Here's a bit more information about the new decision to lump 3PPs together from EnWorld.
The 5E-Compatible category, according to ICv2's online magazine, shows that collectively third-party D&D products are doing well, although none individually make the top five chart. Goodman Games was called out in particular, as were Kobold Press and Nord Games. RPGs as a whole, however, took a (small) dip for the first time in years, likely due to COVID.
Here's a bit more information about the new decision to lump 3PPs together from EnWorld.
The 5E-Compatible category, according to ICv2's online magazine, shows that collectively third-party D&D products are doing well, although none individually make the top five chart. Goodman Games was called out in particular, as were Kobold Press and Nord Games. RPGs as a whole, however, took a (small) dip for the first time in years, likely due to COVID.
I blame Tiger King.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dungeons & Dragons Becoming a Magic: The Gathering Set Next Year
So now we can see that 5e is big enough it can be used to promote the juggernaut of CCGs.
.
That is an interpretation, another is that Wizards is simply cross promoting their two massive products in order to easily convert existing product rather than generating new content. In either case this seems to be the logical continuation from the release of Theros.
Since no numbers are discussed in the article and neither CCG sales nor RPG sales are particularly transparent in any measurable way; a conclusion is purely speculative.
That's an unprecedented step up and clear indicator of 5e status viz-a-viz the OP.
Cross promotion of this kind is not unprecedented as shown by the usage of both Theros and Rokugan in official D&D product.
The OP asked about quarters in which 5e would remain on top of the ICv2, this speaks to that issue about as little as the existence of a Stranger Things/D&D crossover does
|
Yes, we all know the OP asked how many quarters 5e would remain at the top. And so far the answer is "all of them".
24 quarters that we know of and showing no sign of slowing down, as 2019 was the best year for D&D ever and it will likely take many years after it peaks for the game to sink close to Pathfinder's sales numbers again.
(Which would be more than enough years to do a 6th Edition or 5th Revised to boost sales back up again.)
Even if D&D slumps and they blunder the response, given the popularity of story and character focused streaming shows, it seems likely that when 5e does begin to wane and another system takes its place, it probably won't be Pathfinder. It will be a system better suited to quick play online and narrative storytelling.
“Collectively 5e compatible content is doing well” is certainly not “indisputable” nor does it support the claims you’ve made about this level of sales having happened only once before
I fail to see how it's "not indisputable". 3PP are selling well enough in PHYSICAL stores that ICv2 put them on its charts. Sales had to be strong enough for them to decide it was warranted to change how they listed games on their chart.
And these physical sales of 3PP are in addition to online sales through Amazon and their own personal webstores, which are traditionally the bread-and-butter of 3PP who aren't large enough to sell through traditional distribution channels. That they're moving back into physical stores again is a big sign they're doing well (after declining 3PP fortunes starting in the 3.5e era).
It's not hard to look at the top 100 books in "Fantasy Gaming" and see the 5e adjacent books. Or recall how the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting by Green Ronin outsold Pathfinder books on Amazon through much of 2017 (and would probably continue to be selling well if it hadn't gone out of print).
It's worth noting that the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting was Green Ronin's most successful book ever... based on pre-orders and initial sales alone. They sold out almost instantly. And this was back in mid-2017 and before two more years of substantial growth for 5e.
That is an interpretation, another is that Wizards is simply cross promoting their two massive products in order to easily convert existing product rather than generating new content. In either case this seems to be the logical continuation from the release of Theros.
We got the MtG settings because James Wyatt moved from the D&D team to the MtG story team and started doing the free conversion PDFs. Which were popular enough they decided to use him as a way of making cheap D&D books to fill out the schedule. A "bonus" fourth book released that year, and again this year with Theros.
(Cheap in that they could recycle art, which is far and away the most expensive bit of making an RPG book.)MtG seems to be copying D&D's moves. The D&D Realms set is "bonus" set as well: a fourth set instead of the three MtG releases each year. But while they can recycle some D&D art for Magic, I imagine they need to make a LOT more pieces of artwork.
Still, they wouldn't do the product and go through all the work of making the cards if it wasn't going to sell. And the fact they think it will sell now and are doing it now rather than anytime in the previous twenty years WoTC could have done a D&D themed Magic set does speak to the increased brand awareness and popularity of D&D.
I fail to see how it's "not indisputable".
Because without hard numbers it is very disputable. The combined 3PP could indeed claim its place in the top 5 only to see each individual product drop below the top 30 when separated. there is LOTS of wiggle room. Hence the ability to dispute.
