D&D 4E Sales Figures Debate

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:58 am

MGuy wrote:
CaptPike wrote:
MGuy wrote:OK, lets look at Data that exists that is comparable. 4E and PF came out at about the same time. Which are people still playing?
no idea, neither you or I have any way of getting useful information on this, at least from the 4e side.

there IS NO WAY of knowing how many people play 4e now, none. the closest would be DDI or something like maptools. but there is no way to translating that into something we can use.
good luck finding out how many people playing 4e one DDI account equals, or how common an online game of 4e is compared to sit down ones. and that is if you can find a way to get that kind of data out of a site like maptools.
You are right. There is no way I can possibly know each and every game of 4E going on right now. Thing is though, I don't need to know the exact number. Here's what I do know. 4E is dead as far as the company who made it goes. 4E isn't even talked about by the company when they make comparisons on how well they are selling 5E. 4E isn't even talked about as a contender in articles talking about 5E's current success. 4E was so unsuccessful in making fans that PF, a bunch of house rules based on 3E, was able to become the number one rpg. Like seriously the rivalry is between 3E and pals vs 5E. 4E isn't even a consideration. 4E is dead, defeated, it turns out that all the fanboy denial made no difference.

your falling into a common fallacy, your assuming that just because someone does something for a living he is making perfect decisions. they may not be saying that 4e is not a real contender, that DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PERFECT AND THEY PROVIDED NO USEFUL DATA FOR US TO USE. why do you think I would care what some stranger thinks? I do not. I care about facts and logic nothing less will make me change my mind.

even if they are true it is quite possible that the number of 4e players is large, but is not a reasonable target for new RPG books. after all if you love 4e for what it does that pathfinder and 5e fall so short then you would never consider buying them. it would be like trading a modern fighter jet for a biplane, it does the same basic thing but worse in every way.

and of couse you are "forgetting" that 4e was only passed by pathfinder AFTER they stopped making books for it, sure pathfinder won, but only after 4e stopped trying and started making essentials. wooooo that was such a victory.

momothefiddler wrote:
Orca wrote:to the amount of 4e vs. PF on the shelves at your local game store.
I don't often go to game stores because they're pretty far away but last week I did and I took note of the comparative shelf space.

Dark Heresy (not even all the WH40k shit) had roughly equal shelf space with D&D total. More than half of D&D's space was 3.5, the rest was 5e, and there was no 4e whatsoever. PF had more space than any of the previously mentioned games.

It was pretty sad.

(To be fair, 5e also had a few box sets up above the shelf, but I feel I'm not alone in arguing that those don't really count for anything but display and even if they get counted in full it brings 5e up to about even with PF.)

Edit: yes, I know this is anecdotal. It was just something that struck me and was relevant to Orca's comment.

why would you think this matter to anyone? it is not useful it is a waste of space

FrankTrollman wrote:
souran wrote:CaptPike is correct that any view of 4E sales that doesn't include sales of monthly subscription is vastly underestimating 4Es sales.
So what? Paizo also has subscription sales. Paizo subscriptions cost more than DDI does. Going all Phoenix Wright and shouting "Objection!" just because 4e has some unknown amount of revenue from subscriptions doesn't indicate that 4e is or was beating Pathfailure. Pathfailure also has subscription sales, and neither company publicizes those numbers.

-Username17

it means sales numbers are close to worthless in anything but extreme cases, saying that 3e sold twice as much as 4e means nothing whatsoever becuase 4e could have made it up with online stuff.

name_here wrote:Honestly, I seriously doubt that 4e was a commercial success or they wouldn't have let there be a gap. There was a period where they decided they'd rather have no DnD products than more 4e products. That doesn't necessarily mean it lost money, though. For businesses, a product is a failure if it makes less money than a safe alternative option like sticking the cost into a savings account for a similar time period, and Hasbro has a fairly large number of properties stable enough to count on a consistent return from.

the problem was they poisoned the waters, if they had stuck with setting books, power books, and stuff like that they could have gone on for a long time but they starting publishing essentials, which was not useful to their target audience, and which only got worse in quality as time went on.

past a certain point they HAD to make a new edition because the people who played 4e did not want the new stuff they were making.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:16 am

This is practically shadzarian. You've taken a position (4E is not dead) with little to no data to back it up, and then when people present you with data that supports the opposite position, you claim that that data is meaningless... because it's incomplete? That the company in the best position to evaluate and monetize 4E may not have perfect knowledge of its own product line?

