Goodman rebuttal

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by xechnao

Because it is also impossible to really know if 4e is going strong and yet people say so. Marketing is a reality that comes to fill the gaps of knowledge. But if one does marketing expect some people to question and rightly so. In the end this is how democracy works too.

This doesn't actually make sense, you know. Particularly the second sentence.

What I see in this forum is a sort of denialism-lite. Its the same basic system whether you're denying the sales figures of an RPG you don't like, or denying the efficacy of vaccinations:

1. Demand absolute, 100% guaranteed, irrefutable proof.
2. When this isn't provided, because you've demanded an unattainable degree of certainty, proclaim that this means that the matter is an open question.
3. Throw out insinuations to get people to believe that if the matter is an open question, they should lean towards assuming that your side is the safest bet.

So on one hand we have best seller lists, print runs being sold out, reordered, and sold out again, we have the statements of people in the industry with direct knowledge, we have the statements of people in the industry with professional experience examining these questions and making business decisions based on them, and so on.

On the other hand we have quibbles about how complete these pieces of evidence really are, and a few people's personal testimony about their friends and neighbors.

Its the tricks and tactics of denialism that serve to turn this into a debate instead of a functionally closed question. The best seller lists are pointed out as not infallible. The fact that print runs sell out is used to argue that the print runs must have been too small and somehow therefore indicates a lack of confidence. The people in the industry are accused of being shills, or insinuations about a lack of candor, without any specific accusation, are used to muddy their reputations.

The goal is to make everyone believe that anything at all could be true, but that the people saying 4e is doing well are somehow sinister and not to be trusted, and that therefore we should presume that its doing poorly.

Just the same as any other denialism. There are some interesting scholarly articles about the phenomenon out there, if you care to look around. I'm not sure I should post them here, some people might read them like a manual.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by xechnao

Because it is also impossible to really know if 4e is going strong and yet people say so.

I find it more people saying 4e is dying than the other way around.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by xechnao

Because it is also impossible to really know if 4e is going strong and yet people say so. Marketing is a reality that comes to fill the gaps of knowledge. But if one does marketing expect some people to question and rightly so. In the end this is how democracy works too.

But the reverse is also true. It is impossible to really know if 4E is doing poorly. Yet, people keep posting the argument that opinions where 4E is doing well are invalid because there is no evidence while implying that the opposite is true.

My point is that the lack of evidence doesn't refute the opinion, and it most certainly does not support the opposite. If you disagree with an opinion, try come up with your own opinion.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by xechnao

I am asking seriously here because I fail (totally) to see your point.

The point is that some people in this thread are acting spectacularly crappy toward Mr. Goodman (and, in another thread, toward Mr. Peterson) without good justification. Publishers have been known to go on long sabbaticals or close up shop completely because they get sick of dealing with throngs of hypercritical 'fans' who never (or rarely) have anything positive to say. Simply put, there is a ton of crap to deal with for relatively little reward.

There was a day when I didn't 'get' this reaction, either. I recall being utterly perplexed when James Wallis publically told his consumers where to stick it right before parting out Hogshead Publishing near the end of 2002. You can read up on some of that fallout and reasoning here. Having since had the opportunity to work on the business side of this hobby, I completely understand how he felt.

[Hunter In Darkness]

All we have to go on is how each of our area's are doing. 10 people can say 4e sales poorly, then 10 can say it sales better then 3.5 did, then 10 people can say it's 50/50 sales

And we still know very little. Then count in online and such and you just do not know.

I think it is saleing ok, I do not think it outsold 3.0 and really don't think it is outselling 3.5 however 3.5 was in a slump( mostly do to bad splat books if ya ask me) and so it prob is selling better then it did the last year or so of 3.5

but really we know nothing. And really Mr. Goodmen knows nothing . He sees but one small part and nothing of Wotc's numbers

I am glad both for him and 4e players that enjoy his stuff that his sales are good. But I think it has more to do with Goodmens name, the fact he jumped into 4e as soon as he could and the company's soild fanbase then much else really

Other companys without the fanbase, and the name will just not get much headway

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

This doesn't actually make sense, you know. Particularly the second sentence.

