Pathfinder 1E Paizo Announcement and Prognostication

[Dannager]

I have to see that. NOTHING I have seen has remotely shown that 4e sales have hit the 3.0 sales when released. Let alone including 3.5 items.

3.0 was the high point, as Goodman pointed out, a perfect storm that folks were ready for alot of change, that drew players back in. Where as the split because of the OGL/GSL fiasco sheered off a number of old players and didnt quite bring in the new.

WotC announced a while back that the print run they sold through of the 4e core books was larger than the number of core books sold during 3e. Or that it was the largest print run of D&D books ever. Or something. It was a while ago, I don't really remember that well.

The point is, there have been indications that 4e has done appreciably well compared to previous editions.

 

[Votan]

Active support is a major draw for a game. This is pretty much inarguable, and is the sole reason Pathfinder RPG exists - Paizo created it so that their adventure path customers would have a currently-supported system with which to play their adventures. We can safely file "active support" under the reasons for which people play certain games.

I agree with this in terms of the more complex games (of which D&D and Pathfinder are good examples). There is a threshold where on person owning the book is not enough to make the game functional (imagine trying to develop a Pathfinder character, at the table with no previous 3/5/PF experience).

But there are also RPGs where one person owning a copy is sufficient (think Red Box D&D) and then active support is less critical. Furthermore, the level of complexity directly influences the ease of houseruling the games and the likelihood of unintended consequences.

But I agree that 3.5 E was complex enough to require active support.

 

[carmachu]

WotC announced a while back that the print run they sold through of the 4e core books was larger than the number of core books sold during 3e. Or that it was the largest print run of D&D books ever. Or something. It was a while ago, I don't really remember that well.

The point is, there have been indications that 4e has done appreciably well compared to previous editions.

Done well? Absolutely. Done well as 3.0 when released? As Joseph Goodman has pointed out, 3.0 was a perfect storm of events that 4e has not, and cannot duplicate. It brought a ton of folks back. But I'm highly skeptical it did as well or better then 3.0 given all the data shown prior.

 

[czak]

WotC announced a while back that the print run they sold through of the 4e core books was larger than the number of core books sold during 3e. Or that it was the largest print run of D&D books ever. Or something. It was a while ago, I don't really remember that well.

The point is, there have been indications that 4e has done appreciably well compared to previous editions.

Back in 2008:

ICv2 - D&D 4E Back to Press


A WotC spokesperson has informed ICv2 that Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition has already gone back to press more than a week before its scheduled street date next Friday, June 6th. Sell-in of 4th Edition has “far exceeded expectations” and even though the initial print run for 4th Edition was 50% higher than the order for the previous D&D 3.5 Edition, WotC has now realized that it is necessary to go back to press to meet anticipated reorder demand.




So, it was larger than the initial run of 3.5 in 2003. Is it reasonable to infer that had it been larger than the run of 3.0 they would have said that?

 

[MrMyth]

So, it was larger than the initial run of 3.5 in 2003. Is it reasonable to infer that had it been larger than the run of 3.0 they would have said that?

I believe that is based on a quote from Mearls' livejournal (I think this is the link) which said that the initial print run size for 4E was greater than that for 3.5, which was greater than that of 3.0.

Now, how that compared over the life of the edition is a different thing than initial print run. But it is my understanding that 4E sold very well to start, and tended to receive good sales for PHB2, PHB3, and other core books - while the later supplements (Martial Power 2, etc) were where the performance was somewhat disappointing. (And, I'm guessing, that ties in heavily to the growing use of DDI).

 

[Umbran]

Is it reasonable to infer that had it been larger than the run of 3.0 they would have said that?

I'd call that a weak inference. It is fairly common to only compare to most recent history, instead of cataloging comparisons to several historical events.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am pretty sure the initial print run very well also. When it came out we didn't really know what to expect (unless you bought the preview or something) and many of us thought it would pretty much be like 3e but with some fixes.

However i would be surprised if it sold as well in its first 3 years as 3e.

 

[Mournblade94]

Also I would guess contributing to the initial sales would be all the players who were not yet turned off by 4th edition. I bet just about everyone that bought a Pathfinder CORE RULES and still plays that also bought at least the first run of 4e.

Those numbers are not necessarily a reflection of popularity.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also I would guess contributing to the initial sales would be all the players who were not yet turned off by 4th edition. I bet just about everyone that bought a Pathfinder CORE RULES and still plays that also bought at least the first run of 4e.

Those numbers are not necessarily a reflection of popularity.

Yeah. The first run sales would have been built on the 3E fanbase.

 

[BryonD]

Dannager,

We are going in circles and you aren't even making a sound argument at this point.

Believe whatever makes you comfortable. Enjoy your game.