http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26D#Acclaim_and_influence

QuoteBy 2004, consumers had spent more than US$1 billion on Dungeons & Dragons products and the game had been played by more than 20 million people.[10] As many as 6 million people played the game in 2007.[91

Okay, the 24 million number was Wizards' estimate of 'lapsed players' a couple of years ago when they also said they thought they had 1.5 million current players.  Some years before that (1999 I think) the company's estimate was 6 million players, but I've seen Erik Mona write on Enworld that his experience at Dungeon and Dragon led him to believe the real number was lower than that.

QuoteBy 2004, consumers had spent more than US$1 billion on Dungeons & Dragons products and the game had been played by more than 20 million people.[10] As many as 6 million people played the game in 2007.[91

I believe those numbers come from a Wizards court filing.  How they arrived at them is unknown but it's intersting that the six million number matches the estimate of a study Wizards conducted in the 90's.

Also, while I am posting in a thread called 'D&D Next vs Pathfinder,' I should state that I think the thread title has it all wrong.

If this next edition has a third party-friendly license and it it's even remotely fun to play, I'm sure Paizo will happily publish adventure paths and other materials for it.  My guess is they are keeping their fingers crossed that they can do that.

It will be interesting to see what Wizards/Hasbro decides about the license, but I can't imagine they've made tons of money on their 4e fluff material.  An open license might be an easier sell to the suits this time around.

Also, by the time the next edition comes out Pathfinder will be far removed from the days when it was the shiny new toy.  Any comparison of sales of the two systems at that time would be unfair and largely meaningless.

I'll be surprised Paizo announces a new edition anytime soon and even more surprised if it does well.  Being evergreen is a strong selling point for them even if they've made no priomises in that regard.  

I think that no matter what happens with the next edition, Paizo will continue to support Pathfinder with lots of fluff material long into the future and Pathfinder will survive long-term, albeit with fewer players than now.  Depending on what the new game looks like, some might even see it as the new 'Advanced' D&D.  No matter what happens I think the people running Paizo ought to be pretty pleased ith themselves.  No great run lasts forever.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;526823The current edition of D&D will always be popular, and if they can increase their gamer base by allowing players of previous editions to play how they want to play rather than be forced to play a certain way they don't like, they will be #1 again.

THIS is exactly right. It will be the single determinant factor in whether D&D will be able to be solidly #1 again; whether or not 5e manages to create an edition that lets people play the game how they like to play it rather than being TOLD how they must play it.

RPGPundit

Also, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dodger;527037That would surprise me. I'd have thought that 2e was D&D's peak, in terms of sales.

I can easily believe, however, that 3/3.5e outsold 4e.

I expect that, having taken a bitchslapping over 4e, they'll make sure that 5e is up to scratch. Furthermore, I expect that they will plan for 5e to last much longer than 4e and it wouldn't suprise me if we saw the return of Basic and Advanced versions of the game.

Based on what has been posted at times by people actually qualified on the subject (ie. people who worked at WoTC or TSR), it would appear the most likely order of best-selling versions of D&D goes something like this:

1. The red box D&D Basic
2. AD&D 1e
3. D&D 3e
4. D&D 2e
5. D&D 4e

Everything else being somewhere below that.  However, this too may be wrong as Ryan Dancey has claimed that 3e in fact outsold 1e.  I'm not sure if that's possibly true or not, but the general consensus is that there's little doubt that 3e outsold 2e.  
We know 2e only sold about half of what 1e sold.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938Also, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens.

Amongst the local D&D players I've known who had moved on to Pathfinder (instead of 4E), just about every single one of them fit into this category.

4E was just too radically different for these players, and Pathfinder just happened to pop up at the right time in the right place.  Most of them I suspect would have just continued playing 3.5E D&D if the Pathfinder rpg never existed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527940However, this too may be wrong as Ryan Dancey has claimed that 3e in fact outsold 1e.  I'm not sure if that's possibly true or not, but the general consensus is that there's little doubt that 3e outsold 2e.  

I remember reading something on this from a former WOTC staffer some years back (although I can't find it online now). The gist of it (from memory, mind you) was that Dancey's claim was technically true but very misleading. The total volume of 3.x hardback books sold exceeded the total number of 1e hardback books sold, but there were far more 3.x hardback books published than 1e hardback books and the 3.5 revision meant that a lot of people bought both the 3.0 and the 3.5 versions of books published for both editions/versions.

Quote from: RandallS;527959I remember reading something on this from a former WOTC staffer some years back (although I can't find it online now). The gist of it (from memory, mind you) was that Dancey's claim was technically true but very misleading. The total volume of 3.x hardback books sold exceeded the total number of 1e hardback books sold, but there were far more 3.x hardback books published than 1e hardback books and the 3.5 revision meant that a lot of people bought both the 3.0 and the 3.5 versions of books published for both editions/versions.

Yes, I was going to point that out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

Cheap floozies need love too, besides my wife likes to keep the cheap floozy around for threesomes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527940We know 2e only sold about half of what 1e sold.

I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought that the sheer shelf inchage of 2e would have pushed it to the top...

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938Also, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

You're probably right but my actual hope is 5e is different enough from Pathfinder so that I can play both like the game whore I aspire to be.  Better bet for Wotc would be the make a better GSL/OGL so it would be easier for 3pp stuff. Bet Paizo would have no problem writing adventure paths for 5e if it benifited them a bit.

Quote from: Dodger;527965I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought that the sheer shelf inchage of 2e would have pushed it to the top...

Actually, according to Ryan Dancey's account of the state of affairs at TSR when WotC bought the company, it did exactly the reverse: bury it into the ground.

Too bad, since 2e (core books) was the best edition of D&D. For 3e, the only real changes I would have made would have been Ascending AC and maybe the 3e saves (which I do like much more than prior editions).