasn't my point.  The d20 license ended up not so good for WotC, the company he worked for.  When they created it, it was meant for adventure creation.




That's not it at all. As Dancey said at the time, the intent was to secure the 3.x rules base in case of capricious decisions by the IP owners at a later date.  His aim was to keep the game alive forever.  It did exactly what he intended, and it still lives as _Pathfinder_.  This was intended behaviour.

He and Adkison, etc., had their exit strategies.  They built 3.x, sold it to Hasbro, and exited having secured it as a perpetual open game.  They batted (I have no idea how that colloquialism works*) 100-1. 


*Not a request for explanations.


----------



## MerricB

Morrus said:


> *Not a request for explanations.




I think you need to use a cricket term instead, Morrus!

Cheers!


----------



## Agamon

Morrus said:


> That's not it at all. As Dancey said at the time, the intent was to secure the 3.x rules base in case of capricious decisions by the IP owners at a later date.  His aim was to keep the game alive forever.  It did exactly what he intended, and it still lives as _Pathfinder_.  This was intended behaviour.




That's the OGL, I was talking about the d20 license in that quote.

But as for the OGL, I'm not sure the heads of WotC sat around the table thinking it would be good for another company to some day outsell them with what is fundamentally their own game.  But if they did, yes, mission accomplished, I guess.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

This is one of the reasons that I NEVER back software projects on Kickstarter.  They fail, more often than not.  Tabletop RPG companies need to quit trying to get into the MMO market.  

These days, I really only back rpg Kickstarter projects where the writer/designer has essentially finished the product and is just looking for money for additional art and/or printing.  I never back anything done by an person who has EVER run a Kickstarter project that funded but was never delivered (or delivered less than promised), either.


----------



## Morrus

pickin_grinnin said:


> This is one of the reasons that I NEVER back software projects on Kickstarter.  They fail, more often than not.  Tabletop RPG companies need to quit trying to get into the MMO market.




WotC seems to have succeeded. Twice. DDO and Neverwinter. Plus a non-MMo (SCL) coming up.  

Tabletop RPG companies totally need to keep trying various things. Video games, MMOs, board games, card games, mobile apps, the lot.  Hell, movies and novels and comics too!


----------



## Mistwell

Dire Bare said:


> Yeah, it's certainly possible that Dancey bailed a sinking ship or was "encouraged" to leave rather than having real personal issues to deal with. But why assume the worst? It's not like Paizo and Goblinworks are high up on the "evil corporations that love to deceive the populace" list and have given us any reason to doubt what they release publicly. I choose to take them at face value. You choose to see something foul smelling underneath the surface.




Any way you look at it 8,732 fans had invested over a million dollars in that company through kickstarter and are having the promise to complete this game by June of 2014 broken.  They read the "Risks and Challenges" section of the Kickstarter that Ryan Dancey wrote which (in his words) made it seem like there was only a "very small chance" the game would not be released. A lot of those people were friends of mine, and peers, and fellow gamers.  Millions were also invested by private investors and their money was thrown away as well.  We're already long past "reason to doubt" - that IS reason to doubt what's been said publicly. That doubt was earned in this case - they had the positive karma two and a half years ago, but lost that karma on their own and not through the actions of anyone else.  And then on top of that, he said the two things I described above.  Giving the benefit of the doubt is fine when there is still doubt - but they already showed the doubts were real with what's happened so far.  

How about you give fans some benefit of the doubt at this point in having legitimate issues with all this? Have a shred of sympathy for people who were burned here. Ryan Dancey has some responsibility for his own actions, at some point, doesn't he? I mean, I think it's wrong to hate on him.  He's a fellow gamer, he's done some good in this industry by fans as well, and he certainly doesn't deserve any personal issues if those turn out to be real - but you taking issue with people having a hard time (after all this) getting lots of sympathy going for him? Cut people some slack here.



> I hope that all affected by the disintegration of Pathfinder Online and Goblinworks land on their feet and move on to good things, including Ryan Dancey.




As do I.


