Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

Imaro · Jul 6, 2011

I really wanted to just let this thread get back on course, but when you get called out by the owner of the site, I guess you really don't have a choice but to offer a rebuttal...

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?

Does not work for what exactly? Unless you have a crystal ball predicting the future and what DDI will do... that's all that has been discussed.

Morrus said:
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).

Without the knowledge of what it cost WotC to create and maintain DDI I see no evidence that it is a success either... only time will tell.

Morrus said:
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.

What appearances? One minute your claiming we don't know anything then all of a sudden it's "working"? Which one is it? Oh, and on another note, Paizo seems to have no problem selling loads of AP books... Doesn't Enworld sell those as well? Could there be a slight conflict of interest here since you've told us 4e AP"s for WotBS sold better than 3.5 for ENworld?

Morrus said:
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. Blizzards WoW book sales. Hey - Pathfinder is bigger than World of Warcraft! [Hint - it isn't, but Paizo does probably sell more books].

Who made the comparison between book sales and DDI? And please provide a quote because I don't remember this comparison being made in this thread. Otherwise it just seems like you have a preference and agenda since you don't have any hard evidence either.

Morrus said:
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 (that producers of Farmville) are unsiccessful because they haven't sold any DVDs of their game? It's currentl;y valued at $1.5 billion.

What WotC is trying to do is irrelevant to what we are tallking about... and unless D&D = Zynga this comparison is irrelevant as well.

Morrus said:
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.

Yet earlier you were claiming there was some sort of evidence that DDI is doing well or is a success... which one is it?

OAN: No one comapred book sales to DDI, why do you keep bringing this up?

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

The weird thing is they had way more books on their schedule at one time... and cancelled them, it seems if they're plan from the beginning was to stop selling books and go towards a digital model... those books would have never been on the release schedule... right?

Morrus said:
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.

What is obvious...again make up your mind, do we not have complete evidence... or is it obvious? No one has compared book sales to DDI sales... except you. And while you claim neutrality you infer that DDI is a success.... so which one is it?

Morrus said:
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?

Who has done this? Again, show me a post or quote where someone said Paizo's book sales are greater than DDI... you can't. However your own bias is coming through in that there is no definite evidence that says DDI has generated more revenue than Paizo's book sales, yet you continue to post like you have some.

Morrus said:
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.

What exactly is this proof of, concerning the DDI or Paizo? Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. All this really shows is that you have real financial reasons for supporting 4e as opposed to Pathfinder or 3.x

Dannager · Jul 6, 2011

Imaro said:
Does not work for what exactly? Unless you have a crystal ball predicting the future and what DDI will do... that's all that has been discussed.

Does not work as a commercially viable model. Some people are casting doubt on this. Those people are silly, because we have basically no indications that it's bad and a number of indications that it's pretty great, business-wise. No one knows for certain how it's doing, but to start claiming that it doesn't work is just weird.

Without the knowledge of what it cost WotC to create and maintain DDI I see no evidence that it is a success either... only time will tell.

That's what he said.

What appearances? One minute your claiming we don't know anything then all of a sudden it's "working"? Which one is it?

We don't know how successful it is, but it's clear that it's working. To say otherwise is, again, weird.

Oh, and on another note, Paizo seems to have no problem selling loads of AP books... Doesn't Enworld sell those as well? Could there be a slight conflict oif interest here since you've told us 4e AP"s for WotBS sold better than 3.5 for ENworld?

Good lord.

Who made this comparison? And please provide a quote because I don't remember this comparison being made in this thread.

Have you read this thread? The Paizo's book sales vs. WotC's book sales comparisons started in post 1.

Or are you talking about the "comparing WotC's book sales to Paizo's is like comparing Paizo's book sales to Blizzard's" bit? Because no one made that comparison. Morrus was using it to illustrate how pointless it is to compare WotC and Paizo's book sales.

Are you have trouble following along? It seems like you are.

