Pathfinder 2E Release Day Second Edition Amazon Sales Rank

[Zardnaar]

Is 3.5/PF more popular than PF2 on VTTs?

 

[Retreater]

Is 3.5/PF more popular than PF2 on VTTs?

I can only assume so. Roll20 (where I game) is a pretty popular VTT, and the PF2 offerings on there are slim. It has a barely functional Core Rulebook and Bestiary (can't drop in basic equipment, race descriptions, class abilities, etc), a character sheet that is in Alpha at best, and no Adventure Paths. I think there is one adventure to download. I am creating all of my group's adventures from the ground up, and the play is "almost" terrible.

 

[Zardnaar]

I can only assume so. Roll20 (where I game) is a pretty popular VTT, and the PF2 offerings on there are slim. It has a barely functional Core Rulebook and Bestiary (can't drop in basic equipment, race descriptions, class abilities, etc), a character sheet that is in Alpha at best, and no Adventure Paths. I think there is one adventure to download. I am creating all of my group's adventures from the ground up, and the play is "almost" terrible.

Lack of support will do it.

Real life accounts are anecdotally unless it's overwhelming like PF1 2010/11.

 

[Porridge]

There was quite a few big PF1 3rd Party Kickstarters launched shortly after the announcement of the playtest, when PF2 content was largely DOA. Like Kobold Press' Midgard setting Kickstarter.

It does sound like Paizo didn't contact anyone prior and let them know to hold off on making compatible products ahead of time, which seems like a classy thing to do. Especially as they got burned by the same thing.

While I can understand these publisher’s frustration, it’s not clear there was any alternative open to Paizo that would have made things any better.

Paizo let the 3PPs know a new edition was coming over a year in advance. Suppose instead Paizo had told them two years in advance. That would:

1. Have still frustrated the 3PPs who had just started up big kickstarters 2 years ago (of which there were also several).

2. Have done nothing to help the 3PPs who were gearing up for big projects the following year (like the Kobold Press project mentioned above), since being told “we’re going to come out with another edition of PF, but we can’t tell you anything helpful about it yet because we won’t have worked out what the rules are for at least another 18 months” doesn’t give 3PPs anything helpful to work with.

3. Have virtually guaranteed that this information would be leaked to the public a year earlier, leading to a drastic drop-off in Paizo’s sales a year earlier, and possibly driving Paizo to bankruptcy before PF2 was even released.

 

[Jester David]

While I can understand these publisher’s frustration, it’s not clear there was any alternative open to Paizo that would have made things any better.

Paizo let the 3PPs know a new edition was coming over a year in advance. Suppose instead Paizo had told them two years in advance. That would:

1. Have still frustrated the 3PPs who had just started up big kickstarters 2 years ago (of which there were also several).

Knowing a new edition will be announced in a year would have given them the opportunity to cancel planned projects or reduce the scope from big hardcovers to smaller softcovers. Pause the work before investing time and money into art and writing before it was too late. Or even just order smaller print runs.

2. Have done nothing to help the 3PPs who were gearing up for big projects the following year (like the Kobold Press project mentioned above), since being told “we’re going to come out with another edition of PF, but we can’t tell you anything helpful about it yet because we won’t have worked out what the rules are for at least another 18 months” doesn’t give 3PPs anything helpful to work with.

But they could have involved them in the private friends-and-family playtest process, which gets more eyes on that while also leaving the publisher free to decide if they want to support PF1, hold off on PF support in upcoming Kickstaters, or abandon said Kickstarters and relaunch with PF2.

The big Midgard hardcover could have easily been 5e only with promises to do Pathfinder later. Instead, they're stuck with a large stock of books they're practically selling for a loss.

3. Have virtually guaranteed that this information would be leaked to the public a year earlier, leading to a drastic drop-off in Paizo’s sales a year earlier, and possibly driving Paizo to bankruptcy before PF2 was even released.

Not even remotely.
They don't need to tell everyone in the company. Just the owners and people who make the decisions. Or ask them to sign an NDA first.
Were they worried Wolfgang Baur couldn't keep a secret?

Plus, it's not like there were zero rumours of PF2. People had been whispering and speculating since Pathfinder Unchained in 2015.

But, sure. They made a decision to keep in secret. They had their reasons. That's fair.
However... the fact of the matter is still that Paizo spent years complaining about how WotC treated them and other 3rd party companies with the change over between 3e and 4e, casting shade over how they had been kept in the dark regarding the new edition and weren't invited to help test or see the product in advance. And then largely did the same to their 3rd party publishers the first chance they got.
So while it's fair to have kept things quiet and sprung it on everyone at the same time, it makes them seem hypocritical.

 

[Jester David]

Is 3.5/PF more popular than PF2 on VTTs?

In Roll20, PF2 went from 0.5% of games in Q3 of 2019 to 1.1% in Q4 and 1.2% in Q1 of 2020. Pathfinder itself dropped from 6% to 5% to 4.5%.
Although, D&D grew quite a lot in that period, so the number of games of PF1 could have remained steady or even grown, while D&D just grew that much more that it became a larger percentage.
However, it still seems like four times as many people didn't convert in Roll20.

The number of people playing on Fantasy Grounds is very different: Fantasy Grounds Stats Show Massive Pandemic Bump
PF1 didn't lose any games, but PF2 had a big spike at launch the dropped a bit (pre-pandemic). It didn't really seem to be growing.

 

[Zardnaar]

In Roll20, PF2 went from 0.5% of games in Q3 of 2019 to 1.1% in Q4 and 1.2% in Q1 of 2020. Pathfinder itself dropped from 6% to 5% to 4.5%.
Although, D&D grew quite a lot in that period, so the number of games of PF1 could have remained steady or even grown, while D&D just grew that much more that it became a larger percentage.
However, it still seems like four times as many people didn't convert in Roll20.

The number of people playing on Fantasy Grounds is very different: Fantasy Grounds Stats Show Massive Pandemic Bump
PF1 didn't lose any games, but PF2 had a big spike at launch the dropped a bit (pre-pandemic). It didn't really seem to be growing.

How's 3.5 holding up?

 

[Hussar]

One difference for Fantasy Grounds is that FG has a fully functional Pathfinder 2 setup with everything ready to go as soon as you buy the books.

 

[BryonD]

How's 3.5 holding up?

roughly 1/3 of PF

 

[JFranklin3000]

Interesting 199% growth for PF2 on Roll20 for the last quarter, a bit ahead of the 181% growth Roll20 had. Not sure it is move the Needle growth like @BryonD is looking for but definitely some growth As with all the Pandemic news hard to say what that really means though.