Goodman rebuttal

[Amphimir Míriel]

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.

Didn't Rouse say that the original print run of the 4E core rulebooks sold out faster than expected and that everybody in WotC was very happy?

I mean, I can understand that having a corporate overlord like Hasbro puts a lot of pressure on WotC's management to try to maximize profit on each and every single quarter. But that does not necessarily mean that D&D's sales are mediocre or that the brand --and by extension, the hobby, is in danger.

 

[xechnao]

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.

A transition from 2e to 4e. How could have been received? Interesting to try think about.

 

[Mark]

Its called anecdotal evidence, where after having talked to 200+ stores you get enough information to draw a conclusion.

I was pointing out to you that calling it "data" is not actually correct. It isn't actually anecdotal evidence, either, because the details are not given.

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.

"Again?" We haven't had this discussion and I've limited my previous involvement to -

I won't refute Joseph's information or conviction but my own personal question has never been if 4E is doing well but rather if, with a different approach toward the market and 3PPs, it could be doing as well as 3E.

- but in regard your statement, I do believe that if Joseph wishes his opinions to have more impact on a general audience, he might want to document his encounters more clearly and share the actual data. If he and I were just having the discussion, certainly as a sympathetic listener I would take some of what he says at face value and ask questions regarding some of the data as the discussion proceeded, and he would probably give more details as necessary.

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

You need to quit broadbrushing everybody and backing it with claims of data and anecdotal evidence that simply doesn't exist. I never asked for hard data before and only mention that more details might be useful now because so many others apparently don't wish to take Joseph at his word, which is their right. But, seriously, no offence but you need to stop accusing people of things that perhaps only a few are doing and misrepresenting what Joseph has said and done in support of your broad accusations. It degrades the discussion considerably and as a fellow community member I am asking you to please not do so.

 

[Jack99]

Didn't Rouse say that the original print run of the 4E core rulebooks sold out faster than expected and that everybody in WotC was very happy?

I mean, I can understand that having a corporate overlord like Hasbro puts a lot of pressure on WotC's management to try to maximize profit on each and every single quarter. But that does not necessarily mean that D&D's sales are mediocre or that the brand --and by extension, the hobby, is in danger.

Actually, it was mearls who said that the initial print run of 4e was bigger than the first print run of 3.5 which again was bigger than the initial print run of 3.0.

Scott merely said that the 4e 1st and 2nd (and 3rd? I can never recall) print run sold out quicker than WotC expected.

Of course, this means nothing. If you ask those who do not like 4e, some claim that WotC either a) are lying or b) on purpose made small 4e print runs just so that they could go out and claim on the interweb that they had sold out really quick. And since the only data we have is from WotC and they are a) lying, we do not know for sure.

Go figure

edit: changed they to some

 

[Drkfathr1]

I appreciate Joe's statements, and have no reason not to believe what he says, and to accept what he says as truth and not just his perception.

I think there is an important point in what he said that I haven't seen anyone really touch upon, although I did skim these past 10 pages rather quickly and may have missed it.

One of the stated goals of 4E (and in fact every new edition) was to grow the hobby and increase the number of players (both new and lapsed).

If 4e isn't selling as well as the peak at the release of 3E (even if it is selling well, which by most reliable accounts it is), then it hasn't hit one of its most important goals.

The question WotC needs to ask itself, is what is the reason for that: Economy, the Product itself, or Marketing?

At least we finally have confirmation from reliable sources that 4E is selling well, even if its not selling like gangbusters.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.

 

[MadMaligor]

I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.

Its like saying, "For every 'Our gaming group hates 4E!' post you can quote a 'Our gaming group loves 4E or has come back because of 4E' post. How do you prove that kind of thing? You can't really.

So it just boils down to what Joe was saying (or at least what I got out of his post).

Sales are doing well, 4E is doing well, and if you can say that in this kind of economy thats pretty much a win situation. Comparing the editions is apples and oranges.

I could be misunderstanding him, but thats what I got out of it.

 

[Imaro]

I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.

Speaking for myself, and from the posts of a few others here, again I don't think most people's problem is with the FLGS statement Goodman makes. I have a much harder time accepting that he has actual sales numbers for D&D from 1974-present. Again, I could be mistaken, but I remember it being stated that even WotC didn't have accurate sales info for a large chunk of TSR's D&D era. I'm sorry but this makes me question exactly how Goodman has accurate frigures for this but WotC was unable to attain them. Now if I'm wrong and WotC does in fact have accurate sales information for D&D from 1974 to present then I wish someone would correct me, but if not then I have to wonder how Goodman was able to get this information but a company whose business is based on, and definitely could be affected by it, was unable to find it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Speaking for myself, and from the posts of a few others here, again I don't think most people's problem is with the FLGS statement Goodman makes. I have a much harder time accepting that he has actual sales numbers for D&D from 1974-present. Again, I could be mistaken, but I remember it being stated that even WotC didn't have accurate sales info for a large chunk of TSR's D&D era. I'm sorry but this makes me question exactly how Goodman has accurate frigures for this but WotC was unable to attain them. Now if I'm wrong and WotC does in fact have accurate sales information for D&D from 1974 to present then I wish someone would correct me, but if not then I have to wonder how Goodman was able to get this information but a company whose business is based on, and definitely could be affected by it, was unable to find it.

He said that certain years of TSR could be found in court documents. What he didn't say, and I am pulling this out of previous things I have seen discussed on forums is that until recently it wasn't hard to find actual sales numbers gathered from distributors, and before the complete dominance of Amazon those numbers meant much more than they do today. Maybe he is getting his numbers from yesteryear from that.

 

[BryonD]

Of course, this means nothing. If you ask those who do not like 4e, some claim that WotC either a) are lying or b) on purpose made small 4e print runs just so that they could go out and claim on the interweb that they had sold out really quick. And since the only data we have is from WotC and they are a) lying, we do not know for sure.

Go figure

edit: changed they to some

You changed "they" to "some". Care to respond to the others? Or are you going to ignore the valid positions because the extremes are so easy to blow off?