http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/18504.html
Pathfinder sells as much as D&D through the hobby channel. Wow. :hatsoff:
Paizo sold a big book of crunch while WotC sold Dark Sun? I'm not surprised.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;408547Paizo sold a big book of crunch while WotC sold Dark Sun? I'm not surprised.
And there's still DDI to consider. Where would they rank if we added WotC's subscription monies into consideration? Each month they sell at least $5.95 worth of subscription goodies to a whole lotta people...
Seanchai
While I'm happy for both companys, I can't help notice that this is some of the worst reporting I have ever seen.
If this is the sort of caliber of said reporting that's acceptable for the site, I'm not be able to believe anything stated there, ever.
"This chart of the Top 5 Roleplaying Games (hobby channel) reflects sales in Q3 2010. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers."
Without knowing which retailers, distributors and manufacturers were interviewed this can't be taken seriously.
And even if they had stated that information, we'd still need to know how they compiled the data before this could be taken seriously.
Seriously, you get better reporting from Fox news.
oops, the double.
New York, New York. So good they had to name it twice.
Quote from: One Horse Town;408944New York, New York. So good they had to name it twice.
Subtle genius.
Quote from: One Horse Town;408944New York, New York. So good they had to name it twice.
"The city so nice, they named it twice." And it took me a minute to figure out how it related to anything. Then I laughed at my stupidity.
I don't play any of those games.
I'm outside the "mainstream".
I may go drink myself to death now.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;408968I don't play any of those games.
I'm outside the "mainstream".
I may go drink myself to death now.
Is this barstool taken? Because neither do I.
Well, actually, I do play D&D. Just not "their" D&D. :D
Quote from: The Butcher;408977Is this barstool taken? Because neither do I.
Well, actually, I do play D&D. Just not "their" D&D. :D
Saddle on up to the bar...;)
I don't get the 3e love. But I hope they are having fun.
I can understand why people would like 3E (there exists substantial good reasons to like it). However, any preference for Pathfinder is inexcusable.
Quote from: Spinachcat;409011I don't get the 3e love. But I hope they are having fun.
Personally, I was very happy with 3e while playing it. I had complaints, of course, but that's true with any game. While playing it, I didn't want to find a brick and beat myself over the head because of the system. I had fun.
For me, that hasn't retroactively changed because there's a new system and I'm happy playing it.
Seanchai
Lower level play, from 1-10 or so, was awesome under 3e. I had many years of fun with 3e.
Quote from: VictorC;408942"This chart of the Top 5 Roleplaying Games (hobby channel) reflects sales in Q3 2010. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers."
It's always been an iffy source but better than most available sources. You can also look at Amazon sales rankings for rpgs, but it's also mysterious how it's created. However, Pathfinder seems to be doing almost as well as 4e there as well.
Quote from: Nicephorus;409083It's always been an iffy source but better than most available sources. You can also look at Amazon sales rankings for rpgs, but it's also mysterious how it's created. However, Pathfinder seems to be doing almost as well as 4e there as well.
Once again, I'm not discounting the either companys performance.
But, amazon has access to there own sales data, the information from this site appears to come from an internal correspondence. Which means someone from the office gave someone else from the same office a note that had this information.
And apparently, no names, no titles and no real information.
Quote from: Mistwell;409079Lower level play, from 1-10 or so, was awesome under 3e. I had many years of fun with 3e.
I'd agree, but I'd make it 1-8. I think there was a reason Huma Dragonbane was suppose to be 9th level.
Heh, I'm picturing Habro executives in suits hacking their way through the trollish denziens of WotC's offices, heads of game designers rolling away at every stroke.
It warms the cockles of my heart. Wow, what a day to realize I still have a heart only to learn it has a terminal case of warm cockles.
On the one hand, this information is pretty dubious. Its almost certain that WoTC doesn't sell most of its product via traditional hobby markets anymoe, and you know, its highly possible even Pathfinder doesn't. If anything, these stats say a lot about the irrelevance of the hobby shop as a vehicle these days.
On the other hand, it STILL means that in polled areas, people who came in to buy RPG books still bought as much Pathfinder as they did D&D, and that has to be a scary-as-shit reality for WoTC, even if it isn't a real tie in the bigger scheme of things.
RPGPundit
Quote from: David Johansen;409116Heh, I'm picturing Habro executives in suits hacking their way through the trollish denziens of WotC's offices, heads of game designers rolling away at every stroke.
Well, it is about time for the yearly pre-Christmas layoffs.
Quote from: RPGPundit;409171...and that has to be a scary-as-shit reality for WoTC...
150,000 people x at least $5.95 x 12 months = $10,710,000. And then, of course, there's actual book sales...
Yeah, I'm sure they're all a quiver with fear. They must be beside themselves. Poop stains all over their office chairs. Paizo, Paizo, they cry wretchedly as they tear out their hair.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;409218150,000 people x at least $5.95 x 12 months = $10,710,000. And then, of course, there's actual book sales...
Yeah, I'm sure they're all a quiver with fear. They must be beside themselves. Poop stains all over their office chairs. Paizo, Paizo, they cry wretchedly as they tear out their hair.