3PP are selling well enough in PHYSICAL stores that ICv2 put them on its charts. Sales had to be strong enough for them to decide it was warranted to change how they listed games on their chart.
It's an assumption you're making that strong sales were the reason they made that change. Covid closing many physical stores and disrupting supply chains of other product might have been the reason. We don't know, because they aren't transparent.
That they're moving back into physical stores again is a big sign they're doing well
Signs, portents, guesswork and assumptions aren't hard data.
It's worth noting that the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting was Green Ronin's most successful book ever...
Which proves that Critical Roll is massively popular - not that all 3PP product belongs listed as one monolithic product - and certainly not that D&D's current sales standing is evergreen.
The proof of how long 5e will remain in the #1 slot of the ICV2 is 5e remaining in the #1 slot of the ICV2. The rest is speculation.
BOOM!
Yep, what Jester David said.
Happy to find someone to co-sign your opinions eh? That's sweet.
You should have at least been courteous to throw the dude a like though.
<snip> pointless posturing</snip>
BOOM!
Yep, what Jester David said.
<snip>more pointless posturing</snip>
You should have at least been courteous to throw the dude a like though.
No down-votes allowed means no up-votes given. Seems fair to me.
:D
I love how your pointless posturing is fine but mine isn’t. Hypocrisy of the highest order in Lord Quark Blast’s personal forum to worship at the feet of the mighty Wizards.
|
|
I fail to see how it's "not indisputable".Because without hard numbers it is very disputable. The combined 3PP could indeed claim its place in the top 5 only to see each individual product drop below the top 30 when separated. there is LOTS of wiggle room. Hence the ability to dispute.
None of what is being talked about here has hard numbers. I don't have hard numbers. You don't have hard numbers. Only WotC and Paizo have hard numbers.
We are at least providing circumstantial evidence and soft numbers. If you're not going to work with us and offer any counter evidence—soft or otherwise—then you're not really engaging in a discussion or arguing in good faith. And this just devolves into a Monty Python argument sketch.
3PP are selling well enough in PHYSICAL stores that ICv2 put them on its charts. Sales had to be strong enough for them to decide it was warranted to change how they listed games on their chart.It's an assumption you're making that strong sales were the reason they made that change. Covid closing many physical stores and disrupting supply chains of other product might have been the reason. We don't know, because they aren't transparent.
It's not an assumption. It's an educated guess. A deduction. It's an inference based on the available data. And the data of 3PP sales from the past 2-3 years, with Kickstarted 3rd Party products being huge.
Your COVID theory doesn't hold up.
Because the chart is for the first four months of the year, with much of that before the major shut-downs in the US occurred. It's unlikely the a month-and-a-half of shutdowns disproportionately affected sales that much.
And with game stores closed for April (or April and the back half of March), no product moves. Why would having a game store closed and not selling anything mean more 3PP sold?
And wouldn't small 3rd Party publishers be MORE affected by instabilities in distribution and disruption of the supply chain. Especially as they'd need to print books more cheaply in China than using more expensive domestic printers. I know quite a few RPG books were delayed by the COVID outbreak and Chinese lockdown from Dec and January.
The cause-and-effect just isn't there.
It makes logical sense than the sales reported represent books already in the market and that were printed prior to COVID. This implies 3PP sales had been strong for a year or two and were just not being reported, as no single publisher was strong enough to stand out, or the sales were just being lumped in with D&D.
(Really, a bigger factor might be Fantasy Flight Games shelving their game division and licensing out the products, which has resulted in shortages of their Star Wars books knocking it down in sales. But even then, the 3PP D&D books seem to be doing quite well compared to Edge of the Empire.)
What are you really arguing here anyway?
Do you have a point other than just saying we're wrong? Are you seriously arguing that D&D 5e isn't a hit? That 3PP D&D products aren't selling well?
That they're moving back into physical stores again is a big sign they're doing wellSigns, portents, guesswork and assumptions aren't hard data.
Aaaaaand?
What's your point?
It's not like there's any numbers in the ICv2 chart. So that's not hard data. And it doesn't include online sales from Amazon or the Paizo store or the DMSGuild.
Heck, even if God came down from the heavens held aloft by six alicorns and declared in a radiant golden voice "D&D is outselling Pathfinder!" that's not really hard data.
We'll never know. Not really.
That doesn't mean we can't make accurate deductions.
It's worth noting that the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting was Green Ronin's most successful book ever...Which proves that Critical Roll is massively popular - not that all 3PP product belongs listed as one monolithic product - and certainly not that D&D's current sales standing is evergreen.
Yeah, CR is massively popular. And the whole show is one big advertisement for D&D. CR's success is D&D's success.