What WotC is trying to do is irrelevant to what we are tallking about... and unless D&D = Zynga this comparison is irrelevant as well.

No, it's not. It's relevant because Zynga's business model is to make money through microtransactions. Saying "But Paramount sells more DVDs than Zynga!" doesn't work as a criticism against Zynga, because selling DVDs is not the primary way Zynga is making money.

Similarly, WotC's business model is now to generate tons of revenue through an online service. Saying that WotC must be doing poorly because its book sales are less than Paizo's doesn't really mean anything, because WotC is not relying solely (or even primarily, necessarily) on book sales.

This is pretty clear from Morrus' post. Again, it seems as though you're having trouble following along. Perhaps spend a few more minutes digesting posts before responding.

Yet earlier you are claiming there was some sort of evidence that DDI is doing weel or is a success... which one is it?

No, he claimed that it's working. And it is. It's basically impossible to argue that it's not working for WotC, because if it wasn't working for them, they wouldn't be doing it after three years.

OAN: No one comapred book sales to DDI, why do you keep bringing this up?

What?! No. He's saying (again) that it's silly to compare book sales between the two companies because WotC isn't really about book sales anymore so much as they're about delivering content, no matter the method.

The weird thing is they had way more books on their schedule at one time... and cancelled them, it seems if their plan from the beginning was to stop selling books and go towards a digital model... those books would have never been on the release schedule... right?

No.

What is obvious...again make up your miond, do we not have complete evidence... or is it obvious? No one has compared book sales to DDI sales... except you. And while you claim neutrality you infer that DDI is a success.... so which one is it?

He's not saying that people are comparing book sales to DDI sales. He's saying that comparisons between the two companies' book sales are pointless for determining how successful either company is with respect to the other.

Who has done this? Again, show me a post or quote where someone said Paizo's book sales are greater than DDI... you can't. However your own bias is coming through in that there is no definite evidence that says DDI has generated more revenue than Paizo's book sales, yet you continue to post like you have some.

Man. This is just...man.

What exactly is this proof of concerning the DDI or Paizo? Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. All this really shows is that you have real financial reasons for supporting 4e as opposed to Pathfinder or 3.x

You have managed to totally misunderstand Morrus, and leapt so far past his point that you're now accusing him of coloring his own opinion for the sake of financial gain?

Man.

Firebeetle · Jul 6, 2011

TheAuldGrump said:
Guess what - I am an educator too, as are two of my Pathfinder players. I have taught military history, military science, and religion. (Not all at the same time.) One of my players teaches English in middle school, her husband teaches fencing.

So... you being one as well is irrelevant. There is a reason why Appeal to Authority is considered a logical fallacy. Being an expert in one thing is no guarantee of expertise in anything else.

The Auld Grump

Like so many of my colleagues, you are so busy counting your credentials that you entirely miss the point. Given that you quoted the entire message, I thought you would have at least read it. It's called an analogy.

The point was that teachers often reject reform simply because they can, and try to make their current mode of operation work harder instead of working smarter. Education reform often has issues with rejection and teachers refusing to make something work. I see many analogies with the state of RPGs today, rejection because somebody misunderstands the direction of something, or its intent, or simply because they might have to learn a different way of doing things.

For example, let's take whole language instruction. Whole language has met with phenomenal success in New Zealand and Australia. It has three balanced elements: comprehension, phonics, and grammar/syntax. When introduced in America, it was immediately compared to the current system many schools used that focused on phonics only. "Whole Language" came to mean "no phonics", even though it didn't. Phonics was always a key element in whole language. Three name changes later (it's now "balanced literacy") it still has a reputation of leaving phonics out when it doesn't. This is exactly like players saying "It's Wow the Board Game" or even a player comparing 4e to moving chess pieces on this thread. I think the blending of different game elements from MMORGs, family games, miniature games, as well as the cleanest RPG chassis D&D has seen to date is brilliant, apparently too brilliant to be appreciated by many (an old and tragic theme.)

