Best Guess: How many quarters will D&D Next beat Pathfinder on the ICv2 list (if any)?


5th Edition (And Beyond)

351 to 400 of 1,171 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Pathfinder PDFs do come with DRM. Have you not noticed the watermarks?

I have, and you're right...technically there is DRM. I should have written onerous DRM. Meaning I have no problem being unable edit PDFs, or that those PDFs are traceable to me. I meant things like being forced to deal with proprietary applications and file formats, the inability to copy files, etc.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some Pathfinder books could benefit from allowing bookmarks, on the other hand...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
Some Pathfinder books could benefit from allowing bookmarks, on the other hand...

Agreed! I certainly wouldn't mind having more permissions on my Pathfinder PDFs. However, I am not knowledgeable about the granularity of PDF permissions; there may be a technical reason bookmarks aren't allowed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think WotC dont really care about "winning ICv2" because that represents gaining the lion's share of a trivial market. As such, I dont see that failing to provide for electronic...

Based on their actions, I think their concerns are (1) keeping costs to a minimum (the layoffs and the small staff); (2) making sure that their department is in the black -- even if its a small number (commitment to printing only the books that sell the most copies); and (3) demonstrating that the endeavor can produce valuable license arrangements.


Danbala wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think WotC dont really care about "winning ICv2" because that represents gaining the lion's share of a trivial market. As such, I dont see that failing to provide for electronic...
Based on their actions, I think their concerns are (1) keeping costs to a minimum (the layoffs and the small staff); (2) making sure that their department is in the black -- even if its a small number (commitment to printing only the books that sell the most copies); and (3) demonstrating that the endeavor can produce valuable license arrangements.

I question their ability to do number 3 given number 1 and number 2. WotC is basically asking everyone else to take all the risks for their brand while they reap the rewards. For this to work, WotC is going to have to write a lot of licenses far closer to the original OGL than anything they had with 4E if they are going to get any takers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Danbala wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think WotC dont really care about "winning ICv2" because that represents gaining the lion's share of a trivial market. As such, I dont see that failing to provide for electronic...
Based on their actions, I think their concerns are (1) keeping costs to a minimum (the layoffs and the small staff); (2) making sure that their department is in the black -- even if its a small number (commitment to printing only the books that sell the most copies); and (3) demonstrating that the endeavor can produce valuable license arrangements.
I question their ability to do number 3 given number 1 and number 2. WotC is basically asking everyone else to take all the risks for their brand while they reap the rewards. For this to work, WotC is going to have to write a lot of licenses far closer to the original OGL than anything they had with 4E if they are going to get any takers.

I don't think he's talking 3pp gaming supplement license agreements, but video games and movies and things that actually bring in real money.

An OGL license, pretty much by definition, isn't going to produce valuable license arrangements.


thejeff wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Danbala wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think WotC dont really care about "winning ICv2" because that represents gaining the lion's share of a trivial market. As such, I dont see that failing to provide for electronic...
Based on their actions, I think their concerns are (1) keeping costs to a minimum (the layoffs and the small staff); (2) making sure that their department is in the black -- even if its a small number (commitment to printing only the books that sell the most copies); and (3) demonstrating that the endeavor can produce valuable license arrangements.
I question their ability to do number 3 given number 1 and number 2. WotC is basically asking everyone else to take all the risks for their brand while they reap the rewards. For this to work, WotC is going to have to write a lot of licenses far closer to the original OGL than anything they had with 4E if they are going to get any takers.

I don't think he's talking 3pp gaming supplement license agreements, but video games and movies and things that actually bring in real money.

An OGL license, pretty much by definition, isn't going to produce valuable license arrangements.

Whatever the product ends up being, the licenses are going to have to be almost that open in order to get very many people willing to nibble and take the offer. With as little as WotC is interested in investing in the brand and their recent history of not being a very good business partner, the other party is going to end up shouldering most of the cost, and will almost certainly expect an equally large percentage of any reward, especially for something like a video game or movie.

The only way to successfully do number 3 is to ignore 1 & 2 in hopes for a big payday down the road. If WotC really wants to go down this road of outside licensing, they are basically going to have to write someone a free check in hopes that any success from that first product will somehow translate into people being willing to pay more for future licenses. There is no way for WotC to really grow the brand without spending or giving away a fair bit of money; the brand just isn't that strong outside the core game for other companies to accept the kind of licenses and working relationships that WotC has been in the habit of favoring in the last few years.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd make the argument that since the end of the 80s, the brand has always been stronger OUTSIDE the core game. The D&D video games alone are pretty damn popular. And that's ignoring novels, movies, and anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I'd make the argument that since the end of the 80s, the brand has always been stronger OUTSIDE the core game. The D&D video games alone are pretty damn popular. And that's ignoring novels, movies, and anything else.

I dont know what the revenue is like, but the comics seem to have been pretty consistently licensed over the years and, although not licensed, the novels must have been valuable. The boardgames sold well too, as I understand it.

It will be interesting to see how the licensed figures do alongside the PF Battles line - it's rare to see such a pure competition of the brands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

and if they can get the rights issues cleared up, A D&D inspired movie could bring in far more income than sales of the game rules.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Lorathorn wrote:
Some Pathfinder books could benefit from allowing bookmarks, on the other hand...

