Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder First Print Run Sold Out

Wow. I'm reminded once again why so many people outside our hobby have such a poor opinion of gamers.

I truly don't understand the need for people, in what should be a thread celebrating the success of a well loved company and a positive sign for the industry, to insult or belittle the people in question. Just once, what's wrong with all of us--4E-players, Pathfinder-players, whoever--just saying "Way to go, guys"? You don't need the numbers. You don't have any right to the numbers. And frankly, the numbers don't matter. If it's sold well enough for Paizo to proclaim it a success, then for all it matters to any of us, it's a success. And even as a die-hard "4on," I couldn't be happier for them.

I really, really don't get it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wow. I'm reminded once again why so many people outside our hobby have such a poor opinion of gamers.

I truly don't understand the need for people, in what should be a thread celebrating the success of a well loved company and a positive sign for the industry, to insult or belittle the people in question. Just once, what's wrong with all of us--4E-players, Pathfinder-players, whoever--just saying "Way to go, guys"? You don't need the numbers. You don't have any right to the numbers. And frankly, the numbers don't matter. If it's sold well enough for Paizo to proclaim it a success, then for all it matters to any of us, it's a success. And even as a die-hard "4on," I couldn't be happier for them.

I really, really don't get it.
+1

Good on them, same as I say good on WotC who were happy with their sell out of the PHB. I'm very happy when any TTRPG related business does well, I mean we are a weird minority so we gotta stick together!

If it was Blizzard announcing another whoppa profit of their life sapping, undie dancing MMO (++SPIT++), that would be a different thing! ;)

Disclosure: I DM (and really enjoy) 4E, I intend to DM PFRPG next campaign (and I guess I'll enjoy it as much as I did when I played 3E and 2E and 1E and BECMI and MERP and Ars Magica and LotR RPG and Harn and ... you get the picture)
 

Wow. I'm reminded once again why so many people outside our hobby have such a poor opinion of gamers.

I truly don't understand the need for people, in what should be a thread celebrating the success of a well loved company and a positive sign for the industry, to insult or belittle the people in question. Just once, what's wrong with all of us--4E-players, Pathfinder-players, whoever--just saying "Way to go, guys"? You don't need the numbers. You don't have any right to the numbers. And frankly, the numbers don't matter. If it's sold well enough for Paizo to proclaim it a success, then for all it matters to any of us, it's a success. And even as a die-hard "4on," I couldn't be happier for them.

I really, really don't get it.

I agree that I don't need the numbers, and I certainly don't have a right to the numbers. They do matter, though. For all it matters to a company it's a success if a product sells out, but it means little to me without a good gauge of what it means in an objective sense.

So I suppose the reason I made the first post was to say that by touting a sold-out run, a company makes a claim to success, and what is implied is that the success is worth noting; lots of people bought this, and because they did, so should you!

On its face, this is a bad argument for a company to make, but it is worse when there are no numbers to back it up. Not only am I supposed to get on the bandwagon of game X, I'm supposed to do so based on someone's vague claim that there will be lots of people there with me.

Think about this in the context of the recording industry. Imagine if instead of "Band X sold Y copies of their new album this week," we got "Band X sold out of their initial run of their new album in the first week." Does this mean that lots of people like the band and/or the album? Will I be a social pariah if I say I like it? Who knows? And you might say "Who cares?", and you would be right; but that is really outside what the marketing strategy is intended to accomplish.

That's why I think the "25 000 unique downloads" claim for the Pathfinder beta was interesting in a way that this current news or similar news from any company isn't. That doesn't really make it much better, but at least I know the size of the bandwagon. In the beta's case, the download numbers did, as Mona claimed, somewhat justify pursuit of the Pathfinder game; there was indeed a good amount of interest, enough to indicate some good sales figures.

It's the marketing I'm interested in, and I thought it was on topic. The intent is not to insult or belittle people for using this kind of marketing strategy; if I am, I suppose I'm slagging on every company that has ever used it. "Success" can be subjective, I just hate it when it's used to promote something that should require more objectivity.

I guess I disagreed about what the thread should be, that's all. This is too much of a digression, though, and I'll start a new thread if I want to discuss this with other interested people. My cynicism in this thread stops here.

Like I said, great art.:)
 

Wow. I'm reminded once again why so many people outside our hobby have such a poor opinion of gamers.

I truly don't understand the need for people, in what should be a thread celebrating the success of a well loved company and a positive sign for the industry, to insult or belittle the people in question. Just once, what's wrong with all of us--4E-players, Pathfinder-players, whoever--just saying "Way to go, guys"? You don't need the numbers. You don't have any right to the numbers. And frankly, the numbers don't matter. If it's sold well enough for Paizo to proclaim it a success, then for all it matters to any of us, it's a success. And even as a die-hard "4on," I couldn't be happier for them.

I really, really don't get it.
I think this lends more credit to my less favorite thesis formed on edition wars:

There are likers and there are haters.
Likers talk about what they like. Sometimes annoyingly much, but they really like that stuff, so it's hard to get angry for that.
Haters talk about that they hate. Often annoyingly much, because they really hate that stuffand derile anyone that doesn't, finding fault in the smallest things and distracting from the good stuff about it or helping to make it better.
 

I agree that I don't need the numbers, and I certainly don't have a right to the numbers. They do matter, though. For all it matters to a company it's a success if a product sells out, but it means little to me without a good gauge of what it means in an objective sense.

That's just it, though. The numbers don't matter to you.

They matter to Paizo. They matter to retailers and distributors. They matter not one whit to you, or to me, or to anyone else in this thread.

What matters to us is whether the game is selling well enough for Paizo to continue the line. Obviously, it is. But beyond that simple binary equation--yes it is/no it isn't--the specific numbers don't change anything for the consumer.

Everything else from us--everything else--is idle curiosity at best, or unjustified entitlement at worst. And while there's nothing wrong with being curious, that curiosity is our issue, not Paizo's.
 




While Pathfinder is not my System of Choice, it is always good to see some diversity and that the RPG Market is far from dried out! :cool:

So congratulations to Paizo and I wish you as much success in the future! :)
 

Pot meet kettle.

It was just dry humour. I know that kind can be terribly hard to get, and I must admit it translate poorly at times to written form. But maybe for a second, if you stop being so god damn sensitive and expect the worst from anyone who plays D&D instead of Pathfinder, maybe you will be better off.

I'm a fan of 4e and of Pathfinder as well. Jack99, I got your humor, but still thought it was unnecessary baiting.

Perhaps because it would make your report of a sold-out preorder seem like something more than a manufactured piece of marketing? It is hard to avoid this conclusion of course:

But then again . . . .
 

Remove ads

Top