I wonder what composes the hobby channel exactly, and what contributes to the numbers the article uses. Could the pathfinder online store be reporting numbers?

I don't think so. I think its just FLGSes.

RPGPundit

I was recently reminded that WotC has its own distribution network, which sells directly to hobby stores. I chat up the owners of our two local gaming stores from time to time, and ask them to order 4E books for me, and talking to them they both purchased from WotC's distribution network.

I seriously doubt WotC's distribution network is part of ICv2's information. If WotC does most of its hobby sales through its direct network, I'm not really sure how we can put any stock into the ICv2 article.

That would affect distributor data but not store data.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;411991I was recently reminded that WotC has its own distribution network, which sells directly to hobby stores. I chat up the owners of our two local gaming stores from time to time, and ask them to order 4E books for me, and talking to them they both purchased from WotC's distribution network.

I seriously doubt WotC's distribution network is part of ICv2's information. If WotC does most of its hobby sales through its direct network, I'm not really sure how we can put any stock into the ICv2 article.

In the case of WotC having their own exclusive distribution network, this would mainly affect the WotC D&D figures in the ICv2 analysis.  So instead of having D&D and Pathfinder tied for #1, it would most likely just shift Pathfinder to #2.

It would be quite different if Pathfinder also has their own exclusive distribution network, outside of their web subscriptions.

Quote from: ggroy;411994So instead of having D&D and Pathfinder tied for #1, it would most likely just shift Pathfinder to #2.

Pathfinder still has direct sales. But then again, WotC still has the DDI...

Seanchai

So in actuarial terms we can see that there is real need to adjust our annual investment distribution between these two companies based not onl on the noted differential but also on long term passive accumulation strategies each has adopted.  Demographically it is not correct to assume that Pathfinder is cashing in on long term gamers while WOTC is ingathering new comers to the hobby.  Such strategies may have been intended, but actual market distribution demonstrate unintended consequences for each of them.  As for which strategy is fiscally wiser, there is a bit of a toss-up.  WOTC's focus on newer gamers follows conventional market wisdom in building brand loyalty and exploiting more impulsive buyers, but Pathfinder's appeal is to a wealthier demographic that has demonstrated a true commitment to these particular intangibles and is unlikely to abandon he activity in its entirety.  Intangibles is the key word however because . . .


Sheesh, I am a hobby gamer not a financial analyst interested in the relative value of these two game systems.  If I was absolutely committed to one system over the other the prospect of the demise of the company supporting my system would be annoying, but I could keep playing without that support because game sstes of these types are, in truth, intangibles; meaning once I have become reasonably familiar with them I can create my own content.  Neither of these companies is about to vanish from the face of the earth (and even if one or both did their intellectual properties represent sufficient value to bought up by someone else for publication), and as a gamer, analysis of market factors does nothing for me.  Here's some solid advice though: don't invest your life savings into a volatile, often collapsing industry that produces a product its clients can swiftly begin manufacturing for themselves after brief exposure.
Of course, now I am a contributor to a thread which I claim has no interest for me.  Damn! :banghead:

Is this an RPGs-are-serious-business-style argument?

A stoned professor masquerading as Henry Blodget?  :rolleyes:

See it doesn't matter. Distributor vs. store, etc. doesn't matter. You don't need to actually figure out IF Pathfinder is tied to D&D.  The fact that its EVEN CLOSE, that its close enough in fact, that people are seriously discussing it; that is the news. That's what's worth talking about, because its a major blow to D&D and confirms that D&D has lost the Hobby Leadership status, just like TSR did back in the 90s. This doesn't necessarily mean that Pathfinder has won it.  In fact, the situation right now seems kind of rudderless.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;412128...and confirms that D&D has lost the Hobby Leadership status, just like TSR did back in the 90s.

So it's still outselling it's competition, but it's not the industry leader. See, this is why folks think you're batshit crazy.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;412128See it doesn't matter. Distributor vs. store, etc. doesn't matter. You don't need to actually figure out IF Pathfinder is tied to D&D.  The fact that its EVEN CLOSE, that its close enough in fact, that people are seriously discussing it; that is the news. That's what's worth talking about, because its a major blow to D&D and confirms that D&D has lost the Hobby Leadership status, just like TSR did back in the 90s. This doesn't necessarily mean that Pathfinder has won it.  In fact, the situation right now seems kind of rudderless.

Wonder what it would take for D&D to gain back the hobby leadership status.

At this point making 4E into OGL with a detailed 4E SRD (like the 3.5E SRD), would probably be too little too late.  Lightning with probably not strike twice with D&D open gaming.  Many d20 glut veterans which survived, have already moved on and dumped d20/D&D for the most part (ie. Mongoose, Fantasy Flight, Alderac, Green Ronin, Atlas, White Wolf, etc ...).

Quote from: Seanchai;412141So it's still outselling it's competition, but it's not the industry leader. See, this is why folks think you're batshit crazy.

Seanchai

I specifically chose to say "Hobby leadership" specifically to address this little issue. You may have missed that, but I suspect that you caught it and decided to pretend to ignore it anyways so you could make your stupid point.

During most of TSR's dying days, AD&D 2e continued to outsell other RPGs, but they lost the intellectual leadership of the hobby to White Wolf, because their corporate practices were appalling and they were creatively bankrupt.  Unable to come up with anything originally, they mired themselves in metaplot and imitation until they drowned.

You can still be the technical bestseller by pure force of inertia without being the real leadership force in the hobby.  The real figure to look at is the question not of sales but of growth, something I suspect that has been dropping pretty steadily for 4e at a much more cataclysmic rate than it had during the 3e years.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;412318You can still be the technical bestseller by pure force of inertia without being the real leadership force in the hobby.  The real figure to look at is the question not of sales but of growth, something I suspect that has been dropping pretty steadily for 4e at a much more cataclysmic rate than it had during the 3e years.

As Microsoft is still the bestseller of computer products but has lost their leadership to Apple and Google.

Quote from: RPGPundit;412318I specifically chose to say "Hobby leadership" specifically to address this little issue.

That's right! People are buying 4e books to throw at cats. That WotC is outselling Pathfinder - particularly when you look at DDI - doesn't matter because the people who purchase their products don't use them in hobby-related ways...

Quote from: RPGPundit;412318...they lost the intellectual leadership of the hobby to White Wolf...

Ah."Intellectual leadership" is the new "dissociative mechanics." Gotcha. I mistook this for an actual argument, not another neologism end run. Carry on, soldier...

Seanchai