Does all 3PP need to be listed as one monolithic product? Maybe not. But if sales are really that good, it's useful information for retailers. It's telling stores that they're better off stocking more 3PP D&D books than other secondary games. That Kobold Press' Tome of Beasts and Green Ronin's The Book of the Righteous might be a better investment than Star Trek Adventures or even Starfinder.
That's exactly the kind of information you want from an industry trade publication.
Is D&D's current sales everygreen? Functionally yeah.
It will be a long time before they drop in sales. They're still a good distance away from reaching "bloat" or the audience growing bored and drifting to other systems. And there's enough new players who have come in during the last 2-3 years that by the time the new players are D&Ded out, there might be still more new players and/or the older players might be returning to D&D from a year or two break.
5e is six years old now and doesn't seem to have peaked. Or if it did, it only peaked last year. That means the edition could easily last another six years, being the longest edition of D&D.
And that's plenty of time to plan and launch a 6e or revised 5e.
And a long time for the rest of the industry to fundamentally change
The proof of how long 5e will remain in the #1 slot of the ICV2 is 5e remaining in the #1 slot of the ICV2. The rest is speculation.
Well... yeah. Speculation is literally the point of this thread.
But it's certainly an interesting data point that few people at the beginning thought D&D would outsell more than a handful of quarters. And I don't think anyone expected 5e to last longer than 3e or 4e.
BOOM!
Yep, what Jester David said.
Happy to find someone to co-sign your opinions eh? That's sweet.
You should have at least been courteous to throw the dude a like though.
This isn't Reddit. And I'm not fishing for Karma.
We are at least providing circumstantial evidence and soft numbers.
No you’re not. You’re offering commentary, guesswork and the circular logic that 3PP must have sold well because it’s on the list thus proving that it sold well. Come on man.
It's not an assumption. It's an educated guess. A deduction. It's an inference based on the available data. And the data of 3PP sales from the past 2-3 years, with Kickstarted 3rd Party products being huge.
Then by all means show said 3PP sales data from the last 2-3 years.
Your COVID theory doesn't hold up.
Because the chart is for the first four months of the year, with much of that before the major shut-downs in the US occurred. It's unlikely the a month-and-a-half of shutdowns disproportionately affected sales that much.
And with game stores closed for April (or April and the back half of March), no product moves. Why would having a game store closed and not selling anything mean more 3PP sold?
Okay, discount this experience taken from my own local: Brick and mortar stores closed to general traffic, keepS their business open by allowing customers to order materials for pickup or delivery. Less product from mid level companies is shipping, the product coming in consistently is all D&D, PF, Warhammer and 5e 3PP. People are staying home and playing more games so they’re taking chances on adventure products they wouldn’t normally buy. Cheaper and already shelved 3PP product moves toward a content starved player base that might generally overlook it. Sales spike. COVID caused spike.
You ask me what I’m arguing against, let’s flip it. What are you arguing for? Is anyone here claiming that D&D isn’t the top selling game in this hobby? Not a single person. Is anyone claiming it shouldn’t be the top selling game in this hobby? Not a single person. It is #1 and will likely remain so until it replaces itself with 5.5 or 6.X.
I’m just arguing that making blanket statements based on incomplete information is not a factual enterprise, despite what others claim. Speculation is cool, I just bristle when some use definitive language to pronounce their speculation with authority.
@theotherguy - I would never admit my posturing is pointless but I'm totally OK with you acknowledging yours is.
Gee Quark, you really got me there. Me quoting your words was totally me making also making an admission about my own statements... You’re so clever.
But it's certainly an interesting data point that few people at the beginning thought D&D would outsell more than a handful of quarters. And I don't think anyone expected 5e to last longer than 3e or 4e.
I have certainly been amazed. When 5E launched I thought the market had kind of “irrevocably fractured” to the point there wouldn’t be such a dominant player in the market again.
I totally failed to anticipate the rise of actual play streaming (a genre I absolutely adore and am very glad to have discovered!) and it’s associated influx of new people.
(I have a lot of problems with ICv2 “league tables” and their approach to statistics, but the dominance of 5E is as established as anything similar could ever be, in my view. I also think fans tend to overestimate the significance of “winning” in a niche industry like this. I know that as Paizo lost their place as number one RPG, their revenue and profit kept climbing, which is all that really matters to a business, outside truly huge corporations).
|
|
I’m just arguing that making blanket statements based on incomplete information is not a factual enterprise, despite what others claim. Speculation is cool, I just bristle when some use definitive language to pronounce their speculation with authority.
