Goodman rebuttal

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

To refute that, they would have not just to release numbers, but some kind of statistical model that explains how this can happen and how it is totally not their fault and what not. And... I don't think such a model exists. Maybe it could be created, if you send a few business analysists and mathematicians and psychologists on the job and let them research a few years or so. That would certainly be fascinating to do, but Wizards of the Cost is not a research facility, even if they have an R&D department. And they still can't make any money with it. Oh, and it might give competitors insights into WotC business that they could use against them, too.

I love it!

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

And we get the tired old "there is no evidence" thing again. To this I answer(now and for the forseeable future) that "there is no evidence" that 4E is dooing poorly, and replying that "there is no evidence" in response to any quote or opinion is saying absolutely nothing and should be ignored.

"There is no evidence" does absolutely nothing to support the alternative viewpoint, and people should stop using the comment as if it did.

Joe Goodman gave an opinion and speculation(which is the best any of us can do), and gave support for his opinion and why we should believe him. If you disagree or think he's wrong, feel free to post your own opinion, give support for this opinion, and why we should believe you. Instead of lazy discussion where you discount the original quote without offering anything substantive in return.

YOU may get tired of it, but thats the fact.There is also nothing there to support the 4e sells well, nor does it support the its not selling well.

Goodman's opinion is just that, opinion. He did NOT give support to his opinion. He gave conculusions based on data that is not present, but says he has.

I gave my reasons. Lack of support data IS a valid reason. YOU just dont like it.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by carmachu

YOU may get tired of it, but thats the fact.There is also nothing there to support the 4e sells well, nor does it support the its not selling well.

Goodman's opinion is just that, opinion. He did NOT give support to his opinion. He gave conculusions based on data that is not present, but says he has.

I gave my reasons. Lack of support data IS a valid reason. YOU just dont like it.

It is not a rebuttal because it does not support the opposite conclusion. People throw it out there to disparage one opinion without supporting their own.

Goodman gave soft data, not hard evidence. He made that perfectly clear.

Lack of support is a valid reason, but it is not a valid rebuttal. YOU may not like that, or you may not have one.

[Piratecat]

Gently, guys. Gently. This can be discussed without getting up in one another's face.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

It is not a rebuttal because it does not support the opposite conclusion. People throw it out there to disparage one opinion without supporting their own.

Goodman gave soft data, not hard evidence. He made that perfectly clear.

Uhm no, he did not giev soft data. There is NO data there at all. There is his credetials. There is opinion, there is his reference to data, there's a conculusion based on unspecified data, but there is no facts there.

It doesnt support HIS conculsion either. It is simple his opinion unsuported with the unpresent data.

For the record, I dont play 4e, but I do think its sell pretty decently. How well? *shrug* well enough.

But when folks say "thats pretty interesting, but where's the facts/data to back it up" thats a valid point. People would like to see for themselves and see if they can draw their own conculusion.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Uhm no, he did not giev soft data. There is NO data there at all. There is his credetials. There is opinion, there is his reference to data, there's a conculusion based on unspecified data, but there is no facts there.

It doesnt support HIS conculsion either. It is simple his opinion unsuported with the unpresent data.

For the record, I dont play 4e, but I do think its sell pretty decently. How well? *shrug* well enough.

But when folks say "thats pretty interesting, but where's the facts/data to back it up" thats a valid point. People would like to see for themselves and see if they can draw their own conculusion.

We are all making conclusions based on unspecified data based on your definition. If having that unspecified data is a requirement for making any sort of conclusions, then none of us should be saying anything about anything.

He gave the data that he personally visited 47 FLGS, spoke to over 100 others over the phone, and further had gaming events he drew business feedback from from over 100 others. The "soft" data he gathered from this feedback told him that 4E was on the whole selling very well at FLGSs, and he shared that in his post.

That isn't hard sales numbers, but it isn't nothing.

Where are the facts/data is not a valid point when that data is not, and in almost certainly never will be available.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

He gave the data (. . .)

That isn't data (and Joseph isn't making the claim). The questions and answers during that contact might be data, depending on a number of factors, but none of that has been shared and probably will not be (and likely wasn't documented to much of a degree).

