Goodman rebuttal

[WayneLigon]

Finally, someone lays out some hard facts and trends from real-world business experience. Kudos, Joe.

I'd love to see the research for the book you didn't publish. Maybe someday you can either publish it or post it. I think it would be fascinating reading about a little-seen side of our hobby.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Twowolves

I read his post and I certainly didn't see it as a rebuttal of Mr Peterson at all. It was extremely interesting, but it did not address the schism of the fanbase or the health of 3PP (other than his own) at all. It seemed to be a refutation of the "4e is not doing well". He didn't address the poisonous GSL nor the effect of the digital tools nor either's affect on 3PP products.

In short, it was very interesting, but comparing it to Orcus' post, it's really apples and oranges.

I don't doubt his industry expertise, nor his business acumen. But he seemed to state his credentials and then his conclusions, with nothing objective to back it up in between.

It reminded me of all the court cases I've seen. I worked for a few years as a Judge's clerk, sitting next to him in Court, and watched about 100 or so cases played out in court, both jury and non-jury. Plus, I've been to court to argue cases for my clients.

Anyhow, to use a personal injury case as an example, if the potential for winning/losing a lot of $$ is great enough, each side will hire an "expert" to come to court to testify. Usually a doctor. Each doctor will examine the accident victim, and based on that examination, and the examination of the medical records both past and current, render a diagnosis as to the extent of the injuries, what the cause of the injuries was, and the future prognosis of the accident victim.

Each side's doctor, both eminently qualified with credentials out the wazoo, renders completely different and contradictory opinions. They can point to the same charts and x-rays and say totally different things.

That same dynamic of hiring experts to toot the horn you want tooted exactly the way you want it tooted is played out in every type of case I've seen, from personal injury, to land use, to construction defect, to divorce, to business litigation. Each side's expert look at exactly the same set of objective facts and says completely different things which supports the viewpoint of whichever side they are testifying for.

Other than beating up the personal credentials of the other side, or hammering them on their interpretation of the facts, one of the most effctive ways to discredit the other side is to point out all the various ways they have a financial interest in saying what they are saying. Asking a doctor, for example, how much they testify in cases as opposed to practicing medicine, how much they charged for the diagnosis, how often they do plaintiff's work as opposed to defendant's work, how many times they have testified for that particular lawyer's firm, how much they got paid to testify, the likelihood of a future financial interest in the outcome---such as the patient going to them to be treated if they are awaded money for future medical expenses, etc.

Just as an aside, I'd pay a few bucks to read a pdf of the business history of the industry he talked about in the post...I'm particularly interested where he got the objective concrete numbers for sales figures going back 30 years. As far as I can tell, that's not publicly available information.

[Psion]

That's a very good point, joethelawyer. Motivation is probably something you should be examining with just as much, or more, scrutiny than credentials.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Just as an aside, I'd pay a few bucks to read a pdf of the business history of the industry he talked about in the post...I'm particularly interested where he got the objective concrete numbers for sales figures going back 30 years. As far as I can tell, that's not publicly available information.

You know I was wondering about his comparison of 4e sales to (A)D&D sales bertween 1974-1981 and '83 to '00... I was under the impression (from what I believe were discussions here) that even WotC didn't have exact or totally reliable sales numbers for these years from TSR. Now I'll readily admit I could be remembering something wrong or mistaken, but I don't think I am...am I?

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Psion

That's a very good point, joethelawyer. Motivation is probably something you should be examining with just as much, or more, scrutiny than credentials.

So are we now doubting Joe Goodman's word because he has vested interest in seeing his company earn a profit, which right now is tied to the health of the 4e market?

[Quantarum]

Originally Posted by Psion

That's a very good point, joethelawyer. Motivation is probably something you should be examining with just as much, or more, scrutiny than credentials.

That's always a good idea, whether it's Joseph Goodman or Joethelawyer.

-Q.

[Merlin's Shadow]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

So are we now doubting Joe Goodman's word because he has vested interest in seeing his company earn a profit, which right now is tied to the health of the 4e market?

I don't think anyone around here is claiming that Joe is lying. However, it is clear that he has a vested interest in viewing things in a certain light. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just the way it is. Despite that, I still found his post interesting.

[carmachu]

Interesting. Dont agree with a bunch, namely game stores, and his 47 stores isnt exactly a large sample, but interesting none the less.

[Aberzanzorax]

To respond to Remathilis:

Not "doubting his word"...I certainly don't think he is dishonest (nor do I think the experts Joethelawyer mentioned intend to be at all dishonest).

However, Goodman DOES have a vested interest. That interest, along with the fact that he got in on "the ground floor" releasing product along with the 4e release (even before they signed the GSL) colors his interpretation of the facts.

What he basically said is that sales of 4e product FOR HIM and the market for HIS 4e product is strong enough.

That I have no doubt at all about.

Whether that is generalizable to the market as a whole (including other 3pps or even to WotC) is something I do not know.

Would he like it to be? Yep. Is it the case? I imagine that he believes it is the case...and for the reasons above, I can understand why he believes it. That doesn't make it so.



Goodman said that distributors are not an issue. Clarke said they were. Who do I believe?

Both of them.

They're not an issue for Goodman and they are an issue for Clarke. Why? Probably timing, but that's only my guess.

[DaveMage]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

So are we now doubting Joe Goodman's word because he has vested interest in seeing his company earn a profit, which right now is tied to the health of the 4e market?

Hopefully not.

I've heard nothing but positive things said about Joe in the past.

However...

It may be one of those cases where both Clark and Joe are correct from their own viewpoint. Joe didn't give any numbers, he essentially just said 4E is doing as well as it has done in previous times.