What I see in this forum is a sort of denialism-lite. Its the same basic system whether you're denying the sales figures of an RPG you don't like, or denying the efficacy of vaccinations:

1. Demand absolute, 100% guaranteed, irrefutable proof.
2. When this isn't provided, because you've demanded an unattainable degree of certainty, proclaim that this means that the matter is an open question.
3. Throw out insinuations to get people to believe that if the matter is an open question, they should lean towards assuming that your side is the safest bet.

So on one hand we have best seller lists, print runs being sold out, reordered, and sold out again, we have the statements of people in the industry with direct knowledge, we have the statements of people in the industry with professional experience examining these questions and making business decisions based on them, and so on.

On the other hand we have quibbles about how complete these pieces of evidence really are, and a few people's personal testimony about their friends and neighbors.

Its the tricks and tactics of denialism that serve to turn this into a debate instead of a functionally closed question. The best seller lists are pointed out as not infallible. The fact that print runs sell out is used to argue that the print runs must have been too small and somehow therefore indicates a lack of confidence. The people in the industry are accused of being shills, or insinuations about a lack of candor, without any specific accusation, are used to muddy their reputations.

The goal is to make everyone believe that anything at all could be true, but that the people saying 4e is doing well are somehow sinister and not to be trusted, and that therefore we should presume that its doing poorly.

Just the same as any other denialism. There are some interesting scholarly articles about the phenomenon out there, if you care to look around. I'm not sure I should post them here, some people might read them like a manual.

There is also an interesting addendum:

People who benefit from 4E's success have less of a need to deny or believe anything. They have 4E, and life is good. At the very least its better than the uncertain future for 3E/OGL.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

This doesn't actually make sense, you know. Particularly the second sentence.

Ok, let me retry by quoting your own words.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Throw out insinuations to get people to believe that if the matter is an open question, they should lean towards assuming that your side is the safest bet.

When people communicate this the tactic of every one side. Communication is open. This is why marketing works and this is why true democracy is considered the political ideal.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

statements of people in the industry with direct knowledge, we have the statements of people in the industry with professional experience examining these questions and making business decisions based on them, and so on.

There is no such thing as direct knowledge in today's business-industry. It is mostly about hype. On every level of it. What you need is a competitive product and hype. Not a good product but a competitive product.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

On the other hand we have quibbles about how complete these pieces of evidence really are, and a few people's personal testimony about their friends and neighbors.

Its the tricks and tactics of denialism that serve to turn this into a debate instead of a functionally closed question. The best seller lists are pointed out as not infallible. The fact that print runs sell out is used to argue that the print runs must have been too small and somehow therefore indicates a lack of confidence. The people in the industry are accused of being shills, or insinuations about a lack of candor, without any specific accusation, are used to muddy their reputations.

The goal is to make everyone believe that anything at all could be true, but that the people saying 4e is doing well are somehow sinister and not to be trusted, and that therefore we should presume that its doing poorly.

Just the same as any other denialism. There are some interesting scholarly articles about the phenomenon out there, if you care to look around. I'm not sure I should post them here, some people might read them like a manual.

I think you are totally missing the point. Wotc could have fantastic sales. Yet Hasbro could close it down for some irrelevant reason. Hasbro is the true authority behind this and all the rest of the discussions we are having serve nothing but hype. This is what Joe is trying to say/communicate/make clear and he has a point.

EDIT: Obviously I am referring here in the last sentence to the one Joe that goes by the lawyer profession

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Hunter In Darkness

but really we know nothing

Then act like it, Socrates.

Apparently, you didn't read my warning on page 4 closely enough.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Really smart stuff

F---ing A.

[Drunken Master]

Right now, at my FLGS, the tables are full. I'm actually not there because those tables are full. And it's NOT because of Free RPG Day or anything, because for whatever reason, this store's not participating. But dudes are showing up to play, and they're playing 4E.

A week ago I tried to sign up to play in a RPGA Living Forgotten Realms session scheduled for today, but the tables available were already full. My local RPGA folks run two game days a month, and they had to add a third one next week so that people like myself could have a chance to play, too! People who tout the failure of 4E are... "mistaken", I guess would be the most polite way I could put it.

We're at the FLGS, we're buying stuff, we're playing 4E, and we're having fun. I've played every edition of this game, and not only have I had a blast with each one, each iteration has been better than the last, in my opinion.

I don't know about sales figures or any of that business - all I know is that I have a really good time getting together with people, rolling some dice, and pretending to kill monsters - whether it be at the store or in my home, and I think 4E is killer. There are a LOT of people just like me out there.