What your argument boils down to, in my reading of it, is "You can't definitively prove me wrong, so I'm right." At best, this is a fallacious argument. At worst, it's pants-on-head stupid.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:37 am

Gnorman wrote:This is practically shadzarian. You've taken a position (4E is not dead) with little to no data to back it up, and then when people present you with data that supports the opposite position, you claim that that data is meaningless... because it's incomplete? That the company in the best position to evaluate and monetize 4E may not have perfect knowledge of its own product line?

What your argument boils down to, in my reading of it, is "You can't definitively prove me wrong, so I'm right." At best, this is a fallacious argument. At worst, it's pants-on-head stupid.

no its "from the limited data I have seen I believe that 4e was very popular and successful by any reasonable standard" and I have not been shown any data otherwise.

what you have shown me is incomplete to the point of uselessness. there is no difference between having 99% of the data you need to form a conclusion and having 1%. In either case you can not form a conclusion worth having.

and again I trust data I do not trust people I do not know. Wotc may have done the right thing, they may not we have no way to know. why do you trust them that much? you assume they only made the best decisions and that they had perfect data to work from. they could have made a mistake, they could have done it for political reasons, the person who made it could have done it because it would have some short term benefit for himself, it could have been done out of spite. WE DO NOT KNOW AND WILL NEVER KNOW. that is why I do not trust it and I have no idea why you do.

As to the number of players playing 4e now...we have no way of knowing it could just be me and the people I personaly know or it could be one person for every PHB ever sold plus one for every PDF downloaded. we do not know and can never know. saying "4e is dead" as in has no or very few players left is just you pulling something out of your ass with no basis in reality.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:49 am

All reasoning is extrapolation from (limited) data. We may not be able to know with perfect clarity how many people play 4E, but I think that we can reasonably conclude, from the data that we DO have, that it isn't likely to be a very large number. I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not that means it's "dead." If it makes you happy (and silent), I'm perfectly content to say that it's "alive, but mostly irrelevant."

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:55 am

Gnorman wrote:All reasoning is extrapolation from (limited) data. We may not be able to know with perfect clarity how many people play 4E, but I think that we can reasonably conclude, from the data that we DO have, that it isn't likely to be a very large number. I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not that means it's "dead." If it makes you happy (and silent), I'm perfectly content to say that it's "alive, but mostly irrelevant."

true but you need enough, right now we have NONE. and I refuse to form a conclusion from insufficient data simply because that is all I have.

its just that many people did not like 4e, want to feel justified that THEIR system is better, so they stop using logic and reason and start using feelings.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:57 am

CaptPike wrote:WHEN PATHFINDER AND 4E WERE IN DIRECT COMPETITION, 4E WAS WAY AHEAD ON BEST SELLER LISTS. I do not CARE

Your standards of evidence about successful product lines is that if one totally tanks and is beaten to actual death by it's competitor... that if it ever outsold that competitor anywhere ever for even a moment... it won?

Well. Good to know what your opinion is worth then hey?

I mean we could go into detail on just how incredibly bullshit your standards are there... but I don't think it is even necessary, I could and should probably just have directly quoted your full text and stamped fucking mocking smilies all over it as the only content I added.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:02 am

As you said earlier in this thread, popular does not equal good. Are you trying to say that you're defending 4E as being "better" because it outsold Pathfinder at the time? And even if 4E was the tour de force that you seem to think it is, it's not "feelings" to say that it was poorly-designed.

