Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6384047" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I'm not sure I agree 100% with your analysis there, Mercurius.  Certainly WotC did not introduce new material for 4e for two years, but during that time they continued to sell the Core Three and Essentials, as well as maintaining DDI.  Given that RPGs are something that has no inherent need for new material, I don't think WotC's lack of new 4e material had an especially big effect on players coming in.  One might say that the announcement of a new edition may have encouraged some people to wait before jumping in, but by the same token a good many new players join existing groups, and WotC supported organized play with new material through that entire time, for both 4e and 5e playtest rules.As far as Pathfinder goes, I don't think we have any data on new players via Pathfinder vs. via 4e.  As far as Pathfinder going head to head with 4e, we know that in the ICv2 surveys, Pathfinder moved ahead of 4e in those quarters where 4e was putting out little or no new material.  And as Mearls pointed out at Dancey's panel, the ICv2 surveys track mostly with what line is putting out new material and supplements, rather than unit sales.  Which makes perfect sense, since it is based on reports by retailers, distributors, and manufacturers on what they see moving off their shelves.  If (hypothetically) 4e moved 5 Starter Sets, but Pathfinder moved 2 Core Rulebooks, 3 splats, and 2 adventure paths, Pathfinder would show up higher on the ICv2 survey, even though 4e had likely brought in more new players.I agree 100% with this.</blockquote>

Verification