|
Yeah, if you've stopped playing by then, you wouldn't have much reason to hang around here.Well, I don't have much reason now. And based on the average quality of posts I'd say neither do most avatars on these forums.
:D
I suppose I could take that to be a "no I am not playing anymore". Force of habit is as good a reason as any.
Do the opinions of a video game website blogger about Pathfinder 2nd Edition have any bearing on the topic of how many quarters 5e remains on the ICV2?
Indeed, if it's true that, "second edition hasn't had quite the same enthusiastic adoption as its first edition so far".
An industry that doesn’t report sales directly and relies on murky lists derived from calling retailers and asking them “what’s selling?” is somehow also providing market wide data to a guy on a niche news aggregate blog?
Connor's opinion jives with every other source I've found. Blogs, reddit threads, ICv2, etc.
In what way does Connor’s opinion that adoption of PF2 hasn’t been quite as enthusiastic as the adoption of PF1 jibe with the ICv2? The ICv2 provides no sales figures. PF1 premiered on the ICv2 as the number 2 selling game. PF2 premiered on the ICv2 as the number 2 selling game. The lack of any sales data provided means that in terms of that metric - they line up exactly the same.
Speaking of which:
"Magic" and "D&D" in the Time of COVID
So is Scott Thorne PhD blowing #### too?
Or are Scott and Connor reporting things consistent with the market as a whole?
I would cite evidence to the contrary but there is none. Unless you want to count edition war rants, and I don't.
Neither the article you link to, nor the specific quote you pulled reference PF2 or Paizo AT ALL. Sales of D&D being up 20% in Illinois don’t prove anything about the sales of PF2 in Illinois or anywhere else for that matter. Just like the sales of M&M’s say nothing about the sales of Reese’s Pieces.
Connor made a value judgement without providing a basis for it, and Scott spoke to a completely different issue that doesn’t reflect on Connor’s statements or your questions about his statements.
The fact that Scott Thorne has a PhD is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand given that he makes no claims related to PF2
Scott's whole shtick with the column he writes is about the game store business highs/lows, dos/don'ts, trends, etc. He mentions 20% growth for 5e because it's a thing. He doesn't mention pf2 because it's not a thing.
No, he doesn't mention PF2, because it's literally an article about Hasbro. An article about Hasbro that provides zero information about Paizo is situation normal, not some secretive statement about PF2 sales.
As for Connor's opinion, that's exactly my question(s)! Here let me repeat for you:
Is Connor talking smack because he has a thing against PF2?
Or is he talking smack because he has an opinion and no real information?
As for the ICv2 rankings, you ignore the sf bumping pf thrice from the #2 slot. So No the pattern is not identical.
Yes I am specifically ignoring the fact that Starfinder spent three quarters in the number two slot during the end of life for PF1 and the run up to PF2 because:
1. SF came out 9 years into PF1's life cycle
2. PF2 hasn't been on the market for 9 years yet
3. SF has at no point replaced PF2 in the number 2 slot since PF2 came out.
The direct comparison between PF1's first four quarters on the ICv2 and PF2's first four quarters on the ICv2 (the only eight quarters that are directly comparable at this moment in time) are identical. Both games premiered at #2 and both remained there.
Throwing SF into the mix is just muddying the waters. The ICV2 surely has no bearing on Connor's listing of SF on his top 5 instead of PF2 - otherwise he would have included language about the fact that the release of PF2 dropped SF from the top 5 of the ICV2 for two straight quarters before it clawed its way back on.
But when all non-subjective sources (qualitative and quantitative) point in the same direction, consistently, for six years and counting.... well, thinking that the answer is indeed down that path is a most reasonable surmise.
Then by all means provide the non-subjective sources that prove the point the adoption of PF2 is "less enthusiastic" than the adoption of PF1.
Multiple sources have been mentioned from time to time up thread. Online virtual tabletops have 5e way ahead. Various FLGS blogs. Amazon sales. Other more labor intensive investigations people have posted about. Go talk to your local FLGS owner. The answers are all the same.
We're not talking about 5e in this latest exchange we're having, we're talking about the latest unrelated thing you pulled out of the ether which is the idea that adoption of PF2 being less enthusiastic than adoption of PF1.
So, provide the evidence. You brought up that all of these "non subjective sources" point in that direction, cite your sources.
To me the odds of all the imperfect sources pointing the same way for six years and counting being mere coincidence is a leap too ##### ###### to take, so I don't.
You know: Looks like a duck... Quacks like a duck... Walks like a duck... = duck. How hard is that?
How hard is it to keep you from moving the goal post? Apparently very.
No one in this thread is debating with you that D&D is number one. No one ever does. You bring up unrelated topics like comic books, movies, TV shows and when people engage with you on them you immediately pivot back to the dominance of 5e as the leading gameline and paint the other persons argument as being about that inarguable fact.
This time you brought up an unrelated, unprovable argument about PF2's adoption. I engaged with you on that topic.
"Six years and counting" of evidence can't prove the sales comparison between a 10 year old game and one that has only been on the market for one.
