|
IIRC it hit #1 briefly when pre-orders went live. Which isn't that surprising.
But #8 now a few months later when the majority of people who were going to order on Amazon already had done so? That's a nice feat.
Also adds to the pile of circumstantial evidence I've seen in various places about how great 5e is doing with PF2E not even close.
Also adds to the pile of circumstantial evidence I've seen in various places about how great 5e is doing with PF2E not even close.
I think at this point you have to assume the position that D&D is far and away number one, and judge games like PF2E against the other leading games that aren't D&D and against their past performance of older editions where applicable to get a clearer indication of how well those games are doing.
I don't think we exist alongside the same type of market for the hobby that many of us grew used to. 5e's sales dominance has been largely unquestionable for years, to the point where it seems we are no longer talking about a market where a strong competitor can sweep in and steal the #1 sales slot for a while.
This market has less in common with the late nineties - and aught where you had a handful of truly standout brands that were within stones-throws of each other sales wise. The market of today has far more in common with the late 80's - early 90's iteration of the hobby where 2e D&D was the clear top slot no matter what and the rest of the publishers were just vying for #2 because that was the best they could possibly do.
I'm obviously not saying we'll never again see another Exalted or Pathfinder that unseats the giant for a hot minute, but D&D's Juggernaut status is based on far more than just circumstantial evidence at this point. Their sales would have to decline alongside something else being a truly exceptional selling product for it to happen again anytime soon.
Yeah, I don’t think PF has ever been in D&Ds league. Paizo and WotC have very different sales goals.
Certainly not since D&D took the top slot back from PF1, though I would love to have real sales data to accurately cross compare PF1 and PF2 sales. It would be interesting to see if there is indeed drop off from PF1's sales in year one, or if the rising tide of D&D even lifted the Paizo boat a little
Like this older and more niche product at #11,078 in Books with the PF2 CRB at #12,088 in Books. But as has been said, what the circumstances don't tell us is how well PF2 is doing vs PF1.
There is a lot the numbers don’t tell us, first being what the drop off was that landed the CRB where it is now. I’m digging to find PF2 CRB’s High Point on the list to compare where it charted closer to release, but haven’t found it yet.
The other thing that deserves a second look later down the line is how long Tasha’s sticks around. Some D&D products like Xanathars charted in the top 100 or so initially and have been sitting steadily somewhere in the 400’s ever since while others like Explorers Guide to Wildemount cracked the list in the top 100 and are now down at like 1500 after 8 months.
Tasha’s represents a slight retooling of the mechanics that might be fundamental enough that people end up treating it as sort of a 5.5 or “Revised and Expanded” which might give it a longer shelf life similar to the PHB/DMG/MM or Xanathars, or it could have a huge initial spike and fall a little faster like Volo’s.
Like this older and more niche product at #11,078 in Books with the PF2 CRB at #12,088 in Books. But as has been said, what the circumstances don't tell us is how well PF2 is doing vs PF1.There is a lot the numbers don’t tell us, first being what the drop off was that landed the CRB where it is now. I’m digging to find PF2 CRB’s High Point on the list to compare where it charted closer to release, but haven’t found it yet...You mean this?
Yes he <Erik Mona> posted that RIGHT after the release (24 days ago), when sales spiked to top 50 in all book sales. ** spoiler omitted **Or you can play around with this tool here until your heart's content.
Thanks, blind googling had found neither as of last night and I remembered Mona's comments but not the exact number.
Cracking the top 50 in all books at time of release is a nice starting point, and scrolling backward from the point you linked to in the Enworld article you can chart it's drop across September, October and into November.
One could chart the dropoff of Tasha's in real time should they choose to, and that would tell us a lot more than simply seeing where the CRB is today vs where TCE is today.
Though one could also argue that Tashas is more comparable to the APG, which would make it far and away the best selling expanded player/GM options supplement. Besting both APG's and Xanathars in terms of initial sales.
In terms of sales volume as opposed to relative ranking, I’ve always treated staff numbers at Paizo as a decent proxy (albeit lagged) for their overall revenue. Historically, they haven’t liked hiring without decent prospects for ongoing employment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two days later and it has dropped out of the top 10
You mean 8 days later. It's been available since the 17th on that platform.
It had been two days since your update that it was still comfortably in the top ten.
