Goodman rebuttal

[Dragonblade]

Interesting post by Goodman. I had a discussion with the chaps who run my FLGS last night when I picked up the Eberron Player's Guide and the Fiery Dragon 4e Battlebox. Yes, I'm a 4e fan. I have come to loathe 3e completely from a rules standpoint. However, I have no problem with Paizo as a company and respect what they are doing with the OGL. I wanted to say that so all my bias' are perfectly clear.

This discussion occurred before I ever read this thread or Goodman's comments. But basically I asked the managers of my FLGS point blank whether 4e was selling well, and he said it was selling fantastically well even despite the economy. He said they had a great year last year when 4e came out, and it has been selling steadily since then. He credited a lot of that success to WotC's business model of only releasing one major book a month which makes it easy for people to simply buy each new book as it comes out.

I then asked him about Paizo. He did not have very kind words for Paizo. In his opinion Paizo has done everything possible to drive traffic and sales to their own website, and away from hobby retailers.

He currently stocks the Adventure Path books, but they don't really sell. He attributes that to most fans buying direct from Paizo. He is strongly considering dropping the whole line.

He also has no incentive to steer new gamers to Paizo. If they become fans, then they start taking their business to Paizo.com instead of his shop. He doesn't make a lot of money running a game shop and every loss hurts.

So, while they certainly don't pressure customers not to buy Paizo stuff, or disparage them, a sale is a sale after all, they will definitely steer the newbies to WotC and 4e if they come in without a clue as to what to buy.

Paizo's last chance to redeem themselves in his eyes is the release of the Pathfinder core rulebook. They will stock a few and see what happens, but unless it flies off the shelves and Paizo products become steady sellers, they will drop Paizo completely and only get Paizo products if a customer wants to place a special order.

[Obryn]

This is one heck of a thread. It's like we've moved from "Joe Goodman is in a position to know this stuff!" to "Ah, to heck with Joe Goodman. What the heck does he know, anyway?"

Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly. I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman. And yes, he stated his opinions.

Not all opinions are created equal, though, folks. I know this isn't a popular statement on a messageboard populated with egotistical gamer geeks, but expert opinions are, indeed, more valuable than layman opinions. Often, experts get paid for them.

No, it's not gospel. Yes, he could indeed be wrong. But discounting his opinion entirely is foolish.

-O

[Reigan]

So, if you can adapt to change, have done your homework and understand the market you can quite easily make money selling 4e products. If Goodman did so could other companies.

Perhaps a rethink is in order, the market really is there.

[Doug McCrae]

Let's be honest here. Everyone on ENWorld has some kind of opinion about the industry. And that opinion is often based on very flimsy evidence - personal taste, what my group think, what my friends think, what the guy down at the local gaming store says.

It seems that what Goodman is saying is being held to much stricter standards of evidence because it conflicts with what the guy down the local gaming store says or whatever. Conflict of interest is being introduced.

Well, there's always a conflict of interest. Even people who aren't making money from rpging have a great deal at stake personally. We all care a lot about the hobby. So if we truly do discount any evidence where there's the slightest possibility of a conflict then, if we apply the same standards equally, we would have to discount *everything*. Because no one is unbiased. We would literally be unable to form an opinion because no evidence would be good enough.

And just how much profit is Goodman likely to make from a post on an internet board saying 4e is doing well? How many extra sales? What does he stand to gain by risking his reputation? Very little I'd say.

Which leads me to the conclusion that he's probably being honest.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by Reigan

So, if you can adapt to change, have done your homework and understand the market you can quite easily make money selling 4e products. If Goodman did so could other companies.

Perhaps a rethink is in order, the market really is there.

Don't forget Goodman Games built a great reputation in 3e and I have tio believe that has carried over to 4e for their fans. Without that
I imagine it would be a lot tougher for someone new to the scene to have that type of success.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

Which leads me to the conclusion that he's probably being honest.