----------



## Dire Bare

Mistwell said:


> Any way you look at it 8,732 fans had invested over a million dollars in that company through kickstarter and are having the promise to complete this game by June of 2014 broken.  They read the "Risks and Challenges" section of the Kickstarter that Ryan Dancey wrote which (in his words) made it seem like there was only a "very small chance" the game would not be released. A lot of those people were friends of mine, and peers, and fellow gamers.  Millions were also invested by private investors and their money was thrown away as well.  We're already long past "reason to doubt" - that IS reason to doubt what's been said publicly. That doubt was earned in this case - they had the positive karma two and a half years ago, but lost that karma on their own and not through the actions of anyone else.  And then on top of that, he said the two things I described above.  Giving the benefit of the doubt is fine when there is still doubt - but they already showed the doubts were real with what's happened so far.
> 
> How about you give fans some benefit of the doubt at this point in having legitimate issues with all this? Have a shred of sympathy for people who were burned here. Ryan Dancey has some responsibility for his own actions, at some point, doesn't he? I mean, I think it's wrong to hate on him.  He's a fellow gamer, he's done some good in this industry by fans as well, and he certainly doesn't deserve any personal issues if those turn out to be real - but you taking issue with people having a hard time (after all this) getting lots of sympathy going for him? Cut people some slack here.




Nobody got "burned", no promises were broken. I have no sympathy for those who feel burned, although I'd rather the project worked out for fans and for Goblinworks. All those folks invested in a project that failed. That's what happens sometimes when you invest money into something. Saying that folks were burned implies bad action on the part of Goblinworks, of which there is no evidence. And by "bad action", I don't mean incompetence or making mistakes, but a deliberate attempt to deceive and scam folks out of money. So, yeah, I got no sympathy for "burned" fans or investors.

Did Dancey, and other Goblinworks employees, hype up their project? Yes, of course they did! Where they dishonest about it? Or simply believed in their own hype? You and I don't know for sure, but without any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that Dancey et all were 100% honest with their backers and truly believed in the promise of their project. The fact that the project failed doesn't change that.


----------



## Dire Bare

Agamon said:


> But as for the OGL, I'm not sure the heads of WotC sat around the table thinking it would be good for another company to some day outsell them with what is fundamentally their own game.  But if they did, yes, mission accomplished, I guess.




Other than, potentially, a brief window where WotC wasn't actually putting out any significant D&D product, there never has been a third party company that has outsold them.

But anyway, whether the OGL/d20 licenses were a success or not depends on who you talk to. Were they a failure for Dancey? Were they a failure for the fans? How about for the many small game companies that profited off the licences? And of course, was it a success for WotC? And really, different layers of management over at WotC/Hasbro, and different management teams over time, might also have different opinions on whether OGL and d20 was a success.

I'd argue that the licences were a stupendous success for the fans, for small game companies, and for Ryan Dancey. I'd argue that the folks over at WotC during the 3E era were happy with some of the results of the license, but unhappy with some of the unforeseen side effects. Which is why, during 4E, we got a different, more restrictive license. But I also think all this arguing about the granular details of success is a bit silly and just more fan crankiness.


----------



## Nylanfs

And just a side note Ryan hasn't had a post on FB for two weeks, which is pretty unusual.


----------



## Agamon

Dire Bare said:


> Other than, potentially, a brief window where WotC wasn't actually putting out any significant D&D product, there never has been a third party company that has outsold them.
> 
> But anyway, whether the OGL/d20 licenses were a success or not depends on who you talk to. Were they a failure for Dancey? Were they a failure for the fans? How about for the many small game companies that profited off the licences? And of course, was it a success for WotC? And really, different layers of management over at WotC/Hasbro, and different management teams over time, might also have different opinions on whether OGL and d20 was a success.
> 
> I'd argue that the licences were a stupendous success for the fans, for small game companies, and for Ryan Dancey. I'd argue that the folks over at WotC during the 3E era were happy with some of the results of the license, but unhappy with some of the unforeseen side effects. Which is why, during 4E, we got a different, more restrictive license. But I also think all this arguing about the granular details of success is a bit silly and just more fan crankiness.




At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is my point.  Great awesomeness for the fans, sure, can't argue that.  WotC, not so much.  Dancey came up with it while working for WotC.  That's all I'm saying.

And yeah, it was a passing comment, I didn't think it would take over thread.


----------



## Mistwell

Dire Bare said:


> Nobody got "burned", no promises were broken. I have no sympathy for those who feel burned, although I'd rather the project worked out for fans and for Goblinworks. All those folks invested in a project that failed. That's what happens sometimes when you invest money into something. Saying that folks were burned implies bad action on the part of Goblinworks, of which there is no evidence. And by "bad action", I don't mean incompetence or making mistakes, but a deliberate attempt to deceive and scam folks out of money. So, yeah, I got no sympathy for "burned" fans or investors.
> 
> Did Dancey, and other Goblinworks employees, hype up their project? Yes, of course they did! Where they dishonest about it? Or simply believed in their own hype? You and I don't know for sure, but without any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that Dancey et all were 100% honest with their backers and truly believed in the promise of their project. The fact that the project failed doesn't change that.




