Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Top 5 RPGs--Spring 2012
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jsaving" data-source="post: 5977276" data-attributes="member: 16726"><p>I hear this all the time in my 4e group -- sales were going strong until WotC inexplicably decided to pull the plug on 4e, at which time sales predictably fell, and besides, natural product cycles would imply low sales for 4e in any event, so really, there's nothing to see here.</p><p></p><p>And I just don't get it. </p><p></p><p>WotC invested tens of thousands of man-hours, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in a system they believed would carry D&D for a standard 8-10 year product cycle. Most of their designers staked their reputations on it. The fact that WotC pulled the plug on 4e years early, jettisoning half-completed products like the PH4 and discarding several years of design-and-development plans, <em>has</em> to mean the system wasn't performing up to snuff sales-wise. And for that reason alone, the ICv2 figures wouldn't be a surprise no matter <em>what</em> WotC had done about Next or what the product cycle may be for 4e. </p><p></p><p>But that isn't what I don't understand. What puzzles me is why so many people see 4e's sales performance as a referendum on whether 4e is a solid system, and think giving any credence whatsoever to underlying sales issues means admitting the game itself isn't any good. And it just doesn't mean that. Solid products underperform sales-wise all the time for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with product quality, and this may just be one of those times. It's also worth pointing out that numerous 4e design elements from themes to at-wills to backgrounds are being incorporated into Next, which wouldn't be happening if the system really were as bad as some 3e/Pathfinder fans claim. </p><p></p><p>So that's why I think 4e fans can and should hold their heads up high, which simultaneously acknowledging that changes are needed to make the game more attractive to people who feel something vital was lost in the 3e-to-4e transition. Because we all benefit when the game's base is broadened -- more designers are hired, more products are produced, and some fractured gaming tables can perhaps be reunited. That may not be a popular view from the extremes (on either side), but it's my two cents on the issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jsaving, post: 5977276, member: 16726"] I hear this all the time in my 4e group -- sales were going strong until WotC inexplicably decided to pull the plug on 4e, at which time sales predictably fell, and besides, natural product cycles would imply low sales for 4e in any event, so really, there's nothing to see here. And I just don't get it. WotC invested tens of thousands of man-hours, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in a system they believed would carry D&D for a standard 8-10 year product cycle. Most of their designers staked their reputations on it. The fact that WotC pulled the plug on 4e years early, jettisoning half-completed products like the PH4 and discarding several years of design-and-development plans, [i]has[/i] to mean the system wasn't performing up to snuff sales-wise. And for that reason alone, the ICv2 figures wouldn't be a surprise no matter [i]what[/i] WotC had done about Next or what the product cycle may be for 4e. But that isn't what I don't understand. What puzzles me is why so many people see 4e's sales performance as a referendum on whether 4e is a solid system, and think giving any credence whatsoever to underlying sales issues means admitting the game itself isn't any good. And it just doesn't mean that. Solid products underperform sales-wise all the time for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with product quality, and this may just be one of those times. It's also worth pointing out that numerous 4e design elements from themes to at-wills to backgrounds are being incorporated into Next, which wouldn't be happening if the system really were as bad as some 3e/Pathfinder fans claim. So that's why I think 4e fans can and should hold their heads up high, which simultaneously acknowledging that changes are needed to make the game more attractive to people who feel something vital was lost in the 3e-to-4e transition. Because we all benefit when the game's base is broadened -- more designers are hired, more products are produced, and some fractured gaming tables can perhaps be reunited. That may not be a popular view from the extremes (on either side), but it's my two cents on the issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Top 5 RPGs--Spring 2012
Top