Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder sales

[prosfilaes]

So in seeing this thread develop, my question is what standard are we using for Pathfinder sales status? If it's ICv2, and we see that WotC assumes that number one slot next quarter (as it was the quarter before this), is issue put to rest? How about Amazon sales? I mean, in all seriousness, what does it take?

What happens next quarter doesn't change what happened this quarter. If the numbers next quarter indicate that D&D 4 book sales are beating Pathfinder book sales, then D&D 4 book sales will be beating Pathfinder book sales that quarter. Then a quarter after that, we'll get to discuss new numbers.

What will it take for this issue to be put at rest? For the numbers to one-sided. When one system clearly takes the top spot and holds it, then this issue will be put to rest. Next quarter is always just next quarter.

 

[Dannager]

If you want to talk non-print, that's fine. And as I've described before, if the DDI subscriptions are VERY charitable multiplied by 5 to assume that ONLY DMs subscribe and they have an average of 4 players each, and we further assume that it is a significant portion of the 4E fan base, then the D&D fan base has taken a major blow.

Okay, no. This doesn't get to stand, no matter how much of a waste of time I feel arguing with you is. I don't want others drawing poor conclusions from the way you color what you present as data.

There are in excess of 50,000 active DDI subscriptions with associated community accounts. If we assume that 50% of DDI subscribers (a generous figure) also took the time to create community accounts, then we have over 100,000 DDI subcribers. D&D is designed for a group of five players and one DM, with roughly equal groups hitting both above and below that figure (another safe assumption), so we multiply by six. That gives us 600,000 players. If we assume that 50% of groups have DMs with DDI subscriptions (another generous figure), that gives us 1,200,000 total 4th Edition players. I remember seeing the 1,000,000 player number thrown around a few years back, so contrary to what you conclude, your own math exercise leads us to the conclusion that D&D is actually doing just fine. And the numbers that I used were conservative; in actuality, it is likely that the total is significantly higher.

 

[BryonD]

So in seeing this thread develop, my question is what standard are we using for Pathfinder sales status? If it's ICv2, and we see that WotC assumes that number one slot next quarter (as it was the quarter before this), is issue put to rest? How about Amazon sales? I mean, in all seriousness, what does it take?

What does it take for what?

It seems we are all at least TRYING to agree that locking down an absolute is not and should not be the goal. But if we just look at the big picture trends then we see a pattern that hasn't existed before.

WotC could be #1 for the next three quarters. And if PF keeps being #1 one quarter a year then that would suggest it is right in the ballpark, which is a major change in the marketplace compared to any other time. Even the WOD event was a one time blip which happened at a time that is pretty much a concensus as being a low point for D&D.

That isn't to say that D&D isn't still a very popular game. It is.

But, frankly, the brand name alone goes a long way. And "D&D" will continue to very popular for a long time to come, including after the roll-out of 5E and total removal of 4E from active support. (which I'm not predicting any time soon, just pointing out that this point is edition neutral)

Certainly a time could come when it is "obvious" that one game or another is the 800 lb gorilla. It was the standard condition and could be again. But it would take a fair amount of time and a lot of different observations for that to be established for any game. And the trend doesn't seem to be going that far for anything.

So if you want to know what it would take to establish who "the king" is, the answer is "not gonna happen".
But if you want to know what it takes to get a more than reasonable barometer of the market, THAT can be measured now at a much better than "close enough for government work" standard.

So, it depends. What does it take for what?

 

[BryonD]

And the numbers that I used were conservative; in actuality, it is likely that the total is significantly higher.

Heh, I think you lost your point here.

As you correctly said, your numbers were QUITE generous. So your final tally is WAY optimistic. The whole multiply by 6 part is a pipe dream from a REALLY good pipe. And that was on top of some wishful thinking assumptions that make the data your are poo-pooing in other parts of this thread seem like the word of God.

Yes, if you start adding a zero to the end of reasonable numbers you can get to a solid historic level. (but, I will allow you to believe that is true)

In the mean time, it seems not a week goes by that I hear from someone else has has decided to drop 4E..... yeah yeah, just my ancedotes. Funny how my anecdotes fit the data so nicely.

 

[BryonD]

Oh, and not that this makes your numbers anyu less fantastic, but the presumption I was replying to was based on the assumption that DDI was a significant part of the fan base. So if you ARE going to blissfully throw an X24 multiplier on it, then you have abandoned the premise of the point of contention.

 

[Dannager]

Heh, I think you lost your point here.

Really?

As you correctly said, your numbers were QUITE generous.

As I noted in the post you quoted, I was generous in that I favored a high rate of DDI adoption (or, in the earlier instance, favored a high rate of community account creation). The higher the rate of DDI adoption, the lower the total number of D&D players. For instance, if there are 100,000 subscriptions and the rate of adoption is 10% of DMs, that means 1,000,000 DMs/groups (and, therefore, 5,000,000 - 6,000,000 players). If there are 100,000 subscriptions and the rate of adoption is 50% (the number I used), then there are 200,000 DMs/groups.

