Goodman rebuttal

[rounser]

You specifically accused me of victimizing you and deliberately giving 4e supporters leeway where I gave you none. When I told you to either stand behind those accusations or stop making them, you instead went back and edited your post substantially to downplay your previous position. Nice.

Oh what bollocks. Look, now you're trying to claim victim status, when you were the one who went off half-cocked, accusing me of all sorts of things whilst not reading the context of my post, and then being so paranoid when I try to defend myself that you accuse me of calling you a liar and a 4E proponent! I'm not! And I haven't edited my post in some sneakyduck fashion, I added a bit to the end to make my meaning clearer, as you do!

You'll know when I'm out to get you and that's around about now, because you're doing your darndest to draw blood, and appear to have no idea what my stance is, even when I spell it out to you! I'm not trying to fight you, I'm saying stop and read the context of what I was responding to. You keep accusing me of having ulterior motives, and I'm telling you exactly what I mean and that I wasn't out to get you, and you keep ignoring me. It's ridiculous!

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by S'mon

No I didn't.

You failed to mention several decades worth of sales that Mr. Goodman specifically addressed in his post, as well as his summations thereof, instead immediately claiming that 4e was selling poorly based only on a small portion of the information provided by Mr. Goodman.

You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.

You ignored all of that, focused on Mr. Goodman saying that 4e's launch wasn't as successful as 3e was at its highpoint or as successful as AD&D was in 1982, and immediately posted that, according to Mr. Goodman, D&D 4e is failing. Explain how that is not misrepresentation, please.

Now, that said, I could care less how successful 4e is, but I do care a little about the misrepresentation of others commentary for the apparent purpose of bashing any edition of D&D (granted, that may not have been your intent, but it sure seems that way).

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Why is 4e a year after launch not comparable to 3e a year after launch?

Because 2009 isn't 2001?

[Edit: I should be more clear and apologize for not being so when I initially posted this.

The market of 2009 isn't the same as the market of 2001 — America (where most RPGs are sold) is dealing with a nationwide economic crisis that far exceeds that of 2001, consumer confidence reached an all-time low last fall, continued to fall early this year, and probably won't get better any time soon.

Comparing sales of a luxury item during horrible economic times to sales of a similar item during much better economic times is like comparing apples and oranges.]

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

You failed to mention several decades worth of sales that Mr. Goodman specifically addressed in his post, as well as his summations thereof, instead immediately claiming that 4e was selling poorly based only on a small portion of the information provided by Mr. Goodman.

You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.

You ignored all of that, focused on Mr. Goodman saying that 4e's launch wasn't as successful as 3e was at its highpoint or as successful as AD&D was in 1982, and immediately posted that, according to Mr. Goodman, D&D 4e is failing. Explain how that is not misrepresentation, please.

Now, that said, I could care less how successful 4e is, but I do care a little about the misrepresentation of others commentary for the apparent purpose of bashing any edition of D&D (granted, that may not have been your intent, but it sure seems that way).

I never said 4e was failing. As it happens I posted yesterday on Grognardia saying that it wasn't 'tanking'.

However, it's clear from what JG said that 4e is not doing as well as 3e. And given the nature of publicly quoted companies, Hasbro are unlikely to be happy about that.

You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success. It's clearly selling much more than any other RPG. Retailers are ordering it, people are buying & playing it. It's not doing nearly as well as 3e did, though. Call that failure or success; it depends on perspective.

From the perspective of a games store, it may be a success - it sells more than all other RPGs combined, it's selling much more than the last year of 3e. From the POV of a Hasbro stockholder or exec it may not be giving anticipated RoI though.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

Because 2009 isn't 2001?

I don't see any significant differences that would lower the expectations of a Hasbro investor.

Look, I like 4e, I'm about to start a 4e campaign. I have no interest in doing down 4e.

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by S'mon

I never said 4e was failing. As it happens I posted yesterday on Grognardia saying that it wasn't 'tanking'.

