I'm genuinely intrigued where the idea of "Bad Blood" comes from, at this point. I get the communities are constantly trying to gain superiority, but the businesses diverged a long time ago, regularly exchange staff, and both are thriving businesses in their own rights with their own games.
Has anyone got actual company sources for the antagonism, because it's been 16 years, and there wasn't really bad blood back then. There was more issues with ending Dragon Magazine, than Paizo releasing a 3.5 based Pathfinder, IIRC.
As I mentioned above, Paizo is currently in financial concern, because of Diamond Comic Distributors. If this is anything, it's a friendly company providing another friendly company with assistance because they want to keep things afloat, than any sort of truce. Paizo needs the help right now, and if there were Bad Blood, WotC could easily hang them out to dry, but did the opposite.
I imagine it’s a similar to Marvel and DC fans. Fans assume that there’s all this animosity between them, when in reality most of the writers and artists work for both and would like for the characters to crossover but the people who run the companies refuse to split profits with competition. Until this year (look up Batman/Deadpool)
I'm not confused by a business decision, my guy...all I said was that I never expected that...That's a lot of assuming coming from your part. I haven't looked much at this thread, but it seems that a few people here have a complex. It's so...weird.
"There's no reason for you to have different expectations," then.
I imagine it’s a similar to Marvel and DC fans. Fans assume that there’s all this animosity between them, when in reality most of the writers and artists work for both and would like for the characters to crossover but the people who run the companies refuse to split profits with competition. Until this year (look up Batman/Deadpool)
Indeed, and it's even more open when it comes to D&D, since they've quite literally released their ruleset for free in a way that anyone can use to make stuff, including the competition. Selling the very creations they intended their competitors to go out and make (and taking a cut of the proceeds) is... to be expected.
(Not to mention the fact that D&D vs Pathfinder is nowhere close to the kind of duopolostic rivalry that Marvel vs DC have. Paizo's entire revenue is a rounding error to WotC.)
Intercompany crossovers are very hard to negotiate a partnership because they have to start from zero again about merchandising, reeditions, licencing or copyright of new content created during crossover. For example if videogame studio wanted to produce a Marvel vs DC title they should talk with both companies. And an animated adaptation?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I imagine it’s a similar to Marvel and DC fans. Fans assume that there’s all this animosity between them, when in reality most of the writers and artists work for both and would like for the characters to crossover but the people who run the companies refuse to split profits with competition. Until this year (look up Batman/Deadpool)
"There's no reason for you to have different expectations," then.
Indeed, and it's even more open when it comes to D&D, since they've quite literally released their ruleset for free in a way that anyone can use to make stuff, including the competition. Selling the very creations they intended their competitors to go out and make (and taking a cut of the proceeds) is... to be expected.
(Not to mention the fact that D&D vs Pathfinder is nowhere close to the kind of duopolostic rivalry that Marvel vs DC have. Paizo's entire revenue is a rounding error to WotC.)
Intercompany crossovers are very hard to negotiate a partnership because they have to start from zero again about merchandising, reeditions, licencing or copyright of new content created during crossover. For example if videogame studio wanted to produce a Marvel vs DC title they should talk with both companies. And an animated adaptation?