You've indicated that you teach what I presume are secondary subjects, as do your associates. Have you adopted the attitude that you all teach reading yet, even the fencing teacher? Yes, the fencing teacher. If you're balking at that, then you haven't accepted a reality that is coming your way. Many players have balked in the same way, and continue to look backward. As I said before, this makes me sad. Of course some people will always stay with what they know, that has happened with virtually any game system. We all know a guy who still plays old editions of Traveller, D&D, or what have you. I feel many have not crossed over to 4e because of all the reasons I've listed and a failure to appreciate the game for what it is. A well crafted game is overthrown for a rehash of the familiar. Perhaps I should use movies as my analogy, that same attitude is responsible for the enormous glut of similar movies out there. We've all had the experience of liking some "out there" movie only to have others dismiss it because it is not familiar. That's what I think has happened here, people don't give it a real chance.

Let the attacks continue.

prosfilaes · Jul 6, 2011

Firebeetle said:
The point was that teachers often reject reform simply because they can,

Yes, people reject changes just because they can, and they also accept changes just because they're new. The point is, both blindly rejecting and accepting new things are bad ideas; just because it's new doesn't tell you that it's better or worse then what came before.

There was a great new drug to fight morning sickness in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but the change-adverse FDA rejected this new drug. Thus thalidomide caused no birth defects in the US.

I feel many have not crossed over to 4e because of all the reasons I've listed and a failure to appreciate the game for what it is

A lot of people have played it, and didn't like it. If it's not fun for them, then it's failed at what a game should be. People aren't wrong for not liking a certain game.

We've all had the experience of liking some "out there" movie only to have others dismiss it because it is not familiar.

Wait, what? Are you seriously promoting a game where you play dwarves and elves who are fighters, clerics and wizards, who have the standard six attributes and levels, etc., by calling it "out there"? There is nothing so familiar on the market as D&D, whether you label it OSRIC, D&D 4 or Pathfinder.

TheAuldGrump · Jul 6, 2011

Firebeetle said:
Much snippage of an overly long post, so as to not add too much to mine own overly long post

And in what way do our credentials make either of us a better judge of what makes a good RPG?

To be blunt, it does not, unless one of us has a degree in the design of roleplaying games. I taught military history, which is at least tangentially connected. But it does not make my opinion any better, or any worse, than any other person who runs, or plays games. We are both well behind in authority to folks who write, sell, and market games.

Thus the logical fallacy of The Appeal to Authority. Neither of us have any, but then I am not claiming any. I am merely saying that neither of us has any legitimate authority to claim.

Neither of us has any claim to authority better than 'I like this game, that game sucks'. Or, for that matter, that 'there is a market for each game, let folks play what they like'. So who has what degrees, and who teaches what, and for what body of students they do their teaching and preaching matters not one whit.

There was no logical benefit to your mentioning that you were an educator, and the only purpose to my mentioning the fact that I have also taught was to point out that in neither case does this fact have any bearing.

Now you and I are both are adding Argument Through Verbosity - another logical fallacy, with perhaps a soupcon of Ad Hominem Attack.

You have shown me no proof that your opinion is in any way, shape, or form either better or more informed than mine own. In turn, I do not claim that mine is any better, nor more informed, than yours, much as I may like to think that it is so.

Last time I checked, English was a primary subject, as is history. Want to try for another tack? I don't think that either of us has tried for an Undistributed Middle yet.

The market will be the actual judge for these games - I think that there is enough room for both games, but at the moment, at the moment, 4e is stagnating a bit. This can change, and likely will.

Pathfinder, for its part, is proving more robust than expected, and is growing faster than 4e, at the moment. Again, subject to change as the market reacts, and also subject to local conditions.

There is room for both games to grow, but WotC might need a kick in the trousers.

