Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outsold D&D by 2:1 in 2013

[scott2978]

As a player and a GM in both a PF and a D&D campaign, I can say that regardless of whether I buy 5e or not, I'm not going to change the game I'm playing for a long time. Plus, like a great many I plan to hold off from buying 5e until I see what the early adopters have to say about it. These are factors that a lot of folks seem to be missing. A significant portion of the market will be "late adopters", perhaps more than before given that many are no doubt gunshy after 4e. There might be a rush on 5e when it first hits shelves but that's not the full measure of the game. If a handful of the right people slam it in public, then the masses of sales from late adopters will never materialize. The sense that 5e is a foregone sales success is not really justified IMHO. Done poorly, the release of 5e could consign the D&D brand to a long period of mediocrity and possibly worse.

 

[Hussar]

As a somewhat diligent keeper of the numbers, I strongly doubt the accuracy and correlation of the DDI Group size to the actual subscriber numbers.

As a former subscriber who still has access to the DDI group, I expect the number is dropping probably at an accelerating rate given the timing on yearly subs.

Since the forum changeover in Sept. 2013 the DDI group has only varied by +-3. That variance seems statistically unlikely if it were an accurate measure of the DDI subscriber number given the hiatus of Dragon and Dungeon, the development of the free public playtest, and the previous increase in size of roughly 30/day.

DDI subscribers still exist.
4e players still exist.
WotC has a more precise count of the numbers of subscribers.
They also have a count of the number of downloaders and survey responders for the playtest.
They know how many copies of Scourge of the Sword Coast, Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, and all the other PDFs have sold.

I see the posted DDi sub numbers as about as accurate as the icv2 numbers. They are a talking point but certainly not something to draw conclusions from

 

[Lanefan]

As a player and a GM in both a PF and a D&D campaign, I can say that regardless of whether I buy 5e or not, I'm not going to change the game I'm playing for a long time. Plus, like a great many I plan to hold off from buying 5e until I see what the early adopters have to say about it. These are factors that a lot of folks seem to be missing. A significant portion of the market will be "late adopters", perhaps more than before given that many are no doubt gunshy after 4e. There might be a rush on 5e when it first hits shelves but that's not the full measure of the game. If a handful of the right people slam it in public, then the masses of sales from late adopters will never materialize. The sense that 5e is a foregone sales success is not really justified IMHO. Done poorly, the release of 5e could consign the D&D brand to a long period of mediocrity and possibly worse.

Maybe.

I've never run 3e, PF or 4e but I've bought various bits and pieces from each, thinking (sometimes correctly) I could adapt some of it to my own system. I'll probably end up looking at 5e the same way; a non-adopter who still buys some stuff.

The same, I would think, goes for those currently playing 3e, or PF, or 4e: if there's things in 5e that'll fit in they'll get bought for adaptation.

5e would have to be truly awful for it to kill the D&D brand, and so far that doesn't seem to be the case.

Lanefan

 

[darjr]

I see the posted DDi sub numbers as about as accurate as the icv2 numbers. They are a talking point but certainly not something to draw conclusions from

Actually now I think they are complete nonsense or noise data. They used to at least tell us a minimum number of subscribers. Those who were DDI and also forum members. Several people tested it in various ways. At least I was fairly confident in those numbers, sometimes. Now?

 

[Mark CMG]

There are times I wonder how many people at WotC are on Lisa Stevens payroll.

Or will be. WotC's business model with its revolving door employment program and cyclical layoffs has essentially turned WotC into Paizo's paid internship program. We'll see what 5E looks like and how it sells, above and beyond what it can do with the brand name slapped on it, then we'll see what next holiday season brings now that the heavy lifting is done. If WotC is generally out of the splat book business, I wonder how many employees have a mostly RPG-oriented background and if many will be let go or moved to other areas of handling the brand. Winter is coming.

 

[Wicht]

WotC's business model with its revolving door employment program and cyclical layoffs has essentially turned WotC into Paizo's paid internship program.

Heh.

That's quote worthy.

 

[Cybit]

Also, more importantly, WotC has Magic the Gathering, which plays on a completely different level than any of these products. From my understanding, much of D&D's funding comes from Magic.

DDI is still a fairly big subscription model; most of the people I know who got it still have it, including me, and I haven't ran a 4E game in over a year.

 

[Ace]

My, how the market has changed.

Just a few years ago, the argument was being made that Paizo would never, ever, not in a hundred years, outsell WotC in the RPG arena. Now the argument is being made the WotC is going to be a solid competitor against Paizo in the realm of RPGs and its now WotC managing to be able to "get 50% of the Pathfinder sales." And the fact that DnD manages to eke out 50% of what Pathfinder sold is seen as a positive sign for WotC and the DnD brand.

Whether or not the numbers in these surveys mean much, it is clear who the perceived industry leader is at the moment.

I have to agree with you here. Pathfinder is at least right now the market leader. JMO here but this is a good thing. This means that the new D&D won't be able to sit on its laurels err name recognition and will need to be a better game . Thats a win for all of us. I think that 5e will be awesome myself and I can see it being my D&D if it does well.

Besides a few years ago 3.5 was still in play, there was no reason to think that Pathfinder would overtake it. After all, they were quite alike and 3x had the imprimatur of officiality and the D&D name behind it. 4.0 again JMO sort of spoiled that, its a very cool game but for many it doesn't feel D&D. Thus PF which did zoomed ahead.

5E though feels like D&D and has a good chance of catching up

A caveat though, the economy will have an impact. A lot of players of all ages are cash strapped these days and this will slow the rate of adoption especially against Pathfinder which is essentially free to anyone with a smart phone or a computer (the SRD is lush) 5e can and will compete but I don't think it will rocket.

 

[MortonStromgal]

There are times I wonder how many people at WotC are on Lisa Stevens payroll. All credit to Paizo - Wizards have made the worst marketing strategy for D&D I'm aware of (don't put out any product) and Paizo have capitalised magnificently.

The best thing Peter ever did was hire Lisa. She just worked for that little company that made a vampire game before moving to WOTC and then Piazo. The girl knows how to have an RPG company make money.

[edit] its also worth noting that Steve Jackson said that GURPS digital sells less than 1/10th of GURPS physical (in the first few months) and that from people he talked to that seems to be industry wide. (however he notes that over time costs go to 0 and people keep occasionally buying, so eventually it should be higher sales than physical, it just may take 10 years) Alot of folk I know buy the core 3 books when they come out for D&D (and this time a DDI subscription) to not care in 6 months (and cancel that subscription). So 80k I would guess is probably somewhere between 8k-16k, but at $X a month its a steady revenue where as who knows how popular a new book will be.