I know this is tangential, but Good Reader for the iPad allows bookmarking, and does a better job the iBooks of precaching upcoming pages.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I'd make the argument that since the end of the 80s, the brand has always been stronger OUTSIDE the core game. The D&D video games alone are pretty damn popular. And that's ignoring novels, movies, and anything else.

I dont know what the revenue is like, but the comics seem to have been pretty consistently licensed over the years and, although not licensed, the novels must have been valuable. The boardgames sold well too, as I understand it.

It will be interesting to see how the licensed figures do alongside the PF Battles line - it's rare to see such a pure competition of the brands.

The games are hit and miss, the old SSR ones were great, and it was a real heyday for D&D games come again with Balder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and of course Torment, but there have been an equal sprinkling of turds, the activation pool of crashidence


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Galnörag wrote:
The games are hit and miss, the old SSR ones were great, and it was a real heyday for D&D games come again with Balder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and of course Torment, but there have been an equal sprinkling of turds, the activation pool of crashidence

The novels are more or less in the same boat. You have a handful of big successes in a field of mostly mediocre efforts. That's been the major problem that D&D has always had with licensing, regardless of who owned it. It seems like it has all of this potential, but consistently tapping into that is easier said than done, as has been demonstrated time and time again. One of the biggest hurdles has been that WotC at least (I don't really know much about this aspect when it comes to TSR) has never consistently funded the brand in a manner that would allow the brand managers to build off any successes they do get. That part does not seem to be changing with the release of 5E, so it's hard for be overly excited about their apparent plans; it's too much of the same things they've consistently done in the past with overall mediocre results.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You only need a handful of big successes to be worthwhile. No matter what gamers think of Drizzt, his novels have made the mainstream bestseller lists what? A dozen times? More? How can that be judged "mediocre" success, even if other novels dont sell well - it's not like publishing a new author is particularly expensive.

Same with the computer game or movie "failures" - their artistic merit isnt relevant to commercial success.


Steve Geddes wrote:

You only need a handful of big successes to be worthwhile. No matter what gamers think of Drizzt, his novels have made the mainstream bestseller lists what? A dozen times? More? How can that be judged "mediocre" success, even if other novels dont sell well - it's not like publishing a new author is particularly expensive.

Same with the computer game or movie "failures" - their artistic merit isnt relevant to commercial success.

Even as a commercial success, D&D as a brand is not all that large outside of the gaming community; it peaked a long time ago in terms of the wider market. Most of the commercial successes are almost a decade old, or older. Not much there to help them now.

As a brand, Drizzt and Baldur's Gate and a few other successes aside, there has been no sustained and consistent development of the brand under WotC, despite several decades of trying different methods of accomplishing the exact same goal that people have stated is WotC's intent this time around as well. From what I've seen of how WotC is approaching 5E, I'm not convinced that even a successful movie would really help the brand all that much in the long run right now. It's basically the same problem they have following the success of the core books for 5E. There's nothing ready to launch in that crucial period immediately after their initial success to feed it and keep it going.

They aren't going to be able to rely on outside help to give them a largely free boost this time around; they squandered most of that good will and community support a while ago, and it's not going to be cheap to get it back. One way or another, they are going to have to spend a fair amount of resources somewhere to somebody to get the level of sustained success that they keep striving for. Given that the amount of resources they have been willing to spend on what is still the keystone product of the brand, regardless of how WotC wants to change that going forward, I don't really see their overall pattern of a massive isolated success slowly fading away to lack of support changing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess if you exclude the successful products, they haven't had much success. However, I suspect WotC are using a different metric than you. No doubt Drizzt counts, in their eyes.

It's hard to see why they'd take the approach they seem to be adopting if they shared your view that D&D has failed as a "sustained, consistent" brand over the years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
The novels are more or less in the same boat. You have a handful of big successes in a field of mostly mediocre efforts.

That's pretty much the normal model for all published fiction, certainly not unique to TSR/WotC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
The novels are more or less in the same boat. You have a handful of big successes in a field of mostly mediocre efforts.
That's pretty much the normal model for all published fiction, certainly not unique to TSR/WotC.

I "think" Death Heretic has been the only Pathfinder novel to crack the best sellers list, although I might be wrong. That hasn't stopped Paizo from doing other novels, and I would guess they are still quite profitable for the company.

A lot of Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/etc have never made it on the list, but I would guess they are still bringing in enough money to make the novel line successful. Otherwise they would have been cut long ago


3 people marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:


Even as a commercial success, D&D as a brand is not all that large outside of the gaming community; it peaked a long time ago in terms of the wider market. Most of the commercial successes are almost a decade old, or older. Not much there to help them now.

As a brand, Drizzt and Baldur's Gate and a few other successes aside, there has been no sustained and consistent development of the brand under WotC, despite several decades of trying different methods of accomplishing the exact same goal that people have stated is WotC's intent this time around as well. From what I've seen of how WotC is approaching 5E, I'm not convinced that even a successful movie would really help the brand all that much in the long run right now. It's basically the same problem they have following the success of the core books for 5E. There's nothing ready to launch in that crucial period immediately after their initial success to feed it and keep it going.

I get the feeling from reading this that you think the purpose of all these media outlets is to somehow pull people into playing traditional 5E DnD. When in fact I don't see that as the point of branding at all in this case. How much Brand identity did Guardians of the Galaxy have? I would argue that DnD is probably more visible than that.