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic

[Edit: To be clear, this was not intended as a personal attack upon you, Doug but, rather, commentary upon how this thread seems to be progressing in the context that you alluded to (everybody will have their own opinions and not all of them will be in agreement).]

[tomBitonti]

There is some funny stuff in there:

6 Although the Agreement characterized that form as an "oval," its physical depiction in P. Ex. 1 Ex. B is that of an oblong cartouche drawn to appear three-dimensional. It seems that the parties are better developers of games than they are lexicographers. This opinion will use "cartouche" rather than "oval" to refer to the emblem.

Edit: That whole document is rather ... amazing ... in the amount of work that must have gone in to the case and into the judges decision, relative to the substance of the complaint.

There are some values that are of use in the second part:

($109,000 / 2.5) * 100 == $4,360,000

Meaning about $4.4 million for the sames of MMII over the year up to November 2004. Does anyone know the MMII cover price? If $20, that would be sales of about 200,000.

Paragraph 6(g) of the agreement provides that TSR will pay Arneson a royalty of 2 1/2% of the cover price for every copy sold of Monster Manual. Monster Manual is defined in paragraph [*3] 7(f) of the agreement to include "the book currently published by TSR entitled "ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Monster Manual" (2009) and any revised edition or foreign language translation thereof." Paragraph 7(a) defines "revised edition" to mean "a printed work having a title the same as or similar to the related earlier work, revised to include changes or additions to the text, but continuing to include substantially the same rules and subject matter as contained in the earlier work."

The dispute between the parties centers on whether Monster Manual II is a "revised edition" of Monster Manual under the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties. TSR initially, for a period of approximately one year, made royalty payments to Arneson [*5] on Monster Manual II totalling $108,703.50. These payments stopped on November 2, 1984 when TSR sent a letter to Arneson stating that the payments on Monster Manual II had been made inadvertently and by mistake because it is not a "revised edition" of Monster Manual. The letter went on to state that TSR was therefore crediting the overpayment against the $60,238.68 third quarter (1982) royalty otherwise due on other works and that there remained an overpayment of $48,464.82, which would be credited by TSR against subsequent quarterly royalty amounts. Arneson, through his attorney, responded in a letter dated November 5, 1984 informing TSR that it has no right to credit or offset royalty payments owing on items other than Monster Manual II and that such actions have placed TSR in default under paragraph 17 of the contract. This action was filed on November 14, 1984.

I can't say that I agree with the decision in this case, where the judge seems to equate the MMI with the "series of Monster Manuals". The MMII is clearly a continuation of the "series of Monster Manuals", but the initial royalty agreement seems to be specifically about MMI.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Dragonblade

He credited a lot of that success to WotC's business model of only releasing one major book a month which makes it easy for people to simply buy each new book as it comes out.

Will D&D gamers be hooked on 4e for more than 2-3 years at most? Cause it is a pretty focused & heavy game.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

Everyone on Enworld has some kind of opinion

I think replacing "EnWorld" with "The Internet" in the above (narrowly quoted) statement is far more accurate.

Originally Posted by xechnao

Will D&D gamers be hooked on 4e for more than 2-3 years at most? Cause it is a pretty focused & heavy game.

3e was pretty heavy, and look how well it continued to do.

[Piratecat]

Please read this before posting. If you posted, and your post runs contrary to this reminder, I strongly suggest you edit that post.

I don't care if you love 4e or don't like it, if you agree with Joe Goodman or don't believe him. You will not, however, make personal attacks against him or anyone else. If catch the faintest hint of cheap shots or rudeness in this thread, we're going to suspend you without bothering to email. Our patience on this matter has pretty much dissolved.

As always, feel free to PM me if this is in any way unclear.

- Piratecat

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Crothian

Don't forget Goodman Games built a great reputation in 3e and I have tio believe that has carried over to 4e for their fans. Without that
I imagine it would be a lot tougher for someone new to the scene to have that type of success.