Really, it's just a "pick your poison" scenario. Do you want everyone to be "balanced," but the fundamental mechanics of the game don't even work properly and everything feels like a slog? Or do you want good ol' Caster Edition, with some extra toys added in because Fuck Fighters even though we said we were going to do the exact opposite. Pathfinder converts either (a) were too ignorant or distracted by nice art to see that Paizo never actually "fixed anything, or (b) realized it, but went along because at least it's an evil they knew and/or the only way they could continue to play the game with their group.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:36 am

Gnorman wrote:As you said earlier in this thread, popular does not equal good. Are you trying to say that you're defending 4E as being "better" because it outsold Pathfinder at the time? And even if 4E was the tour de force that you seem to think it is, it's not "feelings" to say that it was poorly-designed.

Really, it's just a "pick your poison" scenario. Do you want everyone to be "balanced," but the fundamental mechanics of the game don't even work properly and everything feels like a slog? Or do you want good ol' Caster Edition, with some extra toys added in because Fuck Fighters even though we said we were going to do the exact opposite. Pathfinder converts either (a) were too ignorant or distracted by nice art to see that Paizo never actually "fixed anything, or (b) realized it, but went along because at least it's an evil they knew and/or the only way they could continue to play the game with their group.

I have different points, 1) 4e was very successful. 2) it was very popular, and I think, but can not know, still popular today. related but not the same

a game with non-functional mechanics is not balanced because you have no accurate yardstick to use to know if it is balanced. if the hp/healing system does not work how can you know if a classes damage if working?

there is no reason you can not have a game that is balanced, where classes feel different and it just works. 4e did it after all. Classes are much different in 4e then 3e after all, they get their own powers, and can all participate. was 4e perfect? no, but it accomplished the goals of D&D better then 3e did.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:52 am

Captain Pike, any definition of "very successful" that includes 4th edition D&D, a game so unsuccessful that the company that made it does not support it any more and also does not even mention it as a point of comparison when discussing things they are trying to paint as successful or promising, is a useless definition. I am not saying you can't like 4e. There are a number of people who do. It's just that that number is very definitely an order of magnitude or two smaller than the number of people who like the previous edition of the same game. Very definitely. With court documents and everything.

If you cannot or will not accept that fact, you are destined to be a laughingstock. Just like TitaniumDragon, and for the same reason. You are being comically unreasonable, and we're going to stop trying to engage with you as a thinking human. You have failed the Fanboy Turing test.

-Username17

karpik777 · Post by **karpik777** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:30 am

CaptPike wrote:I have different points, 1) 4e was very successful. 2) it was very popular, and I think, but can not know, still popular today. related but not the same

And the solid evidence for those points is what? You claim everything mentioned here is "insufficient data", so what sufficient data do you have to claim the success of 4e? What data do you have to claim that the edition went down the drain because someone made the wrong choice and decided to launch Essentials and it wasn't a case of the game doing poorly?

karpik777 · Post by **karpik777** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:51 am

CaptPike wrote:while misleading that is true. but of course I only accept data that is both useful and correct.

A pity you didn't show any useful and correct data for your argument, since something like Amazon's top 10 or anything else along those lines is completely useless.

I will say it again WHEN PATHFINDER AND 4E WERE IN DIRECT COMPETITION, 4E WAS WAY AHEAD ON BEST SELLER LISTS. I do not CARE how much 3e sold ten years before, that does not matter,

It does matter. If you go from milions to hundreds of thousands copies sold, that's a fucking huge drop. 4E would win with just about anything - at least short term - simply due to the fact that it was the next instalment of the biggest RPG printed, one that dominated the market for years.

Irish · Post by **Irish** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:20 am

I'm... pretty sure this guy is a troll, guys.

It's either that or he's the most desperate 4th edition fanboy the world has ever known, to come to this forum of all places and spout this nonsense and expect anybody here to back what he's saying.

... On second thought, I really think he's a troll. Nobody is that stupid.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:25 am

Irish wrote:I'm... pretty sure this guy is a troll, guys.

It's either that or he's the most desperate 4th edition fanboy the world has ever known, to come to this forum of all places and spout this nonsense and expect anybody here to back what he's saying.

... On second thought, I really think he's a troll. Nobody is that stupid.

