Not PFS, but I expect adventure paths and adventures are probably a big driver right now. Like @CapnZapp says, people are going to grab an adventure to see how a system plays.possibly but that depends on whether or not they felt that PFS was driving most of thier sales. If that's the case then they most likely felt they couldn't do it. If that is not the case they would have been far better off doing what every version of organized D&D has done since the RPGA and limit the ruleset and allow home players to use anything they want. Then you get to sell supplements and control organized play. If your entire ruleset is written around organized play that's a very limiting business model.
That I didn’t is probably an anomaly. I’d already run my share of PF1 adventures (and got tired of Paizo’s style) and had an underwhelming experience with the one I ran for my group during the playtest. I wouldn’t have even considered trying the system again if not for a happy accident. We’d had a TPK in the 5e version of my campaign, and I concluded that the power scaling in PF2 and its mechanical orientation were a better fit for my group. As it turns out, that scaling was no good us, but Proficiency Without Level made the system work.