Pathfinder 1E Paizo Announcement and Prognostication

[Alan Shutko]

The problem with becoming synonymous with something is that the term can become generic. Zipper being a case in point. I have heard gaming conventions called D&D conventions, as an example. Most zip fasteners are not made by Zipper, but most folks still call them zippers.

I know of kleenex and xerox, but I don't believe there was ever a company named Zipper from which the devices were named. (According to Wikipedia, they were popularized by B F Goodrich.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know of kleenex and xerox, but I don't believe there was ever a company named Zipper from which the devices were named. (According to Wikipedia, they were popularized by B F Goodrich.)

I am pretty certain that the name comes from a specific model bf goodrich made early on. Up to then i think the more generic term was fastener.

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

You are quite the revisionist for someone in their previous post realized he didn't even know what he had been discussing. It's a shame your spin won't revise the last three years of sales figures for FLGSs. Now that we are in a world where, arguably, less than half the RPGers play the formerly most popular RPG, what do FLGSs do going forward to build up their businesses? Will most of the industry continue to move toward DDI and subscription sales models?

 

[Redbadge]

It's a shame your spin won't revise the last three years of sales figures for FLGSs. Now that we are in a world where, arguably, less than half the RPGers play the formerly most popular RPG, what do FLGSs do going forward to build up their businesses? Will most of the industry continue to move toward DDI and subscription sales models?

Do you mind providing a link for this information? Everything I've seen over the last three years seemed to indicate that, although sales of 4th Edition have dropped off significantly recently, taken all together initial and subsequent 4e releases sold more than 3.0 and 3.5 combined. (I provided a link in a thread a couple of months ago, and I'll try to find it. I think it was in the "Paizo Outselling D&D thread."

I have no reason to doubt that FLGSs have sold more 4e products than Pathfinder over the last three years (obviously sources indicate Pathfinder has sold more each month over the last three months than 4e, mostly due to a lack of new WotC releases and heavy 4e saturation).

As for which is played more, it's really hard to say, regardless of sales numbers. After all, like many people, I've bought both, although I prefer to play 4e. However anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that 4e is ahead here (4e seems to be discussed more and is much more visible, including 100s of blogs/websites, exposure on national news media, lots of word-of-mouth, and other prominent points of potential entry, such as Penny Arcade fans). Pathfinder may or may not have appealed to more people; the problem is most people do not know it exists (probably). At the local store level, the popularity of Encounters has only exacerbated this disparity in my experience.

 

[Mark CMG]

I have no reason to doubt that FLGSs have sold more 4e products than Pathfinder over the last three years (obviously sources indicate Pathfinder has sold more each month over the last three months than 4e, mostly due to a lack of new WotC releases and heavy 4e saturation).

As for which is played more, it's really hard to say, regardless of sales numbers. After all, like many people, I've bought both, although I prefer to play 4e. However anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that 4e is ahead here (4e seems to be discussed more and is much more visible, including 100s of blogs/websites, exposure on national news media, lots of word-of-mouth, and other prominent points of potential entry, such as Penny Arcade fans). Pathfinder may or may not have appealed to more people; the problem is most people do not know it exists (probably). At the local store level, the popularity of Encounters has only exacerbated this disparity in my experience.

It wouldn't matter whether D&D was edging out PF or the other way around. There are enough other RPGs out there that the two of them even being close means that neither likely has fifty percent of the RPG market. Even if you assume non-D&D/non-PF games make up only 5% of the RPG market with 48% of the market belonging to D&D and only 47% to PF, it's a radical change from the former dominance of the greater portion of the RPG market. It's just as likely that 10% or even 20% are non-D&D/non-PF RPGs, which leaves even less of the pie to be split by the two leaders.


As to the FLGS D&D sales over the past four years, Amazon pre-orders of gift sets vastly cut into FLGS sales at the opening of the new edition (something that was barely on the radar with 3.0 and not too troublesome with the release of 3.5). Any money diverted to DDI is consumer spending on D&D that FLGSs have no chance to realize. You don't need a link to understand this and comparison of D&D/PF nor comparison of 4.0/3.X sales figures aren't relavant to this separate but related point. The question becomes, since D&D is a diminishing source of revenue for FLGSs, as the publisher diverts the revenue stream online, what do the FLGSs do to replace the revenues?


One avenue would be to rent time on electronic gametables. Selling the minis and programmable bases, and having the tables in-store to accomodate them, might be a short term revenue replacement (until such tables become generally affordable).

 

[Ahnehnois]

The question becomes, since D&D is a diminishing source of revenue for FLGSs, as the publisher diverts the revenue stream online, what do the FLGSs do to replace the revenues?


One avenue would be to rent time on electronic gametables. Selling the minis and programmable bases, and having the tables in-store to accomodate them, might be a short term revenue replacement (until such tables become generally affordable).

I think the main function of the FLGS in the 21st century is common ground. A place for gamers to meet and play together. They'll have to sell space and time because books are going to continue decreasing as a source of revenue for them.

 

[Redbadge]

It wouldn't matter whether D&D was edging out PF or the other way around. There are enough other RPGs out there that the two of them even being close means that neither likely has fifty percent of the RPG market. Even if you assume non-D&D/non-PF games make up only 5% of the RPG market with 48% of the market belonging to D&D and only 47% to PF, it's a radical change from the former dominance of the greater portion of the RPG market. It's just as likely that 10% or even 20% are non-D&D/non-PF RPGs, which leaves even less of the pie to be split by the two leaders.


