Pathfinder 1E D&D and Pathfinder tied for first place on ICv2 Q3 RPG sales list

[Retreater]

Wait... so the only way for the hobby to grow is if WotC grows?

No. The only way for the hobby to grow is to bring in new players (or bring back lapsed players).

My experience (and that may not be worth that much) is that WotC is making a much more concerted effort to attract new players than Paizo is. I'm not making a value statement of which is the better company, has the greatest staff, or the best products. I'm simply stating my opinion that WotC designed 4E with the intention of bringing in new players. Paizo has taken an old game, polished it up a bit, and has made it a beautiful luxury product for dedicated fans.

If I had to compare to video game systems, I would say that 4E is the Wii while Pathfinder is more like the PS3.

Retreater

 

[gamerprinter]

Nope, no agenda there *sarcasm*



This is not the whole picture, but a segment of the market, but it is good for the industry to be able to know such figures.

.

No, what emerges is a denouncement of the near religion of those who decided not to move on to 4E. Nobody denies that Paizo had a good quarter, what is questioned is the validity of an empirically un(der)supported claim. The "sour grapes" is coming more from the group looking for validity in their own 'hatred' of WotC who grab on to this as a "see WotC sucks and everyone is learning what I already knew".

Paizo people on Paizo's site, WotC's people on WotC's site, it doesn't really make much difference. They're never going to give us the real story, and I'm not sure it matters to them anyway. People are buying their products and they're in business. What any of us care about past what we (will) spend is usless to them.

Except you guys who are 'picking sides' are exremists, the large majority of players are much more open to any game, including PF or 4e.

I prefer PF as my personal game, but I am in favor of 4e, and any game really.

I look at the data presented as a 'snap shot' and in a world where such data is mostly kept hidden, this 'snap shot' forms a real view on what's going on. Nobody is claiming the data as imperical, nor the big picture (OK, some are, but they are extremists and a minority.)

ICv2, while not covering the big picture, is giving us reliable and unbaised point of view from one major area of the marketplace.

Why shoot it down as useless, when in fact its very useful!

Amazingly the entire RPG industry, including Paizo and WotC, consider ICv2 viable, reliable and unbiased. Only the fans think otherwise and it most seems like 'head stuck in sand' not even as viable points of view.

GP

 

[AngryMojo]

If Paizo is the big dog now when do we start hating them?

I'd say right now, as it's obvious that Erik Mona is ruining things. Erik Mona just ruined ICv2, and I think he may have ruined Mike Mearls.

Because the two are now neck-and-neck, I expect Mike Mearls to pop up and ruin Erik Mona any time now. In fact, I'll be disappointed if he doesn't.

C'mon Mearlsey, we're waiting.

 

[Herschel]

I like PF, but I don't think that it's as potent of a "gateway drug" for new players as 4E. It doesn't have the penetration to reach casual or new gamers that D&D does at this time. It exists almost exclusively to please their fans; which is great if you're a fan - but if you're not I could not imagine a more intimidating entry into a hobby than the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

I agree and disagree. The first part is definitely supported by brand recognition, but that doesn't have much to do with the game itself.

 

[Festivus]

And this is something that I really don't understand, but it's something that you often hear from certain circles.

One reason I feel it's almost backwards is because IMO new players enter the gaming scene by being introduced by players or DMs of existing groups. They see people in a group playing and they get curious, or their friends already in a group invite them to play. Established groups induct new players into the hobby, and really good groups tend to revolve around good, happy DMs.

I find a ton of DM support and inspiration in much of what Paizo produces at the same time that I see really good player focused material as well - quite balanced - whereas I see 4e having swung heavily towards the rules, powers, options, feats, player crunch side of things that doesn't (again in my opinion) make it as likely to open itself to gaining new people into the hobby via current groups.

I agree that Paizo products have better DM support and overall higher quality in the fluff department, but I really don't feel that Pathfinder is easier to teach the core rules to than 4E. I find that Pathfinder has rules for everything, rules I find I often have to look up to understand, often at the table during the game. 4E has a simple set of core rules that are easy to comprehend, and then a ton of crunch that breaks those rules. I don't even need the rule book at the table any more, just the exceptions to those rules. To me, that's easier to comprehend (but that is me and fits my thinking).