Yeah, it's been bouncing around below 50 all month.Two days later and it has dropped out of the top 10Back at No.3 as of now. Being beaten by Matthew McConaughey's autobiography and Barack Obama's autobiography. 111 in Amazon UK, and I think it's fair to say that no RPG is likely to make Top-10 place in the UK.
Down to #36 as of now.
Our local store has a ton of them, they don't really seem to selling though, or any 5e stuff for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It fell to the 90’s before it was listed as being out of stock. I’m seeing a mixed bag reaction to it, a lot of players are enjoying the expanded class options - but some DM’s are saying it is lackluster as the “rules expansion” it was billed as.
Jim and Pruitt of the WebDM Podcast/Vodcast were very critical of both Tasha’s itself and the statement it makes about where 5e stands 6 years after release. They are both usually reserved cheerleaders for WOTC product.
After the unanimous praise for Wildemount and Frostmaiden this seems like a bit of a stumble at least as far as the YouTube D&D community is concerned. Couple that with the DragonLance lawsuit and the circling rumors that Hasbro is looking to sell WOTC and it seems like the outlook is not quite as rosy as many of us had thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
link to the rumors ?
Here you go.
|
Jim and Pruitt of the WebDM Podcast/Vodcast were very critical of both Tasha’s itself and the statement it makes about where 5e stands 6 years after release. They are both usually reserved cheerleaders for WOTC product.
Well, it has 1,764 reviews on Amazon.com and 84% give it 5-stars, with only 4% rating it 2 or less. And it has a similarly high rating on Goodreads.
So the opinion of most fans does seem to be overwhelmingly positive.Personally, I found it lackluster. And I wish they'd do more rules modules and variant rules. More focused and comprehensive books rather than the smattering of rando content.
But the audience of D&D has really changed to "new DMs and players" over the last 2-3 years, so it makes sense this would still focus on inexperienced newcomers. Making me not the target audience.
Couple that with the DragonLance lawsuit and the circling rumors that Hasbro is looking to sell WOTC and it seems like the outlook is not quite as rosy as many of us had thought.
I'm rather surprised by you dirtypool. That blog was full of the kind of baseless speculation you would have blasted anyone here for writing.
I wouldn't put much stock in that rumour, as it's 110% speculation based on the thoughts of a single blogger without even the attempt at "anonymous insider knowledge." The sole "evidence" is the lawsuits related to D&D, which is very much NOT the primary product of Wizards of the Coast.
(MtG does better in a single quarter than D&D does in an entire year, and during the 3e and 4e error, D&D was basically a rounding error on WotC's books. There are probably more marketing people working at WotC than on the D&D team.)
The Dragonlance lawsuits are dubious as evidence of anything. It's unfortunate for the authors their book was cancelled (again... as a similar thing happened during 4e) but their argument for the novels being cancelled was basically "go woke, get broke," blaming the demand for rewrites and the fans asking for diversity. Rather than the more likely scenario that the D&D novels just weren't selling as they cancelled the Dragonlance novels a month after the latest Drizzt book dropped to a resounding absence of hype.
Fantasy tie-in novels are just less of a thing. There's too much GOOD fantasy fiction for adults and youths already, as that is a much larger market than the mid-80s when the novels wee huge. And if people want to engage in a D&D narrative at home, they'll watch an actual play show.
The Gale Force 9 lawsuits have more substance, as it sounds like WotC is upset with the companies GF9 partnered with to do translations. A few are notoriously bad and have garnered complaints, which end up aimed at WotC rather than the people they partnered with. So WotC is holding other products hostage.
But none of this really serves as real evidence Hasbro is seeking to offload WotC. Because WotC is and always has been the MtG company. MtG is helping keep the games line in the black, as Hasbro had a few bad years with those lines. And Hasbro doesn't sell IP. It just shelves it in case it can be ressurected some day. They're never going to sell WotC and lose the potential of MtG and D&D movies or TV shows. Not going to happen.
They're much more likely to just close WotC, move the staff in-house, and make it a separate internal division. And license out smaller brands like D&D.
Well, it has 1,764 reviews on Amazon.com and 84% give it 5-stars, with only 4% rating it 2 or less. And it has a similarly high rating on Goodreads.
So the opinion of most fans does seem to be overwhelmingly positive.
Are 1,764 fans enough to be considered "most fans?" I was clear in my original post to say that the mixed reviews are coming from the D&D vlogger community on YouTube, I was not referring to any sort of monolithic group of fans.
