Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

I agree with reynard that we can disagree or have different opinions about editions without hostility or sniping. Personally i think this is a great discussion and both sides are making great points, but personal attacks will just get the thread closed.

Removed

Imaro said:

You see ideas in and of themselves aren't what leads the way into the future, it's implementation that does... Hey but then again, just like with 3.5, Paizo might step in and actually make the DDI model work, then I agree it probably would be the way of the future.

Click to expand...

I can certainly understand criticisms of WotC. I have my own. But what on earth leads anyone to believe that the DDI model does not work? Or that Paizo might be needed to "step in and actually make it work"?

I see no evidence that this is the case. I have seen many estimated DDI subscription figures based on various things (the most common being related to the number of members of a WotC social group only accessible by DDI members, and which has an astonishingly high member count).

The DDI model, by all appearances so far, seems to work. It seems to work better than the "print loads of books and hope people buy them" model. It might not be our own individual preference, but I see no room for implication that it's not working.

Paizo's book sales have nothing to do with this. What we're looking at is WotC's attempt to shift the marketplace. Whether they'll be ultimately successful or not is another discussion, but trotting out Paizo's book sales vs. WotC's is as silly at this point as comparing Paizo's book sales vs. Blizzard's WoW book sales. Hey - Pathfinder is bigger than World of Warcraft! [Hint - it isn't, but Paizo does probably sell more books].

WotC is attempting to shift the market to an online subscription model. A model that has lower costs, and thus higher profitability. Hell, many CRPGs have gone free-to-play and relied on in-game micropayments. Are we going to say that Zynga (the producers of Farmville) are unsuccessful because they haven't sold any DVDs of their game? It's currently valued at $1.5 billion.

We don't really know WotC's subscription numbers. We can guess. We can use evidence such as that above. But we don't know. But there is a lot of evidence that DDI is succeeding and none that I'm aware of that it is not. And comparing books sales to a company that's moved to online subscriptions as its primary revenue base is just silly.

WotC's book sales are low because WotC has stopped selling books. WotC is closer (in nature, not size) to Blizzard than Paizo.

This has to be obvious. It has NOTHING to do with edition popularity. It's about sales venue, and WotC's sales venue is not in the fading FLGS scene. It's in tens of thousands of credit cards buying incremental rules additions each on on DDI and using their Character Builder and other tools.

How is it possible that this isn't obvious? How can people - with a straight face - use book sales in FLGSs as a basis of a game's popularity in the 21st century? Really?

We sold a crap load of WotBs adventures in various venues. The big one was the EN World subscription. I guarantee it sold more copies than most of the things you see in your FLGS. Your FLGS owner, however, knows nothing of it. Our ZEITGEIST Player's Guide just got 9000 downloads in a week. Survey FLGS's and find one that's even heard of it. The market is moving. It has been for a decade, and over the next decade it will do so more. Asking booksellers about a game's popularity is pointless in this age.

BigWeather said:

Personally, any system that focuses on a digital initiative will not get my financial support. This includes Pathfinder, should they go that way. Digital is becoming increasingly associated with subscription-based, throw-away, DRM, no permanence in my mind and that is the opposite of what I want in a RPG. I want my books, my binders, my dice, my maps. If that makes me backwards then so be it.

Click to expand...

I do find it interesting though that WotC's subscription model is in many ways modeled after the payment systems for many MMOs (and no I'm not saying 4E == WoW). And now many MMOs, excluding the really big ones *cough*WoW*cough* are converting to free to play supported by microtransations, where users can pay for what they want. Which is actually much closer to the 3E/Pathfinder system where the rules (SRD/PRD) are free, but all the supplements have a fee.

(and yes I realize that in alot of MMOs the microtransactions are used to buy things that are available in game already, but are just annoying to get)

I'm not sure how far I'd want to see this extended in the TTRPG sphere however, paying 10 cents for a feat (or Power) doesn't really seem like something that would interest me.

