Tabletopocalypse Now - GMS' thoughts about the decline in the hobby

[Chaos Disciple]

Hmm. What he said about what you said can be interpreted a number of different ways. One of which doesn't have him saying there are thousand year old books about chess, but rather books about a thousand year old game (which is what you said to him in the quote). And now you're saying he was actually talking of thousands of books.

I myself have a habit of getting stuck in semantics sometimes because I find it important to say what I actually mean, but this is getting a bit silly, don't you think? Why is this so important?

　
However you want to look at it "chess" was the wrong reply to that request.

But, I should problaby just let him have his opinion, or misunderstanding, or whatever, and stop asking for that link, because this is getting "silly".

 

[jonesy]

But, I should problaby just let him have his opinion, or misunderstanding, or whatever, and stop asking for that link, because this is getting "silly".

That's not what I said, or asked.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

That's not what I said, or asked.

Your right, thats what I said, and its not a question.

 

[nedjer]

15 pages in - seems about time I went and actually read the post

 

[Ghostwind]

Sounds like an accusation. Got anything to back it up?

Yep. When Inquest was collecting data, they wanted hard sales numbers for that month. Show me a retailer who is willing to open share his sales numbers where his competition can see them. Business owners are often reluctant to share any data where a competitor can use it to his advantage. Additionally, many stores do not track sales, they reorder based upon visual inventory. If they sell their one copy of Pathfinder, they reorder one for the next week. Ask them how many they sold in a month and they might know or they might not. So, they will usually give a guestimate. Not every FLGS has an up-to-date POS equipped with a scanner and can print out sales data as needed. Some still use old fashioned paper invoices.

Simply put, there is no way you can get an accurate measure of RPG sales based solely on voluntary input from retailers. For that, you have to go directly to the publisher. To my knowledge, Fred Hicks and a couple others are the only ones who are willingly to openly show their sales data. No one else will, especially Wotc or Paizo.

 

[Elric]

So why don't you read the thread? The reason statistics was invented was because our guts frequently produce bad answers, and I think the evidence introduced in the thread makes it clear that at the least, Pathfinder is a serious contender.

Because I read the first page and a half and no one brought it up, and I didn't want to search through posts on chess to see if it was ever brought up? But if you want to link to a couple of highly relevant posts from the middle pages, feel free.

 

[Maggan]

Why would store owners lie to a confidential survey, and why would their lies preferentially favor Pathfinder?

Because they're gamers with an axe to grind?

Granted, that skews both ways and might favour WotC as the incumbent. But I have known game store owners who I could imagine would have reported 0 sales of D&D just out of spite. Or 0 Pathfinder, and 10 Call of Cthulhu because they think that game rocks.

/M

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

(Breaking my own rule, I know, but nobody misrepresents me.)

Oh and thanks for proving to DA that chess really is over 1000 years old.

Did you flunk math? Or English?

Here's some Modern chess dates garnished from the various cited sources and hrown around this thread- all AD- subtracted from today's year:

2010 - 1430 = ?
2010 - 1470 = ?
2010 - 1700 = ?

Note: none of those problems have an answer of 1000+

Nobody here is battling the strawman that chess' roots aren't more than 1000 years old. We are battling your assertion that chess has undergone no major changes in that time- a position which no source including your own has supported.

Your posts in defense of the indefensible are fast reaching Pythonesque levels of absurdity.


Do you wish to continue your dishonest scholarship?

 

[Chaos Disciple]

(Breaking my own rule, I know, but nobody misrepresents me.)



Did you flunk math? Or English?

Here's some Modern chess dates garnished from the various cited sources and hrown around this thread- all AD- subtracted from today's year:

2010 - 1430 = ?
2010 - 1470 = ?
2010 - 1700 = ?

Note: none of those problems have an answer of 1000+

Nobody here is battling the strawman that chess' roots aren't more than 1000 years old. We are battling your assertion that chess has undergone no major changes in that time- a position which no source including your own has supported.

Your posts in defense of the indefensible are fast reaching Pythonesque levels of absurdity.


Do you wish to continue your dishonest scholarship?

Im not sure what you mean by dishonest
I actually agree with you in post #145

Well if you concider changing 1% of a games design qualifies as a completely different game. then yeah were talking about different games.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Im not sure what you mean by dishonest
I actually agree with you in post #145

Which you follow with repeated claims about the 1000 year old game which nobody is really talking about- you continue to conflate them quoth your rhetoric.