I was writing & replying as I read and had a big long post half-finished when I reached this part and decided to dump what I'd written
See, you're not actually arguing or debating with us. You're not contributing to the conversation. We're having a discussion and you're interjecting "Well, actually, you should add 'allegedly' to that sentence."
You're not actually engaging with us in the conversation at hand. You're policing how we're having our conversation. And thus wasting all of our time.
This thread was literally, 100% based on speculation and prediction. And is about educated guesses and loose deductions.
If you bristle at that, then coming here and reading the thread is self-triggering and probably should be avoided. And telling us not to have a discussion the rest of us want to have is badwrongfun.
|
|
But it's certainly an interesting data point that few people at the beginning thought D&D would outsell more than a handful of quarters. And I don't think anyone expected 5e to last longer than 3e or 4e.I have certainly been amazed. When 5E launched I thought the market had kind of “irrevocably fractured” to the point there wouldn’t be such a dominant player in the market again.
It was hard to imagine 5e becoming a success when 3e had withered and died so rapidly and 4e had burned so much of the fanbase. Especially as the D&D design team shrunk more and more. And then as they released so few books, when the common wisdom with regular accessories.
The long two-year playtest really worked in 5e's favour. People had 2-3 years to wrap up their current campaigns and get ready for 5e. They could have that final Pathfinder or 3e game and move onto 5e fairly quickly.I have a lot of problems with ICv2 “league tables” and their approach to statistics, but the dominance of 5E is as established as anything similar could ever be, in my view.
I have some issues, especially as it doesn't track online sales, but so far it's seemed on the mark. It accurately reported the failure of 4e and the ascent of Pathfinder. And it seems to mark the ebb and flow of other games nicely. It's earned my faith in its accuracy.
I also think fans tend to overestimate the significance of “winning” in a niche industry like this. I know that as Paizo lost their place as number one RPG, their revenue and profit kept climbing, which is all that really matters to a business, outside truly huge corporations.
Agreed.
Some of that is just an extension of the sunk cost fallacy. People pick a game system and want to know they picked the "correct" one. The one that's most successful. You don't want to back the loser or a failed system. Because even if you really enjoy a game, if it's not successful there's the paradoxical feeling you wasted your time. And the worry that while you're having fun, you might have been having *more* fun with another game. But if the game you didn't choose is losing to the one you picked, it reinforces your choice.
See, you're not actually arguing or debating with us. You're not contributing to the conversation. We're having a discussion and you're interjecting "Well, actually, you should add 'allegedly' to that sentence."
Actually, you're interjecting 13 days later on a a point of debate I was having with Quark Blast about the validity of the 3PP sales. So, you don't get to define how I'm engaging with the conversation that you joined after the fact ostensibly to correct me and police my engagement.
You're not actually engaging with us in the conversation at hand. You're policing how we're having our conversation. And thus wasting all of our time.
I trust you see the irony of the sentence above wherein you write a sentence about me policing how you engage with conversation in order to police how I engage with the conversation. It's an open forum and when QB sprays all over the place in his excitement over "gah 3PP sold so well because 5e's great, it's PROVEN and it only ever happened once before GAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!" I have every right to ask him to prove his statements, and challenge his speculative assumption.
This thread was literally, 100% based on speculation and prediction. And is about educated guesses and loose deductions.
That's what it was, now it's QB's thread to post any article he finds that he THINKS proves D&D's enduring dominance. I can interact with that however I so choose. You telling me I can't or shouldn't is no better than the policing you're accusing me of and is just as much a waste of time. Welcome to the internet.
If you bristle at that, then coming here and reading the thread is self-triggering and probably should be avoided.
I don't have a problem with speculation, I'm not "triggered." I have a problem with the "IDW is doing a D&D/Stranger Things Crossover Comic, this proves that D&D sales will remain strong in perpetuity" or "D&D is now SO BIG it can be used to advertise for MtG" or "D&D's free COVID materials will keep people engaging with this product for years" posts, because those arguments are unfounded and not germane to the thread's main topic of ICV2 standings. So I challenge those assumptions to engage in the conversation. Thanks for telling me that engaging in the forum in this way is "badwrongfun" on my part
|
|
I trust you see the irony of the sentence above wherein you write a sentence about me policing how you engage with conversation in order to police how I engage with the conversation. It's an open forum and when QB sprays all over the place in his excitement over "gah 3PP sold so well because 5e's great, it's PROVEN and it only ever happened once before GAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!" I have every right to ask him to prove his statements, and challenge his speculative assumption.
He did prove his statements. He quoted a reputable trade magazine that is reporting 3PP sales of D&D as noteworthy and strong and explicitly called out several well performing publishers by name.