Seanchai
You know, I'm reasonably sure he didn't mean WOTC executives were literally fouling their underclothes.
Lord Hobie
Quote from: Lord Hobie;409220You know, I'm reasonably sure he didn't mean WOTC executives were literally fouling their underclothes.
You never know - Pundy is a persona of extremes...
Seanchai
Yeah, the only "tie" or nearly-so based on this discussion is through the hobby channel (based on little evidence as noted) and Amazon.
As far as I can tell it doesn't count Borders, Barnes & Noble, or (again, as others have noted) the DDI subscription.
It could be indicative of some other trend... say... that there's a correlation between internet/hobby shop sales and wider awareness of the hobby. You don't go into a hobby shop and not see all the other stuff, and you don't go on the internet not knowing what you're looking for. It might further say that there is some correlation between wider awareness and a preference for Pathfinder, which would also not be surprising. Because the longer you've been in the hobby, the more likely you are to be aware of other games, and the more likely you are to have started with 3.5 or earlier, whose fandom has not yet had a chance to dwindle.
That said, Pathfinder's been in Borders and B&N for a while now. But the brand playing second fiddle to D&D has changed even in the time I've been following (since late 3.0), including things like White Wolf product, M&M, and Dark Heresy. And from what I've seen, Borders and B&N carry mostly core of Pathfinder, as opposed to many supplements for 4e. So things can (probably will) change there at some point.
Quote from: beejazz;409259Yeah, the only "tie" or nearly-so based on this discussion is through the hobby channel (based on little evidence as noted) and Amazon.
It doesn't matter, though! Its like if you were to say that Ma Kettle's Burger Shack has tied McDonalds for sales, but only in New York and Miami. While by no means signifying "game over", as some would like it to seem here, it DOES in fact mean McDonald's is facing a serious problem and have clearly fucked up in some big ways to get even to that point.
Likewise WoTC: if Pathfinder really has tied them in the hobby stores, it means that they're having some serious problems. They can still have overwhelming superiority of sales in the rest of the market and yet be facing serious problems. For starters, that nothing like this would ever have happened back in the 3e glory days.
Because, let's face it: if D&D 4e was a better game and WoTC a better company, there's no way that anyone would get even close to them. The mere fact of that closeness is a sign that WoTC is doing things wrong.
RPGpundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;409270It doesn't matter, though! Its like if you were to say that Ma Kettle's Burger Shack has tied McDonalds for sales, but only in New York and Miami.
No, it's like Ma Kettle's Burger Shack has tied Village Inn in hamburger sales in New York and Miami. Physical books are only a part of what WotC sells. They also sell D&D Insider subscriptions, which are basically electronic copies of the content available in the physical books.
When Paizo has something similar, making all the content of their books available online for $5.95 a month, let's compare numbers. Then Paizo will see the same drop in sales of physical books and we can compare apples and apples.
Or we could just compare revenue from the sale of their content company-wide, regardless of the format. I wonder who would win...I wonder who would win...(Surely not the people selling assloads of months subscriptions...)
Quote from: RPGPundit;409270The mere fact of that closeness is a sign that WoTC is doing things wrong.
I supposed had they not decided to transition to this kind of business that might be true.
Seanchai
I think all you can really take away from it is that games in stock sell copies at hobby stores. Also if you look at the top 3 you've got WoTC, Paizo and FFG. They are currently the biggest mainstream high production value game producing companies right now. It's not really shocking that the biggest production houses, and the most mainstream game franchises right now are selling the most.
This would probably hold true if you looked at the rpg sales in most markets. Perhaps the specific order may jimmy around a little but those 4 games are likely going to be in the top 5 most of the time.
To state the obvious, clearly WotC now has a major competitor that sells a product very similar to what they used to sell. Unless the market has grown substantially, or Pathfinder and 4e customers overlap substantially, Paizo is cannibalizing sales from WotC. To have created a new competitor by failing to support a large part of the customer base, and to consequently have a smaller share of the total "D&D-type game" market can only be considered a major failure.
I suspect most of the sales Paizo has are sales Wizards wasn't going to get. I think it's great they are doing well, especially because I like their magnificent flip maps.
The main thing I can note: D&D3 and 4 together dominate the entirety of everything? What's not to like about that!
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;409300I suspect most of the sales Paizo has are sales Wizards wasn't going to get.
This would be the case if the overlap between the Paizo and WotC customer bases is negligible.
The question is what is the size of the customer base, which overlaps both Paizo and WotC. (ie. Who is regularly buying both 4E and Pathfinder titles, and how large is this audience).
It's more than a couple of people, because anecdotally I know plenty of people who play both.
Q3 2010 is what, July, August, and September? When was the Essentials line announced (I honestly can't remember)? I wonder if potential D&D buyers, who were aware of Essentials, were just waiting for that line to be released.
ETA: I mean, the announcements for the Essentials weren't the clearest in the world and coupled with a lot of noise and static from both sides of the love-hate WotC spectrum, I can see quite a number of people putting themselves in a holding pattern on buying until Essentials finally came out. The Q4 report will probably shed some light on that.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;409304It's more than a couple of people, because anecdotally I know plenty of people who play both.