I am really excited to hear that Paizo is working on a starter set for their game, it's what I think is needed as a gateway drug for Pathfinder. I look forward to the release of it so I can have a lighter set of rules to work with (hopefully).

 

[IronWolf]

No. The only way for the hobby to grow is to bring in new players (or bring back lapsed players).

My experience (and that may not be worth that much) is that WotC is making a much more concerted effort to attract new players than Paizo is. I'm not making a value statement of which is the better company, has the greatest staff, or the best products. I'm simply stating my opinion that WotC designed 4E with the intention of bringing in new players. Paizo has taken an old game, polished it up a bit, and has made it a beautiful luxury product for dedicated fans.

I think Paizo has just been establishing their base and getting their Pathfinder system on solid footing. Now that they have started to do this, they have announced the intention to have a Pathfinder Intro set which will help them target the new players. You are right, it is important to grow the hobby and I think Paizo is about to make the step in that direction.

 

[DaveMage]

This down-playing of her comments might be related to the reactions posted here and on other forums whenever WotC made/make similar statements. This would inevitably boil down to a general feeling of "of course WotC says they're doing well, they wouldn't say otherwise regardless of the true situation."

So I don't find it surprising that a statement from Paizo is met with some amount of the same skepticism.

That's a fair point.

 

[Herschel]

ICv2, while not covering the big picture, is giving us reliable and unbaised point of view from one major area of the marketplace.

Why shoot it down as useless, when in fact its very useful!

I wouldn't say their data is useless, but as you pointed out, it's a view from one side, it's unscientific and not properly supported. The snapshot is interesting, but the claim is questionable.

For instance, having another snapshot of which demographic is buying (or not buying) your product is extremely useful. It doesn't mean a dingo's kidneys as far as sales figures, but is valuable nonetheless. Knowing which stores sell more of a certain product is also a good thing to know, but it doesn't tell you WHY a certain product sells better in one store or another.

It's like the Power Rankings of sports teams by ESPN or whomever. Take a little interesting data (which is good) and then make some overall claim based on that (which is not good). Kansas city is the on undefeated team in the NFL right now, but how good they really are won't be known for a while yet (and in that case still open to debate).

 

[Retreater]

I find a ton of DM support and inspiration in much of what Paizo produces at the same time that I see really good player focused material as well - quite balanced - whereas I see 4e having swung heavily towards the rules, powers, options, feats, player crunch side of things that doesn't (again in my opinion) make it as likely to open itself to gaining new people into the hobby via current groups.

Paizo produces a massive tome of 500 pages that retails for $50 that my regular, longterm players can't be persuaded to buy and use at the table. That's not player friendly.

Also, Paizo's crunch is terrible, IMO. I could go through line by line of the APG and explain its horrors if I had more time this afternoon. Broken classes and added unnecessary complexities.

(I'm sorry. I've had several awful Pathfinder experiences in the past year.)

Anyway, I think that I've derailed this thread enough and should take my leave of this thread.

Retreater

 

[BryonD]

Paizo produces a massive tome of 500 pages that retails for $50 that my regular, longterm players can't be persuaded to buy and use at the table.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook/dp/1601251505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286561066&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook (9781601251503): Jason Bulmahn: Books[/ame]

Print copy: $32

PDF: $10

That's not player friendly.

Thats not accurate.

Also, Paizo's crunch is terrible, IMO. I could go through line by line of the APG and explain its horrors if I had more time this afternoon. Broken classes and added unnecessary complexities.

(I'm sorry. I've had several awful Pathfinder experiences in the past year.)

Anyway, I think that I've derailed this thread enough and should take my leave of this thread.

Retreater

meh, I have some issues with some specifics of the PF crunch. But, taken as a whole, I personally find PF to be in a whole separate league from the ho hum of 4E. Does your opinion matter more to attracting more new fans? Does mine? I'm rather confident both answers are "no".

Personally, just comparing these two titles, I think 4E may be doing a better job of getting on the radar of non-gamers, but PF is doing a better job of building new long term members of the hobby.