I'm rather surprised by you dirtypool. That blog was full of the kind of baseless speculation you would have blasted anyone here for writing.
I have been called uncharitable things for challenging those kinds of assertions, so I am engaging with the conversation using the same sources other posters have used again and again.
This is the same source that is used repeatedly by other posters in this thread to support their argument about the evergreen success of the product. Either the blogger in question knows enough about the industry as a whole for his speculation about the sale of the company to be considered valid for discussion in this thread, or he is less knowledgable and has no basis to make the kind of conclusions he drew about the success and global domination of the game and those speculative blogs are not to be considered valid for discussion in this thread.
|
|
Are 1,764 fans enough to be considered "most fans?" I was clear in my original post to say that the mixed reviews are coming from the D&D vlogger community on YouTube, I was not referring to any sort of monolithic group of fans.Well, it has 1,764 reviews on Amazon.com and 84% give it 5-stars, with only 4% rating it 2 or less. And it has a similarly high rating on Goodreads.
So the opinion of most fans does seem to be overwhelmingly positive.
Are 1,764 fans enough to be considered most fans? No. But it's certainly more likely to be representational than a single review by two vloggers. One is a single data point, while the other is almost 2000, with the overwhelming majority being positive.
I've seen a few vocal complaints regarding Tasha's on Facebook and forums, but it's always key to remember to compare the signal to the noise. A vocal minority can very easily make it seem like a product is unpopular, when the silent majority is quietly happy with the product.
I'm rather surprised by you dirtypool. That blog was full of the kind of baseless speculation you would have blasted anyone here for writing.I have been called uncharitable things for challenging those kinds of assertions, so I am engaging with the conversation using the same sources other posters have used again and again.
This is the same source that is used repeatedly by other posters in this thread to support their argument about the evergreen success of the product. Either the blogger in question knows enough about the industry as a whole for his speculation about the sale of the company to be considered valid for discussion in this thread, or he is less knowledgable and has no basis to make the kind of conclusions he drew about the success and global domination of the game and those speculative blogs are not to be considered valid for discussion in this thread.
Except it's not the same source.
It's the same website. ICv2. But that article was speculative column written by Scott Thorne opposed to reports on the top games by ICv2 and Milton Griepp.
As shown by the disclaimer at the end: "The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com"
Now, Scott Thorne is a knowledgeable source and the *information* he provides is generally reliable, being based on sales at his store and firsthand knowledge. And in this case, the facts he's presenting are not in question. But in this instance his conclusions are dubious, highly speculative, and deeply flawed.
My survey of YouTube vloggers differed markedly from yours.
Really? Present yours then. I referenced one, I saw others and almost all come down on the side of it being great from a player perspective and less so from a DM's perspective.
Relevant quote from the article in question:
The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.
That exact relevant quote has appeared in every instance of his blog that you've spammed onto this thread as well. The caveat being irrelevant when it's you posting but somehow relevant when I post -- there's a word for that.
When ICv2 writes concerning the OP topic they do so as an 'industry insider' with many varied connections to the business at all levels. It is a considered opinion based on those relationships and actual market analysis.
How about when it's about specific covid related sales in HIS store, or about his view of D&D comic books. Not important to make any distinctions in those instances eh? Guess the only difference is if you're posting it to prove your opinions then it's A-Ok.
Thus not at all in the same league as Scott Thorne's patently idle speculations
Haven't stopped YOU from reposting him in the past.
SO what is it QB? I demand facts and don't engaged in your wild speculation I need to be corrected for not engaging right. I engage in wild speculation using the SAME source you do and I need to be corrected for not engaging right. So what do I have to do to please you oh high archon of the D&D fluff squad?
Are 1,764 fans enough to be considered most fans? No. But it's certainly more likely to be representational than a single review by two vloggers. One is a single data point, while the other is almost 2000, with the overwhelming majority being positive.
If 3764 fans are an overwhelming majority, then 5e hasn't nearly expanded the TTRPG player base as much as people have bloviated in this thread
I've seen a few vocal complaints regarding Tasha's on Facebook and forums, but it's always key to remember to compare the signal to the noise. A vocal minority can very easily make it seem like a product is unpopular, when the silent majority is quietly happy with the product.
Except it's not the same source....
Except that it is because QB links to Scott Thorne multiple times in this thread when he goes on his wildly speculative side discussions about COVID's market effects, or movie adaptations, or comic adaptations.