Do you see how being generous in favor of service adoption is actually being conservative in terms of determining total number of players? If I wanted to be wildly optimistic about the total D&D player base, I would have used a much lower service adoption rate than 50%.

So your final tally is WAY optimistic. The whole multiply by 6 part is a pipe dream from a REALLY good pipe.

You yourself multiplied by five. I used six because the game is designed for six people (five players and a DM). I mean, at least my figure is based on something.

But heck, even if we use your number, we still get 1,000,000 players. So no problem.

And that was on top of some top wishful thinking assumptions that make the data your are poo-pooing in other parts of this thread seem like the word of God.

You're free to point those out.

In the mean time, it seems not a week goes by that I hear from someone else has has decided to drop 4E.....

Not a day goes by that I hear that someone has decided to try 4e (or introduce their friends to it) for the first time. But, y'know, anecdotes.

 

[Dannager]

Oh, and not that this makes your numbers anyu less fantastic, but the presumption I was replying to was based on the assumption that DDI was a significant part of the fan base. So if you ARE going to blissfully throw an X24 multiplier on it, then you have abandoned the premise of the point of contention.

My numbers assume that 50% of D&D groups have a DDI subscription. Is that not significant enough for you?

 

[prosfilaes]

There are in excess of 50,000 active DDI subscriptions with associated community accounts. If we assume that 50% of DDI subscribers (a generous figure) also took the time to create community accounts, then we have over 100,000 DDI subcribers. D&D is designed for a group of five players and one DM, with roughly equal groups hitting both above and below that figure (another safe assumption), so we multiply by six. That gives us 600,000 players. If we assume that 50% of groups have DMs with DDI subscriptions (another generous figure), that gives us 1,200,000 total 4th Edition players. I remember seeing the 1,000,000 player number thrown around a few years back, so contrary to what you conclude, your own math exercise leads us to the conclusion that D&D is actually doing just fine. And the numbers that I used were conservative; in actuality, it is likely that the total is significantly higher.

One in 12 D&D 4 players having a DDI subscription is conservative? You were praising the constant errata of DDI recently, but how effective can it be if only DMs, and only half of them, have access to DDI? Do DMs really rebuild their player's characters so that they'll be errata conformant?

The only conservative value I can see is that the number of DDI subscribers equals the number of players. That's undoubtedly too low, but it's conservative. For a liberal top value, I'd say maybe one in six, say one in ten to be generous and a nice round number. That puts the actual number at somewhere between 100,000 and a million.

My numbers assume that 50% of D&D groups have a DDI subscription. Is that not significant enough for you?

No, because DDI doesn't sell group accounts.

 

[Dannager]

One in 12 D&D 4 players having a DDI subscription is conservative?

I'm not sure if you're saying the number should be higher or lower, here.

You were praising the constant errata of DDI recently, but how effective can it be if only DMs, and only half of them, have access to DDI? Do DMs really rebuild their player's characters so that they'll be errata conformant?

In my experience, DMs often subscribe to DDI and then their group uses that account to create their characters. I have encountered very few non-DM DDI subscribers. If a player in a game has a DDI account, I've found it's typically because he or she also DMs another game.

The only conservative value I can see is that the number of DDI subscribers equals the number of players.

I didn't say that, and I'm not really sure where you got it.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Is this a problem for you?

...A problem? Er, excuse me, a problem?

LOL

It certainly seems to be a problem to you that the debate exists and needs some boldy italicy indignation.

I'm having a lot of fun and just calling it like I see it. No problem Whatsoever.

Apparently there's a lot of people who have problems over this topic (Pathfinder vs. WotC). Dannager seems to be one of the most vociferous when it comes to this, but he's by no means the only one. People are definitely coming into this with rather intense motivations. For example:

Dannager has 16 posts in this thread (that's over 10% of the total posts in the thread...).

He has 162 posts in the other Pathfinder outselling D&D thread (18% out of the total posts of 887 - I didn't count the 888th post since that was the post from the mod that closed the thread), with 37 of them in just in the last 10 pages (37 out of 152 posts, or just under 4 posts per page for just under 25% of the posts in the last 10 pages). And all of those posts were saying the exact same things, over and over - and the same things as what's being said in this thread.

But like I said, he's not the only one. [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] also had close to Dannager's number of posts in that other thread, and BryonD was pretty vociferous in that thread also (along with many others), all making the exact same arguments that are being made here - again.

Has it accomplished anything? What's the point in declaring oneself the defacto WotC Defender of the Faith? Or acting as a Pathfinder Rebel waging a Revolutionary War against the establishment?

Nobody is convincing anyone of anything in this thread. Nobody is "winning" anything - yet the same people keep trying to do just that, over and over again.

Is it really worth it?