Multiple sources have been mentioned from time to time up thread. Online virtual tabletops have 5e way ahead. Various FLGS blogs. Amazon sales. Other more labor intensive investigations people have posted about. Go talk to your local FLGS owner. The answers are all the same.
To me the odds of all the imperfect sources pointing the same way for six years and counting being mere coincidence is a leap too ##### ###### to take, so I don't.
You know: Looks like a duck... Quacks like a duck... Walks like a duck... = duck. How hard is that?
What does ##### ###### mean? Great Shakes? Put on your big boy pants and use your words. Or are you afraid of words? Are you incapable of finding other means to say things than cursing?
Maybe you should ask the PhD guy how to do it since you put so much stake in what a shill for Hasbro has to say.
Do the opinions of a video game website blogger about Pathfinder 2nd Edition have any bearing on the topic of how many quarters 5e remains on the ICV2?Indeed, if it's true that, "second edition hasn't had quite the same enthusiastic adoption as its first edition so far".
You said it relates to the primary topic if it is indeed true. Rather than prove whether or not this statement is actually true you posted an article about Hasbro sales. You then made the argument that Hasbro sales proved no Paizo sales. Then you started again talking about how all the evidence proves that 5e is on top and has been for 6 years.
Just as in those other threads, you're proving once more that your M.O. is refusing to prove your own claims and constantly shifting the goalpost.
Is Connor talking his local/regional experience about PF2?
Or is Connor talking market wide because he's connected and knows what's going on wherever they sell PF2?
I fear it might be the third thing. Pretty sure it's not the first. Could be the second.
It isn't the third thing. The video game blogger isn't the most connected person in the industry with knowledge that isn't provided by known sources.
The fact that you're now saying you "fear" it's because he's connected and not that you "know" he's connected means you don't have evidence about the adoption claim.
Your "engagement" is petty, pedantic and most peculiar for someone who pretends to dialog.
I'm asking you to provide the evidence that proves the point you're trying to make. You never do that, it's not petty to ask you to put your money where your mouth is. It isn't a minor detail to demand that you provide the evidence that you say exists but tell everyone to seek out on their own, and it surely isn't peculiar because in every forum you post in someone asks you to provide your evidence.
Wut?
It's simple. No "wut" required. Use your words, not octothorps.
Most recently I cited two links. What more do you want?
You to understand that posting one guys unprovable opinion with "could it be true?" and following that up with a completely unconnected argument about third quarter sales for one and only one company do not in any way connect with each other, let alone your primary argument in this thread.
I quoted Connor precisely because I want to know if that's true. You dismiss him because he blogs about video games.
I dismiss him because based on all of the information we exchange in this thread I am as equally as aware as you are of how unlikely it is that a blogger has the information that NO ONE ELSE HAS. It is slim to none that he has access to what the ICv2 doesn't have.
So ### ####### what? He makes a living at it and apparently knows more than you on topic.
You have no idea whether he knows more than me or not. You're just assuming that because he's just as in the tank for D&D as you are that anything he says must be taken as proof of D&D's dominance. A thing, since you keep failing to notice, NO ONE IS AGAINST.
And since you admit you have fewer credentials than Connor (like NONE) maybe you could check out of the discussion until you have something relevant to add.
You haven't added anything relevant to this discussion EVER. This little "check out of my conversation" tirade doesn't change the fact that you can't prove the things you claim.
You just talk to hear yourself talk.
How hard is that?
About as hard as you acting like a human being.
Wut?Wut?It's simple. No "wut" required. Use your words, not octothorps.
Sphincter says Wut?^
If by "in the tank for D&D" you mean the sole purchase of the 5e Eberron campaign book for my cousin's game, then yeah I guess I'm there. Of course that handily ignores my purchase of the various Land of Eternal Winter products and the single volume Rise of the Runelords reissue for my own game.
That's very little engagement for someone as invested in 5e's success as you are.
Yet you respond every ###### ##### time. And you claim there's something wrong with me.
Yes I respond every time you make some unproven claim. Every time I encourage you to provide evidence for your claim. You refuse, like always, because it doesn't matter if you're right or not. You just need to appear to have better opinions than everyone else.
You insult anyone who tries to engage with the topic on honest terms, because using insults to piss the other person off and unbalance their argument is the only way you win.
Using the other thread where this exact conversation is happening - calling the people providing evidence and asking you do the same "lack wits" is all you have in your arsenal.
Whatever it is that makes you behave this way, see someone for it. You'll feel better.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Connor talking smack because he has a thing against PF2?
Logically, for an article like that you don't want too much genre overlap. Gamers play RPGs to tell stories. The stories you tell in Pathfinder aren't significantly different compared to the stories you'd tell in 5e. So PF inherently loses out to Starfinder, which has very different stories.
Is Connor talking his local/regional experience about PF2?
Or is Connor talking market wide because he's connected and knows what's going on wherever they sell PF2?
Probably both. It's his job to be informed and track trends.