I would guess that for Hasbro right now, there is far far more money to be made from movie ticket prices if they can pull off a good movie. Transformers has made BILLIONS, a franchise predicated on fighting robots that turn into cars. You could say the same thing about Marvel comics....I doubt Captain America or Iron Man as a brand was more popular than DnD is currently, maybe even less so.

With the Hobbit done, there is certainly a market for the next big secondary fantasy series, and DnD has numerous fantasy settings, plotlines, and character good and ready to go. And you only need to excite a relatively tiny fanbase to increase buzz and get people talking, something of which DnD can easily do.

If your going to use DnD for boardgames, movies, TV, toys, etc, than it's important to keep the original product on the shelves, if only as a form of justification and to satisfy people's curiosity. I think 5E has done that well, while potentially sidestepping the dreaded edition treadmill issues (at least for now). What it comes down to now is whether Hasbro can exploit the current GoT and LotR popularity in time to cash in favorably.


MMCJawa wrote:
in time to cash in favorably.

That is honestly the key and the part that WotC has never been able to pull off, at least for D&D. Whether it's exploiting their own success or someone else's, their entire ownership of the brand, including the core game, is filled with examples of a short burst of success followed by long periods of coasting on those successes. This doesn't diminish the successes, but it does limit the ability for the company to do much with those successes.

Guardians worked because it had the backing of a currently very strong franchise and the company that owns it had probably already committed to a sequel. Maybe WotC this time around has a war chest of money just waiting to fully support such projects for D&D, but so far we haven't seen them put any more effort into the brand than they have in the past. The fight to get the movie license back is not new, nor are the claims that all they need is one good movie. The announced video game, if it turns out to be any good, will help, but that's still probably not going to be seen until next year, which leaves a large gap of time that needs to be filled with something substantial, and if WotC has that something, they need to show it now, not later.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I guess if you exclude the successful products, they haven't had much success. However, I suspect WotC are using a different metric than you. No doubt Drizzt counts, in their eyes.

It's hard to see why they'd take the approach they seem to be adopting if they shared your view that D&D has failed as a "sustained, consistent" brand over the years.

Except that WotC clearly believes that it has failed as a sustained brand. There's a reason we already see 5E (and why 5E is designed the way it is) and that the novels outside of Drizzt are functionally not there as far as the bottom line is concerned. Even on the movie front, they have started a legal battle to get the license away from someone whose track record with the license is not what WotC and Hasbro were expecting. It's not because of any sustained success, but quite the opposite. Successful brands don't have to essentially hit the reboot button like WotC has had to consistently do throughout their ownership of the brand. To be fair, TSR had the same difficulties; they just chose a different way to try to solve them, with about the same amount of non-success. D&D has always been more successful on a cultural level than a business level.

It's not ignoring the successful products, it's also looking at the less than successful stuff at the same time, and more importantly, the ratio between the two groups. Successful brands have more successes than failures; D&D historically doesn't. The successes it has tend to make very big splashes, and there has been enough interest in the brand for someone, usually not the direct owner of the brand, to make a product that keeps the name alive, which is an admirable feat to be certain, but that's about it. WotC is still basically known to the business world as the maker of Magic, with very few people bothering to notice the small impact that D&D has in actual dollars. Active support for the brand as a whole has been sparse in terms of actual product historically, even with the core tabletop game, as many fans consider many, if not most, of the splat books for both 3rd and 4th edition to be worthless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I guess if you exclude the successful products, they haven't had much success. However, I suspect WotC are using a different metric than you. No doubt Drizzt counts, in their eyes.

It's hard to see why they'd take the approach they seem to be adopting if they shared your view that D&D has failed as a "sustained, consistent" brand over the years.

Even on the movie front, they have started a legal battle to get the license away from someone whose track record with the license is not what WotC and Hasbro were expecting. It's not because of any sustained success, but quite the opposite. Successful brands don't have to essentially hit the reboot button like WotC has had to consistently do throughout their ownership of the brand. To be fair, TSR had the same difficulties; they just chose a different way to try to solve them, with about the same amount of non-success. D&D has always been more successful on a cultural level than a business level.

I don't think you can blame the problems with the movies on WoTC or Hasbro. TSR sold them off at a pittance, to a company that wasn't really qualified to manage them.

And I would still say comparisons with Marvel are valid. Marvel made a lot of dubious decisions in the past, and had severe financial issues. I think Marvel has done a good job of turning around their brand, and I think WoTC learned from their mistakes in the past regarding the 4E launch. The fact that I am encountering vastly lower levels of venom from the fan community about the transition compared to 4E lends credence I think to that idea


MMCJawa wrote:
And I would still say comparisons with Marvel are valid. Marvel made a lot of dubious decisions in the past, and had severe financial issues. I think Marvel has done a good job of turning around their brand, and I think WoTC learned from their mistakes in the past regarding the 4E launch. The fact that I am encountering vastly lower levels of venom from the fan community about the transition compared to 4E lends credence I think to that idea

WotC could very easily turn it around, but they could just as easily regress yet again. The question was asked whether Paizo or WotC had chosen the better strategy, and the answer is definitely Paizo; it may not lead to as big of a payoff immediately, but it's a far more stable and predictable strategy business wise. That doesn't mean that WotC is automatically going to fail; it just means that they have a much tougher road to success. And you are correct that they have shown signs that they have learned at least a few lessons from the recent past. Whether it's enough and whether they have enough resources to do anything with what they have learned remain very big questions right now, though, so their chosen strategy remains very risky and with 5E being basically a place holder, WotC will have to be extremely proactive and very willing to spend money on all of the other projects in ways we haven't seen them do so at any point in the past. So far we haven't seen any signs of that, most notably in the distinct lack of any kind of serious digital presence, and if we don't by summer, they will have missed a crucial opportunity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sales on amazon are already declining for the PHB according to this sales traker.

