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

[gamerprinter]

What distresses me about this news is that it indicates that the hobby is not getting new players. If this were true.

Hear me out.

4E was designed to appeal to new players. Simplified system. Getting the word out through new channels.

Pathfinder is the safe haven for older players - the dedicated fans who will purchase their products directly from the company or at hobby stores (it's not like PF has a real presence outside of the niche market). Their books are luxury priced, daunting for new players, etc.

Despite your personal example, I think appeal to new players was a design goal, but due to its complexity is a failure at that. 4e is really for disgruntled 3.5 players wanting something different. WotC hopes to attract new people, and though that may still happen, I think it really hasn't yet.

I've got four new players in my game and they are all playing in our PF game, and have no intentions of going 4e... basically both our personal experiences have no place in this discussion and offer no particular insight.

Also I don't see 4e as being the required 'gateway drug' for new players, any more than PF will be with its 'basics box set' coming soon. I think both Essentials and the Basics will target that audience and both will do well. One won't be the default new players game.

I think this report shows that both will be attracting new blood and that this is a great thing!

GP

 

[Azgulor]

Paizo has stated on their forum's thread on this subject that their direct sales and their subscriptions are not included in these numbers.

Now, now. Don't go throwing facts into the mix.

After all, statements from the publisher, articles by respected industry sources, and opinions levied by respected 3rd-party RPG writers/publishers do not outweigh the power of anecdotal, personal evidence. That is unless it supports your opinion/worldview. Go figure.

Kidding aside - thanks for pointing out those facts.

 

[Maggan]

Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo posted yesterday on the Paizo forums that ICV2’s report jibes with Paizo’s sense of the market and their place within it as well.

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. Albeit I would hazard a guess that apart from some exceptions it's not the same people expressing the same skeptiscism.

/M

 

[Mark CMG]

Paizo has stated on their forum's thread on this subject that their direct sales and their subscriptions are not included in these numbers.

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I stand corrected.

 

[Azgulor]

Bearing all that in mind, I still think that this is bad news for WotC and the hobby itself.

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

Sorry, not buying that.

 

[kilamanjaro]

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

 

[Herschel]

Regarding the 'snap shot' there are no other public data sets - so this is as official as any of us will get.

But "as official as any of us will get" is NOT a good indicator of anything concrete. It's a snapshot companies use, just like many others, but I would also expect any internal market research to be much more in-depth and accurate. And that data we do not get.

And it's not just that industry. Every other well run company does the same thing. They look at the snapshots as an ancillary idea but they don't make annual reports/strategies/plans off what is printed in the trades.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I have to wonder how well the numbers will be in total.

I don't see him having Q3 numbers yet, but Evil Hat posted numbers for the Q2 orders of The Dresden Files, which comes in at #5 on that list.

Evil Hat Sales Numbers: Q2 2010

Both Dresden Files books come in at about under 3,000 units each for Q2, those being distributed to retail conventions and distributors.

That's a pretty low number, so unless Q3 number increased by a huge multiplier, it can show a significant gap between products.

So, maybe people are right at the numbers could be grimmer than one would anticipate. Or maybe the gaps between D&D and the other games can be high.

 

[Herschel]

Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo posted yesterday on the Paizo forums that ICV2’s report jibes with Paizo’s sense of the market and their place within it as well.
.

Nope, no agenda there *sarcasm*

Lisa goes on to note that they have excellent hardcaore data on PRECISELY how well 4E’s and their own sales are performing at the Big Box book stores as well as Amazon. For those in the know and up to date on how that market works, they’ll know that Lisa ought to know those numbers with precision and why hose hard sales numbers on titles and sales volume is available to Paizo..

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.

.

In short, blah blah blah “this is all anecdotal and I don’t believe it” runs up against a relatively information rich CEO’s opinion which in effect says" And that data tells us that icV2 is pretty much right on".

Contrast that with what emerges from many posters here? I’d characterize that fairly and dispassionately as sour grapes. Whatever the personal motives for individuals’ posting in the manner that some have chosen to, the overall impression such expressed doubts and misgivings leave is one of putting fingers in both of your ears and singing loudly so that you can ignore an event that does not accord with your personal preferences.

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".

Look at those lauding this announcement as "truth". Many are the same ones all over WotC when they simply stated 4E was selling well. WotC didn't claim market share, sales, or anything else, just that it was selling well.

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.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

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.