Goodman rebuttal

[rounser]

You specifically accused me of victimizing you and deliberately giving 4e supporters leeway where I gave you none. When I told you to either stand behind those accusations or stop making them, you instead went back and edited your post substantially to downplay your previous position. Nice.

Oh what bollocks. Look, now you're trying to claim victim status, when you were the one who went off half-cocked, accusing me of all sorts of things whilst not reading the context of my post, and then being so paranoid when I try to defend myself that you accuse me of calling you a liar and a 4E proponent! I'm not! And I haven't edited my post in some sneakyduck fashion, I added a bit to the end to make my meaning clearer, as you do!

You'll know when I'm out to get you and that's around about now, because you're doing your darndest to draw blood, and appear to have no idea what my stance is, even when I spell it out to you! I'm not trying to fight you, I'm saying stop and read the context of what I was responding to. You keep accusing me of having ulterior motives, and I'm telling you exactly what I mean and that I wasn't out to get you, and you keep ignoring me. It's ridiculous!

 

[jdrakeh]

No I didn't.

You failed to mention several decades worth of sales that Mr. Goodman specifically addressed in his post, as well as his summations thereof, instead immediately claiming that 4e was selling poorly based only on a small portion of the information provided by Mr. Goodman.

You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.

You ignored all of that, focused on Mr. Goodman saying that 4e's launch wasn't as successful as 3e was at its highpoint or as successful as AD&D was in 1982, and immediately posted that, according to Mr. Goodman, D&D 4e is failing. Explain how that is not misrepresentation, please.

Now, that said, I could care less how successful 4e is, but I do care a little about the misrepresentation of others commentary for the apparent purpose of bashing any edition of D&D (granted, that may not have been your intent, but it sure seems that way).

 

[jdrakeh]

Why is 4e a year after launch not comparable to 3e a year after launch?

Because 2009 isn't 2001?

[Edit: I should be more clear and apologize for not being so when I initially posted this.

The market of 2009 isn't the same as the market of 2001 — America (where most RPGs are sold) is dealing with a nationwide economic crisis that far exceeds that of 2001, consumer confidence reached an all-time low last fall, continued to fall early this year, and probably won't get better any time soon.

Comparing sales of a luxury item during horrible economic times to sales of a similar item during much better economic times is like comparing apples and oranges.]

 

[S'mon]

You failed to mention several decades worth of sales that Mr. Goodman specifically addressed in his post, as well as his summations thereof, instead immediately claiming that 4e was selling poorly based only on a small portion of the information provided by Mr. Goodman.

You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.

You ignored all of that, focused on Mr. Goodman saying that 4e's launch wasn't as successful as 3e was at its highpoint or as successful as AD&D was in 1982, and immediately posted that, according to Mr. Goodman, D&D 4e is failing. Explain how that is not misrepresentation, please.

Now, that said, I could care less how successful 4e is, but I do care a little about the misrepresentation of others commentary for the apparent purpose of bashing any edition of D&D (granted, that may not have been your intent, but it sure seems that way).

I never said 4e was failing. As it happens I posted yesterday on Grognardia saying that it wasn't 'tanking'.

However, it's clear from what JG said that 4e is not doing as well as 3e. And given the nature of publicly quoted companies, Hasbro are unlikely to be happy about that.

You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success. It's clearly selling much more than any other RPG. Retailers are ordering it, people are buying & playing it. It's not doing nearly as well as 3e did, though. Call that failure or success; it depends on perspective.

From the perspective of a games store, it may be a success - it sells more than all other RPGs combined, it's selling much more than the last year of 3e. From the POV of a Hasbro stockholder or exec it may not be giving anticipated RoI though.

 

[S'mon]

Because 2009 isn't 2001?

I don't see any significant differences that would lower the expectations of a Hasbro investor.

Look, I like 4e, I'm about to start a 4e campaign. I have no interest in doing down 4e.

 

[vagabundo]

I never said 4e was failing. As it happens I posted yesterday on Grognardia saying that it wasn't 'tanking'.

However, it's clear from what JG said that 4e is not doing as well as 3e. And given the nature of publicly quoted companies, Hasbro are unlikely to be happy about that.

You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success. It's clearly selling much more than any other RPG. Retailers are ordering it, people are buying & playing it. It's not doing nearly as well as 3e did, though. Call that failure or success; it depends on perspective.

From the perspective of a games store, it may be a success - it sells more than all other RPGs combined, it's selling much more than the last year of 3e. From the POV of a Hasbro stockholder or exec it may not be giving anticipated RoI though.

The business model has changed compared to 3e in 2001, what impact it will have, who knows. But it might trade upfront success for a steadier revenue stream via DDI and the once a month book release.

As to Hasbro's interest, well they barely mention DND in their investor podcasts-conference call thing, so I doubt it is on the radar. It is probably lumped in with WotC as a whole. As long as DND continues to make profit I doubt Greg Leeds is going to knock it on the head - and drag it's body into an alley.

 

[jdrakeh]

You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success.