At the present time, I'm buying more Paizo stuff than 4E stuff. I'm not really picking up many 4E Essentials titles, while I still pick up the monthly Pathfinder AP.
A year ago or so, I was buying more WotC stuff than Paizo.
Quote from: The_Shadow;409298To have created a new competitor by failing to support a large part of the customer base, and to consequently have a smaller share of the total "D&D-type game" market can only be considered a major failure.
It's here where things get iffy and you start using subjective language.
For example WotC didn't create a new competitor with 4e as Paizo was selling 3.5 products while WotC was. Paizo has been competing against them for some time.
Clearly, some people now play Pathfinder and don't play 4e. How many people do so is unclear and can't be determined from book sales - particularly book sales through one channel. WotC stopped selling books as it's primary product.
And it's a major failure? As I said upthread, if even 150,000 people have the cheapest DDI subscription, they're raking in $10,000,000 a year. How many books is that worth? I'd be shocked if WotC were making less money from D&D now than they were with 3e or 3.5. Oh, they're selling fewer books, to be sure, but making less money? Nah.
Seanchai
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;409300I suspect most of the sales Paizo has are sales Wizards wasn't going to get. I think it's great they are doing well, especially because I like their magnificent flip maps.
The main thing I can note: D&D3 and 4 together dominate the entirety of everything? What's not to like about that!
Although I agree, I must say this is a change in tone for you, AM.
Game store selection bias
Gaming in death spiral again
Haikus don't work that way, idiot
I'm not a buyer of Pathfinder stuff, but from what I've seen, Paizo is setting the standard for rpg products right now. Their production values and writing are both ahead of 4e D&D IMO.
Quote from: mhensley;409354I'm not a buyer of Pathfinder stuff, but from what I've seen, Paizo is setting the standard for rpg products right now. Their production values and writing are both ahead of 4e D&D IMO.
Oh they are not even close to being as good. But the flip mats are awesome!
/flip mat fan.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;409412Oh they are not even close to being as good.
I'm a 4e fan, but Pathfinder - and Paizo in general - is easily as good as anything WotC does. On graphics alone, I'd give the nod to Pathfinder.
Interesting times, to be sure.
I'm really curious to see how this will unfold a year, ten years from now.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;409300I suspect most of the sales Paizo has are sales Wizards wasn't going to get.
You say that like its somehow exculpatory evidence. That is in fact part of the REASON why Wizards is getting beaten. They abandoned an important chunk of the market, that they were once able to reach, and now cannot.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;409504You say that like its somehow exculpatory evidence. That is in fact part of the REASON why Wizards is getting beaten. They abandoned an important chunk of the market, that they were once able to reach, and now cannot.
RPGPundit
Wow, I thought Wizards might be tied with someone. Now their getting beaten! You are less a pundit and more a prophet.
Quote from: RPGPundit;409504You say that like its somehow exculpatory evidence. That is in fact part of the REASON why Wizards is getting beaten. They abandoned an important chunk of the market, that they were once able to reach, and now cannot.
RPGPundit
Wizards isn't getting beaten. Wizards just put out a boxed set in Target, three months before Christmas. Is Pathfinder going to do that well in the future once people get over the realization that they aren't playing D&D anymore? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's supporters seem to like it, which is good. But some of it's supporters are more or less "in spirit only" because they just want to see someone beat Wizards. That can't be good for the long term, because there are only so many spiritual support gestures you can make at $75 a volume.
Blizzard beating everyone. :rolleyes:
Blizzard has strung me along for years. I don't give a flying fuck about WoW. I want my Starcraft: Ghost and my Diablo 3!
My question for the gaming history buffs: when was the last time an RPG was "tied" with Dungeons & Dragons in the hobby channel?
Quote from: Endless Flight;409583My question for the gaming history buffs: when was the last time an RPG was "tied" with Dungeons & Dragons in the hobby channel?
I can't remember if that ever happened, actually. Good candidates would be CoC and
Vampire: the Masquerade in their respective glory days, but I don't think either of them beat D&D in the hobby channel. Just gut feeling on my part.
Quote from: Benoist;409588I can't remember if that ever happened, actually. Good candidates would be CoC and Vampire: the Masquerade in their respective glory days, but I don't think either of them beat D&D in the hobby channel. Just gut feeling on my part.
I'd say the only candidates to be in the ballpark would be V:tM or Star Wars, 2nd edition. And that's only because they both had very good years, when TSR wasn't doing so hot.
But now the only threat to D&D's continued stranglehold on the RPG market is... D&D under a different name. :(
I see no need for Pathfinder as I never liked 3.x all that much to begin with, and have enough 3.0 stuff to suit me just fine. (And most of that has been replaced by Essentials for swordyman things, and L5R 1st edition for Samuraiman things.)
Nothing but love for some of the OGL titles though. I absolutely adore Castles & Crusades and X-Plorers.
Paizo was a parter with WOTC and WOTC got greedy. They told Paizo to fuck off. And they effectively told most of their 3.x fans to fuck off (the ones not pissed off by 3.5's moneygrab already) and they both did. And built their own game with the blackjack and hookers as the saying goes.