Which leaves him as the de facto 3pp for 4e. Moreover his major competition for customer share is Paizo, not Wotc because Paizo is holding a share from his potential market.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Rechan

3e was pretty heavy, and look how well it continued to do.

It's different. 3e was less focused. Moreover this breadth was actually exploited with the OGL "movement". This breadth may also create illusions, for example regarding the heaviness of the game since you know you have the possibility to model it. And at this point it is irrelevant if it is in practice heavier or not than 4e.

[Zil]

Originally Posted by Dragonblade

This discussion occurred before I ever read this thread or Goodman's comments. But basically I asked the managers of my FLGS point blank whether 4e was selling well, and he said it was selling fantastically well even despite the economy. He said they had a great year last year when 4e came out, and it has been selling steadily since then. He credited a lot of that success to WotC's business model of only releasing one major book a month which makes it easy for people to simply buy each new book as it comes out.

I posed a similar question to the owner of a successful FLGS (had been in business for about 30 years) at a city about five hours from here last Fall and got a similar response. 4E was doing fantastic for his store! I was curious because I was seriously considering opening a FLGS in my own community. That said, the FLGS I visited is no longer in business so now I'm not as sure he was telling me the truth.

I then asked him about Paizo. He did not have very kind words for Paizo. In his opinion Paizo has done everything possible to drive traffic and sales to their own website, and away from hobby retailers.

This is more interesting to me. I am a huge fan of Paizo, but I was wondering similar things. By offering discounts on some items if you sign up for subscriptions, are you in effect hurting some of your potential distributors.

On the other hand, Amazon and the like are also effectively trashing the FLGS for any items that you can find there, so what is going on with Paizo is probably not all that unique. Their discounts are nowhere near as steep and they don't have the same "free shipping" that the big Internet shops can offer.

What the FLGS store should provide is a venue that gamers can go to to browse through material and decide if they want to buy or not. It also serves as a place to introduce new things that they may not have heard of.

I know that with the later WoTC 3.x books, I was unwilling to buy them sight unseen. That hasn't been the case with Paizo because the quality of the lines I've subscribed to has been outstanding. Is Paizo potentially a victim of their own success (and quality product)?

[JohnRTroy]

Regarding this back and forth.

I think it's okay to have a sense of health skepticism and question facts and figures.

However, I also know in this day and age, it has become the status quo for people to start attacking the messenger and not the message. You see it in politics all the time--people start attacking the media for "biased coverage", or they think everybody has an agenda that interferes with them being able to come to a reasonable conclusion. People start attacking reporter's and experts agendas and biases.

I dislike that viewpoint. One of the key things in life is to accept that you might be wrong. The more dogmatic you believe in an opinion, the less likely you are to be open to another viewpoint, even if it's the factual one!

So I guess what I am saying is I'd like to see more people give at least some trust to these people that they are basing their statements on facts and not biased agendas.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Obryn

This is one heck of a thread. It's like we've moved from "Joe Goodman is in a position to know this stuff!" to "Ah, to heck with Joe Goodman. What the heck does he know, anyway?"

Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly. I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman. And yes, he stated his opinions.

Not all opinions are created equal, though, folks. I know this isn't a popular statement on a messageboard populated with egotistical gamer geeks, but expert opinions are, indeed, more valuable than layman opinions. Often, experts get paid for them.

No, it's not gospel. Yes, he could indeed be wrong. But discounting his opinion entirely is foolish.

I dont doubt his credentials at all. He sounds like a very smart businessman.

But his opinion is just that, opinion. Like someone said earlier, he states his creds, and his conclusions.......but where is the actual evidence? Data? that he talks about.

Its just not there. Mind you I think 4e is selling well, not as well as 3, but good enough that its selling well. No interest myself, mind you.