Firebeetle said:

I'm an educator, and as you may have heard we've been going through a lot of change in the last 10 years. In three years we have to have every child proficient in reading and math. This has led to many attempts to change and reform. Schools that embrace changes successfully often do quite well. However, many of my fellow teachers balk at the idea of doing something differently than before, even if it is for the best for everyone, especially the students. I hear many familiar statements, let's see if you can recognize them:

Click to expand...

The problem is that what you do is a very important thing, and gaming is not. Gaming is a hobby. It doesn't have to be innovative, it just has to be fun. I more or less reject what's called "innovation" as if it is a science or a feat of engineering for games.

Are there good ideas or innovations?

Yes.

Do they always need to be applied to games?

No.

Game Design is not like Engineering. In fact, the creativity of games tend to be faddish--some trends come and go. At one point for instance, TSR considered the color tables started by Marvel Super-Heroes the pinnacle and copied it for all non-D&D games for several years. In the 90s, storytelling and a lot of those soft-type games was powerful, but in the 00s we saw a move back to gaming, builds, stats.

However, 4e is the way RPGs will survive into the future. Our type of gaming is waning in the face of computer gaming and simple reality. Nearly all my old gaming comrades (I live far away now) substitute WoW or the like for gaming these days.

Click to expand...

I think instead D&D is becoming less a powerful brand as the rise of computer games are taking it over. RPGs will either survive or die, but something similar will replace it.

If D&D is failing, perhaps it is the flaw of the designers. D&D has a 30 year tradition, and 4e is the first major significant change away from many things that D&D defined. If this change is not received well, then who's fault is that? I don't think we can blame the fans. Why did 3e succeed better?

Xphile said:

This can best be demonstrated on the Piazo forums where a discussion was created about a high profile employee leaving WOTC. A overwhelming number of posts treated the man like he was the antichrist.

Click to expand...

No offense, but your full of crap. I was in that discussion, and while heated perhaps about 4e and how its doing, that was NOT the case.

Here's the discussion, please point out, out of the 6 pages, the OVERWHELMING number of posts treating him like the antichrist.

paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition / Ramifications of WotC D&D layoffs

Morrus said:

I can certainly understand criticisms of WotC. I have my own. But what on earth leads anyone to believe that the DDI model does not work?

I see no evidence that this is the case. I have seen may esitimated DDI subscription figures based on various things (the mosty common being related to the number of members of a WotC social group only accessible by DDI members, and which has an astonishingly high member count).

The DDI model, by all appearances so far, seems to work. It seems to work better than the "print loads of books and hope people buy them" model. It might not be our own individual preference, but I see no room for implication that it's not working.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you define as working or not working. They have a ton of subscriptions(54K last number bandied about)....however, you have to balance that against how much the software and developement costs as well as the content.....vs how much it is vs print.

54K times $10 per month is a great number. However as someone pointed out that if it takes MILLIONS to get up and running and to continue to run it, well thats going to take time to catch up.

Further, on the customer side of things, while it can be great, I recall when 4e rollout came, folks said wizards isnt coming to your house and bunring your books. When 5th edition comes around, and they are in full in DDI online mode and not much books.....in that case yes, they will be coming to burn you books, in a manner of speaking, when they stop DDI support for 4e, and rollout 5e. Something you MIGHT want to consider.

carmachu said:

[/I]

Depends on what you define as working or not working. They have a ton of subscriptions(54K last number bandied about)....however, you have to balance that against how much the software and developement costs as well as the content.....vs how much it is vs print.

54K times $10 per month is a great number. However as someone pointed out that if it takes MILLIONS to get up and running and to continue to run it, well thats going to take time to catch up.

Click to expand...

Well, we simply don't know. And we aren't likely to. We can throw out all the random numbers we want to, but we simply do not know. We can prove anything with random numbers.

My argument isn't that WotC is doing better than Paizo (though, honestly, I suspect it is), but that citing book sales to "prove" the opposite is pointless. WotC is no longer operating in a publically measurable marketplace.

My point is we just can't tell. And that anyone who says "DDI isn't working" doesn't know that, either. They might hope that (because wiTC offended them in some way), but they do not know that.