The Auld Grump, I see by your outfit that you are a cowboy.
You see by my outfit that I'm a cowboy too....
We see by our outfits that we are both cowboys,
If you buy an outfit you can be a cowboy too.... (There, now I have added an Undistributed Middle!)

billd91 · Jul 6, 2011

Firebeetle said:
Many players have balked in the same way, and continue to look backward. As I said before, this makes me sad. Of course some people will always stay with what they know, that has happened with virtually any game system. We all know a guy who still plays old editions of Traveller, D&D, or what have you. I feel many have not crossed over to 4e because of all the reasons I've listed and a failure to appreciate the game for what it is. A well crafted game is overthrown for a rehash of the familiar. Perhaps I should use movies as my analogy, that same attitude is responsible for the enormous glut of similar movies out there. We've all had the experience of liking some "out there" movie only to have others dismiss it because it is not familiar. That's what I think has happened here, people don't give it a real chance.

Let the attacks continue.

Why should someone else's preferences make you sad? Why do you have so much disdain for people who don't choose to be on board with the latest version of the game?

Do you feel the same way about people who still buy Beatles albums or Mozart rather than the latest published music too? How about those of us who read Shakespeare? His stuff has certainly been rehashed again and again. Or is your disdain saved just for fellow gamers who don't have the same preferences as you?

Herremann the Wise · Jul 6, 2011

Firebeetle said:
I see many analogies with the state of RPGs today, rejection because somebody misunderstands the direction of something, or its intent, or simply because they might have to learn a different way of doing things...

For example, let's take whole language instruction. Whole language has met with phenomenal success in New Zealand and Australia... It has three balanced elements: comprehension, phonics, and semantics.

I actually did a year or two of a Primary Education Degree back in 1991/2 before transferring to a Mathematics degree here in Australia and so I think I can provide a very interesting perspective particularly in regards to the "whole reading" debate as it could be applied to RPGs.

At that time in the early 90's, the whole reading approach was the "in" thing here in Sydney to the point where lecturers were ridiculing Dr. Seuss (phonics approach) books in lectures. The emphasis was completely polarized towards a student's understanding of the story. Books such as "Rosie's Walk" were the paragons of this approach and indeed my little 4yo loves "Rosie's Walk" because she can "read" it to me without "reading it". My 2yo boy tells me what's going on with "We're going on a Bear hunt". There is certainly something going on with the whole reading approach.

Could this be a little like 4e and some of it's players though? Part of accepting the "new" was rejecting the "old". Those lecturers were so juiced up on this new philosophy that it became all too easy to reject former practices for the new. Like a pendulum swinging. Like the change from 3e to 4e. It became easy to get wrapped up in the "new shiny" while looking back at what had gone before as "tired", "fragmented" and "flawed". In fact the parallels between the phonics versus whole language approach and 3e versus 4e debates and debacles is almost startling!

And so what happened? The pendulum swung back a little, the fervour lessened, much had been learned and a compromise was reached. There was a place for phonics in terms of children gaining literacy along with all the gains made. That compromise was hard won. IS that what we are seeing with the Mike Mearls articles? This gentle swinging back to be more inclusive of some of their former audience? A realization that 4e blazed the trail but occasionally got a little lost (I'm looking at you skill challenges :rant:

). A need to ask "What IS D&D" and being inclusive of the old along with the new.

A good point made further back is that Paizo have kept many people in the hobby who may have been lost. Paizo have nurtured and nourished their customers... a little different from WotC's approach I grant you. I think it fair to say that their success going all the way back to their founding has been built upon customer service, good product and loyalty. THAT is why they are achieving success. And THAT is why they should be applauded rather than as your initial post stated that they were part of some problem only you can divine.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Dannager · Jul 6, 2011

billd91 said:
Why should someone else's preferences make you sad?

I'll hazard a guess (and I could be wrong) that it's because the tabletop gaming hobby is small enough that a group of people who band together and refuse to move forward with the hobby can have an impact on the success of that forward movement.