However, it's clear from what JG said that 4e is not doing as well as 3e. And given the nature of publicly quoted companies, Hasbro are unlikely to be happy about that.

You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success. It's clearly selling much more than any other RPG. Retailers are ordering it, people are buying & playing it. It's not doing nearly as well as 3e did, though. Call that failure or success; it depends on perspective.

From the perspective of a games store, it may be a success - it sells more than all other RPGs combined, it's selling much more than the last year of 3e. From the POV of a Hasbro stockholder or exec it may not be giving anticipated RoI though.

The business model has changed compared to 3e in 2001, what impact it will have, who knows. But it might trade upfront success for a steadier revenue stream via DDI and the once a month book release.

As to Hasbro's interest, well they barely mention DND in their investor podcasts-conference call thing, so I doubt it is on the radar. It is probably lumped in with WotC as a whole. As long as DND continues to make profit I doubt Greg Leeds is going to knock it on the head - and drag it's body into an alley.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by S'mon

You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success.

I really don't. As I previously indicated to rounser, I am simply sick to death of all the hyperbolic accusations that WotC raped childhoods, destroyed D&D, and so forth. I'm also sick of the manipulation of other people's words that goes along with it. In your first post, you initially took Goodman's post out of context* and then later edited to add the following comment:

Originally Posted by S'mon

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.

That is exactly the kind of passive/aggressive crap I'm tired of. Frankly, right now, I'm of the opinion that all of the people playing passive/agrressive word games when bashing D&D 4e in an attempt to avoid moderation need to grow a spine. And if they can't man up and talk straight? Then they need to shut up.

And now that all of my card are on the table, I'm going to take a week off from posting here and let the chips fall where they may.

*By ignoring his overall point that D&D 4e is as successful as D&D ever has been, with the exception of two years.

**Or any other edition of D&D, for that matter. It just so happens that most of the passive/aggressive crap going on here is focused on bashing D&D 4e.

[jbear]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

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.

sigh.

Maybe we need to take into account/examine your own personal motivations as well. They are bound to have some hidden vested interest which slants your interpretation towards the conclusion you put forth: 'Joe twists the facts to suit his personal version of the reality to convince us (the Jury) that everything is peachy, because that will make us buy his goodman game's 4e products.'

Untruthful? Lacking objectivity? Looking at several other peoples following posts, this is what people seem to be suggesting. Pretty harsh conclusions.

I guess we can/should doubt everything anyone says, all the time. Especially if it contradicts our own personal opinions.

However, maybe it's more constructive to listen to both sides of the issue with an open mind. Is anyone trying to win a court case here? or just offering their valid insight into the gaming industry at present...

Besides, if the guy runs a billion dollar business, and Goodman games is something he does out of passion for gaming... why would he have the need to fool us into whatever you seem to suggest he is fooling us into believing? I guess the defence would base some of their rerbuttle on that.

[JoeGKushner]

Originally Posted by BryonD

(But, as a 3E fan, it is reassuring to have 4E fans justifying why 4E can't be compared to 3E)

Why would anyone need to? Unless WoTC is lying, 4e has sold better than 3.0 (and 3.5 sold better than 3.0) 3rd party products on the other hand...

Originally Posted by BryonD

(
And if Goodman stops going with the flow of 4E (quick and easy modules as core product base) things will not go as well there either. Product fitting demand is more important than hand-waved concepts of who "worked hard to stay relevant".

Please educate yourself on numerous products that Goodman does that are either

'edition neutral'

or sourcebooks. Seriously. If you're trying to make a point, and your information is wrong, it looks like you're not bother to go to the ole Goodman site and see that he has sourcebooks for 4e (class sourcebooks, race sourcebooks, monster sourcebooks, monster manual style sourcebooks), as well as two seperate adventure lines as well as licensing for several other parties including Death Dealer. "Going with the flow?" If the flow is everything under the sun, sure, otherwise you just don't know what you're saying here.

[Rechan]

Each side and everyone on it is more justified and virtuous than the other side.