So, a little ways down the page, you'll see a thread called "Minor game stuff from around the web for commentary...". Read the first 30 pages. That should cure you of that pesky faith in humanity.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:15 am

Yeah, I don't know if he's just stupid, or a troll and stupid. If he cannot post a link to his evidence that 4e was very successful and very popular then I'm done not ignoring him.

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:25 pm

CaptPike wrote: I will say it again WHEN PATHFINDER AND 4E WERE IN DIRECT COMPETITION, 4E WAS WAY AHEAD ON BEST SELLER LISTS. I do not CARE how much 3e sold ten years before, that does not matter, I do not care that after that time when 4e had no new books out pathfinder sold more. at that point how much 4e sold stopped being able to provide any useful data to how many people were playing it.

Is this what you're after? Because we totally do have numbers on that:

In the second half of 2014, the Orr Group - the people who run Roll20 - began making quarterly reports on the number of active games during the quarter (and players, but because players will all be counted multiple times, that's not a terribly accurate measurement of anything).

Here are the Top 4 listings for the past three quarters (the only ones we have data on)-

Q3 2014:

Pathfinder, 26.83% of games
D&D 3.5, 17.87% of games
D&D 5e (which was barely released in this quarter), 12.08%
D&D 4e, 11.31%

Q4 2014:

Pathfinder, 23.86%
D&D 5e, 20.06%
D&D 3.5, 15.81%
D&D 4e, 8.32%

Q1 2015:

D&D 5e, 25.75%
Pathfinder, 21.70%
D&D 3.5, 14.61%
D&D 4e, 6.88%

The number of 4e games consistently trails at roughly half the number of 3.5 games, and that's excluding Pathfinder. If you count PF, it's more like 1 in 5. 3.5 and 4e are now both unsupported by WotC, this is just going off of their original momentum, and y'know what? 4e still loses by a landslide.

So we don't have to look to sales data (although they largely tell a similar story). The number of people playing 4e is still roughly half the number of people playing 3.5, and more like 1/5 the number of people playing 3.PF. And this conclusion is what we find when we look at online data, sales data, message board activity data, or whatever metric you want to look at. You want to tell me 4e is more popular than 3.5? Now it's on you to rebut all this and provide your own statistics, and to persuasively explain why those statistics should trump all the other data available, be it sales, online games, or forum activity.

Until then, don't scream to the world your undying faith in 4e's popularity anymore. Or at the very least, expect to be ridiculed when you do so, because you deserve to be.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:00 pm

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:32 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Captain Pike, any definition of "very successful" that includes 4th edition D&D, a game so unsuccessful that the company that made it does not support it any more and also does not even mention it as a point of comparison when discussing things they are trying to paint as successful or promising, is a useless definition. I am not saying you can't like 4e. There are a number of people who do. It's just that that number is very definitely an order of magnitude or two smaller than the number of people who like the previous edition of the same game. Very definitely. With court documents and everything.

If you cannot or will not accept that fact, you are destined to be a laughingstock. Just like TitaniumDragon, and for the same reason. You are being comically unreasonable, and we're going to stop trying to engage with you as a thinking human. You have failed the Fanboy Turing test.

-Username17

why do you keep bringing up what strangers think? I want data, not "Wotc did THIS and that implies THIS OTHER THING" show me data. I do NOT trust wotc to always do the perfect thing so what they did not matter unless it is "released all their sales data, which has been verified as true" for every part of 4e anything less is useless.

again SHOW ME THE DATA ON WHO PLAYS 4E, without that we are just guessing.

the only bit of solid evidence we have on any comparison between 4e and pathfinder is that both were high up on the amazon best seller lists when they were in direct and full competition. and during that whole time 4e won. THAT IS IT there IS no other data to be had.

I do not CARE that the books they said 3e sold was more then the books 4e sold because that is a worthless because it does not include DDI. and becuase I do not trust wotc to give us good numbers.

erik wrote:Yeah, I don't know if he's just stupid, or a troll and stupid. If he cannot post a link to his evidence that 4e was very successful and very popular then I'm done not ignoring him.

