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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6553189" data-attributes="member: 22779">BryonD, I know I cannot convince you of anything.  I'm just trying to point out that the picture you have painted is hardly the only possibility.  "All the data we do have strongly suggests that PF was kicking 4e's butt"?  Really?  The brand new Pathfinder couldn't budge 4e until they stopped publishing 4e material.  And even then, it wasn't right away.  Had they kept publishing 4e material, I have a pretty strong suspicion that 4e would have chugged right along at top spot the entire time. Let me repeat that, Pathfinder ONLY took top spot when WOTC stopped publishing anything.  It took WOTC completely forgoing ANY new material for Paizo to take over top spot. Which leads me to suspect that a very modest publication schedule will put WOTC back in 1st place.So, if 5e stays in #1 spot in the next quarter, what's your new interpretation going to be then?  That Paizo is now a failure because it couldn't maintain it's market dominance?  That people are being driven away from Paizo into the arms of 5e because of a poor game?  After all, that's precisely your interpretation now of 4e, so, if 5e stays on top, doesn't that mean the exact same thing for Pathfinder?You've long maintained that the reason 4e failed is due to its inferiority to Pathfinder.  That if 4e had been a "good" game, then it would not have lost top spot.  So, logically, if Paizo loses top spot to 5e, then it must be for the same reason - it's an inferior product.I anxiously await to hear you talk about how Pathfinder is a sub-par game since it's no longer commanding the top spot.  You certainly waxed at length, and continue to do so, about the failure of 4e.  When are you going to start talking about how Pathfinder just isn't a satisfactory game?</blockquote>

Verification