Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Players: What would you be playing/buying if PF didn't exist.

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

The problem with that is manyfold. First, the ICV2 numbers are notoriously unreliable and self-reported by store owners from memory. Second, they do not account for any online sales, which includes Paizo's extensive pdf sales and D&D Online. They also don't include sales on Amazon or through big-box retailers (which WotC, at least, occasionally gets into).

Paizo has income streams other than their own game sales, including fiction and the sale of other people's games through their online store. None of those ratios are known, but they perfectly well could make more money as a company without selling any more of their game. There are also things like licenses (for comics for example) that can influence how much money either company makes with no impact on game sales.

But also, even if Paizo revenues are up as a result of selling more of their games, and even if WotC sales are down, that isn't evidence that the later is a result of the former.

But WotC has access to better numbers than we do (for their own sales, at least), and I'm pretty sure they still don't see an increase in Paizo revenues as a threat.

Note that I STILL think they'd do better with greater continuity of long-term, design staff. I just don't feel these numbers support the idea that Paizo is a threat to them, or costing them money.

 

[Dog Moon]

Some sort of homebrewed 3.5 is what my group would most likely be playing. Our group just enjoys tinkering and likely we would have tinkered something interesting by now that we would be playing.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem with that is manyfold. First, the ICV2 numbers are notoriously unreliable and self-reported by store owners from memory. Second, they do not account for any online sales, which includes Paizo's extensive pdf sales and D&D Online. They also don't include sales on Amazon or through big-box retailers (which WotC, at least, occasionally gets into).

Paizo has income streams other than their own game sales, including fiction and the sale of other people's games through their online store. None of those ratios are known, but they perfectly well could make more money as a company without selling any more of their game. There are also things like licenses (for comics for example) that can influence how much money either company makes with no impact on game sales.

But also, even if Paizo revenues are up as a result of selling more of their games, and even if WotC sales are down, that isn't evidence that the later is a result of the former.

But WotC has access to better numbers than we do (for their own sales, at least), and I'm pretty sure they still don't see an increase in Paizo revenues as a threat.

Note that I STILL think they'd do better with greater continuity of long-term, design staff. I just don't feel these numbers support the idea that Paizo is a threat to them, or costing them money.

True but there are also things like the 4E production schedule being cutt in half and then cancled and the announcement of D&D 3.5 years into 4th ed production run. Or Mearls being on record as early as 2010 with the launch of the essentials box saying that 4E drove away their own players. Adds up to convincing arguement about how popular 4E was and it was the catalyst for the rise of Pathfinder and maybe the OSR retroclones as well. When people start playing BECMI again and buying retroclones of BECMI over 4th ed you may have a problem.

 

[Piston Honda]

3.5, 4e didn't go over well with my group, and the 3.5 library not requiring much to adapt is the only reason we could even move on.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

True but there are also things like the 4E production schedule being cutt in half and then cancled and the announcement of D&D 3.5 years into 4th ed production run. Or Mearls being on record as early as 2010 with the launch of the essentials box saying that 4E drove away their own players. Adds up to convincing arguement about how popular 4E was and it was the catalyst for the rise of Pathfinder and maybe the OSR retroclones as well. When people start playing BECMI again and buying retroclones of BECMI over 4th ed you may have a problem.

Having been present for WotC conversations about why D&D might or might not get cancelled way back in 2001, let me say that I am unconvinced any of that means WotC thinks any other RPG has any impact on them at all. At the launch of the 3.0, when it was doing better than any version of D&D ever and outselling their early estimates, there was significant grumbling within the company that it still wasn't making enough money. Not compared to 2nd edition, or Sword & Sorcery, or Call of Cthulhu, but compared to Magic and Pokemon and (to a lesser extent) GI Joe and Transformers.
I still believe WotC doesn't think of any RPG in existence as having any impact on sales of D&D. And all that has to happen for everything to be cancelled and a huge reset button be pushed is for someone to decide the current business plan won't make as many millions of dollars as it COULD, and convince a higher-up that their NEW plan is better.

 

[athos]

This is a question that spins off another thread about how much Pathfinder sales effects D&D sales.

My guess is that there are some missed sales from new people that see PF is popular and hear bad things about 4e from the PF and OSR crowds, but who around here would have bought more 4e stuff if PF didn't exist? What would you be buying and playing if PF didn't exist?

I wouldn't have bought more 4e stuff for one, I tried it and thought it sucked. Then and only then did I start looking for alternatives to 4e.

If PF didn't exist, I would still be playing 3.5. I still play 3.5 some, but prefer PF over all.

 

[BlackSeed_Vash]

I'd probably run my 3.5/Silver Age Sentinels fusion.

 

[Witchfinder General]

True20 or Savage Worlds.

 

[delericho]

Playing: Same as now. My most recent campaign was 3.5e, the current one is SWSE. There is one DM in our group who runs Pathfinder, though I'm not in that campaign - I suspect he'd be running 3.5e instead.

Buying: Pretty much my only RPG purchase at the moment is the Pathfinder Adventure Path. So, if Pathfinder didn't exist, I'd probably not be buying anything. Although... of course, the AP started in 3.5e, so if the PF RPG hadn't existed then those might have stayed with that edition. Hmm...

 

[fjw70]

Having been present for WotC conversations about why D&D might or might not get cancelled way back in 2001, let me say that I am unconvinced any of that means WotC thinks any other RPG has any impact on them at all. At the launch of the 3.0, when it was doing better than any version of D&D ever and outselling their early estimates, there was significant grumbling within the company that it still wasn't making enough money. Not compared to 2nd edition, or Sword & Sorcery, or Call of Cthulhu, but compared to Magic and Pokemon and (to a lesser extent) GI Joe and Transformers.
I still believe WotC doesn't think of any RPG in existence as having any impact on sales of D&D. And all that has to happen for everything to be cancelled and a huge reset button be pushed is for someone to decide the current business plan won't make as many millions of dollars as it COULD, and convince a higher-up that their NEW plan is better.

This isn't the first time I have heard an ex-WotC employee say that WotC has never been happy with D&D sales and profits.

One mistake people tend to make about WotC moving on from 4e to 5e must be because 4e was losing money. However, that isn't how business works. A product could be making a good profit but a company could cancel it to make another product if they thought the new product would make more money. I have seen it happen.

When comparing 4e to Pathfinder it COULD be the case that 4e made more profit than Pathfinder and Paizo and Lisa Stevens would be happy with Pathfinder's profits and WotC/Hasbro would be very dissatisfied with the 4e profits. Both products exist in different worlds and are judged by different standards.