So in other words no, you have no sympathy for those people, and will not give them the benefit of the doubt.  Dancey, him you will give all the benefit of the doubt to, but not to the fans who are upset right now.  Got it.


----------



## billd91

Mistwell said:


> So in other words no, you have no sympathy for those people, and will not give them the benefit of the doubt.  Dancey, him you will give all the benefit of the doubt to, but not to the fans who are upset right now.  Got it.




Why should us fans who put some money into the kickstarter be upset? I got the promised goodies. The end product didn't work out but that's investing in R&D for you.


----------



## myscha_sleddog

Valador said:


> Guess Paizo should stick to milking the work someone else created the foundation to...




Heh.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Morrus said:


> WotC seems to have succeeded. Twice. DDO and Neverwinter. Plus a non-MMo (SCL) coming up.




Two successes from the largest rpg company doesn't really mean that it's a good idea for most tabletop rpg companies to go the software (particularly MMO) route.  There have been many, many more failures than successes over the years.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Morrus said:


> Tabletop RPG companies totally need to keep trying various things. Video games, MMOs, board games, card games, mobile apps, the lot.  Hell, movies and novels and comics too!




If they can do it without failing to deliver on backed Kickstarter projects or nearly putting themselves out of business (ex. Chaosium), go for it.  More power to them.  The recent track record for videogames, MMOs, and movies based on tabletop rpgs isn't good, but someone could turn that around with enough money and really good planning, design, and marketing.  WotC might be able to do something like that with Hasbro's assistance and backing.  It will be interesting to see if they can, since they seem to be putting a lot of faith in the value of their IPO.

Movies, MMOs, and videogames are expensive to make, and so they need to find a certain degree of success among non-tabletop rpg players to be financial successes.  Pathfinder Online didn't look good right from the beginning, unfortunately.  I would have been more surprised if it has actually worked out in the long run.


----------



## Dire Bare

Mistwell said:


> So in other words no, you have no sympathy for those people, and will not give them the benefit of the doubt.  Dancey, him you will give all the benefit of the doubt to, but not to the fans who are upset right now.  Got it.




Yup.

Although, in my limited knowledge of the reaction to Goblinworks implosion, there seem to be more people upset who DIDN'T invest than folks who did. The folks who did got material rewards for their investment, and got to play the game in beta, and none of that was taken away. Just the final prize, the game itself, which is a bummer to be sure, but ce la vie!


----------



## Henry

rknop said:


> Note that while once upon a time Fate was an OGL adaption of Fudge, nowadays it's not.  Similar concepts, and they share some metaphorical DNA, but Fate is no longer a Fudge derivative.




Actually, I checked their website before posting that, and you still licence FATE product through one of two ways: Creative Commons, or OGL. Open licensing is still an integral part of FATE and companies that use it, and according to their history, the OGL back at the time answered a sticky legal question about their use of FUDGE's core mechanic, so while it doesn't rely on OGl to exist any more, open licensing in general is super-important to it.



> One of my favorites of the OGL-licensed 3e knockoffs was Monte Cook's _Arcana Evolved_.  Ran a campaign of that for a while.  Still think I like what he did with the rules better than Pathfinder.



Agreed - i ran a few one shots, but still hold a lot of love for that system, wit it's non-rogue Rogues, fantastic totem warriors, and the Magus class that was the prototype  for how 5e does magic now!


----------



## Starfox

About licensing and good computer game in general, without specifically talking about Goblinworks:

My general feel is that anything that uses a license is likely to be less good than it would have been without that license. The maker is relying on the license to generate interest, and is paying for the privilege. That means less money for actually making a good game and less reliance on building your own reputation. 

I would have hoped for the opposite to be true; because a game under license is almost assured to get a certain audience, it becomes a less risky speculation to put in the money to make it a resounding success. Maybe this has happened once ot twice, but in my experience it is not the rule.

Now, there are obviously examples of good games made under license. I would argue that the Old Republic games for Star Wars is one such example, but they were made by a very reputable firm. When a firm I've not heard of makes a game under license, I'm likely to ignore it.


