Pramas: Does 4E have staying power?

[Filcher]

I don't see it. Some former 3pps who have independent companies in their own right have touted the GSL as a reason for non-support of the new edition. Some people have pointed out some faults in the system, the business model and the lack of successful support through the DDI but I have not read anywhere that a former 3pp blames 4e for their own success or failure. Can you link to something somewhere that backs your assertion? With hundreds of former 3pps out there, and a few 4e 3pps making a go of it, I'd imagine there must be tons of links you could give if this were true.

I'm not worried about support/non-support, as (my perceived) complaints about sales/non-sales.

Pramas wrote:

Our one planned product, an update of our d20 System Character Record Folio to 4E, just went to print. I am looking forward to its debut because it will give me some direct and measurable data. The original folio was Green Ronin's best selling product of all time, going through six odd print runs. It will be informative to see how the 4E version stacks up.

I think his expectations are out of line. But, like you noted, I don't have much to support my claims, and I'm feeling pretty darn lazy, so ....

...if you believe that the conditions of the RPG market that 3rd edition entered into are the same as the conditions that 4E entered into, I happily cede the point and retract my argument.

 

[Mark]

The "system" is really just streamlined d20. Tons of stuff could be done with it. If stuff could be done with it.

Indeed. There seems to be a mindset that the fewer 3pps involved in 4e, the more control WotC maintains over the exact nature of what 4e is and becomes. The GSL seemed to have been geared toward exactly that end, in that it is much more restrictive than the OGL in regard to what materials could be massaged, what could be released and what sort of involvement outside of 4e a company that supports 4e could have. I think one of the biggest concerns since the layoffs has to be whether those who remain on staff will be able to maintain the same 4e without the guiding hand of the experienced individuals who have been sent packing.

 

[xechnao]

Tons of stuff could be done with it.

I do not agree with this. Because of the grid powers and grid balance 4e is much more focused and contained as a system -and difficult to develop for. It is also much more streamlined which if you think about it, it means less room to work with. Since it is also more clear it means players are more prone to buy excellent only staff for their game.

 

[Filcher]

he "system" is really just streamlined d20. Tons of stuff could be done with it. If stuff could be done with it.

Well, the owners can. The rest of us, who don't own it, can't.

Like me guessing how fast I could drive your car, so why won't you let me borrow it? You let me borrow the last one ...

I left some porn in the back seat, and ton of trash that you still have to carry around but I'll be better this time. Promise.

 

[Mark]

I'm not worried about support/non-support, as (my perceived) complaints about sales/non-sales.

You seem to be missing a verb but I think I get your drift.

I think his expectations are out of line. But, like you noted, I don't have much to support my claims, and I'm feeling pretty darn lazy, so ....

I wouldn't characterize you as lazy, since you responded so fast, but the lack of links backing your claim leaves me wondering since I have not seen anything in my own surfing to support it either and I tend to try and keep up on such matters.

...if you believe that the conditions of the RPG market that 3rd edition entered into are the same as the conditions that 4E entered into, I happily cede the point and retract my argument.

That seems neither here nor there in regard to your previous point since, for 3pps and most fans (and at one time also for WotC), the best of all worlds is a successful D&D with an OGL that allows for 3pps to flourish, as well. Currently, the winds seemed to have changed in regard to what those with the most weight inside WotC seem to believe, otherwise we would likely have just seen a slightly revised OGL along with a new SRD. How much and who has changed inside WotC depends largely on who is talking and who you believe but the fact that there has been a shift in mindset is not something I see anybody arguing about. In the end it is what this mindset has produced, in the form of the GSL, that has been the sticking point for former 3pps. Of the hundreds of 3pps during the 3.xe era, only a handful have become 4e 3pps and WotC seems satisfied with that situation. Some larger, former 3pps seem to have come to terms with that situation, also, and moved on to become independent (even if the OGL is in use in some of their offerings).