Saying Pathfinder 2 hasn't had the "same enthusiastic adoption" isn't talking smack, it's just reporting what's pretty well known online: PF2 has been divisive. <100% of PF1 players converted and bringing in new players is hard when competing against 5e. Quite a few people are still playing PF1, as seen by Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds numbers as well as ICv2 lumping sales.
Paizo staff themselves have commented on this, saying they're not worried as people are still finishing that "final campaign" or are waiting for PF2 to have enough options and content to satisfy them.
Whether or not PF2 is as successful as PF1 was at this point in it's lifespan in total sales or the total number of players is unknown, but it feels far less successful because it's so much less successful than 5e. And it not only needs to compete with the 500 lbs gorilla that is 5e, but itself and the vast libraries of PF1 books people already own.
This alone makes PF2 feel less noteworthy, as it's not as competitive as PF1 was with 4e.
But that comparison is false as PF1's success had to do as much with the people stopping playing 4e and RPGs in general. The entire market shrank significantly. For every person who switched from 4e to PF there was someone who just went back to 3e or left gaming altogether. You can see that in how much the TTRPG market surged between 2013 and 2015.
Now the market is growing radically. Rising for six years, with the vast majority of those sales being D&D. So even if PF was maintaining its numbers or its previous growth, it'd comparatively seem to be shrinking compared to the near-exponential growth of 5e.
I'm not invested in 5e per se, I'm interested in what it takes to run a successful FLGS and how to prognosticate 5e sales is no small part of that.
Marginally invested people don't rush to the forum to announce the latest crossover with a comic brand, or a TV series, or compare the RPG to the deck building game.
Marginally invested people don't keep a thread alive for years after its useful life.
So you're either invested in it (which is fine) or you're just posting the things that agree with your opinion to validate your opinion (which is also fine.)
You do not have to run rough shod over the thread as if your opinion is the only opinion. You do not have to demand anyone who disagrees with you provide evidence but treat doing the same as an affront to your very being. These are choices that you keep making.
You don't have to keep making that choice, you can do better. We all can.
So lead the way.
Somehow I doubt you're capable. Here's your chance to objectively prove me wrong, for once.
:D
And what exactly do I have to do to improve relations here?
:D
I, and others, have stated the behavior of yours that we find condescending and in bad faith. The only complaints you've registered are that I reply to your posts. So, I was legitimately asking what behavior of mine I could alter that would make YOU feel more amenable to communicate like a grown up.
Instead you do what you always do.
Clearly, you will continue to post like a teenager mid-tantrum. Didn't even make it one post.
\
As if pauljathome, Jester David, Mark Hoover, and occasionally thejeff and one or two others haven't given many instances of model adult behavior to emulate*.* I say "emulate" because even if you post similarly you've advertised clearly that you don't internalize the attitude but maybe if you pretend enough times you'll grow into it.
Ok kiddo... so you like the way you're treated online and you behave this way because you think it's fun.
Cool.
Good luck with that.
Even the biggest trolls at least have basic decency.
...
Even the biggest trolls at least have basic decency.
You're welcome to believe any fiction about yourself that you care to.
Here and on the other thread I'll stick to the respective OP topic, at least for the rest of the week.
So no flights of fancy about television shows, video games, other companies products or comic books?
What a novel approach.
|
|
And what exactly do I have to do to improve relations here?So lead the way.
Somehow I doubt you're capable. Here's your chance to objectively prove me wrong, for once.
:D
Actually engage in the discussion and offer commentary that advances the conversation rather than just demanding more citations or additional evidence, which brings the discussion to a halt.
It's not unlike being in a Monty Python sketch.
And what exactly do I have to do to improve relations here?So lead the way.
Somehow I doubt you're capable. Here's your chance to objectively prove me wrong, for once.
:D
Actually engage in the discussion and offer commentary that advances the conversation rather than just demanding more citations or additional evidence, which brings the discussion to a halt.
It's not unlike being in a Monty Python sketch.
I engage in the discussion and advance the conversation plenty. What I do not do is stipulate that whatever he says is all we discuss and anything he says must be directly agreed to as the premise of the thread. When his statements are unsubstantiated I ask for evidence, and he makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims. A lot of straw grasping like his “this article exclusively about Hasbro sales says D&D sales are up 20% so that other article that claims Pathfinder 2 isn’t taking off as well as PF1 did must be right.” That kind of “a must prove h because I say so” logic 1. isn’t on topic for the thread and 2. is an unproven tangent presented as if it proves something. When he goes on those tangents the other posters are idiots for not following along or simply not as informed as him. In threads where other people get off his topic by even a hair he loses his lid. I am not the first person, nor the last to level these charges against him.
His behavior in this thread of shutting down anyone who challenges him has led to three lock and deletes that I’ve witnessed - one I was involved in.
Him being less of a standoffish clown who actively attacks people who don’t agree with him is not my responsibility, it’s his. When he says things that are outright wrong or utterly illogical I’m well within my rights to ask him to clarify.
Fun side note, this is more engagement than you would get from him if you interjected into this debate with an opinion about his behavior. He’d post a one sentence snarkiest that impugned your intelligence followed by calling you out for “butting in.”