I do not for the same reason I do not post evidence that the earth is round.

however if you need it proven just look up the records of the amazon best seller lists, or the DDI sub's.

also given that you all seam slaved to the idea that Wotc would never make any mistakes, why would they have kept publishing 4e books for so long. after all if they never make any mistakes then every time a book was published that meant they KNEW that 4e was selling better then 3e because then they would have just sold 3e books.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:49 am

karpik777 wrote:
CaptPike wrote:while misleading that is true. but of course I only accept data that is both useful and correct.
A pity you didn't show any useful and correct data for your argument, since something like Amazon's top 10 or anything else along those lines is completely useless.

I will say it again WHEN PATHFINDER AND 4E WERE IN DIRECT COMPETITION, 4E WAS WAY AHEAD ON BEST SELLER LISTS. I do not CARE how much 3e sold ten years before, that does not matter,
It does matter. If you go from milions to hundreds of thousands copies sold, that's a fucking huge drop. 4E would win with just about anything - at least short term - simply due to the fact that it was the next instalment of the biggest RPG printed, one that dominated the market for years.

so...why are you rejecting the amazon best seller list? do you have another way of directly comparing sales of pathfinder to 4e? because I know of no other way.

were the market the same yes, you could compare directly, but thing change. games improve, what was ok 10 years ago is not acceptable now.

Stubbazubba wrote:
CaptPike wrote: I will say it again WHEN PATHFINDER AND 4E WERE IN DIRECT COMPETITION, 4E WAS WAY AHEAD ON BEST SELLER LISTS. I do not CARE how much 3e sold ten years before, that does not matter, I do not care that after that time when 4e had no new books out pathfinder sold more. at that point how much 4e sold stopped being able to provide any useful data to how many people were playing it.
Is this what you're after? Because we totally do have numbers on that:

In the second half of 2014, the Orr Group - the people who run Roll20 - began making quarterly reports on the number of active games during the quarter (and players, but because players will all be counted multiple times, that's not a terribly accurate measurement of anything).

Here are the Top 4 listings for the past three quarters (the only ones we have data on)-

Q3 2014:
Pathfinder, 26.83% of games

D&D 3.5, 17.87% of games

D&D 5e (which was barely released in this quarter), 12.08%

D&D 4e, 11.31%
Q4 2014:
Pathfinder, 23.86%

D&D 5e, 20.06%

D&D 3.5, 15.81%

D&D 4e, 8.32%
Q1 2015:
D&D 5e, 25.75%

Pathfinder, 21.70%

D&D 3.5, 14.61%

D&D 4e, 6.88%
The number of 4e games consistently trails at roughly half the number of 3.5 games, and that's excluding Pathfinder. If you count PF, it's more like 1 in 5. 3.5 and 4e are now both unsupported by WotC, this is just going off of their original momentum, and y'know what? 4e still loses by a landslide.

So we don't have to look to sales data (although they largely tell a similar story). The number of people playing 4e is still roughly half the number of people playing 3.5, and more like 1/5 the number of people playing 3.PF. And this conclusion is what we find when we look at online data, sales data, message board activity data, or whatever metric you want to look at. You want to tell me 4e is more popular than 3.5? Now it's on you to rebut all this and provide your own statistics, and to persuasively explain why those statistics should trump all the other data available, be it sales, online games, or forum activity.

Until then, don't scream to the world your undying faith in 4e's popularity anymore. Or at the very least, expect to be ridiculed when you do so, because you deserve to be.

where is the other half of your data? I see online data from one source. now I need to know how that translates to overall games. without that its useless.

Just because I do not have good food that does not mean I should cook up my shit to eat. it is better to just admit you do not have enough data for a conclusion then to try and cook your numbers until it LOOKS like you have enough.