There.

Now can we get past the urination contests?

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

And if they can't man up and talk straight? Then they need to shut up.

I can't "man up and talk straight" to you, sir, because that would get me a suspension, and you're not worth it.

[Xath]

Clearly many of you have not bothered to read the previous moderator warnings in this thread. Those of you who have been unable to maintain civil conversation will now be subject to a vacation.

Xath
Moderator

[JeffB]

Just a few more posts and my prophecy will have come TRUE!!!


MEWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha

[Xath]

Originally Posted by JeffB

Just a few more posts and my prophecy will have come TRUE!!!


MEWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha

Enjoy a week off for threadcrapping after you were specifically warned not to by Piratecat on Page 1. What possibly could have made you think that was a good idea after I just posted a general thread warning?

Xath
Moderator

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Twowolves

I'm pretty sure gamers trying to get reasonable prices on GW stuff 15 years ago invented the online discount store model in the first place.

Actually having played 15 years ago the models were much more reasonably priced. Trust me on that.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.

The problem comes in, that, while interesting as Mr Goodman's post was, there really is no hard information there, from an objective standpoint. He states his credentials(which I dont doubt), says a bunch of stuff(from which he says he pulled from a variety of sources) on a point by point basis, then comes down to his conculsion-that 4e is doing well(again, I have no doubts its selling).

Then most everyone went, ok where's there data? And that seems to be the sticking point and arguing- folks that dont care about 4e are going to run with one way, while 4e fans run the other.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by carmachu

The problem comes in, that, while interesting as Mr Goodman's post was, there really is no hard information there, from an objective standpoint. He states his credentials(which I dont doubt), says a bunch of stuff(from which he says he pulled from a variety of sources) on a point by point basis, then comes down to his conculsion-that 4e is doing well(again, I have no doubts its selling).

Then most everyone went, ok where's there data? And that seems to be the sticking point and arguing- folks that dont care about 4e are going to run with one way, while 4e fans run the other.

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.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But isn't this questioning that he does have the data? That he might be lying about it? Or do you think the data could be interpreted differently, if he just would?

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.

[Shemeska]

Originally Posted by JoeGKushner

Why would anyone need to? Unless WoTC is lying, 4e has sold better than 3.0 (and 3.5 sold better than 3.0) 3rd party products on the other hand...

WotC hasn't lied at any point as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe that anyone with them has ever come out and stated that 4e has sold better than 3.0. They've stated that the initial print run for some of the core 4e books was larger, and since it sold out quickly there's a lot that people can read into that. It's marketing speak of pushing out the numbers that look awesome for you, and phrasing them in such a way that good numbers appear all that much better. But it says nothing about continued success in subsequent books, or net sales of the 4e core books versus those of any other edition. We don't have numbers to honestly answer that.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

WotC hasn't lied at any point as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe that anyone with them has ever come out and stated that 4e has sold better than 3.0. They've stated that the initial print run for some of the core 4e books was larger, and since it sold out quickly there's a lot that people can read into that. It's marketing speak of pushing out the numbers that look awesome for you, and phrasing them in such a way that good numbers appear all that much better. But it says nothing about continued success in subsequent books, or net sales of the 4e core books versus those of any other edition. We don't have numbers to honestly answer that.

On CM, Truth Seeker is constantly feeding news, and news from Sony and how about the PS3 is doing well despite claims to the contrary, or how other consoles will last only 5 years while the PS3 will last 10 years till the next model, and all such talk just makes be believe more and more that the PS3 is in trouble.

I don't think it would be any good for WotC to say anything definitive about this. The only way they might achieve anything would be if they would release all sales data over the past 15 years or so, plus their original expectations. But even that would be problematic - if Goodmans observation on the "generational peak" is correct, then it would be obvious that 4E is selling less than 3E in 2001, then anyone could consider this a failure. (Aside fromt he fact that they could dispute the validity of the numbers or the validity of the expectations)
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.