Goodman rebuttal

ggroy · 20th June 2009, 04:41 PM

Joe Goodman wrote a semi-rebuttal article to Orcus' (Clark's) article.

Goodman Games • View topic - My opinion on D&D 4E

Crothian · 20th June 2009, 04:55 PM

Thanks for pointing that out.

S'mon · 20th June 2009, 04:58 PM

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.

Rechan · 20th June 2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S'mon

Hmm, I'm pretty sure WotC were aiming for something comparable.

Maybe. But I"m pretty sure their bottom line is something profitable.

Mark · 20th June 2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Will 4E do as well as 3E?

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.

S'mon · 20th June 2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rechan

Maybe. But I"m pretty sure their bottom line is something profitable.

I doubt it - a publicly listed company can't afford just to be profitable, as if it were a basement operation like Nec or Goodman. It needs to meet Return-on-Investment expectations. Otherwise the shareholders will go elsewhere.

Amphimir Míriel · 20th June 2009, 05:03 PM

Excellent points, and this proves that what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander...

In the meantime, while I am a bit disappointed that I might not be able to buy a Tome of Horrors 4E, I am very happy with my Master Dungeons and Level Up purchases

**Piratecat** · 20th June 2009, 05:05 PM

Excellent. Thank you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fiery Dragon putting out the Tome of Horrors 4e?

Glyfair · 20th June 2009, 05:07 PM

Quote:

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.

Interesting, I have never seen a thread on this specific topic. It would be interesting if it avoided the "edition war" feel (which I doubt it could).

I would say 100% it's next to impossible, as Joe states in the article. 3E was a combination of things that all had to be just right to reach that benchmark.

Doug McCrae · 20th June 2009, 05:07 PM

Quote:

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.

Why? My reading of Goodman's article is that WotC aren't foolish. But that they would be to aim for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S'mon

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.

D&D is a small part of WotC. For all we know, D&D's main purpose from a business perspective might be to drive sales of the far more profitable D&D minis. I'm not saying that is the case, but it may be.

JeffB · 20th June 2009, 05:08 PM

Heh..cue up 10 pages of "armchair experts" proclaiming Joe has no idea what he's talking about

Doug McCrae · 20th June 2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffB

Heh..cue up 10 pages of "armchair experts" proclaiming Joe has no idea what he's talking about

I have to say, I was really impressed by Goodman's business credentials - Fortune 50 company, runs a billion dollar division, that's one heckuva good resume - and the seeming depth of his research. And surprised to discover that his gaming company is actually just a hobby, not a full time job.

**Piratecat** · 20th June 2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffB

Heh..cue up 10 pages of "armchair experts" proclaiming Joe has no idea what he's talking about

Heh.. cue threadcrapping comments that preemptively insult half the people who will post in this thread.

Seriously, Jeff, ask yourself: does a snarky post make the thread better? If not, don't post it.

ggroy · 20th June 2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

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.

In the 8-9 years after the 1982 peak, that would place the economy in recession in the early 1990's. (Not unlike today's economy). From what I remember of those days, it took several years for the economy to almost fully recover in some places.

It would be interesting to compare 2E AD&D sales figures to today's 4E D&D sales figures, and see how close they correlate to one another.

JeffB · 20th June 2009, 05:24 PM

OK sorry. Its just my sarcastic nature in which I state the obvious.

How about this? for all those whom are going to refute Joe's assertions, how about they please give their RPG Industry and business credentials and describe the research and methods they have used to come to a contradictory conclusion? I don't think thats unreasonable?

SpydersWebbing · 20th June 2009, 05:24 PM

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 fact that we're not in the "super-profitable cycle" doesn't mean 4e isn't doing well. If anything, Goodman's article seems to indicate that 4e is doing very well, just that it's not the out of the ballpark smash hit that 3e was. And that's OK, because the game is still selling more than enough, the retailers can't get enough, and we have our games. What more can matter?

I'd say we're doing well as an industry, and the fact that someone from inside said industry can say we're doing well in this recession says alot about the quality that Wizards is giving to us.

Twowolves · 20th June 2009, 05:34 PM

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.

Merlin's Shadow · 20th June 2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffB

OK sorry. Its just my sarcastic nature in which I state the obvious.

How about this? for all those whom are going to refute Joe's assertions, how about they please give their RPG Industry and business credentials and describe the research and methods they have used to come to a contradictory conclusion? I don't think thats unreasonable?

So...we can't have a discussion about this unless everyone involved lays out their credentials first?

JeffB · 20th June 2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merlin's Shadow

So...we can't have a discussion about this unless everyone involved lays out their credentials first?

Oh please...Of course not. All I'm saying is we always have alot of "experts" here who discuss these things to death based on nothing other than "wants it to be that way because I like/hate X" and treat that as how things are in the real world. I'd like to see people back up their assertions with facts- Joe has.

guivre · 20th June 2009, 06:04 PM

Hmm... glad to hear that 4E is doing well from his perspective. I still suspect it's not doing nearly as well as WotC hoped. There are a lot of problems with it, but it's easy to run so I'm hoping it does well enough to stick around for awhile.

Though I am sad to see the "game stores bring in more new players" nonsense. No amount of retail experience validates that opinion. He's welcome to hold it but I still maintain that it's simply not true. Probably not the real point of the article though so I'll leave it at that.