----------



## smiteworks

Starfox said:


> I would have hoped for the opposite to be true; because a game under license is almost assured to get a certain audience, it becomes a less risky speculation to put in the money to make it a resounding success. Maybe this has happened once ot twice, but in my experience it is not the rule.
> 
> Now, there are obviously examples of good games made under license. I would argue that the Old Republic games for Star Wars is one such example, but they were made by a very reputable firm. When a firm I've not heard of makes a game under license, I'm likely to ignore it.




My viewpoint is almost the exact opposite. Most of the studios we know today as big name studios or successful studios are that way because of how well they did with a licensed product. It's nice to see if they have a track record with past development projects, but I wouldn't even call that a requirement for success. Having a well known license with a strong history means that a small development team can focus more on the technical aspects of building a game and not have to find the same level of talent for both development and story. Both Paizo and Wotc have spent a lot of money on talented authors to develop their worlds and a license is probably a small price to pay for access to this for many teams. 

On top of that, most companies that license their name out to someone do a fair amount of due diligence before they let someone use their name. It's not all about money. Those companies don't want someone to sully their name, so it's not like they let just anyone take the name and use it as long as they pay for the license. 

Software development is risky, but every once in a while you find that perfect mix of ingredients that launches a new team's careers. Even a failure can lead to great success down the road for individual developers or artists.


----------



## smiteworks

I don't mean to imply that you don't need people who are good with story... just that it becomes easier to produce story elements when the world is already fully developed.


----------



## Cergorach

Lisa and Ryan wanted too much, too fast with a Pathfinder MMO. If they did a CRPG things would have been more manageable and they would generate some experience and trust with investors and backers. The Shadowrun Returns kickstarters are a good example on how to do something like that, but even the Weissmann had way more experience in the computer game development branch then Ryan and Lisa. Lucky for them they did the PF MMO under a different entity then PF/Paizo, that insulates them from any legal responsibilities (unless they were criminally negligent in their duties, which I doubt).

It's a shame, but not totally unexpected, not then, not now.

I do hope for the backers that they keep working on it and that they'll get something resembling what was promised.


----------



## Starfox

Cergorach said:


> Lucky for them they did the PF MMO under a different entity then PF/Paizo, that insulates them from any legal responsibilities (unless they were criminally negligent in their duties, which I doubt).




They were pretty open with this; at least I immediately felt that was the reason Goblinworks wasa separate company. Standard practice. No surprises here. (Not claiming you said it was, just continuing the argument).


----------



## Dannager

pickin_grinnin said:


> This is one of the reasons that I NEVER back software projects on Kickstarter.  They fail, more often than not.




This is exactly the reason I *do *back software projects on Kickstarter. Sure, maybe some fraction of those funded actually succeed. But my personal batting average is _much_ better (I have backed six software projects on Kickstarter, and I am now 5 for 6; the Pathfinder MMO is the first to have failed, and I backed it with the understanding that it almost certainly _would _fail - I just wanted the exclusive autographed goodies). So it's actually pretty easy to back cautiously, and end up getting your money's worth on each of your investments.

But here's the real kicker: regardless of how many Kickstarter software projects fail,* nearly 100% *would not have existed if it weren't for the patronage model Kickstarter offers. By backing, I am helping to bring something into being that otherwise might not have existed. It's pretty cool to have someone pitch something that _could_ exist, and then realize you can cause it to come into being. To paraphrase Holkins, I saw where a CRPG was _not_, and said, "No. This will not do."

Mind you, Kickstarter isn't something I see as a sensible choice for someone who doesn't really have disposable income. But there is no reason to take such a cynical approach to backing Kickstarter projects. If you have some risk control standards and do some really basic research on a proposed project, you can come really, really close to totally eliminating the risk behind your investment.


----------



## Kinak

Starfox said:


> They were pretty open with this; at least I immediately felt that was the reason Goblinworks wasa separate company. Standard practice. No surprises here. (Not claiming you said it was, just continuing the argument).



Yeah, they mentioned this several times in relation to people being worried about what would happen to Pathfinder if PFO went under.

And, as you say, it's standard practice. It prevents damage from spreading and, even if things go well, helps keep the books a lot tidier.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Dilandau Kale

I was one of the backers for both and got the Thornekeep and emerald spire books so was really happy to back it................and maybe that was part of the problem. I seem to recall Ryan saying that the purpose of that Kickstarter was to show potential investors that there was large amount of intrest in the idea of PFO but if I had been an investor part of me would have been wondering how much of that intrest was for the actual game and how much was for the other rewards (Ie are people paying into it for PFO as was intended or are they seeing it more as the kickstart the Paizo supermodule)


----------



## delericho

smiteworks said:


> My viewpoint is almost the exact opposite. Most of the studios we know today as big name studios or successful studios are that way because of how well they did with a licensed product.




