Dragon Con: A Sight of the Schism in action

[malkav666]

Malk, from what I can tell, most gamers don't buy game books, enter game stores, or discuss games on the net.

WOTC revealed that in their survey long ago that a lot of people are still just plugging along with their home brew game that started as 1E.

Another large group are simply players in games, though they never buy any books for those games, or enter a game store, or even even log into an internet forum like this. That accounts for almost every single person I play with.

I think there is this perception that most gamers buy new games, frequent local game stores, and use the internet to discuss said games. I really do not think they do.

But more importantly, why do you seem so bothered by my saying that I think most gamers have not heard of Paizo and Pathfinder, given I also said I thought Pathfinder was a huge success? What's with the "make believe line" accusation?

That is an interesting perspective. Lets say for the sake of furthering the discussion that it is in fact true.

Those gamers while definitely a part of the gaming community, don't seem to be a part of the gaming market. When I say gaming market I mean those that are actually spending money in this hobby. I think those are more of the folks I was talking about, and you were talking about those playing but not spending. The end result I think had us talking past one another instead of to one another.

So let me restate myself. I feel that the majority of gamers in the active market (those buying games, from whatever venue) are aware of Pathfinder, as well as 4e.

I feel that those staying out of the market and sticking to their 1ed game would probably know as much about 4e as they do Pathfinder. This is where I took slight with your statement. As it seems that if those gamers are not participating in this generation of games, then the statement they don't know about pathfinder would be kind of moot in a conversation about a schism between players of the newish games. As they would not know much about any of the games in the schism (They themselves having branched off a long time ago).

But if we are talking about the active market section of gamers (once again those buying new games), do you still feel that the majority of those gamers are oblivious to the presence of Pathfinder? If so, please explain.

love,

malkav

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Ok guys my last post was meant as a joke, because well frankly that's how the thread looked
The OP made an observation and it has turned into "I have number that say my game sales more...No your number are useless , but my number are better so my game is better...No I looked up on site a that's shows your game is not selling, No site A clearly shows my game selling more"


So yes, it was tackless and I should have thought about it but it amused me as that was the image that popped in my head. Two groups of puffed up macho kids seeing hows was bigger and better.

So sorry if any one was offended It was not meant as an insult or an attack, But really guys look over the posts and there is a lot of chest thumping "mines better" going on. Can't we talk about something without both sides firing shots?

 

[Dannager]

Ok guys my last post was meant as a joke, because well frankly that's how the thread looked
The OP made an observation and it has turned into "I have number that say my game sales more...No your number are useless , but my number are better so my game is better...No I looked up on site a that's shows your game is not selling, No site A clearly shows my game selling more"

Again, this isn't actually what's being said.

It's not so much that what you said was tactless, but rather that it didn't do a good job of describing the state of the conversation.

Of course, given that the premise of the OP has been shown to be categorically incorrect (though not through any fault of the OP's), this thread's topic has kind of been doing its own thing.

 

[Doom]

The schism will always be there, but it's clear it's not as bad as at origins last year, where 4.0 didn't have a majority.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Again, this isn't actually what's being said.

It's not so much that what you said was tactless, but rather that it didn't do a good job of describing the state of the conversation.

.

Maybe I should have made it longer and that was my intent to go back and edit it longer but RL pulled me away from the pc. But yeah thats how I saw it. one one side ya had pathfinder is unknown and number mean nothing, on the other side ya had well it's on amazion and 4e is not on top.. then the same ol number mean nothing (unless it supports my system,} and so on

So yeah it was back to the very same thing it always is.

The OP could not find 4e games that's a fact, ya can agree or disagree but it really does not change the fact hat for him there was zero 4e presence at the con. So he stated that. I don't seem to recall him screaming 4e failed or anything yet the war must carry on it seems. It saws truth to the OP words that the very thought of an isult to eaither side just makes the war flare up, we see insults and little jabs and attacks where there may not have been any.

This is both sides, the divide is there, it's heated and even after more then a year it simmers like a gases just waiting for that one little spark to set it off. This more then anything speaks volumes to me

 

[Dannager]

The OP could not find 4e games that's a fact, ya can agree or disagree but it really does not change the fact hat for him there was zero 4e presence at the con. So he stated that. I don't seem to recall him screaming 4e failed or anything yet the war must carry on it seems. It saws truth to the OP words that the very thought of an isult to eaither side just makes the war flare up, we see insults and little jabs and attacks where there may not have been any.

No. That's ridiculous.

The OP used the lack of 4th Edition presence to argue that the schism was pervasive. Except there was no lack of 4th Edition presence. He looked under the wrong heading for the events in question, and it ruined his premise. No, he didn't say 4th Edition failed. He did say that his experience must mean that the schism is huge and wide-reaching. Except his experience doesn't say anything but that he looked for something in the wrong place.

I mean, if I had gone to PAX and managed to miss all the Microsoft products because I was looking for the "360" booth rather than the "Microsoft" booth, it doesn't suddenly make the claim "There's a huge schism in the video game community!" any more valid.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Not gonna get combative and this will be my last reply in this thread on this topic anyhow. The OP's experience did not change. There was no 4e for him, no non-RPGA 4e going on he could find so the fact it was under another name does nothing to change the impression he got. The divide is large and wide , if it's even 30% or so that's a big number of the former D&D pie. A number that really does not hurt wotc much but makes a big split in the D&D community. If people do not see that then they simply wish not to see it.

Edit. Not trying to fight with ya man. I often come off as harsher then I intend so please don't take it as targeting you or anything. I can happily agree to disagree

 

[Dannager]

Not gonna get combative and this will be my last reply in this thread on this topic anyhow. The OP's experience did not change. There was no 4e for him, no non-RPGA 4e going on he could find so the fact it was under another name does nothing to change the impression he got.

"I got the false impression that there is a wide-reaching schism."

"There is a wide-reaching schism."

Tell me you can see the difference between the two above statements.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

It's not false it's there and it's ugly. And with that I am done

 

[Hussar]

Of course, the enthusiasts are also the biggest spenders. Those guys who are still in the same basement using the same books they used 20 years ago and who don't pay attention to the market, have no practical effect on the market. One can argue that the rift doesn't matter because its only the real core enthusiast who care. But you know what? Its us core enthusiast who determine which games the rest of our gaming friends are going to play. We're the ones running games, testing rules, writing adventures, etc. So if the core enthusiasts are split it does matter to the market because those who peel away to other games will take the non-enthusiast with them.

Not to mention that even if on-line posters, shoppers, enthusiasts are only a small sample of gamers at large, I would not be surprised to find that they are a fairly representative sample of the tastes of the larger population. That is to say, if I'm marketing a brand and I take a small sample of ten people and try my product out on them,... if all ten hate it, its pretty silly to tell oneself "what do ten people know - there are after all 6 billion other people in the world who probably feel differently."

There's a bit to remember in here too - age. WOTC's market research showed that after about 35, buying goes down. Really down. To the point that they actually stopped looking at anyone over the age of 35 when they started doing market research for 3e.

Look at the age on this board. There's a whole lot of us in the 30+ crowd. It's been shown that at this age, we stop buying.

So, why would you design a game for me?

We're quite possibly not terribly representative because we're just outright older on average than most gamers. I know the last Paizo poll I saw for Dragon pegged Dragon readership average age at early 20's. The average age on this board is about ten years older than that.

Which is more representative of gamers? I have no idea.