Pathfinder 2E Release Day Second Edition Amazon Sales Rank

[BryonD]

Interesting 199% growth for PF2 on Roll20 for the last quarter, a bit ahead of the 181% growth Roll20 had. Not sure it is move the Needle growth like @BryonD is looking for but definitely some growth As with all the Pandemic news hard to say what that really means though.

I was about to post exactly this.
0.5 to 1.1 is 120% and 1.1 to 1.2 is another 9%. I doubt that those hard values are meaningful, but, as with everything else, the trend appears to be there.

Going from zero lines of evidence to one is a big step.

 

[JFranklin3000]

I was about to post exactly this.
0.5 to 1.1 is 120% and 1.1 to 1.2 is another 9%. I doubt that those hard values are meaningful, but, as with everything else, the trend appears to be there.

Going from zero lines of evidence to one is a big step.

In the full Orr Report on Roll20 they specifically state the 199% growth for PF2 in case anyone missed where I got that from. The 181% growth of Roll20 itself is also in there.

 

[Porridge]

Knowing a new edition will be announced in a year would have given them the opportunity to cancel planned projects or reduce the scope from big hardcovers to smaller softcovers. Pause the work before investing time and money into art and writing before it was too late. Or even just order smaller print runs.

That's fair. I certainly agree that the earlier they announced the coming of PF2, the more time they could give 3PPs to adjust.

(Though there's a bit of a double-edged sword here, since I'm sure the announcement of PF2 dramatically dropped sales in 3PP PF1 products too. So in that sense, 3PPs with good long-term sales (e.g., Spheres of Power) would have wanted the announcement delayed as long as possible.)

But, sure. They made a decision to keep in secret. They had their reasons. That's fair.
However... the fact of the matter is still that Paizo spent years complaining about how WotC treated them and other 3rd party companies with the change over between 3e and 4e, casting shade over how they had been kept in the dark regarding the new edition and weren't invited to help test or see the product in advance. And then largely did the same to their 3rd party publishers the first chance they got.
So while it's fair to have kept things quiet and sprung it on everyone at the same time, it makes them seem hypocritical.

I had to dust off my memory to remember what exactly Paizo complained about, but looking back through Lisa's 2012 retrospective history, Paizo's three big complaints about 4e were:

1. WotC not extending the OGL to 4e,
2. WotC not providing any details regarding what 4e was going to be like (Jason Bulmahn had to make a special trip to WotC offices four months prior to 4e's release to learn anything about what 4e was like),
3. 4e not looking like the kind of system they wanted to write adventures for.

I take it Paizo clearly did better with respect to the first two complaints, since Paizo did extend their OGL to PF2, and released a working draft of the PF2 rules to the public a year before PF2's release.

I grant, though, that the third complaint is one that many 3PPs could also reasonably make about PF2, given how different PF2 is from PF1.

 

[JFranklin3000]

That's fair. I certainly agree that the earlier they announced the coming of PF2, the more time they could give 3PPs to adjust.

(Though there's a bit of a double-edged sword here, since I'm sure the announcement of PF2 dramatically dropped sales in 3PP PF1 products too. So in that sense, 3PPs with good long-term sales (e.g., Spheres of Power) would have wanted the announcement delayed as long as possible.)



I had to dust off my memory to remember what exactly Paizo complained about, but looking back through Lisa's 2012 retrospective history, Paizo's three big complaints about 4e were:

1. WotC not extending the OGL to 4e,
2. WotC not providing any details regarding what 4e was going to be like (Jason Bulmahn had to make a special trip to WotC offices four months prior to 4e's release to learn anything about what 4e was like),
3. 4e not looking like the kind of system they wanted to write adventures for.

I take it Paizo clearly did better with respect to the first two complaints, since Paizo did extend their OGL to PF2, and released a working draft of the PF2 rules to the public a year before PF2's release.

I grant, though, that the third complaint is one that many 3PPs could also reasonably make about PF2, given how different PF2 is from PF1.

They did announce the new edition 16 months in advance, that is a lot more lead up time then you would get from most publishers.

EDIT: And it wasn't that WotC did a new edition that was the issue, it was the GSL wasn't ready and they wouldn't tell Paizo what they were going to be able to do. And that was at Winter Fantasy 6 months before the new edition.

 

[darjr]

The public announcement wasn’t the issue. Significant 3pp should have had an earlier private announcement. Especially those that were working closely with Paizo.

 

[darjr]

The online play numbers are amazing, good news.

 

[Jester David]

How's 3.5 holding up?

Half PF1 on Fantasy Grounds, little more than a third PF1 on Roll20. Twice PF2 on both platforms.

 

[Jester David]

That's fair. I certainly agree that the earlier they announced the coming of PF2, the more time they could give 3PPs to adjust.

(Though there's a bit of a double-edged sword here, since I'm sure the announcement of PF2 dramatically dropped sales in 3PP PF1 products too. So in that sense, 3PPs with good long-term sales (e.g., Spheres of Power) would have wanted the announcement delayed as long as possible.)

As others have said, this could be a private head’s up to third parties, which wouldn’t have impacted PF1 sales. And could have given people hoping for good long-term sales to print fewer copies or not invest as much in new art.

And really, Pathfinder continuing to release PF1 material after the announcement was their foolishness. They should have switched to system agnostic material.

I had to dust off my memory to remember what exactly Paizo complained about, but looking back through Lisa's 2012 retrospective history, Paizo's three big complaints about 4e were:

1. WotC not extending the OGL to 4e,
2. WotC not providing any details regarding what 4e was going to be like (Jason Bulmahn had to make a special trip to WotC offices four months prior to 4e's release to learn anything about what 4e was like),
3. 4e not looking like the kind of system they wanted to write adventures for.

I take it Paizo clearly did better with respect to the first two complaints, since Paizo did extend their OGL to PF2, and released a working draft of the PF2 rules to the public a year before PF2's release.

I grant, though, that the third complaint is one that many 3PPs could also reasonably make about PF2, given how different PF2 is from PF1.

I’ve listened to a lot of podcasts and interviews and it’s more than that.

After losing the magazinines, Paizo launched a new 3rd Party 3e adventure product line at GenCon 2007. And the same con WotC announced 4e potentially killing the sales of their brand new product line. They felt ambushed by that and scared that it’d be killing their business.
They’d tied their company’s future and people’s multi-year subscriptions to a monthly adventure line that WotC had just potentially killed the audience for.

 

[Jester David]

In the full Orr Report on Roll20 they specifically state the 199% growth for PF2 in case anyone missed where I got that from. The 181% growth of Roll20 itself is also in there.

Increasing in percentage in Roll20 is impressive, as it’s not just growing, but growing faster than 5e, which tends to veil relative growth with its massively expanding numbers.
And having 1% on Roll20 is still a feat. There are a lot of big and popular games that can’t match that. Like Numenera and Shadowrun.

Unlike PF1, which does seem to be shrinking. So people could be wrapping up PF1 games and moving to PF2. We might see another surge of play in PF2 this year as more people convert.

The worrying thing is PF1 dropped by more than PF2 raised.

 

[BryonD]

In the full Orr Report on Roll20 they specifically state the 199% growth for PF2 in case anyone missed where I got that from. The 181% growth of Roll20 itself is also in there.

link?
nevermind, I found it. They are saying "doubling" so I think they mean 99% "growth" or 199% of the prior quarter.
But growth is growth.