I could also bring up a bunch of Kickstarter links showing the increasing funding of 3PP products by Nord Games, Green Ronin, and Kobold Press and how they're making more money per project than three or four years ago. How many of those publishers ceased production for other game systems and stopped doing their books for multiple systems to solely focus on 5e.
I could pull up comic sales numbers showing the various D&D comics are decent sellers for IDW. While not their strongest sellers, they're far from the bottom from that company.
Can you offer ANY counter evidence? Something that shows that D&D 3PP aren't selling? That shows 5e isn't an industry behemoth.
He did prove his statements. He quoted a reputable trade magazine that is reporting 3PP sales of D&D as noteworthy and strong and explicitly called out several well performing publishers by name.
His statement was that the unprecedented 3PP sales had only ever happened once before in the history of the ICV2, he proved no such thing. His further comment was the circular logic that the inclusion of 3PP content as one singular entry on the ICV2 proved that 3PP content deserved to be listed on the ICV2 as a singular entry... that's the part you doubled down on.
I could also bring up a bunch of Kickstarter links showing the increasing funding of 3PP products by Nord Games, Green Ronin, and Kobold Press and how they're making more money per project than three or four years ago.
By all means do use those Kickstarter figures and then compare them with prior year figures and make a case. I'd like to engage in that conversation where actual data is being used. By doing so, you'll be doing something more transparent than what the ICV2 did in their description of why the 3PP content was included in last quarter as it was.
The value of that inclusion is an interesting thing to explore. It was not, however, done in a transparent enough way that it leads to any immediate conclusions. Nor does it act as a proof of ongoing dominance for the edition that is already on top as it was originally presented on the previous page of posts.
There are many unknowns, not the least of which is why now of all quarters to present it this way? Which of those 3PP products belong in the top 10 in their own right, and which games that would otherwise have been in the top 5 were excluded. Without the individualized data we can't really make claims about what really belongs where and what doesn't.
It's an interesting fact to discuss, but without further information it doesn't really tell us anything. We could cross compare Kobolds' last kickstarter and Onyx Path's last kickstarter and come up with a 1:1 comparison. We can't do the same with ICV2 data.
How many of those publishers ceased production for other game systems and stopped doing their books for multiple systems to solely focus on 5e.
Of the ones you mentioned? I'm not familiar with anything other than OGL related product that Nord made in the past to know what they abandoned for their current 5e slate. Kobold still makes their system agnostic product, and I don't recall any statement that they wouldn't be producing PF2 content. Green Ronin still makes Modern AGE and The Expanse.
I could pull up comic sales numbers showing the various D&D comics are decent sellers for IDW. While not their strongest sellers, they're far from the bottom from that company.
Yes, but you can't pull up figures that show the D&D/Stranger Things crossover (which hasn't fully streeted yet) will drive further sales of the Stranger Things box set which will lead to further sales of the core product as was the claim made. The Comic is likely drawing from the combined audience of the two larger products (D&D/ST) and will not likely fuel greater sales for either.
Can you offer ANY counter evidence? Something that shows that D&D 3PP aren't selling? That shows 5e isn't an industry behemoth.
This last questions present arguments I never made and challenge me to prove claims I'm not offering. I never claimed that 3PP supplements weren't selling, just that the ICV2 was not transparent about HOW well they were selling thus those can't be used as a metric in determining 5e's overall market penetration WITHOUT FURTHER INFORMATION that hasn't been provided. I also never claimed that 5e wasn't THE industry behemoth.
If I am somehow required to provide evidence for claims I haven't made, then you and QB better start sourcing the evidence for the claims that you have made.
|
|
This last questions present arguments I never made and challenge me to prove claims I'm not offering. I never claimed that 3PP supplements weren't selling, just that the ICV2 was not transparent about HOW well they were selling thus those can't be used as a metric in determining 5e's overall market penetration WITHOUT FURTHER INFORMATION that hasn't been provided. I also never claimed that 5e wasn't THE industry behemoth.
Why does it matter if they're transparent or not?
If your trust their methodology and data, then their summary is fine: it has all the information we need. If you don't trust their methodology and data, then it doesn't matter if you have more hard numbers because it won't be believed.Again, we have more than enough data. We can see how popular Pathfinder 1 or 2 is on platforms like Amazon. We can see how popular Starfinder is. And we can calculate the average difference between the two to see the combined popularity of 5e 3PP. And just knowing that there's so much demand D&D material that 3rd Party products—which had previously killed FLGS in the early-2000s—are selling in stores again in numbers rivaling other game systems is newsworthy and a pretty clear testament to the lasting/ continued popularity of 5e even after six years on the market.