Also, if 4E is doing as well as 3E was - why aren't more 3PPs jumping on board? Or is the price for them to jump on board providing things like spinner racks to game and hobby stores? In the early 3E era, product was enough. Now it seems that you need more than a product to get in stores, you have to actively nurture the relationship.

Anyway, I guess it confirms that GG won't be supporting Pathfinder.

Was fun while it lasted....

[Zil]

Originally Posted by SpydersWebbing

This article doesn't seem to say that 4e is not doing well, but rather that it's not in "the cycle" that would make it sell as well as 3e. That seems to make sense to me. I mean, everything else seems to be cyclical (the economy, family addictions, etc.) so why not our favorite hobby?

The thing about applying a cyclical generation theory to the hobby, or D&D in particular, is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of thought as to what causes the cycle. With capitalist economies, there is some rational theory behind what is going on with these recessionary cycles. What Joe Goodman posited doesn't present any rational theories as to why D&D should be on a generational cycle. He's just looked at the data and noticed one complete period (peak to peak) and has extrapolated from that the idea that there is a generational based cycle effect going on. I won't dispute his empirical numbers, but I do dispute this idea this is definitive proof that there is some kind of generational cycle effect that explains everything (e.g. why 4E is not doing as well as the 3E peak). There could very well be other factors that explain things.

Heck, here's one rival theory. In tough economic times, people turn to games for a release from the pressures of life, and to find relatively inexpensive entertainment, The peaks in D&D (and/or hobby gaming) coincide with recessions. There was a bad recession in the early 80s. There was another after the dot com bubble (2001 peak). There was one in the early 90s (but CCGs arose and stole potential D&D customers so parts of the hobby were still doing very well). And there is a particularly deep one now so the gaming hobby should be doing relatively well. If 4E and other games fail to take advantage of the fact that people need an avenue of "escape" from the somewhat depressing economic realities, then perhaps they are doing something wrong this time around.

Once could go on to come with other ways of explaining the peaks other than these cyclical theories - such as what was going on with the game and the hobby in general. AD&D was when D&D finally burst into prime time in the public consciousness. 2E was warmed over 1E so it didn't go over nearly as well and then they ran into the CCG phenomenon. 3E was a resurrection of the game on a much more consistent set of mechanics and a disruptive force in the hobby (with the OGL). It transformed things. 4E is a radical departure from what came before so it should also have the potential to do great things for WoTC if it was managed correctly.

I guess my point is that this idea of a generational cycle sounds a bit dodgy and simplistic to me as there are many other factors that could be going on.

[Filcher]

Forgive me, but I don't think it was intended to address the issues in Clark's post. Rather it placed the question of D&D in a larger context.

What is the benchmark of success? Anti-4E folks will come in and say
Wizards expected nothing less than the 3.5 peak, therefore 4E must be a failure," and they might be right. And pro-4E folks like myself will read Goodman's post and find solace that our beloved game has a future, and that supporters of D&D (not necessarily 4E) are looking at the big picture, ensuring that I can play this game with my kids 15 or 20 years from now.

I think, probably, that that's my benchmark for success. I'm ecstatic that 4E is doing well for Goodman Games. I hope that it is doing well for Wizards. I want Dungeons & Dragons (not necessarily 4E) to be around for a long, long time to come.

[Filcher]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Also, if 4E is doing as well as 3E was - why aren't more 3PPs jumping on board? Or is the price for them to jump on board providing things like spinner racks to game and hobby stores? In the early 3E era, product was enough. Now it seems that you need more than a product to get in stores, you have to actively nurture the relationship.

I don't think this is a bad thing. Plants need to be watered, our gaming industry needs to be supported.

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Anyway, I guess it confirms that GG won't be supporting Pathfinder.

I didn't read that. Also, GG is already supporting Pathfinder with their 3.5 DCCs, right?

[Filcher]

Originally Posted by Zil

The thing about applying a cyclical generation theory to the hobby, or D&D in particular, is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of thought as to what causes the cycle...

I read it rather that, "industries have low and high points. It is a mistake to judge your work as a failure if it doesn't automatically exceed the 20 year high point."

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Interesting. Dont agree with a bunch, namely game stores, and his 47 stores isnt exactly a large sample, but interesting none the less.

That's just the number he visited personally.

[Filcher]

Originally Posted by Aberzanzorax

Goodman said that distributors are not an issue. Clarke said they were. Who do I believe?

Both of them.

They're not an issue for Goodman and they are an issue for Clarke. Why? Probably timing, but that's only my guess.

Objectively:

Because Joseph has cultivated a relationship with stores, that in turn, have a reason to order DCCs through distributors.

By contrast, Necromancer, a company I love, hasn't released product in a year, and has canceled all their projects for the last year. I can see why game stores and distributors would be slow to order.

[Zil]

Originally Posted by Filcher

I read it rather that, "industries have low and high points. It is a mistake to judge your work as a failure if it doesn't automatically exceed the 20 year high point."

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.

[Filcher]

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.

Total agreement. A good plan requires a strategy as well as tactics. In my opinion, Goodman is advocating for both.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Zil

I do dispute this idea this is definitive proof

If definitive proof were required before making a business decision, no decision would ever be made.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by S'mon

He seems to be confirming that 4e sales in 2009 are nowhere near 3e sales in 2001 and that it's silly even to compare them. Hmm, I'm pretty sure WotC were aiming for something comparable.

Edit: In fact, his generational analogy indicates that we should be comparing 4e in 2009 to D&D sales 8-9 years after the 1982 peak... or the 1e to 2e transition. *eek* - that's a pretty low benchmark of success for a company like Hasbro.

You seem to be taking his post entirely out of context on purpose, going so far as to ignore very specific parts of it. Mr. Goodman very specifically says that 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. Or, in other words, D&D 4e is doing as well as D&D ever has, with the exception of two. . . er. . . exceptional years.