Aug: 5,402
Sep: 5,105
Oct: 4,986
Nov: 3,066
Dec: 3,502
Jan: 4,784
Feb: 1,448

For March, the projected sales of the PHB are 216 books! The projections for February were right on target.

Not surprising. After the initial boom of new core books released before Christmas, sales are bound to go down.

I'm not sure why they think a minimal release schedule is good for their bottomline.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

According to Amazon, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is the best selling Pathfinder book. It almost always is except for a short period when some new Pathfinder books come out. The Pathfinder Core Rulebook is currently #3863 in books and the 5e Player's Handbook is currently #103.

Almost all of the 5th edition books are higher than almost all of the Pathfinder books most of the time. The highest charting Pathfinder books look to be some of the older books in general also.

According to that website the Player's Handbook has hovered around #100 in rank all last month. It is still about that. Those sales estimates might be low by that website's own admission.

Compare that sites estimates of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. It sold 127 on Amazon.com last month according to them and will sell 26 this month. It is the best selling Pathfinder book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
For March, the projected sales of the PHB are 216 books!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the March (current month) sales figures appear to be estimated sales to date, not projected sales for the entire month. In the last three hours, the March sales figure for the PHB has gone from 216 to 230. Either they are very rapidly revising their projections based on increased sales, or these are just to-date estimates (that they acknowledge are low-balled).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dariusu wrote:

According to Amazon, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is the best selling Pathfinder book. It almost always is except for a short period when some new Pathfinder books come out. The Pathfinder Core Rulebook is currently #3863 in books and the 5e Player's Handbook is currently #103.

Almost all of the 5th edition books are higher than almost all of the Pathfinder books most of the time. The highest charting Pathfinder books look to be some of the older books in general also.

According to that website the Player's Handbook has hovered around #100 in rank all last month. It is still about that. Those sales estimates might be low by that website's own admission.

Compare that sites estimates of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. It sold 127 on Amazon.com last month according to them and will sell 26 this month. It is the best selling Pathfinder book.

PF's core book is not fresh off the prints like D&D's. It is 6 years old. It should be lower. What really muddles the water is that Paizo has it's own online store. There is an added bonus to buying on the Paizo store, you get the PDF for free and immediately. Something amazon can't offer. Also, if you subscribe to a line of products on the Paizo store, you get a 30% discount on the books. It is obvious why the core book is so low on amazon's charts.

Using amazon to track D&D sells is useful to track D&D sells and trends, not compare it with Paizo's products. ICv2 is useful to compare sells of the two brands... in brick and mortar stores.

What was really surprising with PF becoming the number one seller in ICv2 was that in spite of all the advantages that come with buying from the Paizo store, PF still managed to become number one in brick and mortar stores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
goldomark wrote:
For March, the projected sales of the PHB are 216 books!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the March (current month) sales figures appear to be estimated sales to date, not projected sales for the entire month. In the last three hours, the March sales figure for the PHB has gone from 216 to 230. Either they are very rapidly revising their projections based on increased sales, or these are just to-date estimates (that they acknowledge are low-balled).

Maybe, maybe not.

The February projection was 1,430 on the 10th of February. They ended up to be 1,448.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It has been out 6 years and is the number one Pathfinder book. That is one of my points. The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is in the top 5 on Paizo's own website. It is quite often near the top on Paizo's own site.

I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info? Do you think it is a lot more than a site like Amazon? Like many times more? Amazon is usually quite a bit cheaper than Paizo (not including shipping, this makes Amazon even cheaper) and PDFs are not quite necessary when you have an online DB of all the rules anyway.

I personally usually see if a book is out on Paizo.com and see if it is cheaper on Amazon.com before buying it on Paizo.

My point is that 5th edition sales will settle at some level and that level might still be more than Pathfinder. Most of the sales seem to come from core books.


dariusu wrote:
It has been out 6 years and is the number one Pathfinder book. That is one of my points. The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is in the top 5 on Paizo's own website. It is quite often near the top on Paizo's own site.

Yup, that is because core books are what sells the most. To be expected since it is the first thing (and only one) you need to play.

Quote:
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?

Nope.

Quote:
Do you think it is a lot more than a site like Amazon?

Yes. I mentioned the advantages of using the Paizo store. I forgot to mention the cheaper PDFs they sell. As you pointed out, some of PF's books rank higher than the core book on the Paizo store's top 10 seller list. We can infer that more are sold from the Paizo store than amazon (where they never go above the corebook).

Quote:
PDFs are not quite necessary when you have an online DB of all the rules anyway.

We do not get fluff and art from the free online database. PDFs have a higher value. Besides, by your logic we do not need to buy any books either, since everything is free on the net (d20PFSRD).

Quote:
I personally

Personal anecdotes are not interesting data points. Sorry.

Quote:
My point is that 5th edition sales will settle at some level and that level might still be more than Pathfinder.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Quote:
Most of the sales seem to come from core books.

