Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder sales

[Umbran]

It's simple statistics; if you don't have any data, then you end up having to ascribe equal odds to each of the contenders.

Humans have a drive to try to ascribe known values to unknowns. This has nothing to do with statistics.

You see, if nobody has a gun pointed at my head, I don't have to ascribe odds at all! I can admit, "I don't really have enough information to say," and move on. In real world sciences, when you don't know, you're supposed to admit it, rather than make stuff up and go ahead as if that were correct.

 

[Echohawk]

Gee, a strawman; I don't recall anyone saying "seriously eclipsed". And mind you by the same standards you're putting forward, you don't have the evidence that D&D has ever beat Pathfinder in sales.

Of course we have such evidence! D&D 4e was published in June 2008, Pathfinder in August 2009. That's a very solid basis for concluding that D&D 4e beat Pathfinder in sales for at least a year.

 

[Dire Bare]

Gee, a strawman; I don't recall anyone saying "seriously eclipsed". And mind you by the same standards you're putting forward, you don't have the evidence that D&D has ever beat Pathfinder in sales.

The predominance of evidence is that Pathfinder is beating D&D in book sales. Our evidence is weak, but all the evidence we have points in the same direction; it supports a tentative conclusion. If I had one bit of evidence that the naysayers really believed it was possible that D&D was actually 3rd in the list, or that the data was previously wrong and that Pathfinder has been leading for a while, then I'd be more accepting; but the counter-argument seems to presume that in absence of evidence, we must accept that D&D 4 is number one.

Strawman? Nope. Looking back at my post, I should have left out the word "seriously" as the you (and others) are simply claiming greater Pathfinder sales, not necessarily "seriously" greater sales. But the way folks present their conclusions . . . Your saying that there is a "predominance" of evidence, but that the evidence is weak, heh, that makes me giggle a bit. There is evidence, it isn't predominant, and it is weak.

I'm not saying that Pathfinder ISN'T outselling D&D or that D&D is outselling Pathfinder . . . I'm saying we don't have worthwhile evidence either way. I do believe that Pathfinder is selling quite well, Paizo is an amazing company that puts out amazing stuff and there is no doubt they've been very successful because of it. And D&D has certainly taken a beating over the past couple of years, and if any game has a chance of overtaking it, even if only momentarily, it's Pathfinder. But again, the existing evidence is weak, and ignores major aspects of both companies sales strategies.

If both Paizo and WotC released their sales figures tomorrow, so we could do a worthwhile comparison to see who's doing better . . . I'd still shrug and say, "So what?" The two games remain good games with healthy sales. Which one is on top matters not to me. The only exception might be if WotC sales are seriously slumping and endangering the brand (which is inferred by some on the "Paizo's winning" side), that would concern me.

The counter-argument is, more accurately, that we know quite well that D&D has been the best-selling tabletop RPG on the market for most (if not all) of the last decade, and that only recently has a game risen to possibly challenge it. The counter-argument then posits that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must continue to operate under the assumption that things are as they have been for the last decade.

Now, this says nothing about what happens if we do come across credible evidence, but I think a lot of people are making the argument that what he have in terms of evidence does not amount to what is sufficient to change our assumptions.

I can't give you any more XP, but not only do we agree but your use your words better than I do! And you're right, D&D is THE original RPG that has been in continuous publication since 1974 (well, with that slight end-of-TSR blip) and that all subsequent RPG games are derived from. Ask the average non-gamer to name five RPG games and they'll be able to answer, "D&D and, um, D&D four more times?" D&D gets the benefit of the doubt when doing these usually meaningless sales comparisons because it's the king baby, and denying that is just plain silly. Doesn't mean it has to be your favorite game, or that it is even the "best" game, but it is the King of RPG Games. Also doesn't mean it can't be eclipsed in sales, as it was in the 90s by the World of Darkness games, and as it may be today by Pathfinder. But in five years, ten years, or thirty years down the road, my money is on D&D remaining the King of RPG Games, not Pathfinder or any other game.

But, I won't be convincing anyone who's deadset in believing that there is enough evidence to show Pathfinder is king-for-a-day in sales, or that it really matters all that much. And they won't be convincing me either . . . and I keep promising myself to stay out of these types of never-ending arguments . . . so I'm done . . . promise!

 

[Mournblade94]

And rock scientists rock the most!

Only when you hit their orogenous zones...

I agree they are gorges though

 

[Mournblade94]

Here's a hint; when someone asks if there is evidence, yes is not an answer. An appropriate answer is to bring out your evidence.



If you missed it, I'm asserting that's not true. I'm claiming that you are rejecting evidence for something while accepting weaker evidence against it. If you want to dispute that, logically you have to bring out your evidence.

Honestly I beleive Pathfinder is outselling D&D at the moment.

As I said I cannot claim to know that.

However with this particular issue there are far too many variables, and using one variable is insufficient.

Previously, 4e was the top seller. Previous to that lets just say D&D was the top seller. D&D has been the top selling RPG.

The burden of bringing evidence forth that D&D 4e is no longer the best selling D&D RPG falls upon those that wish to challenge that assertion.

I beleive Pathfinder is outselling PRINT 4e D&D at this moment. I doubt if DDI is considered that would be the case (though I would be happy if it was).

