Gencon News and Updates Thread (with links!)

[RangerWickett]

I have an update from Gen Con: Russ and his friend Al drink and smoke more than this poor American could endure, and so after an evening of carousing and talking about gaming (and about Russ's unhealthy fascination with elephants), I don't think I can talk today. Does anyone have any quick-acting remedies that I'm likely to find in my hotel?

Also, apparently I got James Wyatt to forget what year it is. I asked about being able to purchase bundle sales of old books in electronic format, and he said, "Well, you might have seen earlier this summer that we started offering the ability to pay for one year's access to 10 different Eberron books on our site," to which some staffer politely piped up, "Um, we actually haven't announced that yet."

But I'm serious about that voice thing. Help.

 

[DaveMage]

I may agree with the possibility of PFRPG outselling 4e (I suspect that they are still very close), I may agree that 4e is faltering (for the record - I don't; 4e is quite likely to pull ahead again, but I was worried about it for a while*), but Examiner is putting personal spin on things.

The Auld Grump

Yeah, I agree.

Being ahead in one quarter hardly makes it a trend.

Now, if D&D falls to #3, #4, or #5, then it may be cause for concern on the brand, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Pathfinder and D&D go back and forth as #1 for the forseeable future.

 

[Theodric the Obscure]

Just checking in to see if the word "unpossible" has been used, yet.

 

[cyderak]

How about ............INCONCIEVABLE!!!!!

Congrats Paizo on the for !!


This whole next year holds great products to look forward to.

 

[Eridanis]

Keep the sales speculation out of this thread and keep this to GenCon news, please. A seperate thread on that topic would be welcome.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

New non-random minis skirmish game coming from WotC in 2012. I look forward to checking that out.

Yeah, read the Blog of Holding post about that, including the mention of open playtesting.

All I can say is good on 'em! I doubt that I will be buying into their themed sets, but it is still a huge improvement! In my opinion this puts them ahead of the Paizo/Wizkids minis line, from the primary market at the least.

(Yes, I am cheering WotC over Paizo/Wizkids on this one - they have done some learning! )

The Auld Grump

 

[joewolz]

Hi! This Joe from 2 Gms, 1 Mic. We actually posted an episode Saturday night.

 

[davethegame]

New non-random minis skirmish game coming from WotC in 2012. I look forward to checking that out. Also mentioned:

- Several novels (including eBook only releases)
- Board game: Lords of Waterdeep
- 4e adventures: Madness of Gardmore Abbey, Undermountain
- 4e RPG releases: Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, Heroes of the Feywild, Power of the Plane Below
- several dunegon tile releases & map packs

Cribbed from the [MENTION=13209]Critical[/MENTION]hits Twitter feed.

Full, cleaned write-up put here: http://critical-hits.com/2011/08/08/gen-con-2011-dd-new-products-seminar/

(Pictures coming once my photographer is able to download them)

Also a post with non-D&D news coming later in the week.

 

[talien]

I'm curious as to how you made the decision to not include any sort of qualifying information regarding the information that the ICv2 report is based on. The fact that it doesn't take into account direct, big box, online retail, or subscription sales from either company seems to me (and many others) to be a strike against the ICv2 report's validity so severe as to render it nearly worthless, from an information standpoint. The slice of the market that the ICv2 report examines is relatively small (and even that is based on interviews with certain hobby store owners rather than any hard data), and I don't think it can be argued that it generalizes to the tabletop RPG market as a whole - which renders the entire claim that Pathfinder is beating D&D in sales unsupported.

If there is a way to revisit a published Examiner article and edit it, you may want to consider doing so.

Hi Guys,

I'm not sure what the question is here -- I linked to the ICv2 article. I am not required to qualify how ICv2 reports their data, I'm just leveraging what they reported. You can determine the validity of the data yourself by visiting ICv2.

Here's some new reports:

Gen Con pictures - National RPG | Examiner.com
Gen Con: Sunday roundup - National RPG | Examiner.com
Gen Con: Saturday roundup - National RPG | Examiner.com
Gen Con: Interview with Laura Tommervik, Brand Manager of Wizards of the Coast - National RPG | Examiner.com

and the biggest one: Interview with George Strayton of Secret Fire Games - National RPG | Examiner.com

George has some major news on the horizon!

 

[Dannager]

Hi Guys,

I'm not sure what the question is here -- I linked to the ICv2 article. I am not required to qualify how ICv2 reports their data, I'm just leveraging what they reported.

ICv2 covers a very limited view of the market as a whole (it restricts itself to hobby retailers alone, and relies solely on interviews with hobby retail owners rather than hard data). You know this, undoubtedly, as you reported on it. The tag line "Pathfinder outsells D&D" does not follow from the ICv2 report; it gives the impression that Pathfinder is outselling D&D without qualification, which is not the case (as far as any of us know). It is irresponsible reporting to not disclaim the mention of the ICv2 report with a note that reads something along the lines of "Note: ICv2 covers a very limited segment of the market. Pathfinder might not actually be outselling D&D."

In the same way that you wouldn't write an article entitled "Burger King Outsells McDonald's" using only data from a single midwest town (and then neglect to mention to your readers that you're only using data from a single midwest town), you should not write an article on Pathfinder outselling D&D that fails to mention online retailers, major bookselling chains, big box stores like Target and Walmart, direct sales, online subscriptions, or hobby retailers who were not interviewed by ICv2.

So my question is: why did you decide not to disclaim the report? It's clear that good journalism dictates that you ought to, and it's a pretty awful excuse to put the onus on your reader of visiting another website in order to find information that you ought to mention in your own report. It's unquestionable that the limitations of the ICv2 report are significant enough to receive mention in your article; they undermine the entire headline. So I'm forced to one of two conclusions: you either honestly think that the ICv2 report doesn't need to be disclaimed (which says unflattering things about your journalism), or you were purposefully writing the report in such a way as to favor Pathfinder due to a personal bias (which says very unflattering things about your journalism).

It is a simple matter to fix this: go back and edit your article. The disclaimer on the ICv2 report should be in there.