Thanks, Wizards! And thanks, Goodman!

[Hunter In Darkness]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

Then act like it, Socrates.

Never read him so ya lost me there

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

On the other hand we have quibbles about how complete these pieces of evidence really are, and a few people's personal testimony about their friends and neighbors.

You mean things like Goodman saying that the first year of 4E wasn't as good as the first year of 3E and it isn't fair to even compare to that generational high point?

Or do you mean things like Clark saying the whole distribution chain is down on 4E?

I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between WotC's D&D sales and what is happening in the 3PP market.

4E is selling well. Well enough for WotC. I think that is a clear and simple fact.

It may be blowing the doors off their expectations or someone may be getting taken to task every week for why it doesn't bring in buckets of gold by the truck every week. Comparing to projections is unknown and subjective. But profitable is (by and large) clear.

Does 4E have the sustained selling power of 3E? Now we are in to pure opinion. My opinion is no. I might be wrong. We may find out, we may never really know.

More on the topic at hand: How is the 3PP market?
It sucks. That, again, is my opinion.
If you are Goodman, it is doing well. That is technically opinion, but it seems unreasonable to me to not call it fact.

There is a lot of fact blowing around and there is a lot of opinion blowing around and they both cut both ways.

One could just as easily say that D&D's days as the king of games is starting to waiver and disputing that is nothing more than denialism.
I don't think that is right. But it is no more wrong than your spin.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by Hunter In Darkness

Never read him so ya lost me there

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

The point is that some people in this thread are acting spectacularly crappy toward Mr. Goodman (and, in another thread, toward Mr. Peterson) without good justification. Publishers have been known to go on long sabbaticals or close up shop completely because they get sick of dealing with throngs of hypercritical 'fans' who never (or rarely) have anything positive to say. Simply put, there is a ton of crap to deal with for relatively little reward.

I see. I could think this behavior exists because today the customer does not see nor understands the labor behind publishing a product the same way as he understands the labor behind some good marketing or developing a good product. Having said that I am curious about the potential of POD and when it will really take off. Today still, Lulu seems to be a monopoly running things half as good as it could.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

Yes, and a downturn for FLGS has nothing to do with M:tG cooling off or being a slow time for Games Workshop.

Amazon and discount places never hurt FLGS in terms of M:tG, though eBay might have. None of those three affected Games Workshop sales that much.

I have to slightly disagree. I know online dsicounters can and do hurt GLGS in regard to Games WOrkshop items. Gods know I never play full price of anything from tehm and know I'm not alone.

I'll assume there are similar places for M:tG.....Anyone who plays the game know?

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by BryonD

You mean things like Goodman saying that the first year of 4E wasn't as good as the first year of 3E and it isn't fair to even compare to that generational high point?

3E was released after a lengthy dry spell, with people aching for something new and fresh. The OGL was brand new and the sky was the limit. 4E was launched when 3E was just beginning to slow down, so the anticipation was less. The 3pp market crashed, stabilized, and then began to tail off a bit before 4E was launched. The environment at launch was a big cause of 3E's initial success, and 4E's just doesn't match those circumstances.

Originally Posted by BryonD

Or do you mean things like Clark saying the whole distribution chain is down on 4E?

I have to say he's talking about his world here, the 3pp world. Goodman Games worked hard to stay relevant, and others who haven't done so now face an uphill battle with distributors.

Originally Posted by BryonD

I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between WotC's D&D sales and what is happening in the 3PP market.

4E is selling well. Well enough for WotC. I think that is a clear and simple fact.

It may be blowing the doors off their expectations or someone may be getting taken to task every week for why it doesn't bring in buckets of gold by the truck every week. Comparing to projections is unknown and subjective. But profitable is (by and large) clear.

Does 4E have the sustained selling power of 3E? Now we are in to pure opinion. My opinion is no. I might be wrong. We may find out, we may never really know.

I think your opinion implies a strong correlation between sustained selling power and 3pp support, or at the very least the customizability and flexibility of 3.5E. I happen to believe that 4E will have more than enough sustained selling power to live out its natural life of 8-10 years, and I don't think 3pp will or would have had that much of an impact either way.