New incompatible editions tend to cause a split. In ages past this led to ever smaller enclaves of older ed players who ended up going away entirely or at least having fuckall to do with the larger game community. Now they at least still have reasons to go to the store and buy shit, maybe running into new players once in a while and seeing new product.
Quote from: Captain Rufus;409622But now the only threat to D&D's continued stranglehold on the RPG market is... D&D under a different name. :(
Now, that would be a completely different discussion deserving its own thread, but I do believe that in part at least, the reason why D&D is such a popular game, has been for so long, and still is, is not only due to the brand name, but the game's very core design. There is something about D&D that relegates IMO most RPGs out there as games that basically trim stuff OFF the D&D experience to make it a different game, rather than creating a completely new game experience of their own. There might be exceptions and all, but ultimately, I do think that the D&D game is king because it is a complex alchemy between different game play components including character impersonation, dungeons and wilderness adventures, facing monsters, gaining treasure and XP, gaining levels, world-building and more.
The only threat to D&D's stranglehold on the market are alternate forms of entertainment. Unfortunately, these threats are substantial and growing.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;409516Wizards isn't getting beaten. Wizards just put out a boxed set in Target, three months before Christmas. Is Pathfinder going to do that well in the future once people get over the realization that they aren't playing D&D anymore? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's supporters seem to like it, which is good. But some of it's supporters are more or less "in spirit only" because they just want to see someone beat Wizards. That can't be good for the long term, because there are only so many spiritual support gestures you can make at $75 a volume.
Seriously? I don't think anyone is buying Pathfinder out of a desire to see wizards "beaten".
I have some serious issues with Wizards, but I've never so much as considered buying Pathfinder. The people who are buying Pathfinder are just those who liked 3e D&D and want something that is true to that, rather than a very alien game that barely resembles D&D at all.
You can find a lot of people in this hobby, I'd wager, who might NOT buy something out of spite, but I can only think of a couple of groups who WOULD buy something out of spite: the Forge Swine, and the Anti-Pundit fanatics (if comments on my reviews and comments on here are to be believed).
So yeah, until such time as I formally review Pathfinder and declare it to be shit, I don't think you have many people buying it out of spite.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Novastar;409616I'd say the only candidates to be in the ballpark would be V:tM or Star Wars, 2nd edition. And that's only because they both had very good years, when TSR wasn't doing so hot.
Allegedly, V:tM briefly beat out AD&D at the point in the 1990s when TSR had managed to utterly destroy itself as a company and AD&D as a popular game.
So yes, this situation now is pretty significant. The mere fact that someone is coming close to beating D&D in any sales-related area is a very telling sign of the alienation of D&D to the hobby and the weakness this is causing in the hobby.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;409959I don't think anyone is buying Pathfinder out of a desire to see wizards "beaten".
Please. Check out the Paizo boards around the time 4e and then Pathfinder was released. I'm sure the vast majority folks buy it because they like it, but there's definitely an element of screwing WotC in the mix.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;409968Please. Check out the Paizo boards around the time 4e and then Pathfinder was released. I'm sure the vast majority folks buy it because they like it, but there's definitely an element of screwing WotC in the mix.
Seanchai
I think that there's a strong element of resentment toward WoTC among pathfinder fans, but it doesn't follows that people who purchase pathfinder products do so BECAUSE of resenting WoTC. Nor does it follow that someone who resents WoTC will become a Pathfinder fan.
I have resentments toward WoTC, but I'm not a pathfinder fan.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;410086I think that there's a strong element of resentment toward WoTC among pathfinder fans, but it doesn't follows that people who purchase pathfinder products do so BECAUSE of resenting WoTC. Nor does it follow that someone who resents WoTC will become a Pathfinder fan.
And when those same fans say, "I'm voting with my money!" and "I'm giving my money to a company that cares about me!" I suppose that's no indication that resentment had anything to do with their purchases either...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;410142And when those same fans say, "I'm voting with my money!" and "I'm giving my money to a company that cares about me!" I suppose that's no indication that resentment had anything to do with their purchases either...
Personally I'm not particularly impressed by Pathfinder.
But I do pick up the monthly Pathfinder AP book, for the reason that imho they are a better read than 4E D&D's online monthly Dragon/Dungeon magazine.
Personally I had a lot of resentment towards WotC for various reasons, but I still bought 4e when it came out. Just because I was upset with the company, I wasn't ready to abandon the game I'd been playing for 20+ years. Then I played 4e and that made me go back to 3.5. I gave the game a chance and just didn't care for it.
As a 3.5 fan as well as a Paizo fan I got on the Pathfinder wagon early and have not regretted it. I gave WotC & 4e another chance when Essentials came out and have honestly been happy with the Essentials products. The changes weren't too drastic, but they were enough to make me play a current edition of D&D and like it.
As for the Pathfinder and D&D tie, and this is all conjecture on my part, but there was a lot that wasn't taken into consideration. For D&D they didn't figure in DDi or online sales such as Amazon. Which since I have no shop in my town is where I buy all of my current (Essentials) D&D products. So I would say that they still hold the majority of sales in bookstores and on Amazon. Then you have to add on their DDI sales.