There are many unknowns, not the least of which is why now of all quarters to present it this way?
Occam's Razor. I imagine it's simply because this was the quarter they sat down and figured out the combined sales of 3PP. Possibly prompted by their combining of PF1 and PF2 sales as just "Pathfinder."
Very likely 3PP D&D sales were the #3 or #4 game already (if not #2) and they just combined the numbers with D&D or ignored them as they weren't a stand alone game.But knowing that this was a change for this quarter or if it happened two quarters ago but wasn't noticed doesn't change anything.
Which of those 3PP products belong in the top 10 in their own right, and which games that would otherwise have been in the top 5 were excluded. Without the individualized data we can't really make claims about what really belongs where and what doesn't.
Why?
Would knowing explicitly that Kobold Press alone is outselling Starfinder but not selling as well as Pathfinder significantly change things? Or if Kobold Press is just behind Starfinder but combined with Goodman Games it slips ahead. Would things be different if it was instead Nord games selling the most product?None of that is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, which is 5e is so popular even compatible material is selling in large numbers.
It's an interesting fact to discuss, but without further information it doesn't really tell us anything. We could cross compare Kobolds' last kickstarter and Onyx Path's last kickstarter and come up with a 1:1 comparison. We can't do the same with ICV2 data.
Feel free to email them and see if they can disclose more. Or check out the full issue:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/320339/ICv2s-Internal-Correspondence-9 8
Why does it matter if they're transparent or not?
Because if you don’t know what the data actually reflects you don’t actually Have enough information to draw certain conclusions. If it took the collection of 600 items to get to the current place but only two or three of those products would be in the top 20 on their own, then it doesn’t actually reflect the conclusion you and QB are jumping to.
Again, we have more than enough data. We can see how popular Pathfinder 1 or 2 is on platforms like Amazon. We can see how popular Starfinder is. And we can calculate the average difference between the two to see the combined popularity of 5e 3PP.
We can calculate the difference in popularity between PF1, PF2 and SF to arrive at the combined popularity of 5th Edition 3PP? I’m curious how that circle gets squared.
And just knowing that there's so much demand D&D material that 3rd Party products—which had previously killed FLGS in the early-2000s—are selling in stores again in numbers rivaling other game systems is newsworthy and a pretty clear testament to the lasting/ continued popularity of 5e even after six years on the market.
Except, again, without knowing how many 3PP products had to be combined to create that new entry - we don’t have specific sales figures to compare with Star Wars sales, Genesys sales, Shadowrun sales, L5R sales, etc to confirm that they are truly rivaling other game systems in terms of sales.
You’re blindly saying that an entry on a list without any details is equal to a detailed statement about how the 3PP products relate to the rest of the market as a whole. The data we have doesn’t confirm that.
Occam's Razor. I imagine it's simply because this was the quarter they sat down and figured out the combined sales of 3PP. Possibly prompted by their combining of PF1 and PF2 sales as just "Pathfinder."
We don’t know when or how they actually combined PF1 and PF2 sales. Pathfinder fell off the list the quarter the Playtest launched and it returned to the list when 2E dropped.
Very likely 3PP D&D sales were the #3 or #4 game already (if not #2) and they just combined the numbers with D&D or ignored them as they weren't a stand alone game.
Very possible, but in the absence of information we can’t conclude that was the case.
But knowing that this was a change for this quarter or if it happened two quarters ago but wasn't noticed doesn't change anything.
You’re right It doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t make 5e more the #1 than it was a quarter ago. It also won’t make 5e #1 a quarter longer than it will be on its own merits. You ascribe meaning you this thing that changes nothing and challenge me for choosing not to do the same.
Would knowing explicitly that Kobold Press alone is outselling Starfinder but not selling as well as Pathfinder significantly change things? Or if Kobold Press is just behind Starfinder but combined with Goodman Games it slips ahead. Would things be different if it was instead Nord games selling the most product?
Of if they were divided back out would none of those three be selling more than Starfinder? Would Star Wars pop back up into the vacated slot, or Shadowrun? You assume that they were combined because something outsold Starfinder, it’s equally possible they only outsold Starfinder because they were combined. Without transparency, we don’t know what any of it actually means.
I have a lot of problems with ICv2 “league tables” and their approach to statistics, but the dominance of 5E is as established as anything similar could ever be, in my view.I have some issues, especially as it doesn't track online sales, but so far it's seemed on the mark.
