Gencon News and Updates Thread (with links!)

[Treebore]

New non-random minis skirmish game coming from WotC in 2012. I look forward to checking that out. Also mentioned:

- Several novels (including eBook only releases)
- Board game: Lords of Waterdeep
- 4e adventures: Madness of Gardmore Abbey, Undermountain
- 4e RPG releases: Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, Heroes of the Feywild, Power of the Plane Below
- several dunegon tile releases & map packs

Cribbed from the [MENTION=13209]Critical[/MENTION]hits Twitter feed.

Well, they have several things that interest me. The board game, the mini's skirmish game, and as always, the tiles and maps.

 

[talien]

My latest updates:

• Gen Con: And the ENnie winners are...: Gen Con: And the ENnie winners are... - National RPG | Examiner.com
• Gen Con play report: The Agony of Almraven: Gen Con play report: The Agony of Almraven - National RPG | Examiner.com
• Gen Con: ENnies in review: Gen Con: ENnies in review - National RPG | Examiner.com

 

[talien]

And another: Paizo Publishing beats Wizards of the Coast in sales and ENnies - National RPG | Examiner.com

 

[Dannager]

And another: Paizo Publishing beats Wizards of the Coast in sales and ENnies - National RPG | Examiner.com

I'm curious as to how you made the decision to not include any sort of qualifying information regarding the information that the ICv2 report is based on. The fact that it doesn't take into account direct, big box, online retail, or subscription sales from either company seems to me (and many others) to be a strike against the ICv2 report's validity so severe as to render it nearly worthless, from an information standpoint. The slice of the market that the ICv2 report examines is relatively small (and even that is based on interviews with certain hobby store owners rather than any hard data), and I don't think it can be argued that it generalizes to the tabletop RPG market as a whole - which renders the entire claim that Pathfinder is beating D&D in sales unsupported.

If there is a way to revisit a published Examiner article and edit it, you may want to consider doing so.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I'm curious as to how you made the decision to not include any sort of qualifying information regarding the information that the ICv2 report is based on. The fact that it doesn't take into account direct, big box, online retail, or subscription sales from either company seems to me (and many others) to be a strike against the ICv2 report's validity so severe as to render it nearly worthless, from an information standpoint. The slice of the market that the ICv2 report examines is relatively small (and even that is based on interviews with certain hobby store owners rather than any hard data), and I don't think it can be argued that it generalizes to the tabletop RPG market as a whole - which renders the entire claim that Pathfinder is beating D&D in sales unsupported.

If there is a way to revisit a published Examiner article and edit it, you may want to consider doing so.

Not every thread needs to be turned into an edition war.

 

[Mark CMG]

And another: Paizo Publishing beats Wizards of the Coast in sales and ENnies - National RPG | Examiner.com

Will that help the hobby by bringing in more players, or will it harm it by segmenting them further?

Ouch. A second reason to edit the article a bit.

 

[Dannager]

Not every thread needs to be turned into an edition war.

I'm making a call for some even-handedness and professional reporting. Such a massive qualification as "These 'sales' figures don't actually reflect hard sales data, and aren't representative of the market as a whole," should feature in any media report on the ICv2 numbers.

This doesn't have to be an edition war. It's just a matter of the author editing his article, and I don't expect to get into an argument over it because there's really nothing to argue - this is a clear-cut case of a critical piece of qualifying information being omitted, whether purposefully or not. The Examiner is far from a first-rate news source, but they still have an interest in solid reporting, and the author in question is the National Examiner for their RPG reporting.

 

[ToddSchumacher]

Has there been any news on DDI stuff? Virtual Tabletop release, improved monster generators, any other generators. iPad support?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm making a call for some even-handedness and professional reporting. Such a massive qualification as "These 'sales' figures don't actually reflect hard sales data, and aren't representative of the market as a whole," should feature in any media report on the ICv2 numbers.

This doesn't have to be an edition war. It's just a matter of the author editing his article, and I don't expect to get into an argument over it because there's really nothing to argue - this is a clear-cut case of a critical piece of qualifying information being omitted, whether purposefully or not. The Examiner is far from a first-rate news source, but they still have an interest in solid reporting, and the author in question is the National Examiner for their RPG reporting.

Grrr.... I hate having to agree with you. Grrr....

ICv2 posits without spin, and cites source, but Examiner... not so much.

I may agree with the possibility of PFRPG outselling 4e (I suspect that they are still very close), I may agree that 4e is faltering (for the record - I don't; 4e is quite likely to pull ahead again, but I was worried about it for a while*), but Examiner is putting personal spin on things.

The Auld Grump

* More worried about what effect 4e faltering might have on the industry than any concern for the system itself - but WotC seems to be taking steps, so I am somewhat relieved.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm making a call for some even-handedness and professional reporting. Such a massive qualification as "These 'sales' figures don't actually reflect hard sales data, and aren't representative of the market as a whole," should feature in any media report on the ICv2 numbers.

This doesn't have to be an edition war. It's just a matter of the author editing his article, and I don't expect to get into an argument over it because there's really nothing to argue - this is a clear-cut case of a critical piece of qualifying information being omitted, whether purposefully or not. The Examiner is far from a first-rate news source, but they still have an interest in solid reporting, and the author in question is the National Examiner for their RPG reporting.

Does it really matter if Pathfinder it outselling D&D? All Pathfinder had to do to be successful was take around 30% of D&D's market. If it took more, then they'll be ok.

And as far as trying to make it seem like Paizo's success doesn't have any effect on D&D is unrealistic. Paizo's place in the market, even if not the best seller, is not something easily ignored. When another company takes your old rule set and turns it into a company that actually comes within sniffing distance of being the top seller of RPGs, that isn't a good sign. Never will be for any company.

Personally I love seeing a little company like Paizo succeed. Because from them I feel the love for the hobby. They are gamers making gaming products for gamers. The creativity and the influences that drive Paizo game development is exactly the kind of influences that drive gamers like myself to game. I think that is part of what attracts so many of us to their company.


Kudos to Paizo on the wins and success. You guys really deserve it. Your Adventure Paths are some of the best adventures I've ever read. I read them like books they are so interesting. Glad to see the industry and fans acknowledge the high quality of the products.