Goodman rebuttal

[xechnao]

To refute that, they would have not just to release numbers, but some kind of statistical model that explains how this can happen and how it is totally not their fault and what not. And... I don't think such a model exists. Maybe it could be created, if you send a few business analysists and mathematicians and psychologists on the job and let them research a few years or so. That would certainly be fascinating to do, but Wizards of the Cost is not a research facility, even if they have an R&D department. And they still can't make any money with it. Oh, and it might give competitors insights into WotC business that they could use against them, too.

I love it!

 

[carmachu]

And we get the tired old "there is no evidence" thing again. To this I answer(now and for the forseeable future) that "there is no evidence" that 4E is dooing poorly, and replying that "there is no evidence" in response to any quote or opinion is saying absolutely nothing and should be ignored.

"There is no evidence" does absolutely nothing to support the alternative viewpoint, and people should stop using the comment as if it did.

Joe Goodman gave an opinion and speculation(which is the best any of us can do), and gave support for his opinion and why we should believe him. If you disagree or think he's wrong, feel free to post your own opinion, give support for this opinion, and why we should believe you. Instead of lazy discussion where you discount the original quote without offering anything substantive in return.

YOU may get tired of it, but thats the fact.There is also nothing there to support the 4e sells well, nor does it support the its not selling well.

Goodman's opinion is just that, opinion. He did NOT give support to his opinion. He gave conculusions based on data that is not present, but says he has.

I gave my reasons. Lack of support data IS a valid reason. YOU just dont like it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

YOU may get tired of it, but thats the fact.There is also nothing there to support the 4e sells well, nor does it support the its not selling well.

Goodman's opinion is just that, opinion. He did NOT give support to his opinion. He gave conculusions based on data that is not present, but says he has.

I gave my reasons. Lack of support data IS a valid reason. YOU just dont like it.

It is not a rebuttal because it does not support the opposite conclusion. People throw it out there to disparage one opinion without supporting their own.

Goodman gave soft data, not hard evidence. He made that perfectly clear.

Lack of support is a valid reason, but it is not a valid rebuttal. YOU may not like that, or you may not have one.

 

[Piratecat]

Gently, guys. Gently. This can be discussed without getting up in one another's face.

 

[carmachu]

It is not a rebuttal because it does not support the opposite conclusion. People throw it out there to disparage one opinion without supporting their own.

Goodman gave soft data, not hard evidence. He made that perfectly clear.

Uhm no, he did not giev soft data. There is NO data there at all. There is his credetials. There is opinion, there is his reference to data, there's a conculusion based on unspecified data, but there is no facts there.

It doesnt support HIS conculsion either. It is simple his opinion unsuported with the unpresent data.

For the record, I dont play 4e, but I do think its sell pretty decently. How well? *shrug* well enough.

But when folks say "thats pretty interesting, but where's the facts/data to back it up" thats a valid point. People would like to see for themselves and see if they can draw their own conculusion.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Uhm no, he did not giev soft data. There is NO data there at all. There is his credetials. There is opinion, there is his reference to data, there's a conculusion based on unspecified data, but there is no facts there.

It doesnt support HIS conculsion either. It is simple his opinion unsuported with the unpresent data.

For the record, I dont play 4e, but I do think its sell pretty decently. How well? *shrug* well enough.

But when folks say "thats pretty interesting, but where's the facts/data to back it up" thats a valid point. People would like to see for themselves and see if they can draw their own conculusion.

We are all making conclusions based on unspecified data based on your definition. If having that unspecified data is a requirement for making any sort of conclusions, then none of us should be saying anything about anything.

He gave the data that he personally visited 47 FLGS, spoke to over 100 others over the phone, and further had gaming events he drew business feedback from from over 100 others. The "soft" data he gathered from this feedback told him that 4E was on the whole selling very well at FLGSs, and he shared that in his post.

That isn't hard sales numbers, but it isn't nothing.

Where are the facts/data is not a valid point when that data is not, and in almost certainly never will be available.

 

[Mark]

He gave the data (. . .)

That isn't data (and Joseph isn't making the claim). The questions and answers during that contact might be data, depending on a number of factors, but none of that has been shared and probably will not be (and likely wasn't documented to much of a degree).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That isn't data (and Joseph isn't making the claim). The questions and answers during that contact might be data, depending on a number of factors, but none of that has been shared and probably will not be (and likely wasn't documented to much of a degree).

Its called anecdotal evidence, where after having talked to 200+ stores you get enough information to draw a conclusion. Again, if that isn't good enough for you you're looking for a higher standard that isn't available to us for these purposes.

You don't have to buy it, but you aren't offering anything substantive in response by saying "its not hard sales numbers".

 

[MadMaligor]

Its been mentioned before, but I also would like to see the model comparison between the economic upswing that was the early 2000's, and the horrendous downturn we have had the last year and a half.

Just an old mans opinion here, but if the sales numbers support positive growth in this kind of economic environment, the comparison regarding which is more successful is near impossible to determine. There are some factors which might contribute to success that are hard to gauge, for example the idea that RPG's can be affordable entertainment inside the home, like board games.

Joe doesn't say it directly, but if 4E were in 3E's time-slot, there is a good argument that it would have been as successful, if not more so.

The debate that sales do not necessarily compute to "good" is an interesting one too. 3E did extremely well in an environment that was consumer giddy. I'm not saying that 3E is bad, just that in a target rich environment the whole idea of quantifying its value is incredibly difficult at best.

AFAIAC it would seem to me that alot of people here on both sides have very valid points. You would think at this stage we would all agree to disagree, and that both sides have disputable positions.

<3

 

[jgbrowning]

But he is telling us where the data is from - mostly public court data. Apparantly that is accessible, so if someone was interested in making his own conclusion based from the data, he could do so. Seems either no one really wants to, or no one had the time yet.

I am interested as well in the documents. I did a public records search in WI and did not find the lawsuits spoken of. According to Wiki they were settled out of court confidentially. My knowledge of the court system kinda ends there, so I don't know where to look for court documents for things that settled out of court.

joe b.