When did WotC D&D "Jump the Shark"?

[TheAuldGrump]

i read this thread like 3 times trying hard to make sense out of it, I think I pulled my brain.

I don't know if this is an anecdote or how big a ballpark it is, or anything like that, but I will tell you this....if i am NOT a shareholder of hasbro inc. why would I give a crap if 4E is behind pathfinder in popularity or sales?

It depends on whether the similarity in sales figures is because Pathfinder is booming (hooray!) or if they are from WotC declining (boo!).

If the market is growing, then all is fine - Pathfinders sales can be balanced by new growth in the RPG industry.

If it is because 4e is failing, then things get murkier - it is not all that important which game is doing better if the market as a whole is getting smaller.

Ideally, I would love to see Pathfinder matching or beating 4e sales without 4e losing customers. This would represent a large growth in the industry. My game would be growing, but not at the expense of what I still view as the entry point into the hobby. More people have heard of D&D than RPGs in general - they refer to role playing games as D&D, regardless of any actual title.

I saw a variant of this a few days ago - a kid (well, teen, anyway) holding up the Pathfinder and calling it D&D. The good thing is that it was not disparaging, it was a happy comment - it was the D&D that he wanted, so for him it was D&D, even though the title said Pathfinder. He and his friends bought both remaining copies of the Core book. (I think that a 40% coupon may have been involved.)

They left happy. New growth, not a customer straying from one game to another. But at no point did he call it anything other than Dungeons & Dragons or D&D. He knew that it was Pathfinder, but for him it was D&D.

More likely there has been some shrinking of 4e, but growth from Pathfinder has a bit more than balanced it - and there are folks who play and/or own both.

Not quite a zero sum game, but leaning that way. But the sales numbers for hobby games from the end of last year were encouraging, so I am a bit less worried about a failing D&D, if it is failing, bringing down the hobby with it.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mercurius]

AuldGrump, don't forget that WotC's publication output has been rather light over the last eight months - which is almost three Quarters. Sure, there was Essentials, but those sales figures are more of a long-term thing anyways, it being an evergreen product line. But between August of 2010 and April of 2011 there was no real new material, which may have hurt 4E's sales overall.

Speaking for myself, during that period I bought three Essentials products (Rules Compendium, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and Monster Vault) and a bunch of Pathfinder stuff - a few Chronicles, the new world book, and the GameMastery Guide - so overall about 50-50. I may or may not have bought all that Pathfinder stuff if 4E's schedule had been more full, but the point is that my spending became relatively more skewed towards Paizo than WotC. During the Quarter before (summer) the ratio was probably more like 80-20 or 70-30 towards WotC.

 

[Balesir]

EDITED to respond to OP: 4e jumped the shark when WotC nerfed Come and Get It not to deal with an issue of overpoweredness, but rather in response to complaints (primarily, I believe, from non-4e players) about the players of fighter PCs having access to metagame abilities.

Which, of corse, I don't think they have*, but it's a good line, anyway!

* Unconditional forced movement - i.e. forced movement without a hit roll - is arguably too powerful for any class, and cases of it are pretty rare. And weapon to-hit vs Will (with attendant mark, if you are a Fighte- sorry, "Weaponmaster") is not too shabby, anyway.

 

[DaveMage]

I seriously doubt that Paizo is making as much money from Pathfinder as WotC was making from 3E in its final years, simply because (as far as I understand it) 3E in its final years was keeping afloat a rather bigger ship than Pathfinder is. (But maybe I just have mistaken beliefs about the comparative size of WotC and Paizo.)

Without knowing what WotC was making, we'll never know.

However, Paizo's provided an inkling of a portion of the revenue they do gerenate. If you're bored, simply go to their messageboards and start counting the subscribers and what lines they subscribe to. The products in each line have a pretty consistent price, so there you go. Of course, subscriber sales are only a portion of their overall revenue as they also run a store and have solid sales through traditional distribution.

 

[BryonD]

There are a whole slew of positions between "unified" and "deeply split" that are undreampt of by your words.

Ok, and what anecdotes do you have for these dreams?

 

[BryonD]

I seriously doubt that Paizo is making as much money from Pathfinder as WotC was making from 3E in its final years, simply because (as far as I understand it) 3E in its final years was keeping afloat a rather bigger ship than Pathfinder is. (But maybe I just have mistaken beliefs about the comparative size of WotC and Paizo.)

How do you know 3E was adequately keeping WotC afloat?
How do you know Pazio's little boat is floating really really high?

I really agree with DaveMage that we don't know specifically and I don't claim to know it is "making the same money"? I have been talking about popularity in terms of fan base. Now, there should be some tie between the two, of course, but there are still different.

Of course, we also have our collection of anecdotes from various business sources. And we all understand that data has limitations. But they suggest that current 4E and current PF are roughly equitable. Some of them go so far as to flat out claim they are. Yes, you can challenge that. But come on, we are going to challenge all these sources on the one hand and then turn around and take your gut feel as the answer on the other hand?

I've still seen no evidence that disputes the idea that they are reasonably equitable. So if we assume PF is not doing as well as 3E was (which might be true) then and equitable 4E now already isn't either.... That isn't exactly a good conclusion to land on.

But again, as important as money is, and it is very, I'm looking at fan base. Because I'm a gamer, not an investor (at least not in these companies).

I completely support WotC doing whatever makes the most money. Frankly, if Bill Gates decided to pay them off to make a D&D he loved and every single person on this website hated, and offered them more money for it than they are making now, then that would be the good business choice. But it would still suck from the point of view of us gamers. And you could claim that the Bill Gates option is dumb because they would be sacrificing the future. But if you say that, then you are back to my fanbase point of view.

 

[BryonD]

Ideally, I would love to see Pathfinder matching or beating 4e sales without 4e losing customers. This would represent a large growth in the industry.

Absolutely. Growth of the hobby would be the clear best answer.

Very much AGAIN, I definitely don't think 4E is "failing". And, I don't have a strong opinion about its direction right now. It sounds like the from the OP and other similar posts that there is some discontent within the ranks of the 4E fanbase. But I'm not there and don't claim to know. 4E was announced and marketed as a game with clear distinctions from the prior edition. I believe the "split" happened in the six months leading up to and six months following 4e's release. And the announcement of playtest start up of PF was part of that. But that announcement would not have happened had an emerging market not presented itself.

But if since that time both games have grown, then that is an awesome place to be.

 

[BryonD]

but rather in response to complaints (primarily, I believe, from non-4e players)

Completely different line here but..

You seem to be implying that trying to make the game appealing to potential fans they have lost is a bad thing. Is that a fair assessment of your point?

 

[Fifth Element]

Ok, and what anecdotes do you have for these dreams?

We have some on these boards who play only 4E or only PF. We also have others who play both. Do you dispute this? If not, you have your anecdotal evidence.

Which is not to say it's evidence of anything.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Completely different line here but..

You seem to be implying that trying to make the game appealing to potential fans they have lost is a bad thing. Is that a fair assessment of your point?

Well, I think WotC should have given a lot less attention to the gripes of those who didn't like TSR-D&D, so it probably washes out. And I mean that both in terms of 3e and 4e.


RC