This isn't quite true (or at least wasn't when I used to buy the full report). Although they don't track all online sales, they take a stab at guessing what sales are through channels outside the ones they have some access to (after all they don't have perfect access even to those channels they have solid data from - so it's estimates through and through).
It's formed from interviews with distributors, retailers and publishers and since WotC and Paizo don't share their numbers people sometimes think ICv2 is solely talking about sales outside of those distribution channels.
In fact, their estimates of market size (when they publish those) and estimates of ranked sales are an "overall figure". They're guesses, but they're the most informed guesses we have available. They've also been broad strokes very successful over the years.
My issue is around data integrity - changing the process and rules without changing the presentation of the results. The recent inclusion of 3PP-D&D products is one example. I'm very skeptical that it's "never happened before" that such a thing has been warranted. Back in the 3.0/3.5 heyday, D&D was an even bigger Gorilla in the Room (the sales were smaller than now, but its market dominance was even more pronounced). It beggars belief that "3PP D&D publishers" wasn't at least in the top three (NWoD was up there as well back then, from memory).
I have no problem with including such a grouping, but for data integrity purposes, I'd have preferred them to also produce one for Pathfinder 3PP (I suspect PF1 3PPs would also make at least the top ten and that PF2 3PPs wouldn't). I also think there's a case to be made for grouping "OSRIC publishers" as one category as I think their publishing model is more akin to support material for a now out of print game, than individual games on their own.
Making decisions about how one treats data should be as devoid from current trends as possible. Including the category out of the blue on the grounds that "Oooo, this is something big" runs the risk of giving the wrong impression, in my view. There are also questions about including Goodman Games (as publisher of DCC) and as a 5E 3PP producer, or Green Ronin Publishing, Kobold Press, Frog God Games, Etcetera...I don't have much confidence that they've thought that through very carefully.
For clarity - I don't think it's incorrect to say that 5E 3PP products are selling well - they obviously are. I just care about survey integrity - especially when it is used to track trends over time. That becomes meaningless if what you're surveying changes on a whim.
|
|
My issue is around data integrity - changing the process and rules without changing the presentation of the results. The recent inclusion of 3PP-D&D products is one example. I'm very skeptical that it's "never happened before" that such a thing has been warranted. Back in the 3.0/3.5 heyday, D&D was an even bigger Gorilla in the Room (the sales were smaller than now, but its market dominance was even more pronounced). It beggars belief that "3PP D&D publishers" wasn't at least in the top three (NWoD was up there as well back then, from memory).
I agree with this. Back in the heyday of 3.0, D&D would have been the #1 game, and probably the #2 and #3 game with licenced products and general 3PP being the other two slots. They were huge for a couple years.
(Until 3.5e really killed that.)But did ICv2 even do top RPG charts then? I don't recall seeing them until the mid-2000s.
I have no problem with including such a grouping, but for data integrity purposes, I'd have preferred them to also produce one for Pathfinder 3PP (I suspect PF1 3PPs would also make at least the top ten and that PF2 3PPs wouldn't). I also think there's a case to be made for grouping "OSRIC publishers"...
I think even grouping OSRIC wouldn't have them hit the Top 10. That's some niche s%&$. Games inspired by systems the average gamer's grandparent is nostalgic for. The audience for Old School Renaissance/ Revival games is very much 40+.
Should they have done it for Pathfinder 3PP? That's a bigger question. I believe so.
But... I think we, as people who visit Paizo.com, might have an inflated opinion on the sales of PF1 3PP.
Pathfinder didn't really pass 4e until 2010. And the market didn't really become aware of this until 2011. And it takes time to make a 3PP. Then 5e came out in 2014. That's just three years. Not much of a window to make notable 3PP. Especially with Paizo's aggressive release schedule that left fewer gaps and provided people with a wealth of content. (To say nothing of the idea of backwards compatibility.) I don't think there was the same sustained and regular sales of 3PP to make ICv2 take notice. In contrast to 5e where 3PP sales have been decent for five plus years and only increasing.
The Pathfinder peak was pre-Print on Demand and largely pre-Kickstarter, so most 3PP were digital. Physical books were rare and limited to the really big 3PP. And there weren't many of those following the 3.5e crash and the 4e surprise (both of which left 3PP with catalogues of material that they couldn't give away), doubly aggravated by the GSL that made 3PPs hard to produce for 4e.
I have three notable physical PF 3PP. Tome of Horrors Complete—which was available in stores—along with Ultimate Psionics and Advanced Bestiary—which I don't believe made it to retail.