As to the FLGS D&D sales over the past four years, Amazon pre-orders of gift sets vastly cut into FLGS sales at the opening of the new edition (something that was barely on the radar with 3.0 and not too troublesome with the release of 3.5). Any money diverted to DDI is consumer spending on D&D that FLGSs have no chance to realize. You don't need a link to understand this and comparison of D&D/PF nor comparison of 4.0/3.X sales figures aren't relavant to this separate but related point. The question becomes, since D&D is a diminishing source of revenue for FLGSs, as the publisher diverts the revenue stream online, what do the FLGSs do to replace the revenues?


One avenue would be to rent time on electronic gametables. Selling the minis and programmable bases, and having the tables in-store to accomodate them, might be a short term revenue replacement (until such tables become generally affordable).

I found one of my posts about my estimates for RPG marketshare. http://www.enworld.org/forum/5622002-post458.html

Basically, of the approx. 4,000,000 (or less) of so-called "regular" players of TRPGs, at least 2,000,000, or 50%, regularly play 4th edition (admittedly by my skewed, unscientific, probably biased calculations). A better guess would be 60% 4e, 30% Pathfinder/3.5 (with the exact Pathfinder/3.5 ratio possibly being as high as 50/50), 10% other. This is for regular, monthly players, and not sales.

I regularly see 4 4e groups for every Pathfinder/3.5, but I know some others have witnessed as much as the complete reverse. Thus I tried to be more conservative with my guess; thus the 2:1 split (4eathfinder/3.5 ratio). I also assume (perhaps wrongly) that for every 3e group that moved to Pathfinder, another group probably stayed with 3.5.

As far as FLGS, WotC seems to be responding by trying to draw traffic through with Encounters. Also, they've been focusing on exclusive adventures, etc. In fact, now they've got a product (Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium) that will be FLGS exclusive!

Unfortunately, much like Borders, FLGS may become a thing of the past despite WotC's best efforts.

 

[Mark CMG]

I found one of my posts about my estimates for RPG marketshare. http://www.enworld.org/forum/5622002-post458.html

Basically, of the approx. 4,000,000 (or less) of so-called "regular" players of TRPGs, at least 2,000,000, or 50%, regularly play 4th edition (admittedly by my skewed, unscientific, probably biased calculations). A better guess would be 60% 4e, 30% Pathfinder/3.5 (with the exact Pathfinder/3.5 ratio possibly being as high as 50/50), 10% other. This is for regular, monthly players, and not sales.

I appreciate the link but I think you can see why some of the data and conclusions might seem problematic. Anyway, I will leave those arguments to that other thread. I will however point out that your conservative estimates seem to support what I have been saying regarding the decline of market share to fifty percent (or less if we consider margins of error not favoring the company who supplied the estimated data).

I regularly see 4 4e groups for every Pathfinder/3.5, but I know some others have witnessed as much as the complete reverse. Thus I tried to be more conservative with my guess; thus the 2:1 split (4eathfinder/3.5 ratio). I also assume (perhaps wrongly) that for every 3e group that moved to Pathfinder, another group probably stayed with 3.5.

If one didn't count Encounters and D&D Days, locally the estimate would be inverted but not 4 to 1, I don't think. That may be because I also see many RPGs played that are neither of the two. PF is big, as are other editions of D&D, as well as many other RPGs. Our three times a year EN Chicago gamedays for the past couple years usually see one D&D and one PF game in each slot, but most others are not either (2 slots, 6 to 8 tables). The north suburbs of Chicago have been part of what I call D&D's fertile crescent since the start (draw two arcs from Chicago to Minneapolis so that the lower one goes through Rockford, IL and the upper encompasses Milwaukee. ). One could claim that if you broaden the definition of D&D beyond the actual brand and current rule set, this is still staunchly D&D country. But the boots on the ground don't seem to fit the more narrow definition.

As far as FLGS, WotC seems to be responding by trying to draw traffic through with Encounters. Also, they've been focusing on exclusive adventures, etc. In fact, now they've got a product (Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium) that will be FLGS exclusive!

That doesn't seem to be translating into many sales, from what I understand locally.

Unfortunately, much like Borders, FLGS may become a thing of the past despite WotC's best efforts.

FLGSs sell many other things besides RPGs, fortunately, and I don't think we'll see them dropping off because they lose RPG sales. RPG sales haven't been the largest draw since D&D's early years. I also think characterizing the odd exclusive and use of FLGS game space as a best effort is over-generous in light of activity supporting online retailers and diversion of the revenue stream to DDI. It would seem their best efforts are not directed toward FLGSs.

 

[Redbadge]

FLGSs sell many other things besides RPGs, fortunately, and I don't think we'll see them dropping off because they lose RPG sales. RPG sales haven't been the largest draw since D&D's early years. I also think characterizing the odd exclusive and use of FLGS game space as a best effort is over-generous in light of activity supporting online retailers and diversion of the revenue stream to DDI. It would seem their best efforts are not directed toward FLGSs.

Actually, I think your right about the importance of RPG sales for FLGS. We have four (maybe more?) local "RGP" stores within an hour of where I live (Destin, FL). One is a comics shop, one focuses mostly on wargaming and Magic, one is a local bookstore with primarily manga, but also a significant RPG section and 1 playing table in the back, and the last seems to sell mostly collectibles (anime figurines, dragon statues, fantasy art, etc.), but also has a wide range of RPG systems available on the shelves. I doubt any of these FLGS would self-identify as an "RPG store."

And I do appear to have misstated "best efforts." I meant some decent efforts not withstanding online retailers and DDI. I mean, they could do more, but I think many such efforts would hurt WotC itself (well its sales; I'm sure its public image would improve in the minds of many).

Now that you mention it however, I am reminded that if WotC does start releasing PDFs again, or even POD as some have suggested, I can assume this would only serve to slow FLGS rpg sales further.

 

[Umbran]

You are quite the revisionist...

Please, everyone, remember to address the content, not the person. On a hotly debated topic, it is very, very easy for folks to take stuff personally, so let us be extra careful. Thank you, all.