Would love to see it. I dont doubt his GW conclusion because andocetely I've seen it in action.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

So I guess what I am saying is I'd like to see more people give at least some trust to these people that they are basing their statements on facts and not biased agendas.

The most potentially dangerous avenue is this one you are talking about. Why would Joe Goodman make a post like this? He has made himself an opening and he is rushing to take advantage of it. To judge things you must not listen the stories of one or the other but try to spot the battlefield itself, see the actual match to see what is happening.

Of course perception is limited. Joe Goodman knows this. This is why he speaks. But I wont alter what I can already perceive by someone's words. Joe Goodman's post is interesting nevertheless for us and for him because it informs us for his acclaimed status as the most probably greatest standard bearer of 3pp support of 4e.

It is relevant to Orcus posting. Orcus had to post for his reasons too. And Goodman had to respond to this. It is not about what they are saying directly. It is all about what they are saying indirectly.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Obryn

This is one heck of a thread. It's like we've moved from "Joe Goodman is in a position to know this stuff!" to "Ah, to heck with Joe Goodman. What the heck does he know, anyway?"

Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly. I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman. And yes, he stated his opinions.

Not all opinions are created equal, though, folks. I know this isn't a popular statement on a messageboard populated with egotistical gamer geeks, but expert opinions are, indeed, more valuable than layman opinions. Often, experts get paid for them.

No, it's not gospel. Yes, he could indeed be wrong. But discounting his opinion entirely is foolish.

-O

I know one thing, this thread is a good example of the reason why he chose to remain silent until now.

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by Obryn

Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly. I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman. And yes, he stated his opinions.

Not all opinions are created equal, though, folks. I know this isn't a popular statement on a messageboard populated with egotistical gamer geeks, but expert opinions are, indeed, more valuable than layman opinions. Often, experts get paid for them.

No, it's not gospel. Yes, he could indeed be wrong. But discounting his opinion entirely is foolish.

-O

I think his opinion is highly valid. Again, I've always felt that grab and go modules are a great fit for 4E and expected Goodman to do well.

Do you have the same respect for other industry professionals opinions? Such as those described by Orcus in the post that got all this started?

Retailers are less than excited about 4E supplemental material. Distributors even less so. Print partners still less excited.

I don't see these positions and Goodman's as in conflict. Other people in the industry are not going to ignore larger trends just because Goodman is an exception. Particularly if there is an understandable basis for the exception.

Yeah, these are not direct quotes. But Orcus has a solid reputation and a clear strong eagerness to publish for 4E. And yet he posts these comments, in plural, for three different tiers of sales. Now maybe he didn't do his homework and he is blowing one nay-sayers comments out of proportion, and setting aside his desire to publish for 4E based on that one slanted statement. But I doubt it.

It is probably more reasonable to develop an understanding in which both of these professional opinions are compatible.

Do you see these opinions of those retailers, distributors, and print partners as more valuable than ENWorld laymen? I do.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by Zil

That said, the FLGS I visited is no longer in business so now I'm not as sure he was telling me the truth.

Of course, he could have gone out of business for reasons completely unrelated to 4E, like the landlord raising the rent, a medical emergency, bad gambling debts, winning the lottery...any number of things.

[Treebore]

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.

Yeah, I am wondering the same myself, because of the lawsuits I have read, which are only a half dozen of them, TSR and WOTC never give "exact" sales numbers. Like in the last lawsuit WOTC describes their sales numbers as, "Hundreds of Thousands" of Core rule book sets sold. All that tells anyone is that 4E numbers are very significantly lower than 3E at its peak.

Still, I think his over all assessment that 4E is doing "fine" is accurate, just not a bigger hit than 3E was, like some WOTC posters have claimed. In fact, Joe out right admits 4E isn't close at all to being the sales hit that 3E was.

So sales wise, 4E is not better than 3E, and is now irrefutable fact. Well, its been irrefutable fact since the WOTC law suits, but now maybe more people can accept the facts with Goodman spelling it out like he has.