As for Pathfinder, I imagine that they sell very little in conventional bookstores or on Amazon. The largest portion of their sales probably comes from game/comic shops or through their own online store.
Now their online store not only moves a lot of Pathfinder product, but they also offer subscriptions to every part of the Pathfinder line. So not only do you have people people coming on the site and buying product, but you have a dedicated group that is buying each and every product in at least one line (I subscribe to two lines), which seems to be a lot of people.
While I may play both games, I think that as long as Paizo keeps up the good relationship with fans and keeps putting out quality products for those fans, they may not only remained tied or in a close second to WotC, they could conceivably take the #1 spot for a while. If not longer.
Quote from: ggroy;410144Personally I'm not particularly impressed by Pathfinder.
It's hard for me to tell. I don't have any use for Pathfinder, so I haven't purchased it. I'm not in a Pathfinder group and I own almost every WotC book made for 3e and 3.5, so I don't feel a burning need to pick it up.
I like Paizo's material. I have their older stuff from when I played 3.5 and I have a couple of new APs/setting material. It's all very nice.
Seanchai
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
Quote from: Seanchai;412363That'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...
Seanchai
No snark intended- you've referenced DDI a couple times; are there some public figures regarding that subscription total? I've never seen any.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;412367No snark intended- you've referenced DDI a couple times; are there some public figures regarding that subscription total? I've never seen any.
Nope. I guessed that if there were 1 million WotC customers, a safe, conservative guess for the number of DDI users would be 100,000.
I wish there were such figures available because I'd bet they're higher than 100,000...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;412363That'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...
Seanchai
How many people have purchased WotC books recently who then turned around and got rid of them once they found that the books were not worth their money? It is one thing to purchase a product and another to keep that same product.
Quote from: jeff37923;412390How many people have purchased WotC books recently who then turned around and got rid of them once they found that the books were not worth their money? It is one thing to purchase a product and another to keep that same product.
Me for one.
I just purged most of my 4e books. I still have a PHB 1 and 2 because I play in a campaign that might pick back up.
I've never been inspired enough to run 4e. So why keep the other books?
I know I regret the last 5 or so 4e books I bought...have no idea what I'm going to do with these things, can't imagine they'll have the resale value my 3.5 stuff did.
My old Heinsoo 4E books have been collecting dust on the book shelf for over nine months.
My 4E Essentials books have gotten very little use so far. In my 4E Encounters game (which uses 4E Essentials this season), our characters are still at level 1.
I've tried to trade or sell my 4E books several times now, as I haven't played 4E in ages, and like never will again. They have very little value in the seconday market, and now, with Essentials, I'm betting that's going to go to near zero.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412417Me for one.
I'm sure there are more, too.
Of course, folks buy and then sell Pathfinder products (http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=Pathfinder+RPG&_sacat=0&_odkw=Pathfinder+RRG&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313) as well. They buy them just to read and not to run or use.
But, really, how many folks are buying 4e books
right now and then turning around and selling them? I'm sure there were quite a few when 4e was released and I'm sure there are some now, but the latter aren't remotely numerous to account for the difference in sales between Pathfinder and 4e, not two years after the game's initial release.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;412472I'm sure there are more, too.
Of course, folks buy and then sell Pathfinder products (http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=Pathfinder+RPG&_sacat=0&_odkw=Pathfinder+RRG&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313) as well. They buy them just to read and not to run or use.
But, really, how many folks are buying 4e books right now and then turning around and selling them? I'm sure there were quite a few when 4e was released and I'm sure there are some now, but the latter aren't remotely numerous to account for the difference in sales between Pathfinder and 4e, not two years after the game's initial release.
Seanchai
You're probably right about that, but how many people are actually buying the 4E books right now, as opposed to Essentials? How many people will buy Essentials and dump older 4E books?
Quote from: Bobloblah;412477You're probably right about that, but how many people are actually buying the 4E books right now, as opposed to Essentials? How many people will buy Essentials and dump older 4E books?
I don't follow your logic as to why anyone would dump the prior 4e handbooks; Essentials hasn't invalidated the builds in those.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;412478I don't follow your logic as to why anyone would dump the prior 4e handbooks; Essentials hasn't invalidated the builds in those.
Not trying to imply that everyone is going to rush out and do this, but some people are weird about "editions," immediately dumping the old when the new comes out. There's also the fact that the rules compendium adds pages and pages of errata, thereby superseding earlier books. I can see that being a reason for it, too.
There are also people already talking about running games that are Essentials only. If one goes that route, what does one need the earlier books for?
Hey, I fully admit that I might be totally wrong about more than a handful of people doing this. I haven't bought any Essentials stuff, myself, and I haven't played 4E in more than a year now. But I have seen something similar happen during previous turnovers (for lack of a better word) from one set of books to another.
Quote from: Bobloblah;412477You're probably right about that, but how many people are actually buying the 4E books right now, as opposed to Essentials? How many people will buy Essentials and dump older 4E books?
Uh...Essentials is 4e. Moreover, it's a WotC product.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;412495Uh...Essentials is 4e. Moreover, it's a WotC product.