And since the last two were late in the edition, they were on KS, so we can see how well the last two really sold:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/197021008/ultimate-psionics-hardcover
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1780208966/advanced-bestiary-for-the-p athfinder-rpg
Both clocked around $50k. Meanwhile, the bar for publication of Kobold Press' latest book is $30k. $50k is just the second minor stretch goal. Meanwhile, I have nine physical 5e 3PP and there's many more I reluctantly passed on as I already had too many.
I think people were still down on 3PP for the Pathfinder era. There was a real negativity to 3PP, especially for class options. Pathfinder, like 3e and 4e, was really heavy into the idea of balance. Things had to be balanced. And people had been burned by unbalanced and broken 3PP content a lot in the 3e era, which made people cautious for many products. People seem to be more casual with 5e, which has a lighter attitude to balance. It's more "eh, close enough." Which encourages people to buy and use 3PP.
I doubt 3PP sales of Pathfinder would have significantly charted on ICv2.
I agree with this. Back in the heyday of 3.0, D&D would have been the #1 game, and probably the #2 and #3 game with licenced products and general 3PP being the other two slots. They were huge for a couple years.
(Until 3.5e really killed that.)
But did ICv2 even do top RPG charts then? I don't recall seeing them until the mid-2000s.
Earliest was Q3 of 2004, at that time some third party content was accounted for but in a very different way. Green Ronin and Mongoose Publishing were both afforded slots in the top 5 for the entire company output at the time, which included both 3.X OGL content and their own product lines. They remain in the top 5 in some form or another until Q1 of 2006 when they are overtaken by Mutants and Masterminds and the release of Exalted 2nd Edition. This is also right around the point in time where the bottom finally dropped out on 3.X OGL materials.
If the D&D 3PP material is riding on the coattails of 5e (and they are!) then it stands to reason that 5e is selling very well. Literally every qualitative and quantitative metric we have points in the same direction and with roughly the same magnitude.
No one is debating that 5e is selling very well. You keep writing statements refuting the arguments against 5e's success that literally no one is making.
What's there to argue?*
Plenty, and none of it related to whether D&D sales really justify it's place in the #1 spot (an argument no one is making.)
Whether it is valuable to the rest of the industry to allow D&D to effectively get two entries in the top 5 best selling games list all to itself.
Whether any individual 3PP product charts at a decently high level on its own or whether it only crests the top 10 by collectivism.
Whether or not every systems 3PP product is given the same treatment.
Whether this is shifting the hobby in a direction where we are now defining D&D as the default version of TTRPG and everything else is an also ran.
Now some people can't take that logical step on faith. <-- Not my problem.
It does become your problem when you use this data as proof of something no one else is arguing against and ascribe to this data historical provenance that doesn't exist.
* What besides pointless posturing, because there's no end to that on the Internet
As evidenced consistently by your own behavior. I acknowledge my own is in response to yours. Do you acknowledge yours at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of repeating myself:
Literally every qualitative and quantitative metric we have points in the same direction and with roughly the same magnitude.In short: They are matching vectors.
In short short: ICv2 data, such as it is, in fact can be used as a metric in determining 5e's overall market penetration.
When there is no countervailing evidence, then it is logical to go in the direction indicated. That's too hard for some people. I understand that. I also understand that the difficulty in logic for some people is emphatically not my problem. As such I need not answer to those who bemoan and wail from the logical shallows those of us who choose to swim deep.
Yes repeat the part about D&D’s market penetration being absolutely proven by... D&D’s market penetration.
No one is arguing this with you on that particular topic. We debate other things that you bring up, but you only respond to this specious argument that no one is making all so you can demonstrate what you learned in class last semester.
The wading pool isn’t as deep as you like to think it is there kiddo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah, you didn't answer. Wanted to make sure you didn't miss it.
So you can't just say if you're still playing the game or not without more context?
Wait, wow... this is starting to get a little freaky!
:DYou'll have to be more detailed in your reference please if I am to reply more than this.
Well yeah, you didn't answer. Wanted to make sure you didn't miss it.
I take that as a no, you can't answer. I'll ask again on the five year mark then.
D&D sales should definitely spike in November, when they are putting out a major rules supplement. But I have no idea whether that spike will last for more than a month or two.
|
|
D&D sales should definitely spike in November, when they are putting out a major rules supplement. But I have no idea whether that spike will last for more than a month or two.
There's already something of a spike as the Tasha's book is in the top 100 of books on Amazon based on preorders and the PHB is in the top 125, with the new adventure (released a week or so ago) still in the top 250.
Not that the PHB has really dropped out of the top 200 for a significant time in the last four years.
Of course, it might spike higher after the November release. D&D always does well after Christmas, as young gamers invest present money to books.