The evidence that Pathfinder is outselling D&D is shaky at best. IT is difficult to make that assertion let alone that it is outselling in all aspects.

Why I BELEIVE that Pathfinder is outselling is:

A) I beleive the market for 3rd edition D&D was still strong, maybe as much as 40% if not more
B) I beleive the quarterly evidence for now.

There is however no evidence that PAIZO is outselling WOTC that would satisfy my margin of uncertainty.

So for this I just have to hope.

 

[prosfilaes]

The fact that you choose to challenge a claim as solid as "D&D is the best-selling tabletop RPG of the last decade" doesn't mean that I will leap at the opportunity to hunt down evidence for you.

That wasn't the claim; the claim was "we know quite well that D&D has been the best-selling tabletop RPG on the market for most (if not all) of the last decade, and that only recently has a game risen to possibly challenge it." And I don't know how you can claim it's solid; how do you know that Star Wars d20 didn't take over for a a quarter or two? How do you know that while your back was turned, that some game didn't sneak up possibly in a section of the market you didn't know existed? Before and outside these discussions, I never heard of Dark Heresy and Dragon Age, and I would have thought that Shadowrun's sun had set.

You aren't giving evidence because you don't have evidence; you have no clue whether in any particular quarter D&D was top, or what percentage of quarters D&D was top. In fact there is no evidence on that matter besides the type of evidence that's being dismissed here.

Some of us don't, because we think it's too weak to begin reevaluating the market with any seriousness.

You never properly evaluated it in the first place. You started from your assumptions, ended at your assumptions, and called the result self-obvious.

 

[Dannager]

That wasn't the claim; the claim was "we know quite well that D&D has been the best-selling tabletop RPG on the market for most (if not all) of the last decade, and that only recently has a game risen to possibly challenge it."

Darn right it was!

And I don't know how you can claim it's solid;

That's fine.

how do you know that Star Wars d20 didn't take over for a a quarter or two?

It's possible that it did. Heck, it's possible that this happened more than once. But the claim was (as you insisted on pointing out) that D&D was dominant for most of the last decade, so a quarter or two doesn't strike me as important to anyone who isn't trying to poke holes in a not-even-really-an-argument just for the heck of poking holes.

You aren't giving evidence because you don't have evidence;

Well, I mean, not on me. I haven't stopped by the local Evidence ATM and made my withdrawal. They gouge you with those Evidence Service Fees, after all.

But trust me, I've got evidence in the bank. You know I'm good for it.

you have no clue whether in any particular quarter D&D was top, or what percentage of quarters D&D was top. In fact there is no evidence on that matter besides the type of evidence that's being dismissed here.

There's craptons of evidence of D&D's utter dominance of the tabletop RPG market for the last decade. Retailer shelf space. Market research made public. Sales announcements by the companies involved. Fiscal reports. Marketing language. Print run sell-throughs.

And, most importantly, if any tabletop RPG that wasn't D&D had ever managed to claim the top spot for any appreciable (read: not simply a result of releasing books during a quarter when D&D didn't) length of time, the company responsible would put that junk on parade.

You never properly evaluated it in the first place.

Sure I did. I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance, like who sold the most magical elf books this year.

You have evidence and you like it. I won't wonder at why you like it, but you do. That's fine. We think it's lacking. It is not solid enough, representative enough, or significant enough to give us an accurate idea of what the market looks like right now, and frankly we're not interested in any idea of the market that's not accurate. If we want an inaccurate idea of what the market looks like, there are plenty of people willing to share such ideas.

Now, it may be that there will eventually be enough evidence that Pathfinder has replaced D&D as top dog (and I mean really replaced) but we're not there yet. Hold your horses and don't be alarmed when people have an outlook that is more critical of the evidence than your own.

 

[Dannager]

You eventually get used to Umbran and Dannager claiming in these threads that (a) there's no actual evidence for RPG sales, but (b) 4E is definitely still the bestselling game.

We've given our criteria. It strikes me as a little petty to call this irrational, since we've explained very coherently that we operate under the assumption that D&D has dominated (in general terms) for the last decade, and that the standard for evidence challenging this historically-established precedent is higher than the evidence being presented reaches.

I mean, tune us out all you like, but calling us irrational does more harm to the English language than to us.

You understand that the other side's argument essentially amounts to "You should accept our weak evidence that Pathfinder is beating D&D because - despite the fact that pretty much no one in the industry is going to start claiming that D&D hasn't been top dog for the past decade - you don't have anything other than weak evidence that D&D was ever at the head of the pack in the RPG field to begin with!" right? Any argument that uses "D&D isn't really that big of a deal anyway," to make its case probably isn't going to go the distance.

 

[brewdus]

Whether or not Pathfinder is outselling D&D is inconsequential. The fact that a game (albeit one based on a well established system) that's only been out for two years can rise to be such a serious contender is pretty amazing!

 

[Umbran]

since we've explained very coherently that we operate under the assumption that D&D has dominated (in general terms) for the last decade, and that the standard for evidence challenging this historically-established precedent is higher than the evidence being presented reaches.

I don't think I really even need that assumption to hold my position. I don't think the ICv2 report meets my standards of evidence even if there wasn't a historically established precedent.

I do note that if there isn't that general assumption that WotC's the 800 lb gorilla, then a report that someone's beaten them is not really major news worthy of discussion.