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

[Ycore Rixle]

Congrats, Paizo. Well done.

I hope that the competition continues and forces everyone to produce ever better games.

 

[czak]

Cross posting for interest: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...hfinderIsTiedFor1stCongratsToPaizo&page=3#117

With regards to the survey and sales data from amazon:

Lisa Stevens (CEO),

It may not be scientific, but it jives well with some much more scientific data that we have internally. We will never be able to have 100% transparency about how sales of somebody else's products are going, but we can get some pretty good data that customers don't have access to. And that data tells us that icV2 is pretty much right on. Which is pretty cool, IMHO!

We actually have very good data about sales into the "big chains" like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. through a company called Bookscan which records every single sale through those chains and aggregates them. Believe it or not, we know the sales of RPG products through book stores much more accurately than we do through hobby game stores. Weird, I know. -Lisa

 

[DaveMage]

Cross posting for interest: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...hfinderIsTiedFor1stCongratsToPaizo&page=3#117

With regards to the survey and sales data from amazon:

Lisa Stevens (CEO),

It may not be scientific, but it jives well with some much more scientific data that we have internally. We will never be able to have 100% transparency about how sales of somebody else's products are going, but we can get some pretty good data that customers don't have access to. And that data tells us that icV2 is pretty much right on. Which is pretty cool, IMHO!

We actually have very good data about sales into the "big chains" like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. through a company called Bookscan which records every single sale through those chains and aggregates them. Believe it or not, we know the sales of RPG products through book stores much more accurately than we do through hobby game stores. Weird, I know. -Lisa

Thanks for posting this!

Great news for Paizo indeed!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Regardless of the source and accuracy of the original report, it's clear that pathfinder is doing well. When it was first in the works, there was legitimate question over whether it would be successful or not on any level. The fact that a "dead game" has been resurrected* is enough reason to celebrate, regardless of the actual statistics.

*(I suppose this is just fuel to the fire for those who think resurrection is too easy in D&D)

 

[JohnRTroy]

The only way to really get more reliable data for sales would for there to be a Billboard revolution in the industry, or something like Bookscan as reported by Lisa.

Billboard Magazine used to work similar to ICV2's method. Then, in 1991, they implemented a huge upgrade--they implemented a POS tracking software for record stores (Soundscan) and computers that could track actual songs being played on the playlists instead or relying on program and music director reports (Broadcast Data Scan).

It's surprising how this changed the way hits happened. Before, you had a system where there were a lot more #1 hits but they'd only last a week or two--once a song peaked people would end up removing it fast from the reports (even if they played it more often), and you had more rotation. This method, while having its own checks and balances, ended up allowing some level of payola style corruptions.

After the revolution--you found surprises. What ended up happening after Soundscan was that we found out #1 hits lasted longer--you had hits for 7-20 weeks at #1, and less people getting #1 hits. You also found some interesting patterns such as lesser artists getting more hits than the established ones, white people charting higher on the R&B charts, etc.

The problem with gaming and comics is that the industry is not composed of many large chains but small FLGS, which likely prevents this type of rollout. And unlike the major book stores, most books aren't returnable, so the inventory once bought doesn't have a return for checks and balances. This means that actual sales data of the accuracy level of Billboard is probably going to be hard to get.

But the charts from ICv2 are probably the best form of research we are going to get, and I'll believe them over ancedotal evidence from isolated store reports. It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another thing to be skeptical with a bias--and I fear too many people debating the subject who are fans end up like or dislike one competitor and are sort of concerned that what evidence we have suggests something contrary to their viewpoint.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

As long as D&DAs for the question of who's #1 and who's #2, the distances between, methods of measurement, or made-up statistics... who really cares? Does it honestly make any difference to the quality of the game at your table?

In the long run... possibly.

- The statistical basis for the survey might be weak - but the mere fact that Pathfinder and D&D have been placed upon an equal sales footing for the first time by "someone" is significant. The fact that there is seemingly no better public measuring stick should also be noted.

- The folks over at Paizo are certainly celebrating so the result is certainly significant for them.

- Perhaps this result gives some measure of evidence that the 2E/3E split and the 3E/4E split are significantly different and not just due to the interwebs. While 4E has pleased many players, it also left many players in the cold. This is something that more than anything depresses me. 4e split my group down the middle with only a few (including myself) willing to play both versions. The edition wars between 3e/4e is perhaps the worst thing that has happened to D&D.

- And on that from the PHB 4E:

Now we’ve reached a new milestone. This is the 4th Edition of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. It’s new. It’s exciting. It’s bright and shiny. It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play.

- It would seem that the 4e lifecycle has been psuedo-planned for the term of a decade. With Essentials now out acting in a similar way to the 3.5 revision, I wonder how much life 4e has left in it. Will it make the hoped for decade of play?

