Pathfinder 1E D&D and Pathfinder tied for first place on ICv2 Q3 RPG sales list

[Azgulor]

I agree - but only if 5E is in Paizo's hands, and is backwards compatible with Pathfinder and 3.5. I'm not buying into any new D&D edition again unless I can use my 3.x/Pathfinder library with it.

THIS +1.

The brand is irrelevant. The GAME is what brings my players back to the table. No one at my table cares if the name is "Dungeons & Dragons".

 

[BryonD]

My take on this news is that it may mean nothing regarding the sales of D&D, but it definitely shows that Pathfinder is doing very well. Considering how short a time ago it seemed that Paizo was in hot water from the loss of the magazine licenses, it's pretty amazing that they now have one of the best-selling RPGs in the industry.

While I can't seem to help myself but be highly entertained by all the grinding of teeth and rending of hair......

The quote above is exactly right.

Nothing remotely says anything approaching a negative statement about 4E. 4E is #1 consistently. This time, PF did good enough to tie.

But, the reason it is awesome to me is that clearly enough people find the things that I find fun to also be fun to them that the market is there for continued support and growth. I know a lot of those people really like both games, and a lot of them find 4E underwhelming. But that distinction is irrelevant.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Unfortunately, the D&D "edition treadmill" model is fundamentally this model.

Which probably has something to do with why there's about 10 x as many "lapsed" D&D players as current players of 4e.

I highly doubt it. Sure, some people probably find an edition change a convenient point at which to fall out of the hobby. But the market research has never shown that to be a significant factor. Moving, leaving college or high school, getting the first real job, getting married, having children, and all those other things that cut into hobby time or separate players from their groups are the overwhelming catalyst for people leaving the game.

 

[Umbran]

So you may not want this ranking systems to be "valid", but it is.

I'm sorry, Treebore, but "the only measure available" does not equate to "a valid measure".

From what I've read of how ICv2 works, it is anecdotal. It may be well-educated anecdotal evidence, but it is still anecdotal, and should be considered as such.

 

[Herschel]

But while their placement of Pathfinder on par with D&D is significant and great news for Paizo, it's important to realize that ICv2 captures only part of the picture. Among other things, they have little insight into the book trade, which is a very big part of D&D's sales--much more so than any other game.

Also, I'm pretty sure they don't capture DDI revenues. And that's every bit as much a product as the print publications.

And what IS included in the speculation? Sourcebooks? All print products? Accessories? Branded material? E-tools? And is it dollars or units? Units of printed material would include modules, a big part of Paizo's line but a minor part pf WotC's.

Are all interviewed sources including the same material?

"But I found somebody that says" is not a valid measure of anything.

 

[Azgulor]

I truly don't get this place sometimes.

There's nothing in the original post that digs, slams, or diminishes 4e. It talks about the PFRPG doing well.

The RPG Industry Lack of Sales Statistics Treadmill needs a new belt, 'cause the old one is threadbare & I think I smell rubber burning. Given that Paizo's CEO weighed in on their boards (repeated on ENWorld) & said "this is consistent with what we're seeing" what is the frakking point of arguing about the validity of ICv2's post/article?

I mean, you've got Charles Ryan weighing in as, effectively, a neutral 3rd-party saying ICv2 is a respected source AND that the article says nothing to diminish 4e's success.

The whole cycle of "My data refutes your opinion / My opinion refutes your data" is so very, very, very tired. Seriously, for all the chest-beating & wailing over Edition War crap a few weeks ago, some people should take a long look at posts they may have made in this thread & do an Edition War reality check in the mirror.

It IS possible for EVERYONE to win sometimes.

Back on topic, congrats again to Paizo! May you have continued success, continue to drain my wallet, & continue to expand the rpg hobby.

 

[Wicht]

And what IS included in the speculation?

Why do you assume its speculation? You're reading something into it thats not implied.

The industry participants have access to numbers and they can use their numbers to verify the validity of the information. Paizo knows what their numbers are and they are going to know if the quarterly report lines up with their numbers. Ditto for WotC and FFG. You're also discounting the statements to the effect that publishers have hard numbers of book sales from Amazon and Other large chain stores. If the hard numbers from the chains match up with the interviews conducted by ICv2, and Lisa Stevens said as much, then we move beyond speculation and guesswork into the realm of confidence (which seems to be why the industry participants trust the report).

 

[Herschel]

No, Lisa Stevens played a word game on their site board. At the end of the day, Paizo had a good quarter, congrats for that, but the whole "sales" chart is not supported or quantified in a useful way. It's a snapshot from a certain perspective, and I contributed to Paizo's sales numbers on a couple of fronts last quarter myself, (purchasing the same number of dead tree products from WotC and Paizo, but nowhere equal in dollar).

 

[Herschel]

In other words, what is the "measure"? Using myself as an example is statistical funnery:

Dead-tree products purchased last quarter - Advantage: equal (a couple each)

Dollars sepnt on dead tree products - Advantage: WotC (about half-again as much)

Dollars spent on game materials - Advantage: WotC (three months DDI, three cases and a few boosters of minis)

Dollars spent on Branded/tie-ins - Advantage: WotC (things like the Ravenloft boardgame)

So, was my purchasing "equal"? By one measure you could say "yes" but is that a valid measure on a large-scale basis?

 

[Wicht]

Just because you do not know how it is quantified does not negate the possibility that it is quantified, nor does the fact that it is not useful to you preclude the fact that it might be useful to someone. Its a snapshot yes, but snapshots have their use.

And the purchase habits of any one individual are irrelevant to the discussion.