Originally Posted by BryonD

More on the topic at hand: How is the 3PP market?
It sucks. That, again, is my opinion.
If you are Goodman, it is doing well. That is technically opinion, but it seems unreasonable to me to not call it fact.

There is a lot of fact blowing around and there is a lot of opinion blowing around and they both cut both ways.

One could just as easily say that D&D's days as the king of games is starting to waiver and disputing that is nothing more than denialism.
I don't think that is right. But it is no more wrong than your spin.

Again, this implies that D&D's being the king of games includes strong 3pp support to be true. Even during the darkest days of TSR, D&D never really lost that title(though White Wolf might have gotten close), and prior to that had almost zero support from 3pp for most of the 20 years prior to 3E, in which D&D was the king of RPGs.

I understand that things look bleak for those who value the OGL movement and D&D's participation in it, but it isn't a universally held opinion. I'm perfectly happy playing core D&D, and I have been since the early 90's. The game serves me better by being the best core D&D it can be(as 4E strives to be) as opposed to a flexible one-size-fits-all game(that 3E partnered with the OGL strove to be).

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by xechnao

I could think this behavior exists because today the customer does not see nor understands the labor behind publishing a product the same way as he understands the labor behind some good marketing or developing a good product.

In my experience the problem arises when a consumer doesn't understand any of that, likes to think they understand all of it, and subsequently floods a publisher's inbox(es) with 'friendly' or 'helpful' criticism.

Having said that I am curious about the potential of POD and when it will really take off. Today still, Lulu seems to be a monopoly running things half as good as it could.

Well, Lulu's perceived shortcomings are actually hundreds of times better than things like the previously proposed Amazon monopoly which would have forced many people currently using Lulu completely out of the POD market, due to insane per unit price increases and draconian contracts.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

I can see this. Except for used books, I haven't purchased any RPG book from an FLGS in the last four years. Everything has been through Amazon.com (amazon prime shipping is awesome) and to a lesser degree from Paizo's online store and whatever the name is for Catalyst's store for Shadowrun.

Any browsing of physical books tends to happen at GenCon, which is the only time of the year I'll buy books without the sort of discounts I can get online.

Of course, the shift to online sales away from FLGSs also impacts best sellers lists too (since AFAIK sales in FLGSs don't tend to count as much or at all compared to big box stores, amazon, etc). But that's for another discussion entirely.

I have to be honest: FLGS havent been useful or relevant for me in....5 years? 10 years? While it may just be my area, they arent any help or use. Whether its for my GW wargaming or looking for a RPG group or needs, they have ben utterly unhelpful in that regard. I dont spend one dime in one and dont plan on doing so in the future.

Ages ago I use to be an advocate for them, but experience has shown me its literally a one way street. I'd support them, but their support of me, so to speak, wasnt there.

*shrug* The internet takes care of all my needs. I can browse in my fuzzy slippers instead of trekking 45 minutes to see a bare shelf for wargaming models or only the latest hottest for RPG's or such. Or terrible times for actual playing....I can go on.

I can browse at my lesiure on the internet. Converse with my wargaming group and set a time and day. Found my current RPG group on a games/people finder, track down that book I was looking for....and so on.

Gmes shops vital to the industry? Maybe, but maybe not....its welcome to the 21st century.....

[Pseudopsyche]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Either way though, it's irrelevant how well they are doing as compared to back i n the day. What matters is how well they are doing as compared to how well Hasbro wants them to do. How well are they meeting their revenue goals for the year?

Forgive me, I don't usually participate in these industry threads, and I feel like I am missing an important premise. Why does it matter how well WotC is performing compared to Hasbro's goals?

Are people worried that WotC will declare bankruptcy and, being "too big to fail", will bring down the entire hobby with them? (Presumably, WotC is not in line for any government bailout money.) Or are so many people in this forum considering publishing 4E material and need to know how risky the market is (whether WotC will continue supporting 4E)?

What's it to you that WotC meets some projected dollar amount set by Hasbro?

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

In my experience the problem arises when a consumer doesn't understand any of that, likes to think they understand all of it, and subsequently floods a publisher's inbox(es) with 'friendly' or 'helpful' criticism.

Well consumers are conditioned to react with their feedback in the ever reaching marketing campaigns-propaganda environment they are carpet bombed with all the time. But I see what you are saying. I really do. I blame it on today's nature of doing business.