I can certainly understand this line of thought. I personally think there are a lot of cases of certain lines of thinking holding the hobby back. It's not a huge deal, because we'll get there eventually, but I can't help but think that (for instance) we'd see a much more robust integration of technology into tabletop gaming if we didn't have so many DMs averse to certain varieties (or all varieties) of technology at the table.

billd91 · Jul 6, 2011

Dannager said:
I'll hazard a guess (and I could be wrong) that it's because the tabletop gaming hobby is small enough that a group of people who band together and refuse to move forward with the hobby can have an impact on the success of that forward movement.

I can certainly understand this line of thought. I personally think there are a lot of cases of certain lines of thinking holding the hobby back. It's not a huge deal, because we'll get there eventually, but I can't help but think that (for instance) we'd see a much more robust integration of technology into tabletop gaming if we didn't have so many DMs averse to certain varieties (or all varieties) of technology at the table.

For some of us, your version of moving the hobby forward may be moving it off on a wild tangent.

For what it's worth, I'm running most of my Pathfinder game off my iPad. So integrating technology at my gaming table isn't a problem. What I prefer is the two pronged approach I get from Paizo - an e-version of the book as well as a physical version. That way I can run with technology at home or pack up a couple of books and take them camping and play in a screened tent around a Coleman lantern, far from an easy recharge (how many of us in my area played a lot when we were Boy Scouts). The DDI-heavy 4e is less friendly to the camping approach.

Jared Rascher · Jul 6, 2011

After reading some of the rest of the thread, I wanted to clarify what I said, because now that I'm seeing the shape of things, I don't want to agree with things I clearly am not agreeing with, in my brain at least.

I think a cheap/valuable subscription model is viable business model. The trick is to find the balancing point where the subscription is considered valuable enough balanced against the material the person subscribing is considered worthwhile.

To reiterate my examples, the Marvel subscription might actually be cheap enough for me to want to keep it going, because its less than two comics a month to be able to dabble with ones I may not like, and ones I might not have noticed without the subscription.

The DDI subscription was worthwhile for me because it was a fairly cheap amount per month for me, and yet it provided me access with the whole 4E line to play with even when I wasn't actively playing. Had I been actively playing, or had nothing else changed, I would have been likely to not be moved enough to cancel due to the relatively small amount I had been spending.

The Pathfinder subscription is on the higher end to this, because it isn't a minimal amount, but the free PDF and the discounted amount if you subscribe to enough lines for someone that is at least somewhat invested in the game and the lines is valuable. It's valuable enough that I'm betting many people do pick up items they would not normally because it's too much of a hassle to cancel and re up (not that some don't).

However, I am not willing to say that the subscription model is THE way to go or the wave of the future, nor am I saying that electronic distribution as the primary means of distribution is just around the corner (though I'm thinking its closer in the comics industry than in the gaming industry). With all due respect, I think Morrus is a bit too keen on the impending irrelevance of physical stores.

I stopped my subscription to Paizo products because I wanted to buy from my LFGS, because I run my games there and I network with other gamers in my area through that source. Those are valuable functions for me, and if a game store is friendly, responsive, and service oriented, it's going to do a lot better than one that just sits there and complains that they don't auto-sell items like they used to.

I'm not saying that primary digital distribution and online RPG playing won't someday be the norm, I'm just thinking it's a bit too soon to see that around the corner.

To get back, directly, to the topic at hand, I think that there is a portion of this puzzle missing on both sides. Lisa is talking about sales in stores Pathfinder versus D&D, which doesn't take into account either Paizo's subscriptions or D&D DDI. I think that is interesting, because as I detailed above, I think the subscription model allows for some "padding" versus product failure on both sides.

I will say that I think this may separate the upper ends of the industry further from the rest of the pack, because as the "subscription cushion model" becomes the norm, those companies that don't have that to fall back on won't have the buffer to put out "iffy" sales products.

I am curious to see if Paizo maintains the lead since at least part of their current strategy has been shifting away from their core competency (setting and adventures) to D&D's more modern paradigm (splat book-o-rama). It will be especially interesting to see if diminishing returns on splat books lead to another edition in the relatively near future.