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by Mark

That isn't data (and Joseph isn't making the claim). The questions and answers during that contact might be data, depending on a number of factors, but none of that has been shared and probably will not be (and likely wasn't documented to much of a degree).

Its called anecdotal evidence, where after having talked to 200+ stores you get enough information to draw a conclusion. Again, if that isn't good enough for you you're looking for a higher standard that isn't available to us for these purposes.

You don't have to buy it, but you aren't offering anything substantive in response by saying "its not hard sales numbers".

[MadMaligor]

Its been mentioned before, but I also would like to see the model comparison between the economic upswing that was the early 2000's, and the horrendous downturn we have had the last year and a half.

Just an old mans opinion here, but if the sales numbers support positive growth in this kind of economic environment, the comparison regarding which is more successful is near impossible to determine. There are some factors which might contribute to success that are hard to gauge, for example the idea that RPG's can be affordable entertainment inside the home, like board games.

Joe doesn't say it directly, but if 4E were in 3E's time-slot, there is a good argument that it would have been as successful, if not more so.

The debate that sales do not necessarily compute to "good" is an interesting one too. 3E did extremely well in an environment that was consumer giddy. I'm not saying that 3E is bad, just that in a target rich environment the whole idea of quantifying its value is incredibly difficult at best.

AFAIAC it would seem to me that alot of people here on both sides have very valid points. You would think at this stage we would all agree to disagree, and that both sides have disputable positions.

<3

[jgbrowning]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

But he is telling us where the data is from - mostly public court data. Apparantly that is accessible, so if someone was interested in making his own conclusion based from the data, he could do so. Seems either no one really wants to, or no one had the time yet.

I am interested as well in the documents. I did a public records search in WI and did not find the lawsuits spoken of. According to Wiki they were settled out of court confidentially. My knowledge of the court system kinda ends there, so I don't know where to look for court documents for things that settled out of court.

joe b.

[Amphimir Míriel]

Originally Posted by Zil

Yes, but it's also sometimes a mistake to simply throw up your hands and accept mediocre sales just because we're at that point in some theoretical cycle and not take a more detailed look as to what is really going on.

Didn't Rouse say that the original print run of the 4E core rulebooks sold out faster than expected and that everybody in WotC was very happy?

I mean, I can understand that having a corporate overlord like Hasbro puts a lot of pressure on WotC's management to try to maximize profit on each and every single quarter. But that does not necessarily mean that D&D's sales are mediocre or that the brand --and by extension, the hobby, is in danger.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by MadMaligor

Joe doesn't say it directly, but if 4E were in 3E's time-slot, there is a good argument that it would have been as successful, if not more so.

A transition from 2e to 4e. How could have been received? Interesting to try think about.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

Its called anecdotal evidence, where after having talked to 200+ stores you get enough information to draw a conclusion.

I was pointing out to you that calling it "data" is not actually correct. It isn't actually anecdotal evidence, either, because the details are not given.

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

Again, if that isn't good enough for you you're looking for a higher standard that isn't available to us for these purposes.

"Again?" We haven't had this discussion and I've limited my previous involvement to -

Originally Posted by Mark

I won't refute Joseph's information or conviction but my own personal question has never been if 4E is doing well but rather if, with a different approach toward the market and 3PPs, it could be doing as well as 3E.

- but in regard your statement, I do believe that if Joseph wishes his opinions to have more impact on a general audience, he might want to document his encounters more clearly and share the actual data. If he and I were just having the discussion, certainly as a sympathetic listener I would take some of what he says at face value and ask questions regarding some of the data as the discussion proceeded, and he would probably give more details as necessary.

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

You don't have to buy it, but you aren't offering anything substantive in response by saying "its not hard sales numbers".

You need to quit broadbrushing everybody and backing it with claims of data and anecdotal evidence that simply doesn't exist. I never asked for hard data before and only mention that more details might be useful now because so many others apparently don't wish to take Joseph at his word, which is their right. But, seriously, no offence but you need to stop accusing people of things that perhaps only a few are doing and misrepresenting what Joseph has said and done in support of your broad accusations. It degrades the discussion considerably and as a fellow community member I am asking you to please not do so.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Amphimir Míriel

Didn't Rouse say that the original print run of the 4E core rulebooks sold out faster than expected and that everybody in WotC was very happy?