I really don't. As I previously indicated to rounser, I am simply sick to death of all the hyperbolic accusations that WotC raped childhoods, destroyed D&D, and so forth. I'm also sick of the manipulation of other people's words that goes along with it. In your first post, you initially took Goodman's post out of context* and then later edited to add the following comment:

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.

That is exactly the kind of passive/aggressive crap I'm tired of. Frankly, right now, I'm of the opinion that all of the people playing passive/agrressive word games when bashing D&D 4e in an attempt to avoid moderation need to grow a spine. And if they can't man up and talk straight? Then they need to shut up.

And now that all of my card are on the table, I'm going to take a week off from posting here and let the chips fall where they may.

*By ignoring his overall point that D&D 4e is as successful as D&D ever has been, with the exception of two years.

**Or any other edition of D&D, for that matter. It just so happens that most of the passive/aggressive crap going on here is focused on bashing D&D 4e.

 

[jbear]

I don't doubt his industry expertise, nor his business acumen. But he seemed to state his credentials and then his conclusions, with nothing objective to back it up in between.

It reminded me of all the court cases I've seen. I worked for a few years as a Judge's clerk, sitting next to him in Court, and watched about 100 or so cases played out in court, both jury and non-jury. Plus, I've been to court to argue cases for my clients.

Anyhow, to use a personal injury case as an example, if the potential for winning/losing a lot of $$ is great enough, each side will hire an "expert" to come to court to testify. Usually a doctor. Each doctor will examine the accident victim, and based on that examination, and the examination of the medical records both past and current, render a diagnosis as to the extent of the injuries, what the cause of the injuries was, and the future prognosis of the accident victim.

Each side's doctor, both eminently qualified with credentials out the wazoo, renders completely different and contradictory opinions. They can point to the same charts and x-rays and say totally different things.

That same dynamic of hiring experts to toot the horn you want tooted exactly the way you want it tooted is played out in every type of case I've seen, from personal injury, to land use, to construction defect, to divorce, to business litigation. Each side's expert look at exactly the same set of objective facts and says completely different things which supports the viewpoint of whichever side they are testifying for.

Other than beating up the personal credentials of the other side, or hammering them on their interpretation of the facts, one of the most effctive ways to discredit the other side is to point out all the various ways they have a financial interest in saying what they are saying. Asking a doctor, for example, how much they testify in cases as opposed to practicing medicine, how much they charged for the diagnosis, how often they do plaintiff's work as opposed to defendant's work, how many times they have testified for that particular lawyer's firm, how much they got paid to testify, the likelihood of a future financial interest in the outcome---such as the patient going to them to be treated if they are awaded money for future medical expenses, etc.

Just as an aside, I'd pay a few bucks to read a pdf of the business history of the industry he talked about in the post...I'm particularly interested where he got the objective concrete numbers for sales figures going back 30 years. As far as I can tell, that's not publicly available information.

sigh.

Maybe we need to take into account/examine your own personal motivations as well. They are bound to have some hidden vested interest which slants your interpretation towards the conclusion you put forth: 'Joe twists the facts to suit his personal version of the reality to convince us (the Jury) that everything is peachy, because that will make us buy his goodman game's 4e products.'

Untruthful? Lacking objectivity? Looking at several other peoples following posts, this is what people seem to be suggesting. Pretty harsh conclusions.

I guess we can/should doubt everything anyone says, all the time. Especially if it contradicts our own personal opinions.

However, maybe it's more constructive to listen to both sides of the issue with an open mind. Is anyone trying to win a court case here? or just offering their valid insight into the gaming industry at present...

Besides, if the guy runs a billion dollar business, and Goodman games is something he does out of passion for gaming... why would he have the need to fool us into whatever you seem to suggest he is fooling us into believing? I guess the defence would base some of their rerbuttle on that.

 

[JoeGKushner]

(But, as a 3E fan, it is reassuring to have 4E fans justifying why 4E can't be compared to 3E)

Why would anyone need to? Unless WoTC is lying, 4e has sold better than 3.0 (and 3.5 sold better than 3.0) 3rd party products on the other hand...

(
And if Goodman stops going with the flow of 4E (quick and easy modules as core product base) things will not go as well there either. Product fitting demand is more important than hand-waved concepts of who "worked hard to stay relevant".

Please educate yourself on numerous products that Goodman does that are either

'edition neutral'

or sourcebooks. Seriously. If you're trying to make a point, and your information is wrong, it looks like you're not bother to go to the ole Goodman site and see that he has sourcebooks for 4e (class sourcebooks, race sourcebooks, monster sourcebooks, monster manual style sourcebooks), as well as two seperate adventure lines as well as [URL="http://www.goodman-games.com/4704preview.html"]licensing [/URL]for several other parties including Death Dealer. "Going with the flow?" If the flow is everything under the sun, sure, otherwise you just don't know what you're saying here.

 

[Rechan]

Each side and everyone on it is more justified and virtuous than the other side.

There.

Now can we get past the urination contests?