The three biggest changes to my mind that exist between the market 3e entered and the market 4e entered are, firstly, 4e is competing with a much better in-house game than 3e had to supplant, secondly that 4e is obviously not being used to garner as much industry colition as 3e, and lastly the Internet as it exists today make the first two points much, much more important.

 

[Shemeska]

I'm not convinced. We were being hammered with high gas prices already when 4e came out and now the economic "experts" are saying we've been in a recession for a lot longer than anybody previously thought. Sure, there was no panicky meltdown, but it's not like things were all ducky when 4e hit the shelves either.

This.

Something will be found to rationalize lagging 4e supplement sales (it's the economy stupid!), or rationalize the DDI being almost a year behind schedule (they had too much optimism and tried to do too much too fast, or maybe they didn't -really- promise to have everything ready at launch, or Gleemax took too many resources so let's blame it!) or rationalize 4e changes to established settings in the face of fan backlash (it's just people on messageboards! It's nerd rage! The silent unposting majority loves it!).

And then the cycle of bad news, predictions of 4e's death, and rationalization of it being without fault will resume again, over and over. That's about the past year in a nutshell I think.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This.

Something will be found to rationalize lagging 4e supplement sales (it's the economy stupid!), or rationalize the DDI being almost a year behind schedule (they had too much optimism and tried to do too much too fast, or maybe they didn't -really- promise to have everything ready at launch, or Gleemax took too many resources so let's blame it!) or rationalize 4e changes to established settings in the face of fan backlash (it's just people on messageboards! It's nerd rage! The silent unposting majority loves it!).

And then the cycle of bad news, predictions of 4e's death, and rationalization of it being without fault will resume again, over and over. That's about the past year in a nutshell I think.

The above statement assumes that 4E isn't selling well. I disagree with that assumption.

 

[Filcher]

The three biggest changes to my mind that exist between the market 3e entered and the market 4e entered are, firstly, 4e is competing with a much better in-house game than 3e had to supplant, secondly that 4e is obviously not being used to garner as much industry colition as 3e, and lastly the Internet as it exists today make the first two points much, much more important.

I agree 100%.

 

[CaptainChaos]

This is obviously biased viewing of data intended to promote a certain point of view.

Seems to me that he went out of his way to be fair. One of his conclusions is: "While brand power is important (and D&D has plenty of it), it's ultimately the play experience of the fans that will tell the story."

Oh, the bias! Suggesting that people will play the game and decide if they like it? Outrageous!

 

[Jack99]

It means, more or less, that the monthly sales of 4e supplements so far are similar to the sales of January regarding 3e supplements.

It may sound pretty bad because one may think that the 3e supplement sales in January or February should have been pretty limited considering the tour of promoting the new edition -even worse (and perhaps by an order of magnitude) if what he says is to be taken with outmost precision, since there were not any new 3e supplements produced means that the sales account for the sales of the older books only.

I would like to take the time to thank Chris Pramas for sharing this with us. Sure, his sources are somewhat anecdotal, but they seem like very large anecdotes (large chains), which means they are probably somewhat indicative of the overall situation. Thanks for sharing this with us, Chris, most of the time we hear very little on this important topic from sources that have access to reliable or at least somewhat reliable information.

Interestingly enough, there is info that directly contradicts this.

USA Top 150 list. The core books from 3.0, 3.5 and 4e all figure there. Now, I am not going to argue back and forth about those numbers, and which are bigger.

However, all things equal. The core books (from the past 3(2) editions) are all represented there.

Yet, the only supplements I have been able to find on the same list, is the FR player's Guide and the Adventurer's Vault. If they were selling that poorly, wouldn't logic dictate that at least some 3.x supplements had found their way to the same list?

I guess the counter argument will be that book sales have been awesome until the day 4e was released, and suddenly the whole marked imploded, making it possible and it's supplements to get on the list.. To that, I give you : Occam's Razor

Of course, maybe it's just my google-fu that is weak.

The above statement assumes that 4E isn't selling well. I disagree with that assumption.

Enough said.