Hard Data dilemma, Forked Thread: Goodman state of 4E

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Now if say, Steve Jackson popped up and said that 4e was doing awesome or conversely doing poorly, and him without any stake in its success or not, I'd take that a bit differently perhaps.

You know, does saying people "4E sales well" make lots of people going out and buying 4E?

The only way this trick could really work and make Goodmane Games or Necromancer Games or WotC real money is if the game is a good game, enjoyable to play, and keep playing, but people for some reason failed to buy a lot of it until they were "lied" to and believed others would buy it too.

Well, I am not really buying this claim.

Yes, of course Goodman Games or WotC benefit if 4E sells great. But lying about how well they sell doesn't improve their sales or make the game miraculously better. If it was selling badly, it would be far easier to jump ship.

Or am I wrong and there no ship to jump to? Are there actually no "disenfranchised" fans, "fired as customers" waiting for a new batch of great 3PP supplements for 3.x or Pathfinder or maybe even OSRIC or C&C? Are people just fed up with D&D at the moment? (Isn't that, in a way, what Mr. Goodman is saying? Not that they are "fed up", but this just isn't the year of extreme great sales that people love to cite?)
But then, what is there to gain if they claim sales are good?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

2. Goodman states that he has actual personal contact with hundreds of FLGS, and gets business feedback from them. Some of them aren't doing well with 4E, but the vast majority are doing great, and he(unlike Joe Blow and his home FLGS) is in a better position to make that statement than anyone who has made it.

except for Clarke

 

[jdrakeh]

except for Clarke

Out of curiosity, why do you feel that Mr. Peterson is in a position to know the current 4e market better than Mr. Goodman when Mr. Peterson's company hasn't yet published a 4e product and, in fact, hasn't published anything for almost two years now?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

except for Clarke

I never really heard Clarke say any such thing. I have heard him say that it sucks right now to be a 3PP. I've heard him say that he believes in the OGL and open gaming and that he believes its important for D&D and the hobby as a whole(which I disagree with) and he laments that WotC is dumping this from D&D.

Where has Clarke said that 4E is selling badly?

 

[Cadfan]

1. Appeals to authority aren't actually bad if the authority is actually an authority. If an authority on this subject exists at all, it would appear that it would be Goodman.

2. Much of Goodman's evidence is soft evidence- reviews of gaming stores, feedback over time from distributers and retailers, and so on. He can't present his evidence in any sense other than a vaguely journalistic one- he could quote mine his memory of some interview with a random gaming store, but that's about it. And the value of that would pale in comparison to the value of his opinion, which presumably includes within it all of the individual bits of feedback he's gotten over time from multiple sources, instead of just one or two quotes. This is not atypical for this type of information.

3. If you're going to call Mr. Goodman a liar, just get on with it instead of dropping insinuations.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I think you're complicating things. Goodmans assertion is a simple one:

1. People who claim 4E isn't doing well usually quote their own FLGS or gaming group as evidence.

2. Goodman states that he has actual personal contact with hundreds of FLGS, and gets business feedback from them. Some of them aren't doing well with 4E, but the vast majority are doing great, and he(unlike Joe Blow and his home FLGS) is in a better position to make that statement than anyone who has made it.

The problem with both examples is that they are both anecdotal evidence. The scope doesn't matter if there isn't data to back it up. The issue is that anecdotal evidence is being presented as factual evidence, when it clearly is just an opinion. It may be a more well-formed opinion, but it's still not fact. It may even be correct, but that doesn't make it fact.

My personal opinion on the matter is that until we have some facts (sales numbers, budgets, returns, anything) the whole discussion is moot, no matter who, if anyone, is right. The reason for that is because there isn't really a discussion going on here. It's people throwing opinions at each other without being able to back them up. To me, that is not a discussion.

 

[xechnao]

But then, what is there to gain if they claim sales are good?

Gain momentum and build up of your fan base. Success is highly dependent and connected to this it seems. It is always a work in progress -a dynamic wave. The consumer base is limited but open at the same time. So each one tries to stay the course when he can.

 

[jdrakeh]

My personal opinion on the matter is that until we have some facts (sales numbers, budgets, returns, anything) the whole discussion is moot, no matter who, if anyone, is right. The reason for that is because there isn't really a discussion going on here. It's people throwing opinions at each other without being able to back them up. To me, that is not a discussion.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need some hard data to back up your opinion before I can consider you a part of this discussion.

Ahem. That comes across as rude. You can make your point without the sarcasm, I'm thinking. ~ PCat

 

[Treebore]

1. Appeals to authority aren't actually bad if the authority is actually an authority. If an authority on this subject exists at all, it would appear that it would be Goodman.

2. Much of Goodman's evidence is soft evidence- reviews of gaming stores, feedback over time from distributers and retailers, and so on. He can't present his evidence in any sense other than a vaguely journalistic one- he could quote mine his memory of some interview with a random gaming store, but that's about it. And the value of that would pale in comparison to the value of his opinion, which presumably includes within it all of the individual bits of feedback he's gotten over time from multiple sources, instead of just one or two quotes. This is not atypical for this type of information.

3. If you're going to call Mr. Goodman a liar, just get on with it instead of dropping insinuations.

Goodman actually has good data, its just "soft" like I discussed in my earlier post. Even his "soft" evidence is more meaningful than anyone elses opinion that doesn't take that data into account, because since there isn't any better data to be obtained, any other opinion put forth even without the "soft" data Goodman uses is purely opinion. At least what Joe writes about is based upon what data is known. Such as WOTC's soft sales figures given in court documents ("Hundreds of thousands of core sets sold") to feedback he has collected from over a hundred stores, plus his years of SUCCESSFULLY running a business. So his "opinion" is based upon far harder facts and experience in the field than anyone elses opinion would be.

In fact, I would count Joe's opinion above pretty much anyone elses in the business.

For instance, Clark hasn't been visiting and communicating with so many stores, he hasn't stated whether or not he has read court documents to get even "soft" sales numbers of TSR or WOTC, etc...

I would rate Goodmans opinion over Scott Rouses and Erik Mona, etc... since I doubt they have personally invested the time and effort into collecting this data and information like Joe has. Their opinion is all from second hand and distant analysis and opinions. Joe's is from the streets themselves, first person, as well as from his own personal research and reading of court documents, which are "public", when you know how to look, which is why the soft data for WOTC's 4E sales are even known.

So I am sure people will argue with Joe's opinion, and try to devalue what he says, but I doubt they will be able to sway me unless they have better information from better sources than Joe has.

So as far as I am concerned, Joe is right. He is the ONE person who does know best. So until someone comes along offering better research sources, Joe is the Guru.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

I didn't mean Clarke was a better authority than Goodman, only that Goodman was NOT better than Clarke (i.e. that they are equal).

Also, I've been taking Goodman's statements NOT to speak to 4e proper, but rather, 4e for HIM. I'd say they are next generalizable to other 3pp publishers, and then to the edition as a whole (i.e. including WotC).


Maybe I missed something somewhere, but that's what I believe Goodman is saying: that 4e is selling well for his company. Clarke said that 4e seems unlikely to sell well for his company.

I'd consider them equivalent experts on their own companies and the place that the market has available for them.