You have literally replied to my replies to QB that include Thornes blog.
Are there different rules in this thread for you and QB? Are you the owners of this thread and I'm just having badwrongfun by trying to engage with you on the terms that you said I wasn't engaging before?
Well... yeah. Speculation is literally the point of this thread.
So taking an article about speculation in a thread where "Speculation is literally the point of this thread" is bad form?
The difference is Scott Thorne talking about what he knows (FLGS and running a relatively small business) and speculating about what other people (whom he doesn't know at all) might be thinking of doing with their conglomerate.Capiche?
Owning an FLGS and running a relatively small business was enough for you to throw down his speculation about the effect of COVID-19 on THE ENTIRE GAMING INDUSTRY.
If he's expert enough to be believed on that broad a topic then by god he's expert enough on this. In fact his role teaching business and marketing is more applicable to speculating on Hasbro's business practices than it is to his speculation on the extent to which the publishing industry will shift toward digital materials post pandemic. He has a specific knowledge related to one speculative arm, and a generalists knowledge related to the other.
Or are you saying that a source is only worth using if they support your specific argument about how great and wonderful D&D is, but is utter hokum if it suggests otherwise in any way? Which, by the way, the sale of Wizards would not in any way suggest that D&D is not successful - just that Hasbro has alternate plans.
That typical way you have of applying one set of rules to yourself in a thread debate, and a different one for the person you're talking to is flat out hypocritical.
Capisce?
Well... yeah. Speculation is literally the point of this thread.So taking an article about speculation in a thread where "Speculation is literally the point of this thread" is bad form?The difference is Scott Thorne (Scott Thorne, PhD, owner of Castle Perilous Games & Books in Carbondale, Illinois and instructor in marketing at Southeast Missouri State University.) talking about what he knows (teaching business, and running a relatively small FLGS) and speculating about what other people (whom he doesn't know at all) might be thinking of doing with their conglomerate.
It's like the difference between spinning tales and writing history. Nothing wrong with either but you oughtn't confuse the two pursuits.
Wasn't asking you. You didn't say speculation is literally the point of the thread. Jester David did. And if speculation, of which Scott Thorne's article is filled, isn't the point of this thread it doesn't need to continue at all.
Scott Thorne is a business professor. It is literally his job as an academic professional to understand the effect of the Coronavirus on the gaming industry.
No, it is literally not his job to understand the effect of the coronavirus on the gaming industry. Coronavirus and Gaming Industry are extracurriculars. Let us however go without your view though that it is "literally his job." His job is to teach business. Hasbro is a business. WotC is a subsidiary imprint business. Businesses sell imprint businesses all the time. How is his speculation about the Coronavirus effect on the publishing industry (of which he is not a professional member) more germane to his job than his speculation about a business divesting itself of an imprint?
Is it that you like one of his speculative blogs, but dislike the other?
Caskjr?
I'm not familiar enough with that one to know if I need to correct your spelling of it like I did the last one
I'd gander at a guess that it has something to do with parsing the difference of speculation from data and mere speculation.
You think that's the difference? Which do you do, in your reckoning?
I think more to the point it's that you're only allowed to speculate when you agree with JD and QB.
Fixed it for you.
Shame it's too late to go back and fix the version you spelled wrong in both English and Italian.
Wasn't asking you. You didn't say speculation is literally the point of the thread. Jester David did. And if speculation, of which Scott Thorne's article is filled, isn't the point of this thread it doesn't need to continue at all.Well... yeah. Speculation is literally the point of this thread.So taking an article about speculation in a thread where "Speculation is literally the point of this thread" is bad form?The difference is Scott Thorne (Scott Thorne, PhD, owner of Castle Perilous Games & Books in Carbondale, Illinois and instructor in marketing at Southeast Missouri State University.) talking about what he knows (teaching business, and running a relatively small FLGS) and speculating about what other people (whom he doesn't know at all) might be thinking of doing with their conglomerate.
It's like the difference between spinning tales and writing history. Nothing wrong with either but you oughtn't confuse the two pursuits.
Well now you are!
:DI'll let JD answer for himself (his posts are funner to read than mine anyway), but I'd gander at a guess that it has something to do with parsing the difference of speculation from data and mere speculation.
Still not asking you, how did that change?
All this thread is for is QB posting things they agree with to crow about WotC leading Paizo in sales. Like that’s a surprise.
Totally agree with you