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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7984177" data-attributes="member: 37579">Not really...There were changes, but they were hardly substantial. Removing resonance and small balance tweaks didn't make it into a different game. Rebalancing of spells, revisions of classes, etc.There were arguably as more changes made between 3.0 and 3.5 or 3.5 (or even 3.5 to PF1) but I wouldn't say "substantial changes", let alone enough changes to make it more appealing to people who disliked the previous version.  Paizo has said many times that their direct sales are significantly less than what is sold over Amazon. Because the lower price of books, faster delivery, and much, much, MUCH lower shipping prices attract buyers.Another metric: Kickstarter. What's the biggest Kickstarter for a 3rd Party Pathfinder 2nd Edition product?Honestly, the PF2 situation really reminds me a lot of 4th Edition and discussing it vs Pathfinder over on the WotC boards. All these people coming in and saying how 4e was dead in their town, how PF was doing better on Amazon, and the like. And the 4e fans being "nuh-uh, 4e is doing fine. WotC said it sold better than 3e and launch. And the CEO of WotC is talking about how happy they are with sales."PF2 was always going to have an uphill battle to compete against PF1 and the players that didn't want change or were invested in the libraries of books they bought. And replacing holdovers with new players is hard when 5e has become a juggernaut and is attracting all the attention. It's not really a suprise that it had an initial surge that slowed down. The question isn't "is PF1 more popular than PF2" but "is the smaller sales of PF2 still enough to sustain Paizo?" And really, the answer is "probably". If they keep their staff restrained and are wise with their money. Because even selling far less than PF1 numbers still makes PF2 more successful that most other RPGs on the market.</blockquote>

Verification