Goodman rebuttal

[Zil]

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 thing about applying a cyclical generation theory to the hobby, or D&D in particular, is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of thought as to what causes the cycle. With capitalist economies, there is some rational theory behind what is going on with these recessionary cycles. What Joe Goodman posited doesn't present any rational theories as to why D&D should be on a generational cycle. He's just looked at the data and noticed one complete period (peak to peak) and has extrapolated from that the idea that there is a generational based cycle effect going on. I won't dispute his empirical numbers, but I do dispute this idea this is definitive proof that there is some kind of generational cycle effect that explains everything (e.g. why 4E is not doing as well as the 3E peak). There could very well be other factors that explain things.

Heck, here's one rival theory. In tough economic times, people turn to games for a release from the pressures of life, and to find relatively inexpensive entertainment, The peaks in D&D (and/or hobby gaming) coincide with recessions. There was a bad recession in the early 80s. There was another after the dot com bubble (2001 peak). There was one in the early 90s (but CCGs arose and stole potential D&D customers so parts of the hobby were still doing very well). And there is a particularly deep one now so the gaming hobby should be doing relatively well. If 4E and other games fail to take advantage of the fact that people need an avenue of "escape" from the somewhat depressing economic realities, then perhaps they are doing something wrong this time around.

Once could go on to come with other ways of explaining the peaks other than these cyclical theories - such as what was going on with the game and the hobby in general. AD&D was when D&D finally burst into prime time in the public consciousness. 2E was warmed over 1E so it didn't go over nearly as well and then they ran into the CCG phenomenon. 3E was a resurrection of the game on a much more consistent set of mechanics and a disruptive force in the hobby (with the OGL). It transformed things. 4E is a radical departure from what came before so it should also have the potential to do great things for WoTC if it was managed correctly.

I guess my point is that this idea of a generational cycle sounds a bit dodgy and simplistic to me as there are many other factors that could be going on.

 

[Filcher]

Forgive me, but I don't think it was intended to address the issues in Clark's post. Rather it placed the question of D&D in a larger context.

What is the benchmark of success? Anti-4E folks will come in and say
Wizards expected nothing less than the 3.5 peak, therefore 4E must be a failure," and they might be right. And pro-4E folks like myself will read Goodman's post and find solace that our beloved game has a future, and that supporters of D&D (not necessarily 4E) are looking at the big picture, ensuring that I can play this game with my kids 15 or 20 years from now.

I think, probably, that that's my benchmark for success. I'm ecstatic that 4E is doing well for Goodman Games. I hope that it is doing well for Wizards. I want Dungeons & Dragons (not necessarily 4E) to be around for a long, long time to come.

 

[Filcher]

Also, if 4E is doing as well as 3E was - why aren't more 3PPs jumping on board? Or is the price for them to jump on board providing things like spinner racks to game and hobby stores? In the early 3E era, product was enough. Now it seems that you need more than a product to get in stores, you have to actively nurture the relationship.

I don't think this is a bad thing. Plants need to be watered, our gaming industry needs to be supported.

Anyway, I guess it confirms that GG won't be supporting Pathfinder.

I didn't read that. Also, GG is already supporting Pathfinder with their 3.5 DCCs, right?

 

[Filcher]

The thing about applying a cyclical generation theory to the hobby, or D&D in particular, is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of thought as to what causes the cycle...

I read it rather that, "industries have low and high points. It is a mistake to judge your work as a failure if it doesn't automatically exceed the 20 year high point."

 

[Doug McCrae]

Interesting. Dont agree with a bunch, namely game stores, and his 47 stores isnt exactly a large sample, but interesting none the less.

That's just the number he visited personally.

 

[Filcher]

Goodman said that distributors are not an issue. Clarke said they were. Who do I believe?

Both of them.

They're not an issue for Goodman and they are an issue for Clarke. Why? Probably timing, but that's only my guess.

Objectively:

Because Joseph has cultivated a relationship with stores, that in turn, have a reason to order DCCs through distributors.

By contrast, Necromancer, a company I love, hasn't released product in a year, and has canceled all their projects for the last year. I can see why game stores and distributors would be slow to order.

 

[Zil]

I read it rather that, "industries have low and high points. It is a mistake to judge your work as a failure if it doesn't automatically exceed the 20 year high point."

Yes, but it's also sometimes a mistake to simply throw up your hands and accept mediocre sales just because we're at that point in some theoretical cycle and not take a more detailed look as to what is really going on.

 

[Filcher]

Yes, but it's also sometimes a mistake to simply throw up your hands and accept mediocre sales just because we're at that point in some theoretical cycle and not take a more detailed look as to what is really going on.

Total agreement. A good plan requires a strategy as well as tactics. In my opinion, Goodman is advocating for both.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I do dispute this idea this is definitive proof

If definitive proof were required before making a business decision, no decision would ever be made.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

You seem to be taking his post entirely out of context on purpose, going so far as to ignore very specific parts of it. Mr. Goodman very specifically says that 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. Or, in other words, D&D 4e is doing as well as D&D ever has, with the exception of two. . . er. . . exceptional years.