Seanchai
Not sure where you think I said Essentials wasn't a WoTC product...?
As for Essentials being 4E, I don't know it well enough to judge for myself. I do know that not everyone currently playing 4E/Essentials agrees with your assessment, though.
Quote from: Bobloblah;412501As for Essentials being 4E, I don't know it well enough to judge for myself. I do know that not everyone currently playing 4E/Essentials agrees with your assessment, though.
I can find someone who will tell you that the moon is made of cheese. Said disagreement doesn't mean it is.
As was said in the other thread, Essentials and 4e share the same rules. The difference between them is that you can't trade out powers between different builds (currently). For example, in 4e, Fighters mark by attacking targets. In Essentials, they mark by activating an aura.
You can't (currently) build a 4e Fighter that has that marking aura. There's nothing about the aura which can't currently be found in 4e (aura exist in 4e already), but normally you can choose alternate features between the different builds of the same class. For example, you can build a Battlerager Fighter that has the Great Weapon Fighter's Two-Handed Weapon Talent.
If that makes Essentials an edition unto itself, er, okay. That seems dumb sophistry.
Seanchai
Some people feel that Essentials is a 4.5 and some don't.
When WotC has issues with the character builder, which aren't allowing them to make 4e and 4e Essentials able to use the same database, then something has been fundamentally changed to make this a difficult integration of the rule sets.
They aren't working well and playing well together in the builder. This makes one ponder the question of whether or not this is a 3.0 to 3.5 similarity.
Now whether this actually indicates a 4.5 situation or not is perfectly debatable, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we discard that opinion in the same way that we would discard the "moon is made out of cheese" absurdity.
Quote from: Bobloblah;412501Not sure where you think I said Essentials wasn't a WoTC product...?
Seanchai isn't actually having a conversation with you, he is having a conversation with what the little voice in his head claims you are saying.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412716When WotC has issues with the character builder, which aren't allowing them to make 4e and 4e Essentials able to use the same database, then something has been fundamentally changed to make this a difficult integration of the rule sets.
Where did they say that was the cause of the delay?
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;412733Where did they say that was the cause of the delay?
Seanchai
Official WotC announcement in September....
"Unfortunately, we will not have a data update ready for the D&D Insider tools in September.
The process of integrating the new changes from Dark Sun and Essentials is taking a bit longer than we expected, and we plan to update the Character Builder in early October. We will continue to keep you informed of any changes to the schedule, and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."
As of today, they still haven't been able to integrate the Essentials with regular 4e, nor have they added the changes in Dark Sun.
If this is not a capitulation then there never has been one.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412737"Unfortunately, we will not have a data update ready for the D&D Insider tools in September. The process of integrating the new changes from Dark Sun and Essentials is taking a bit longer than we expected, and we plan to update the Character Builder in early October. We will continue to keep you informed of any changes to the schedule, and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."
So they didn't actually say what you said they did ("...which aren't allowing them to make 4e and 4e Essentials able to use the same database."). I figured that was the case.
Seanchai
*scratches head*
Yes, not the exact same words in the exact same order.
Quote from: Seanchai;412752So they didn't actually say what you said they did ("...which aren't allowing them to make 4e and 4e Essentials able to use the same database."). I figured that was the case.
Seanchai
Man, you're obtuse at times.
If it hasn't been an issue making Essentials work with the regular database then why is it still an issue well over a month later? Seriously? What part of their original statement didn't you understand?
Edit: That was basically what I was getting at in my prior post. If they are continuing to have difficulties integrating Essentials and Regular, then there must be some serious differences in the way things work out from a character building standpoint.
None of which proves or disproves whether Essentials can be considered 4.5 or not. But it does seem to open the door towards at least discussing the possibility.
Wonder if they have new plans for the character builder, such as making it web only.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412778If they are continuing to have difficulties integrating Essentials and Regular, then there must be some serious differences in the way things work out from a character building standpoint.
That's a non sequitur as far as I'm concerned. Mind you, I don't own Essentials stuff, but I seem to recall that WotC divided new material in Essentials into two categories - stuff (feats, items, ...) that any PC using 4.Core classes can draw on, and stuff that's exclusive for PCs using (certain or any) Essentials builds.
So the effort to integrate the Essentials material could be less that that the two use distinct rules, it's rather that there seems to be a huge effort to code the restrictions on what class can use what content into the software.
While I'm aware that Essentials introducing stuff that's flatly non-accessible to PCs using 4.Core builds is grist to your mill, that's not my own gloss - I simply think WotC wanted to introduce the idea of "Exclusive content! 11! - come kids, play Essentials builds!". Even if everything enters the DDI database, you'd still have to choose playing an Essentials build to fully utilize all the new shiny.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412778If it hasn't been an issue making Essentials work with the regular database then why is it still an issue well over a month later?
Beyond what Windjammer mentioned, did you read their follow up posts, the bit about changing over to a web-based application and the decision to delay adding content until they could get that up and running?
But, that aside, to what do you attribute the delay in adding Dark Sun material? It can't be incompatibility...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;412796But, that aside, to what do you attribute the delay in adding Dark Sun material? It can't be incompatibility...