Strange business move, no?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Pathfinder PDFs do come with DRM. Have you not noticed the watermarks?
I have, and you're right...technically there is DRM. I should have written onerous DRM. Meaning I have no problem being unable edit PDFs, or that those PDFs are traceable to me. I meant things like being forced to deal with proprietary applications and file formats, the inability to copy files, etc.

While some parties broadly define DRM to include watermarks*, DRM and watermarks are technically separate forms of content protection. In the context of PDF security, DRM essentially involves the PDF reader checking with a server to determine whether a specific user is allowed to view, edit, print, or otherwise manipulate a specific PDF**. We use watermarks, but we don't use DRM.

*There are people who define licensing agreements as DRM.

**This is a gross overview; there are DRM controls that function in other ways, including offline, but that's getting way off topic.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Lorathorn wrote:
Some Pathfinder books could benefit from allowing bookmarks, on the other hand...
Agreed! I certainly wouldn't mind having more permissions on my Pathfinder PDFs. However, I am not knowledgeable about the granularity of PDF permissions; there may be a technical reason bookmarks aren't allowed.

Sadly, there's virtually no granularity in PDF security. The same control that would let you add bookmarks would also let you easily delete the watermarks. (I *think* Goodreader works around this by storing its bookmarks separately, but I'm not honestly sure.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dariusu wrote:
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?

Nobody outside of Paizo does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
dariusu wrote:
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?
Nobody outside of Paizo does.

And that is why I get annoyed when forumites shout that "X never sells!" "Y is selling really well!"

If you (general you, almost anyone posting on this thread except for Vic Wertz) want to know which of the 5e PHB or the pathfinder core rulebook is selling more copies, get Greg Leeds and Lisa Stevens together and let them compare sales figures. Until then, stop pretending you know their private sales data.


137ben wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
dariusu wrote:
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?
Nobody outside of Paizo does.

And that is why I get annoyed when forumites shout that "X never sells!" "Y is selling really well!"

If you (general you, almost anyone posting on this thread except for Vic Wertz) want to know which of the 5e PHB or the pathfinder core rulebook is selling more copies, get Greg Leeds and Lisa Stevens together and let them compare sales figures. Until then, stop pretending you know their private sales data.

Whilst I agree with you that we should be aware of the limitations of our knowledge, it's nonetheless possible to make statements like this.

For example, we know (from public comments from Erik Mona) that quest cards sold poorly and item cards sell well.

Your point is good and people do overstep their knowledge, however it's possible to speak meaningfully within the bounds of what we do know or suspect, we should just avoid opinion-stated-as-fact.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I guess if you exclude the successful products, they haven't had much success. However, I suspect WotC are using a different metric than you. No doubt Drizzt counts, in their eyes.

It's hard to see why they'd take the approach they seem to be adopting if they shared your view that D&D has failed as a "sustained, consistent" brand over the years.

Except that WotC clearly believes that it has failed as a sustained brand. There's a reason we already see 5E (and why 5E is designed the way it is) and that the novels outside of Drizzt are functionally not there as far as the bottom line is concerned. Even on the movie front, they have started a legal battle to get the license away from someone whose track record with the license is not what WotC and Hasbro were expecting. It's not because of any sustained success, but quite the opposite. Successful brands don't have to essentially hit the reboot button like WotC has had to consistently do throughout their ownership of the brand. To be fair, TSR had the same difficulties; they just chose a different way to try to solve them, with about the same amount of non-success. D&D has always been more successful on a cultural level than a business level.

It's not ignoring the successful products, it's also looking at the less than successful stuff at the same time, and more importantly, the ratio between the two groups. Successful brands have more successes than failures; D&D historically doesn't. The successes it has tend to make very big splashes, and there has been enough interest in the brand for someone, usually not the direct owner of the brand, to make a product that keeps the name alive, which is an admirable feat to be certain, but that's about it. WotC is still basically known to the business world as the maker of Magic, with very few people bothering to notice the small impact that D&D has in actual dollars. Active support for the brand as a whole has been sparse in terms of actual product historically, even with the core tabletop game, as many fans consider many, if not most, of the splat books for both 3rd and 4th edition to be worthless.

You're confusing the brand outside of TTRPGs (which is what we were discussing and where I think WotC's focus is clearly directed) with the brand as TTRPGers see it.

Whether gnomes appear as a core race, whether there is "too much bloat", whether the relase schedule of splatbooks is too fast or too slow, whether there's an OGL, whether you can buy core books as PDFs....
All of these "controversies" are irrlevant to the people who buy the novels, the computer games, the boardgames, the comics, etcetetera.

I suspect the edition churn has negligible impact on how the general public view D&D. No doubt they all think we're still playing the same game we were in the 70s (I further suspect they'd include Pathfinder players in that grouping too).

You focus your attention on the TTRPG as some kind of "core product" but I suspect it's more still there for legacy reasons and as some kind of vague salute to authenticity and legitimacy (there's value in being "the first", "the oldest" and so forth). If you asked WotC what the key offering of their D&D branded product was, I suspect they'd nominate their novels (or possibly their computer games - they also seem to have been doing consistently well over recent years, despite legal brawls with Atari).