Orion wrote:To be fair, it's conceptually possible to make buff spells that have to be cast in combat time but are so strong it's worth it. It's a really hard design though, and D&D has never really done it. I'm not really aware of any games that do.

any buff that is good enough to be worth losing an attack is too powerful of a buff.

or I guess the bad guys have too much health.

hyzmarca wrote:
Kaelik wrote: Are you an idiot? If you have at will mage armor that lasts a minute, you cast it every five rounds, if it lasts 1 minute per level, and you are level 5, you cast it every 3 minutes. This is just a thing you declare that you are always doing because if you didn't, you would be an idiot.
Some people might want to do other things besides continually recasting mage armor on the off chance that they're ambushed. Like read a book, or something.

if my life depended on it I think I could live with it.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:38 am

Well, since the launch of 5e has shown that WotC is perfectly willing to manipulate Amazon ranking, what's to say they didn't just bribe some guy at Amazon to inflate their ranking? The only way of proving otherwise is to track down each and every book sold by either company during that time period.

Look! I can put my fingers in my ears and scream "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" too!

karpik777 · Post by **karpik777** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:24 am

CaptPike wrote:so...why are you rejecting the amazon best seller list? do you have another way of directly comparing sales of pathfinder to 4e? because I know of no other way.

Because it gives us no numbers - if 4e sold 11 books while Pathfinder sold 10 it would be nr.1. But it would be a failure in WotC's eyes because it barely "wins". Also, see below.

where is the other half of your data? I see online data from one source. now I need to know how that translates to overall games. without that its useless.

How is the data different from Amazon's best seller list? That too is one source of online data which tells us nothing about overall sales - which, according to you, makes it useless. Yet you accept such data in one case and reject it in the other. Cherry picking at the finest.

it is better to just admit you do not have enough data for a conclusion then to try and cook your numbers until it LOOKS like you have enough.

A pity you don't apply this to yourself. At this point your whole argument boils down to "4e did great - Amazon proves it, WotC fucked up and killed the greatest thing since sliced bread"

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:45 am

karpik777 wrote:
CaptPike wrote:so...why are you rejecting the amazon best seller list? do you have another way of directly comparing sales of pathfinder to 4e? because I know of no other way.
Because it gives us no numbers - if 4e sold 11 books while Pathfinder sold 10 it would be nr.1. But it would be a failure in WotC's eyes because it barely "wins". Also, see below.

where is the other half of your data? I see online data from one source. now I need to know how that translates to overall games. without that its useless.
How is the data different from Amazon's best seller list? That too is one source of online data which tells us nothing about overall sales - which, according to you, makes it useless. Yet you accept such data in one case and reject it in the other. Cherry picking at the finest.

it is better to just admit you do not have enough data for a conclusion then to try and cook your numbers until it LOOKS like you have enough.
A pity you don't apply this to yourself. At this point your whole argument boils down to "4e did great - Amazon proves it, WotC fucked up and killed the greatest thing since sliced bread"

I am sorry you are right, by my own logic amazon would not be enough data, I have a feeling it would be a better indicator then online gaming but that is all it is.

so we are back to the problem of having no data to go off of.

Antariuk · Post by **Antariuk** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:59 am

CaptPike wrote: I am sorry you are right, by my own logic amazon would not be enough data, I have a feeling it would be a better indicator then online gaming but that is all it is.

so we are back to the problem of having no data to go off of.

That you're deliberately ignoring the ICv2 data provided by Leress is very telling. Is it because it's the second source cited here that says 4E didn't do as well as you wish it did?

P.S.: I found this thread on ENWorld where a numbers of DDI suscribers as presented/discussed, but I've no idea how accurate the whole thing is. Does anyone know of a place where Paizo's numbers are discussed?

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:07 am

CaptPike wrote:I do not for the same reason I do not post evidence that the earth is round.

I mean, I thought you weren't posting evidence that the earth was round because you didn't have any. All you have to go on is what other people tell you, after all, and none of them was the Pope personally, so they're all fallible, so obviously it's not, right?

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:26 am

Well, ignore list he goes then.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:31 am

CaptPike wrote:I am sorry you are right, by my own logic amazon would not be enough data, I have a feeling it would be a better indicator then online gaming but that is all it is.

so we are back to the problem of having no data to go off of.

Hey guys, we only know how many books 4e sold, and that it sold less than Pathfinder, but there is one store somewhere that sold some pathfinder books, but no 4e books, and we don't know how many books that one store sold, so we just don't have enough data, and maybe 4e is the GREATEST EDITION OF ALL TIME.