Incompetent contract computer programmers? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Seanchai;412796Beyond what Windjammer mentioned, did you read their follow up posts, the bit about changing over to a web-based application and the decision to delay adding content until they could get that up and running?
But, that aside, to what do you attribute the delay in adding Dark Sun material? It can't be incompatibility...
Seanchai
I honestly think that WotC is doing that web-based application to cover their own difficulties with the updates. The timing on that announcement was certainly dubious to say the least.
"Gee, guys, we can't get the Dark Sun stuff in (who knows why) and Essentials isn't working with the character builder database. We've tried figuring out a way to fix this for the past month and are having all kinds of issues. Let's announce that we are delaying Essentials due to a switch to a web-based database system as that will give us more time. We didn't "have time" to put in the Dark Sun stuff before "the switch" so that will cover us there.
As to why they weren't able to get Dark Sun to work? Could it be themes? Other than themes, I can't see why they are having issues with Dark Sun.
But I maintain that Essentials is just different enough from regular 4e to be causing them fits. And thus my point of this entire argument is to say, "Why are they having these issues REALLY?" Why so much trouble? I'm not buying that the trouble stems from, "We are changing to a web-based design." Because that happened after all of the trouble came up with integrating Essentials into the CB. It was a little too convenient to have that issue pop up when it did.
I really do hope that WotC gets on the ball and gets all of this worked out. Despite my own mixed opinion about 4e, I thought the character builder was pretty cool stuff and certainly made creating and managing a character much easier than the old fashioned way. Tools are nice to have for any RPG. Why they are choosing to do a web-based app is beyond me. In my experience, most web-based apps I've worked with have been crap. I'd much rather have the CB remain as is (updated of course).
While we may not know the exact cause of the delay, the difficulty with integration of Essentials certainly seems to be a major factor. I'm not drinking their Kool Aid and attributing the entire delay to a change in platforms. It just doesn't wash.
We'll just have to see how it pans out.
Quote from: Windjammer;412790That's a non sequitur as far as I'm concerned. Mind you, I don't own Essentials stuff, but I seem to recall that WotC divided new material in Essentials into two categories - stuff (feats, items, ...) that any PC using 4.Core classes can draw on, and stuff that's exclusive for PCs using (certain or any) Essentials builds.
So the effort to integrate the Essentials material could be less that that the two use distinct rules, it's rather that there seems to be a huge effort to code the restrictions on what class can use what content into the software.
While I'm aware that Essentials introducing stuff that's flatly non-accessible to PCs using 4.Core builds is grist to your mill, that's not my own gloss - I simply think WotC wanted to introduce the idea of "Exclusive content! 11! - come kids, play Essentials builds!". Even if everything enters the DDI database, you'd still have to choose playing an Essentials build to fully utilize all the new shiny.
It is not grist to my mill. It makes no difference to me whether someone plays core 4e or Essentials 4e. That the two are not playing well with each other in the CB as it is, seems to indicate that there are enough differences in the way that both build characters as to make them somewhat incompatible with each other. Certainly the distinction is a fine line, but it is enough of a difference to raise the question of whether or not Essentials is basically a revised or altered edition from the way things were done before.
You are free to disagree. But even if you do, will Essentials classes be able to work with core classes without any issues even without the character builder? Has this been answered yet? Probably not.
We do know, however, that having them work in the same database is proving to be difficult. If they end up having a selection to let people build Essentials classes or Core Classes, that might be a workable solution, but could it also mean that we are in fact playing two different versions of the game rules when it comes to character building. And if so, does that mean we have a 4.0 to 4.5 situation? There is certainly room for debate.
Quote from: ggroy;412800Incompetent contract computer programmers? :rolleyes:
WotC has plenty of those on retainer. Given their history, it is amazing that Character Builder has worked as well as it has up to this point.
I still find it hard to believe that Dark Sun could have been such a major issue for them.
I also find it hard to believe that Essentials was so different from Core 4e that it caused them issues in their programming of the Character Builder updates.
Thus, I question Essentials compatibility with the Core and ask, "Could this difficulty stem from more than just software issues? Is it a little deeper than that?" I don't think we have a full picture yet.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412802I honestly think that WotC is doing that web-based application to cover their own difficulties with the updates.
So it isn't that WotC said integrating mechanics was troublesome, it's that you don't believe what WotC attributed the delay to and so came up with your own explanation. And then told a bunch of people that WotC said something they didn't.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412802Could it be themes? Other than themes, I can't see why they are having issues with Dark Sun.
As they work like Paragon paths, I don't see how that could be.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412802While we may not know the exact cause of the delay...
You claimed up thread you did. And we certainly know why Wotc said there's a delay.
Seanchai
Quote from: PaladinCA;412804WotC has plenty of those on retainer. Given their history, it is amazing that Character Builder has worked as well as it has up to this point.
WotC's previous attempt at a character builder type program, was a total botch job. This was the character builder program which came on a cdrom with the 3E PHB.
Quote from: Seanchai;412805So it isn't that WotC said integrating mechanics was troublesome, it's that you don't believe what WotC attributed the delay to and so came up with your own explanation. And then told a bunch of people that WotC said something they didn't.