Yep. And it's a sensible approach - use a license for your first game to guarantee it gets seen, do a good job, and then market your _next_ game as "From the team that brought you..."

The problem, fundamentally, is that software is _hard_, and any new product is now being published into a world where top-quality software already exists. So it's not good enough to produce "a good first effort" - if you want to be taken seriously then you have to at least hold your own against the top dogs in the field.


----------



## Yanko128

Dilandau Kale said:


> I was one of the backers for both and got the Thornekeep and emerald spire books so was really happy to back it................and maybe that was part of the problem. I seem to recall Ryan saying that the purpose of that Kickstarter was to show potential investors that there was large amount of intrest in the idea of PFO but if I had been an investor part of me would have been wondering how much of that intrest was for the actual game and how much was for the other rewards (Ie are people paying into it for PFO as was intended or are they seeing it more as the kickstart the Paizo supermodule)




Exactly. Also 8700 backers does not show much interest in an MMO. For a traditional RPG, sure. Not for an MMO. And if they did not offer tabetop incentives a lot of people who were not interested in the game would not have pledged, and chances are the KS would have failed. Which would have shown that there was not enough interest in the game.


----------



## Uchawi

I have not joined a kickstarter to date. I prefer to see the end product, versus a purchase based on faith. I have not given up all hope that they may be able to pull through and produce the game. At that time, I may give it a fair shake. Graphics will not be the main seller, but content and the experience will be heavy factors in regards to enjoying a game that is no a carbon copy of what is currently on the market.


----------



## Nylanfs

I have backed all the Shadowrun games and haven't been disappointed. Chronicles could be better but I'm satisfied with the end result.


----------



## Starfox

Uchawi said:


> I have not joined a kickstarter to date. I prefer to see the end product, versus a purchase based on faith.




The result of this choice is, of course, a lower chance to see the project become reality. But only marginally so for you as an individual. It seems enough people don't share this view for Kickstarter to be a success.


----------



## Gundark

What this boils down to is the power of branding. While Paizo and Pathfinder are household names in the rpg world, they are relatively unknowns in the gaming world as a whole. I imagine that most investors might have been like "Path-who?", thus people who were uncertain of the project. If Pathfinder had some "oomph" behind it then it would have been easier to secure investors IMO


----------



## Stereofm

I have backed a great many Kickstarters, including this one, and my loss rate is about 10%. I did not really want to back this one, but the goodies made it irresistible, plus it was kind of a thank you for the Paizo team.


----------



## Starfox

Gundark said:


> What this boils down to is the power of branding. While Paizo and Pathfinder are household names in the rpg world, they are relatively unknowns in the gaming world as a whole. I imagine that most investors might have been like "Path-who?", thus people who were uncertain of the project. If Pathfinder had some "oomph" behind it then it would have been easier to secure investors IMO




Dungeons and Dragons probably has more "omph" outside the actual RPG community than Pathfinder.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Starfox said:


> Dungeons and Dragons probably has more "omph" outside the actual RPG community than Pathfinder.




That's what WotC and Hasbro are gambling on with their primary focus on D&D shifting to use of the IP outside of tabletop rpgs.  I'm doubtful that they will find a lot of success with it, but only time will tell.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Dannager said:


> But here's the real kicker: regardless of how many Kickstarter software projects fail,* nearly 100% *would not have existed if it weren't for the patronage model Kickstarter offers. By backing, I am helping to bring something into being that otherwise might not have existed. It's pretty cool to have someone pitch something that _could_ exist, and then realize you can cause it to come into being.




My focus is on getting a final, delivered project that is everything that it promised to be.  I'm not really that interested in the feeling that I helped it come about.  When it comes to software projects, my experience over the years has been very disappointing.  In addition to the high failure rate, I hate to see things that get funded and then under-delivered, like Realm Works, which still doesn't live up to the hype.  If software is funded and successfully produced, I just buy it after it goes on sale to the general public.  Generally the extra backer rewards for those things don't mean much to me.

I am far more likely to fund a tabletop rpg project that produces a final print product.  Sometimes the print versions never go on sale to the general public, and since I don't like pdf-only copies, I have to go to Kickstarter to get the weird, inventive, unusual games I like.  I have been burned enough there, though, to be a lot more careful about what I back.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Starfox said:


> My general feel is that anything that uses a license is likely to be less good than it would have been without that license.