And yes. MAYBE it isn't working. Maybe it is. Anyone claiming to know is - pardon my language - talking crap. I'm certainly not claiming it's working. I'm merely admitting I don't know, and pointing out that nobody else does either, no matter how many "I worked for a computer company and X costs $Y" numbers they cite.

But that is missing the basic point - you can't measure success by comparing books sales any more. This must be apparent to anyone interested in anything other than edition-based propaganda. The measure of success is wider than that in this age. I have zero book sales. I'm doing pretty well, thanks!

Further, on the customer side of things, while it can be great, I recall when 4e rollout came, folks said wizards isnt coming to your house and bunring your books. When 5th edition comes around, and they are in full in DDI online mode and not much books.....in that case yes, they will be coming to burn you books, in a manner of speaking, when they stop DDI support for 4e, and rollout 5e. Something you MIGHT want to consider.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the relevance of that to my point. Yes, people used (and still use) hyperbole. I don't see why I should consider that as part of any serious estimation of numbers.

carmachu said:

Further, on the customer side of things, while it can be great, I recall when 4e rollout came, folks said wizards isnt coming to your house and bunring your books. When 5th edition comes around, and they are in full in DDI online mode and not much books.....in that case yes, they will be coming to burn you books, in a manner of speaking, when they stop DDI support for 4e, and rollout 5e. Something you MIGHT want to consider.

Click to expand...

And really this is the thing that steers me away from DDI. I love digital offerings of gaming products, but really - Paizo's method fits my style much better. With DDI if I need to cut back on expenses I potentially lose access to a lot of material.

With Paizo, if I need to cut back I still own all the PDFs that I make heavy use of and I don't have to pay a subscription fee for Hero Lab. So I can cut all gaming material expenses and still have everything I am used to having to play the game at my fingertips.

We don't know how WotC will handle future D&D revisions, but there is the chance they will move all DDI content to the new version. Even if I want to move to the new version, maybe I am only halfway through a year long campaign that I want to finish under the same ruleset I started it under. They may account for that, but we don't know yet.

Dannager said:

Then you'll give me the whole thing.

Click to expand...

Um, no, actually, I won't.

We've seen bits and pieces elsewhere. 4e is the first system to take those bits and pieces and turn them into a coherent model for the closest thing to a living tabletop game system we've seen yet.

Click to expand...

Shrug. The technology exists at the same time as 4E.

Now, combine this technology with a really popular game system and THEN you will have something.

The expandability of the rules system has nothing to do with a license allowing its use. The ability to easily extend the game system is a property reflecting the modularity of the system.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. A license allowing its use is worthless WITHOUT the ability to actually implement. And both the ability and the license, in both potential and in practice, greatly exceeded 4E.

Yes, you could expand the d20 system, because you were allowed to. That doesn't make it more expandable than 4e. 4e is still the king in that regard.

Click to expand...

I suppose we could argue all day about the theory of that. I think 4E can certainly be expanded, so no argument with that piece. But there is no basis to draw the conclusion that 4E is one iota better than 3E in that regard. I'd say they are pretty equivalent in potential. Certainly calling either "king" is just rose colored glasses.

Now, when you switch from theory to actual practice, the combination of an actual good license and the runaway market dominance of the system, D20 expansions and upgrades were everywhere. 4E isn't in the ballpark. Which again, is not to say the raw potential is any less. But 3E had very low resistance (OGL) and high driving force (massive market), while 4E has high resistance (GSL) and much less driving force (see thread title).

And that's why that particular model was dropped.

Click to expand...

By WotC. It was picked up by another company and seems to be doing fair to middlin. Perhaps a little better than that.

That's another piece of the model - the primacy of official content. This particular part of the model may eventually phase out if the digital tools side of the model matures enough to effectively handle third party content, but I think that's really a long ways off.

Click to expand...

Not many people seem to think that 4E should be buying green bananas, much less thinking about a long ways off.

Which really brings it back to the real issue. This whole conversation is just a distraction from comparing the merits of the systems themselves for maintaining market share.