Furthermore, the idea that consistently 'hitting the reboot button' is some kind of a sign of weakness in a brand is hard to justify. Colgate is a pretty well known brand of dental products here (I presume they're international). Astonishingly, after all these years, they still find brilliant new innovations in toothbrush design every few months and retire their entire range (which was brilliantly cutting edge twelve months ago) for the next big thing - that hardly means the brand isnt strong. It's one well established way of milking a strong, established brand for all its worth.

I cannot understand how anyone can, with a straight face, say D&D doesnt have a strong brand in the wider non-gamer communtiy. It's pretty much the definition of a strong, persistent brand - it invented an industry and is still going strong thirty/forty years later despite all the evolutions of gaming culture in that time. How well the RPG does is a tiny component of that - no matter how excited we get about where advantage/disadvantage sits on the 'dumbed down to brilliant' scale or what we personally think is an ideal rate of sourcebook production.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stephen Colbert made references to D&D a few times on his show. Each of those jokes were probably heard by more people than have ever played TTRPGs.

I suspect it is a lot like comic books. The real money comes from the video games and movies, but as long as the comic books are at least breaking even, there is no reason for the parent company to shut them down. Nor is the larger brand affected much by comic book reboots. People going to see The Dark Knight Rises didn't care that the comics had been rebooted with The New 52 since the previous movie. It was still the same film trilogy and the same brand. People seeing Man of Steel did care that it was a reboot--but in the sense that it ignored the continuity of the Christopher Reeve films, not because of the New 52.

I can also say from experience that outside observers have no idea what 'edition' means to D&D players. Normally, in the context of publishing, 'edition' and 'printing' are synonyms. I hear it from students every semester:
"I know the syllabus says to get the 5th edition of <textbook>, but I found the 2nd edition for a lot cheaper. Can I get that instead?"
The answer is almost invariably yes. Usually that just means that what was on page 141 of the 2nd edition might be on page 143 of the 5th edition. Typos are corrected, and if it is a really old book, then the new edition has computer-generated diagrams which are better than the hand-drawn diagrams in the edition from the 1970s.
For works of fiction, which don't have "incorrect" factual statements (in the way a mistake in a textbook can give factually incorrect statements), a new edition means even less. Usually, just the correction of typos.

I remember when I was being introduced to TTRPGs, and someone explained to me that they were coming out with a 3.5 edition of D&D. I remember asking
"Why don't they just call it 4th edition? Did they only correct half the spelling errors in the third edition?" That person had to patiently explain to me that actually, 3rd edition wasn't the 3rd edition of anything, it was a new game of an older brand, and 3.5 edition was actually the 2nd edition of the 3rd edition of D&D, but that that wasn't a marketable name, so they went with '3.5'.

Too long, Didn't read: The point is, Steve Geddes is right. The fact that WotC stop printing an earlier game and released a new one doesn't really matter to the overall health of the D&D brand. If they announced that they were suspending DDO, and relaunching it with completely different rules to conform to 5e mechanics (as opposed to 3e), then that might affect the brand overall. The announced 5e-based video game which is the topic of another thread here will probably affect the brand. But the 5e PHB really doesn't.


137ben wrote:
But the 5e PHB really doesn't..

Aside from the fact that it's one of the few products actually out there right now. Other than that, they have Drizzt and two decent, but far from spectacular, MMOs that no one ever really talks about. Yes, there are other novels and a few boardgames, but nothing else that would serve as a base for the brand. If this was the era of Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, or even the cartoon movie, I would agree with you; those could and did carry a lot more weight than the tabletop game. Nothing out today can come even close to pulling that off. Only Drizzt comes even close and he belongs as much or more to Salvatore as he does to WotC; if Salvatore decided to retire tomorrow, WotC would be hard pressed to stop him and would be at the exact same level as Paizo in regards to novels. Right now, it's a lot bigger risk because they are basically ignoring one of the few markets they have a solid advantage in while chasing markets they currently have little or no foothold in, let alone a competitive edge that would help them secure themselves more firmly. I can understand chasing other markets, but not ignoring the markets they already have, even if those markets are comparatively smaller.

At the moment, culturally, D&D remains a strong brand name, but business wise, it relies more on nostalgia than actual product, and that's a precarious place to be. Nostalgia is strong, as is a strong cultural presence and the current demand for fantasy, but these are all very unpredictable sources of growth, and WotC has nothing to fall back on. It's not a gamble certain to fail, but it's equally not certain to succeed, and with 4E's shortcomings in the very recent past, another perceived failure so soon will hurt them even more.

Paizo, for all that it lacks the name recognition, is in a far better place business wise. All of their products actively support each other, and they already have almost as much actual current product as WotC in most of the non-tabletop markets that everyone claims that WotC has such a strong advantage. They also have better working relationships with both the rest of the tabletop industry, and probably most everyone else they work with aside from the local game stores, and even there, they still have a solid enough relationship. They also have, in actual product, a far more diverse array of products, making them more resistant to less than stellar sales of a particular product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, editions of D&D are very different in definition than editions of just about anything else. It can be very confusing.

However, in regards to novels, it DOES affect them. When 3e hit, the novels took a big hit from me, they went downhill in the type of books I enjoyed reading. When 4e hit, I basically stopped reading almost any of the D&D books except those by Greenwood and Salvatore. That has continued to this day.