I mean, I can understand that having a corporate overlord like Hasbro puts a lot of pressure on WotC's management to try to maximize profit on each and every single quarter. But that does not necessarily mean that D&D's sales are mediocre or that the brand --and by extension, the hobby, is in danger.

Actually, it was mearls who said that the initial print run of 4e was bigger than the first print run of 3.5 which again was bigger than the initial print run of 3.0.

Scott merely said that the 4e 1st and 2nd (and 3rd? I can never recall) print run sold out quicker than WotC expected.

Of course, this means nothing. If you ask those who do not like 4e, some claim that WotC either a) are lying or b) on purpose made small 4e print runs just so that they could go out and claim on the interweb that they had sold out really quick. And since the only data we have is from WotC and they are a) lying, we do not know for sure.

Go figure

edit: changed they to some

[Drkfathr1]

I appreciate Joe's statements, and have no reason not to believe what he says, and to accept what he says as truth and not just his perception.

I think there is an important point in what he said that I haven't seen anyone really touch upon, although I did skim these past 10 pages rather quickly and may have missed it.

One of the stated goals of 4E (and in fact every new edition) was to grow the hobby and increase the number of players (both new and lapsed).

If 4e isn't selling as well as the peak at the release of 3E (even if it is selling well, which by most reliable accounts it is), then it hasn't hit one of its most important goals.

The question WotC needs to ask itself, is what is the reason for that: Economy, the Product itself, or Marketing?

At least we finally have confirmation from reliable sources that 4E is selling well, even if its not selling like gangbusters.

[thecasualoblivion]

I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.

[MadMaligor]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.

Its like saying, "For every 'Our gaming group hates 4E!' post you can quote a 'Our gaming group loves 4E or has come back because of 4E' post. How do you prove that kind of thing? You can't really.

So it just boils down to what Joe was saying (or at least what I got out of his post).

Sales are doing well, 4E is doing well, and if you can say that in this kind of economy thats pretty much a win situation. Comparing the editions is apples and oranges.

I could be misunderstanding him, but thats what I got out of it.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.

Speaking for myself, and from the posts of a few others here, again I don't think most people's problem is with the FLGS statement Goodman makes. I have a much harder time accepting that he has actual sales numbers for D&D from 1974-present. Again, I could be mistaken, but I remember it being stated that even WotC didn't have accurate sales info for a large chunk of TSR's D&D era. I'm sorry but this makes me question exactly how Goodman has accurate frigures for this but WotC was unable to attain them. Now if I'm wrong and WotC does in fact have accurate sales information for D&D from 1974 to present then I wish someone would correct me, but if not then I have to wonder how Goodman was able to get this information but a company whose business is based on, and definitely could be affected by it, was unable to find it.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Speaking for myself, and from the posts of a few others here, again I don't think most people's problem is with the FLGS statement Goodman makes. I have a much harder time accepting that he has actual sales numbers for D&D from 1974-present. Again, I could be mistaken, but I remember it being stated that even WotC didn't have accurate sales info for a large chunk of TSR's D&D era. I'm sorry but this makes me question exactly how Goodman has accurate frigures for this but WotC was unable to attain them. Now if I'm wrong and WotC does in fact have accurate sales information for D&D from 1974 to present then I wish someone would correct me, but if not then I have to wonder how Goodman was able to get this information but a company whose business is based on, and definitely could be affected by it, was unable to find it.

He said that certain years of TSR could be found in court documents. What he didn't say, and I am pulling this out of previous things I have seen discussed on forums is that until recently it wasn't hard to find actual sales numbers gathered from distributors, and before the complete dominance of Amazon those numbers meant much more than they do today. Maybe he is getting his numbers from yesteryear from that.

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by Jack99

Of course, this means nothing. If you ask those who do not like 4e, some claim that WotC either a) are lying or b) on purpose made small 4e print runs just so that they could go out and claim on the interweb that they had sold out really quick. And since the only data we have is from WotC and they are a) lying, we do not know for sure.

Go figure

edit: changed they to some

You changed "they" to "some". Care to respond to the others? Or are you going to ignore the valid positions because the extremes are so easy to blow off?