- If Pathfinder continues to take a significant chunk out of D&D's marketshare, hopefully a 5e will seek to unite the players once more. The different design philosophy that was the cornerstone of 4e will hopefully be ratcheted back a few steps in a future edition, being more inclusive of all players. Again if Pathfinder continues to take a significant chunk out of D&D's marketshare is it fair enough to say that the D&D designers zigged when they should have zagged. Is it fair enough to say that 4e is not living up to what is expected of an edition of Dungeons & Dragons?

- And in regards to competition being good, I'm not so sure. If Paizo and D&D were competing on the same turf and edition, then I would say for sure. But as it is, I cannot help but feel that survey shows the split is growing. The vitriol has died down but the scars are still there.

So while some will ignore this result, others will flash their fanboy credentials, and others will ponder what it means, my hope is that it will change the quality of game at my table by forcing a new edition sooner than planned that gets my full gaming group back together again. For all its good points and bad, perhaps 4e's greatest asset will be its legacy to the edition that follows it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[I'm A Banana]

my hope is that it will change the quality of game at my table by forcing a new edition sooner than planned that gets my full gaming group back together again.

The fact that this edition divide was enough to end gaming groups makes me (and probably both WotC and Paizo) kind of sad.

Fact is, entrenched edition warriors don't do either side any good. Fanboys offer rationalizations for bad game design decisions, while haters fling poo like chimps in a zoo, and the people caught in the middle feel like they can only pick one or the other, that it's not possible to do both. The fewer groups playing, the more the hobby as a whole suffers.

I'm pretty sure 4e will be around for about a decade (if it doesn't do at least 8 years, going 'till 2016, I'll be a little surprised!). I do think that these two playing off each other brings us better games than these two working together (though I'd really like it if people felt like they could play both).

The rift seemed to me to be less about game design, and more about OGL/Licencing issues, so if it is healed in 5e, I wonder if it would keep the "competitive" style that brings out the best in the companies. At the very least, I think the OGL concept deserves a rousing round of hearty applause, since it is at the heart of this tension. To all the folks who fought tooth and nail to get the OGL out there, and to make 3e part of it: we have you to thank for laying the sod for the fertile gaming fields we're reaping today! Yaaay!

 

[Campbell]

If Pathfinder continues to take a significant chunk out of D&D's marketshare, hopefully a 5e will seek to unite the players once more. The different design philosophy that was the cornerstone of 4e will hopefully be ratcheted back a few steps in a future edition, being more inclusive of all players. Again if Pathfinder continues to take a significant chunk out of D&D's marketshare is it fair enough to say that the D&D designers zigged when they should have zagged. Is it fair enough to say that 4e is not living up to what is expected of an edition of Dungeons & Dragons?

I would question the wisdom that bridging the differences would be the best decision moving forward. I think it's a bit too late to walk the middle road. The response I've noticed from devoted 4e fans to Essentials (which no doubt about it is an attempt to bridge the gap) has been less than stellar. For the most part those of us who like 4e really like 4e as it existed prior to Essentials. I also doubt that most 3e holdouts would be willing to make much in the way of concessions while Pathfinder exists.

 

[vagabundo]

- If Pathfinder continues to take a significant chunk out of D&D's marketshare, hopefully a 5e will seek to unite the players once more. The different design philosophy that was the cornerstone of 4e will hopefully be ratcheted back a few steps in a future edition, being more inclusive of all players. Again if Pathfinder continues to take a significant chunk out of D&D's marketshare is it fair enough to say that the D&D designers zigged when they should have zagged. Is it fair enough to say that 4e is not living up to what is expected of an edition of Dungeons & Dragons?

I hope not. I like the way 4e is going and plays. I think they would lose a significant number of players by going backward - me included. But I'd still have all my 4e books so I'd be good. 4e is certainly living up to me on a personal level, anything more than that I cannot say, only WotC could comment.

Anyway, I'm cool with having two different games to cater to different groups.

 

[Treebore]

Not quite true. The one and only fact is there is no actual data presented to make a conclusion, just a note that they interviewed some people and created a supposition..

His point is where is the data your going by to prove their rankings are wrong? Meaning the point is you have no such data. These hard numbers you keep mentioning do not exist, and never will. Corporations believe releasing their actual numbers is too likely to damage their future sales, and more importantly their stock dividends.

So right or wrong, for whatever reason, you will never have your hard data, and on top of that ICV2 is someone people in the industry pay attention too, because they know what questions are asked, and what information is given.

They do not give any numbers because the respective companies do not want such data publicly disclosed.

So you may not want this ranking systems to be "valid", but it is.

Does this mean that Paizo sells as much as WOTC and D&D? No, it just means they are pretty darn close.

I agree DDI definitely hurts WOTC's print sales. I can only assume the revenue stream from DDI makes them more money than the print sales would. It likely does.