On the otherhand, I've moved from reading the D&D books to the Pathfinder novels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Paizo, for all that it lacks the name recognition, is in a far better place business wise. All of their products actively support each other, and they already have almost as much actual current product as WotC in most of the non-tabletop markets that everyone claims that WotC has such a strong advantage.

FWIW, I'm not claiming WotC have an advantage - I'm speaking about D&D as a brand. That has nothing to do with Paizo (in fact, my opinion is that Paizo benefits from the brand strength of D&D).

Speaking about the strength of WotC's business doesnt have to be seen through the prism of "who is better?"


Steve Geddes wrote:
Speaking about the strength of WotC's business doesnt have to be seen through the prism of "who is better?"

The comparison does help highlight the difficulties that WotC faces vs the challenges that it's competitors face, though, in all markets. A direct comparison is not possible, but looking at the size of the gaps of where the different companies are vs where they want to be is a valid approach, and WotC is much, much farther from their goals than Paizo is from their goals. This isn't automatically a disaster because WotC is making gambles that, if they pay off, will close the gap very quickly, but that doesn't reduce the fact that they are fairly large gambles, complete with fairly large potential loss in the case of failure.

In the end, WotC is behaving more like the upstart trying to establish themselves in one big, bold stroke while Paizo is acting like the mature company that has the history to allow them make more, smaller gains. Considering the actual history of the two companies, WotC's actions don't make much sense if the brand was actually doing as well as fans often believe. It's far from a failure, but it's also far from the success that it's often touted to be. In contrast, Paizo has accomplished in the short time since releasing Pathfinder almost as much in terms of market saturation, and not just the tabletop market, as WotC has in over two decades of ownership. While this doesn't directly hamper WotC is any way, it does highlight the weaknesses in WotC's approach that they will have to overcome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Speaking about the strength of WotC's business doesnt have to be seen through the prism of "who is better?"
The comparison does help highlight the difficulties that WotC faces vs the challenges that it's competitors face, though, in all markets. A direct comparison is not possible, but looking at the size of the gaps of where the different companies are vs where they want to be is a valid approach, and WotC is much, much farther from their goals than Paizo is from their goals. This isn't automatically a disaster because WotC is making gambles that, if they pay off, will close the gap very quickly, but that doesn't reduce the fact that they are fairly large gambles, complete with fairly large potential loss in the case of failure.

You clearly are in no position to make the various statements in this paragaraph. I'm not challenging their truth, but neither of us have any idea what each company's goals are - let alone how "close" they are to them.

However, I was just responding to your "...everyone claims..." comment. I'm not making the claim you were attributing to "everyone", I'm disputing your claim that D&D is not a strong, "consistent" brand outside of the TTRPG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
In the end, WotC is behaving more like the upstart trying to establish themselves in one big, bold stroke while Paizo is acting like the mature company that has the history to allow them make more, smaller gains.

Again you're focussing on the (economically irrelevant) TTRPG market.

How has their release of computer games changed in the last couple of years that makes you think they've adopted an "upstart" demeanour? Their approach to comics? To novels? What would make a fan of Salvatore's books suddenly think "Gee, these guys are clearly desperate!"?


Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm disputing your claim that D&D is not a strong, "consistent" brand outside of the TTRPG.

Than name any truly strong D&D product out there today that isn't Drizzt or the PHB. The two MMOs are decent, but have little or no impact on the greater MMO market. The rest of the novel line is anemic. The boardgames are good, but are competing in a crowded enough market that they haven't really made that much of a splash. Neverwinter Nights was the last true hit the D&D brand had and that's a good decade old. It's been present outside the TTRPG more or less consistently, something no other tabletop game can claim, that much is true, but the only consistency it's shown is being just enough to keep all the products going. This isn't a small feat or one to be put down, but it's not the same as the kind of consistent success that WotC clearly keeps trying to find.

We may not know their exact goals, but they are clearly well beyond what they have managed to accomplish in practice, otherwise they wouldn't be consistently and very visibly chasing the same elusive targets in the movie and video game markets for over two decades.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Again you're focussing on the (economically irrelevant) TTRPG market.

How has their release of computer games changed in the last couple of years that makes you think they've adopted an "upstart" demeanour? Their approach to comics? To novels? What would make a fan of Salvatore's books suddenly think "Gee, these guys are clearly desperate!"?

It may be less relevant than other markets, but the TTRPG is the one they currently have. The video game market is shaky, and the movie market is still a distant dream. Largely abandoning it before they have something to replace it with seems really, really stupid to me. A small, but consistent, income is better than no income at all. Clearly they don't care or think that their other plans will come through sooner rather than later and cover the gap. I guess we'll know in a year if the ultimate payoff was worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm disputing your claim that D&D is not a strong, "consistent" brand outside of the TTRPG.
Than name any truly strong D&D product out there today that isn't Drizzt or the PHB.

Drizzt, for one. As I said, it makes no sense to judge their branding a failure by first excluding all of the widely known, commercially successful products. However, you're the one making the claim. How about advancing some evidence beyond opinion and speculation about goals that you have no knowledge of?

I think WotC are clearly and obviously focussing on the non-TTRPG aspects of D&D. I think they're essentially abandoning the field in the competition for "most popular RPG".

You've stated they "obviously" think all of those other ventures have been a failure over the years and that they believe they need to rebuild their "base" of the brand via the TTRPG.

Which is more consistent with their approach to releases of 5E? To the lack of clarity regarding the OGL or similar?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Again you're focussing on the (economically irrelevant) TTRPG market.

