Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder sales

[Dire Bare]

The level of evidence you're demanding is simply unrealistic. Did Harry Truman really win versus Dewey? At least there we have one piece of data that claims otherwise.

No, its not. I'm not demanding any evidence at all. I know that "you" (those proudly claiming Pathfinder has seriously eclipsed D&D in sales) simply don't have the evidence necessary to support the conclusion, nobody does. I'm content with not actually knowing which game is currently outselling the other, it has no impact on how I approach the hobby.

That's a bad question, actually, because it fails to specify anything in a meaningful way.

I agree it's not a great question, because, even in overall sales I don't really care who's on top. I don't think it has relevance to the health of either game system, either company, or the industry as a whole. But it's a much better question than the one being bandied about in this thread.

Overall sales is overall sales. Which company is bringing in more money with their flagship RPG game. Simple to understand and simple to measure . . . except that we don't have the data to answer it. Doesn't make the question bad, just makes it unanswerable.

 

[prosfilaes]

No, its not. I'm not demanding any evidence at all. I know that "you" (those proudly claiming Pathfinder has seriously eclipsed D&D in sales) simply don't have the evidence necessary to support the conclusion, nobody does.

Gee, a strawman; I don't recall anyone saying "seriously eclipsed". And mind you by the same standards you're putting forward, you don't have the evidence that D&D has ever beat Pathfinder in sales.

The predominance of evidence is that Pathfinder is beating D&D in book sales. Our evidence is weak, but all the evidence we have points in the same direction; it supports a tentative conclusion. If I had one bit of evidence that the naysayers really believed it was possible that D&D was actually 3rd in the list, or that the data was previously wrong and that Pathfinder has been leading for a while, then I'd be more accepting; but the counter-argument seems to presume that in absence of evidence, we must accept that D&D 4 is number one.

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, this is a bit off-track, but all of this talk about statistics and data has got me thinking about philosophy.

Data is data...it is just stacks of words and numbers, sitting there. It proves or disproves nothing, it is neither "right" nor "wrong." It's the interpretation of that data that we are arguing about.

[SBLOCK="WARNING: Philosophy Nerd Ahead"]The trouble with data is that our human brains try to interpret it, and we are subject to bias. For example, there is a very big difference between "believing" something and "knowing" something, yet most of us can't even tell the two of them apart. But I digress.

People choose to believe things first, and then they seek knowledge to support those beliefs second. That is where these arguments about data being "good," or "correct," or "reliable" all come from. People are far more likely to question/dismiss data that they disagree with, and much less likely to question/dismiss any data they agree with, for example.

Data is just a stack of numbers and words, sitting there. It doesn't care what you believe. So if you ever find yourself arguing with data, you should ask yourself why you feel the way you do. I bet you discover bias.[/SBLOCK]

 

[prosfilaes]

Let me rephrase here. I can't imagine that anyone would seriously claim that GURPS is in the number 1 or 2 best-selling physical book spot. If you're not claiming that, then we can derive some information from what data we have. Given the data on this thread, we can draw the conclusion that Pathfinder is outselling D&D 4, or that there are a set of n games such that any one of those n games might be the bestselling RPG on the market, given the data on this thread. (Pathfinder has to be included based on the data on this thread.) What's n, what games are in n, and how do you justify including those n but not n+1?

Edit: I and I think others on this thread would be happy with the admission that it has been impossible to tell whether Pathfinder or D&D 4e is the bestselling game on the market for a while, rather than a simple dismissal of the idea that Pathfinder is the better selling game.

 

[Mournblade94]

Well, this is a bit off-track, but all of this talk about statistics and data has got me thinking about philosophy.

Data is data...it is just stacks of words and numbers, sitting there. It proves or disproves nothing, it is neither "right" nor "wrong." It's the interpretation of that data that we are arguing about.

[SBLOCK="WARNING: Philosophy Nerd Ahead"]The trouble with data is that our human brains try to interpret it, and we are subject to bias. For example, there is a very big difference between "believing" something and "knowing" something, yet most of us can't even tell the two of them apart. But I digress.

People choose to believe things first, and then they seek knowledge to support those beliefs second. That is where these arguments about data being "good," or "correct," or "reliable" all come from. People are far more likely to question/dismiss data that they disagree with, and much less likely to question/dismiss any data they agree with, for example.

Data is just a stack of numbers and words, sitting there. It doesn't care what you believe. So if you ever find yourself arguing with data, you should ask yourself why you feel the way you do. I bet you discover bias.[/SBLOCK]

I would have to disagree with this. Scientists start from an observation ask a question, then formulate a possible answer.

Then data is gathered. Beleif comes into that data in so far as the data hits statistical parameters. Scientists won't 'beleive' data when the statistical tests show it scewed.

For instance: I made an observation that Pathfinder seems to be selling better. I pose the question is pathfinder selling better? My answer is yes Pathfinder is selling better.

The data phase causes me to reject the answer because of insufficient data.

I still beleive it is selling better, yes, but I certainly would not make that claim as if I KNOW it.

 

[Mournblade94]

Let me rephrase here. I can't imagine that anyone would seriously claim that GURPS is in the number 1 or 2 best-selling physical book spot. If you're not claiming that, then we can derive some information from what data we have. Given the data on this thread, we can draw the conclusion that Pathfinder is outselling D&D 4, or that there are a set of n games such that any one of those n games might be the bestselling RPG on the market, given the data on this thread. (Pathfinder has to be included based on the data on this thread.) What's n, what games are in n, and how do you justify including those n but not n+1?

If your including a game in 'n' it must be included in '(n+1)' or 'n' is meaningless.

 

[prosfilaes]

If your including a game in 'n' it must be included in '(n+1)' or 'n' is meaningless.

Of course, but the set of n games don't include game n+1.

 

[CleverNickName]

I would have to disagree with this. Scientists start from an observation ask a question, then formulate a possible answer.

Ah, and I would agree. However, most people aren't scientists.

 

[Mournblade94]

Of course, but the set of n games don't include game n+1.

Oh OK. Read you wrong.

 

[Shemeska]

Ah, and I would agree. However, most people aren't scientists.

Yes, but scientists rock.