WotC did say that integrating the mechanics was causing a delay. That was what the first announcement was about. The announcement came from WotC itself. Go back and read it.
I did not come up with the integration issue. WotC said they were having trouble integrating the mechanics. What I added to that was: Why are they having trouble with integration? A valid question to discuss.
The announcement of a delay due to creating a web-based character builder came long after that first announcement to which I am referring.
One should not dismiss the first announcement after WotC makes a second announcement and then act as though the first announcement never happened. Both announcements should be considered.
Edit: I believed the first announcement but asked WHY is this? I found the second announcement to be less credible given the integration issues stated by WotC in the first announcement. But if a new web-based application will allow for integration of Essentials and Core then so be it. We'd all be happy with that outcome. Believe whatever WotC announcements you want to believe Seanchai. Just don't tell me that I'm making shit up when I'm quoting WotC statements that you are choosing to ignore. Because when you do that, you're just being a douche.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412871WotC did say that integrating the mechanics was causing a delay. That was what the first announcement was about. The announcement came from WotC itself. Go back and read it.
I have. It doesn't say mechanics, nor does it say database. You took it to mean those things, but "The process of integrating the new changes from Dark Sun and Essentials is taking a bit longer than we expected..." could also mean that:
1. The staff making the changes could be out sick, behind in their duties, etc..
2. Eleventh hour wrangling or issues not related mechanics could have sprung up (as they often do in the business world).
3. The release of Essentials, as I understand it, was pushed up and thus the schedule of work on the DDI could be behind.
4. As Windjammer mentioned, they might be having integrating Dark Sun and Essentials because of other issues. For example, Essentials uses a different, simplified character sheet. It might be taking longer than expected to get the Character Builder to use and display two different sheets.
I think the best evidence that your assumption is incorrect is a) they haven't added Dark Sun material and b) they told us exactly what's causing the delay and it's not what you claimed.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;412899I think the best evidence that your assumption is incorrect is a) they haven't added Dark Sun material and b) they told us exactly what's causing the delay and it's not what you claimed.
Seanchai
Why did they wait several weeks to announce the delay was a result of developing an online web-based CB? If that was really the cause of the delays, instead of integration issues with Essentials and Core, why didn't they just come out and say so from the start?
We disagree on what WotC meant in their initial announcement about "integration issues." So let's just leave it at that.
I hope we get a good CB when all the dust has settled - One that at least supports both core and essentials (and Dark Sun).
Quote from: PaladinCA;412923Why did they wait several weeks to announce the delay was a result of developing an online web-based CB?
It was clear their initial statement wasn't sufficient. They were getting a lot of questions and irate customers. That doesn't make sense to you?
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;412938It was clear their initial statement wasn't sufficient. They were getting a lot of questions and irate customers. That doesn't make sense to you?
Seanchai
No, it makes sense that they would come up with additional information. I'm just taking that additional information with a grain of salt.
Bottom line is that WotC dropped the ball here. Now they have to fix it.
Quote from: PaladinCA;412968Bottom line is that WotC dropped the ball here. Now they have to fix it.
I agree with you there...
Seanchai
Still, this adds a big weapon to the arsenal of those who claim that Essentials and 4e are two different games ("if they were the same Wotc wouldn't be having this problem!").
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;413060Still, this adds a big weapon to the arsenal of those who claim that Essentials and 4e are two different games ("if they were the same Wotc wouldn't be having this problem!").
Especially if this continues on in future quarters.
Quote from: RPGPundit;413060Still, this adds a big weapon to the arsenal of those who claim that Essentials and 4e are two different games ("if they were the same Wotc wouldn't be having this problem!").
RPGPundit
That was basically my point.
I'm not sure if Essentials is actually 4.5 or not, especially since I have yet to play or create a character for Essentials. But based on the original statement by WotC about having integration issues within the character builder, I thought this entire situation added more weight to the arguments of those claiming that it is.
The jury is still out....
Quote from: RPGPundit;413060Still, this adds a big weapon to the arsenal of those who claim that Essentials and 4e are two different games ("if they were the same Wotc wouldn't be having this problem!").
WotC saying they need more time to work out the kinks in the roll out of their web-based version of the Character and Monster Builders is a big weapon for those who make such claims? Or the assumptions - unsupported assumptions - folks have made based on the word "integrated" in a statement they released is a big weapon?
Because if it's the latter, people hardly need any kind of statements, factual evidence, etc., to manufacture such "big weapons."
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;413068Because if it's the latter, people hardly need any kind of statements, factual evidence, etc., to manufacture such "big weapons."
Of course.
One just finds any smidgen of information supporting their thesis, and then pounce over it.
This is entirely how the niche of "conspiracy theorists" functions, as well as politics. :p
Quote from: Seanchai;413068WotC saying they need more time to work out the kinks in the roll out of their web-based version of the Character and Monster Builders is a big weapon for those who make such claims? Or the assumptions - unsupported assumptions - folks have made based on the word "integrated" in a statement they released is a big weapon?
Because if it's the latter, people hardly need any kind of statements, factual evidence, etc., to manufacture such "big weapons."
Seanchai
Seanchai, using FUD to be a 4venger.