Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 7976450" data-attributes="member: 957">See, I think this is a great example of cognitive bias.  In two sentences you describe PF as falling "hard" and you describe PF2E's position as "solid".  You don't have any basis for either of those completely qualitative words, but it is how you filter the limited data.The fact remains that PF was #2 behind 5E for quite a while.  It was just as "solid" as PF2E is now.  (Which is to say, not very much at all).  The thing that knocked it out of #2 was the launch of Starfinder.  And it fell all the way to #3.  Then PF2E was announced and THEN it dropped out of the top 5.You can go back and look up in this thread where I have stated a few times that PF was done, was not selling well enough.  I'm not changing that now.  But every hand-waving argument saying that PF2E is doing great right now could be made about PF pre-SF/PF2E announcement.  It was the game I prefer, it was #2, and yet I never claimed that meant it was doing good enough.There is nothing quantitative to suggest a difference, and the qualitative data we have is roughly the same.And if you interpret them both as roughly the same, then fair enough regardless of if you say "awesome" or "crashing".  But if you see one as a hard fall and the other as solid, then it is hard to say that you are not rolling some bias into your evaluation.</blockquote>