That has been my experience, too.  There are numerous exceptions, but it's true more often than not.


----------



## Dannager

pickin_grinnin said:


> My focus is on getting a final, delivered project that is everything that it promised to be.




You're talking about _software_. It is practically a miracle to receive a shipped software product that is "everything that it promised to be." It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a project on Kickstarter, a game from EA, or a new iOS app from Apple. You are, perhaps, more _likely _to get "everything that it promised to be" out of a large company with an established history of shipped products, but not much more likely, since we're already talking about the software equivalent of a unicorn.

If your expectation, for _*any*_ software product, is "everything it is promised to be," then your expectations are decidedly unrealistic and probably need to be reevaluated.

You might also consider why meeting expectations is important to you. Do you judge a product on how well it matches its ad copy? Or do you judge it on how much you enjoy the finished product? (Or, perhaps, is your enjoyment of the finished product dependent on how well it matches its ad copy?)



> I'm not really that interested in the feeling that I helped it come about.




It isn't about the "feeling" of satisfaction. It's about knowing that you have the power to increase the likelihood of something existing, and then actually *doing it*. It's not some warm fuzzy that makes people chip in (though I'm sure some people enjoy that). It's about playing a tangible role in steering the direction of the industry, even if that role is a small one, and (usually) getting an enjoyable product out of it, to boot.



> When it comes to software projects, my experience over the years has been very disappointing.




Then you would be absolutely *shattered* by the number of software projects that are started, developed for months or years, and then canceled before the public even hears about them.

There is a (sadly) widespread mythology in the gaming community that properly-funded Kickstarter software projects are significantly more likely to fail than software projects outside of Kickstarter. That isn't the case, in my experience. The real difference is that you can _*see*_ a failed Kickstarter software project.


----------



## Gundark

Starfox said:


> Dungeons and Dragons probably has more "omph" outside the actual RPG community than Pathfinder.




"Omph" of course meaning degree of brand recognition


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Dannager said:


> You're talking about _software_. It is practically a miracle to receive a shipped software product that is "everything that it promised to be."




I have been buying (and programming) software since the days of the Apple II.  I'm quit familiar with the problems associated with development and delivery on promises.  When you buy software after it has been created, distributed, and reviewed by others, though, you're at much less of a disadvantage than buying something that hasn't been fully developed yet.




> It isn't about the "feeling" of satisfaction. It's about knowing that you have the power to increase the likelihood of something existing, and then actually *doing it*. It's not some warm fuzzy that makes people chip in (though I'm sure some people enjoy that). It's about playing a tangible role in steering the direction of the industry, even if that role is a small one, and (usually) getting an enjoyable product out of it, to boot.




That just doesn't have any value for me.   As a programmer, my contribution to the software industry is much more direct.



> Then you would be absolutely *shattered* by the number of software projects that are started, developed for months or years, and then canceled before the public even hears about them.




No, I'm probably a lot more familiar with that than most people here.  I have worked as a programmer for about 30 years, both full-time and part-time.  During the times when my day jobs were in other industries (anthropologist and librarian), I was an independent contractor.  I have worked on everything from games to huge corporate websites, including being one of the developers of a gaming section of the Cartoon Network website at one point.

I am absolutely, painfully aware of the realities of programming projects, failure rates, what can be realistically done with particular levels of funding, etc.  That's why I don't fund software projects.  The risk of losing my money - or getting a substandard product that I don't like - are very high.  I want a good return on my money, because every dollar I spend on a bad project is money I could have spent at the local used bookstore.



> There is a (sadly) widespread mythology in the gaming community that properly-funded Kickstarter software projects are significantly more likely to fail than software projects outside of Kickstarter.




Commercial software projects fail all the time, in one way or another.  It's more the rule than the exception.  That has nothing to do with it.  There is a big difference between being able to read reviews of a completed software package (game or otherwise) and gambling on a software product that hasn't even been developed yet.  A BIG difference.


----------



## gamerprinter

This is my first and probably only post in this thread. I hate to see Paizo Publishing lose money on a side venture like this one, and hope it doesn't unduly affect the rest of their business - I hope it has no affect on their tabletop RPG. That said, I have never been an online, digital nor console game player, and am no way interested in playing an MMO ever. When Paizo first announced getting involved in this project I intentionally chose not to get involved with the Kickstarter, on one level I didn't care since I don't play digital games, but on another I could see the potential risk involved and a likely resulting circumstance, which seems to have come to pass. Too bad for them and the laid-off employees, but I kind of saw this coming.


----------

