Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan  But the case is really simple: 3e is an older edition. Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those that are not moving on to the new edition.
That in and of itself is a limited number. |
Simple, but you have no indication if it's accurate. Just as simple is:
4e is an all new edition which means all new purchases. Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those who are willing to jettison all their prior books as a sunk cost and start all over again.
That in and of itself is a limited number.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rechan New players aren't going to want to learn the old system; new players are like "I want to play D&D, what's this system you're going on about?". |
Truly new players are like "Huh? This is the book you're using? OK." You're assuming a very odd level of market savvy for "new" players.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rechan Not only that, but Pathfinder is an off-shot of 3.5. So you're splitting the numbers further between those sticking with 3.5 and those moving to Pathfinder.
It's limited because you're splitting your buyers, and new customers are harder to come by. |
I love it how this argument is dragged out to use against anything
except 4e. Which, all logic aside, is somehow immune from the charge of "splitting the customer base" even though by all indications that's exactly what it has done.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rechan This isn't a dig at Pathfinder. I would like pathfinder to succeed; the more people playing the game they like, the better. But Pathfinder is a niche market in a niche market, and you're better off looking at the situation of sales and players in a realistic manner. |
Realistically, so is every third party product, so I don't see how that comment is even pertinent. Heck, realistically, so is
4e for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billd91 And what is statistical data but just a collection of anecdotes? Actually, if he's got a certain number of friends who are waiting for 3rd party support, then he's not just working with anecdotal evidence at all. He's just got a very small sample size with a lot of selection bias. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
Small sample size + large selection bias + lack of verification more or less renders the data unusable. It only tells you about the self-selected, non random group that's providing the anecdotes and cannot be extended to gamers as a whole. |
I was just wondering how to respond to billd91's bizarre and highly wrong quote, when I see that it's already been done. Bravo, obryn!
And yet another word from our sponsors