How has their release of computer games changed in the last couple of years that makes you think they've adopted an "upstart" demeanour? Their approach to comics? To novels? What would make a fan of Salvatore's books suddenly think "Gee, these guys are clearly desperate!"?

It may be less relevant than other markets, but the TTRPG is the one they currently have.

I don't think they "have it" at all. I think they lost it when they launched 4E and pathfinder (and, to a lesser extent the OSRIC movement) rose up in response.

There's just not room for much profit as number two (or even a hotly contested number one) roleplaying game. The total market for RPGs in North America was recently estimated at $15m - half of that is a relative pittance when you could rather be competing for a slice of the hundreds of millions of dollars available in board games, miniatures, computer games and other such markets.


goldomark wrote:
dariusu wrote:
It has been out 6 years and is the number one Pathfinder book. That is one of my points. The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is in the top 5 on Paizo's own website. It is quite often near the top on Paizo's own site.

Yup, that is because core books are what sells the most. To be expected since it is the first thing (and only one) you need to play.

Quote:
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?

Nope.

Quote:
Do you think it is a lot more than a site like Amazon?

Yes. I mentioned the advantages of using the Paizo store. I forgot to mention the cheaper PDFs they sell. As you pointed out, some of PF's books rank higher than the core book on the Paizo store's top 10 seller list. We can infer that more are sold from the Paizo store than amazon (where they never go above the corebook).

Quote:
PDFs are not quite necessary when you have an online DB of all the rules anyway.

We do not get fluff and art from the free online database. PDFs have a higher value. Besides, by your logic we do not need to buy any books either, since everything is free on the net (d20PFSRD).

Quote:
I personally

Personal anecdotes are not interesting data points. Sorry.

Quote:
My point is that 5th edition sales will settle at some level and that level might still be more than Pathfinder.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Quote:
Most of the sales seem to come from core books.
Strange business move, no?

I originally kind of responded to your post about the drop in 5th edition Player's Handbooks sales and how it is not surprising, "For March, the projected sales of the PHB are 216 books!". I think your exclamation mark is used to show the sadness of how low it is going to go. You used data from novelrank.

Take any book of a similar rank. It has a similar drop in sales for March. Here is the psychiatric manual that was in a similar position as the PHB when it came out http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0890425558. It shows similar Feb sales and similar March sales. I don't think they have much to do with each other. They came out at different times in addition to everything else.

So everything probably drops a lot in books at least on Amazon in March. Take this top 100 novel "the Martian" http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0553418025. Same deal.

Does that happen with all books? Is that site accurate? I don't know.

You provided the website and it shows that the PHB is selling about 10 times what the pathfinder core rule books is selling. My point ultimately is that the PHB has to drop a lot and/or they have to sell many times the amazon sales on paizo.com in order to be selling more. The PHB is not dropping in rank that fast, it has been out for 6 months.

Maybe the guy from Paizo can just say if they sell at least twice as many book on Paizo.com than on Amazon.com per month?

EDIT: I mean Pathfinder RPG books on that last sentence.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Drizzt, for one. As I said, it makes no sense to judge their branding a failure by first excluding all of the widely known, commercially successful products. However, you're the one making the claim. How about advancing some evidence beyond opinion and speculation about goals that you have no knowledge of?

Being inconsistent and being a failure are two different things. One or two amazing products surrounded by a sea of mediocrity very definitely makes the brand inconsistent. As for being a failure, at some level, it clearly is, or we wouldn't be having more or less the same conversation right after the release of 5E that people had after the release of 4E. At the same time it's equally clearly not a complete failure; it does still have Drizzt and 5E is very solid for what it was designed to do. What we ultimately get is a very muddy picture of mixed success. It will be very interesting to see what happens to the rpg if no successful movie or video game emerges from their current efforts. Any chance they might have had in truly competing in the TTRPG market will be even smaller and less appealing, making it more likely that the brand just basically gets shelved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:


It's not ignoring the successful products, it's also looking at the less than successful stuff at the same time, and more importantly, the ratio between the two groups. Successful brands have more successes than failures; D&D historically doesn't.

I wouldn't really agree with that at all. One or two GREAT success' can cover a whole multitude of failures. Just look at the comic book worlds. There are some books and characters that have been going on since the 30's-60's... but there are a LOT of books that have been canceled before they hit issue 10... Superman, Batman, Spider-man are SUCH amazing success' that nobody really cares about all the Defenders, Champions, or Heroes for Hire books that crashed out.

Even amongst the BIG charcters like Batman and Spider-man... there have been MANY cartoons or toys or spinoffs that didn't last long and were considered failures... but the overall is still successful property.

Even despite it's fading glory... Dungeon's and Dragons is still used by people as Shorthand for 'Tabletop RPG' It was the first, the biggest, and the most reknown. It started and passed through the scandals and birthed a whole genre of successors... but even if the game isn't played, or the market looks elsewhere... the 'name' Dungeons and Dragons is still in the public's mind... Usually attached to the 80's stereotypes... but it's still known.

So yeah... Drizzt' may be the only popular thing they have now... but that thing is still REALLY popular and will support a whole lot of missteps...

351 to 400 of 1,171 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 5th Edition (And Beyond) / Best Guess: How many quarters will D&D Next beat Pathfinder on the ICv2 list (if any)? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.