D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[Imaro]

It is if you accept the assumption that there is a correlation between market share and discussion share. That clearly makes or breaks question.

In truth, there isn't any way to get at the data that we'd all really like to have, so to have this discussion at all, you have to introduce proxy data of some kind, and make a case that the proxy data is reasonably representative to have a rational discussion about it.

That appears to be the assertion here; that discussion share correlates with market share of sales. For what it's worth (i.e., absolutely nothing) I agree that that's at least a reasonable enough to talk about.

But I just proved its unreliability for these purposes by citing that the game with the highest discussion share has absolutely no market share...

EDIT: Another example is N.E.W... it's outranking games like Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40K, and Dungeon World but has absolutely no market share at this point...

 

[Dausuul]

Some of us want a game that plays and feels like old editions but that also carries some modern design sensibilities and receives support.

This, exactly. I love the feel of the old editions, but a lot of the mechanics are godawful. I want a game with AD&D's heart, 4E's brain, and 3E's skeleton. I took a stab at building such a game myself and was moderately satisfied with the results, but I'm eager to see what the pros can do with it and I like what they've got so far.

 

[darjr]

I think Morrus' numbers are good and great. I do worry that not including the Paizo forum that in that one particular way it's skewed. The paizo forum tends to suck in a TON of the pathfinder talk.

 

[Imaro]

I think Morrus' numbers are good and great. I do worry that not including the Paizo forum that in that one particular way it's skewed. The paizo forum tends to suck in a TON of the pathfinder talk.

Yep they are good and great for determining what games are being talked about... I don't agree they are all that great for determining held market share, popularity or anything else. But I also haven't seen Morrus (as opposed to other posters) claim they are supposed to be used for these purposes.

 

[Mistwell]

But I just proved its unreliability for these purposes by citing that the game with the highest discussion share has absolutely no market share...

EDIT: Another example is N.E.W... it's outranking games like Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40K, and Dungeon World but has absolutely no market share at this point...

Again, it has a correlation for either: 1) interest in the game, or 2) actual ownership of the game.

If the game is not out yet, obviously it's interest in the game.

But, I think the Pathfinder data, and some of the other data we have on sales from some of the other lesser-selling games, matches pretty well to this chart when you compare them.

Right now Pathfinder is the best selling game, and it's also the highest ranking game as far as games for sale now.

Compare it to the sales of some other games, like Numenera and Fate (I think we have pretty hard data on their sales numbers), and the ratio seems to hold pretty well.

There is obviously a strong correlation between how well a game is selling, and how much people are talking about it. I *think* there is also a strong correlation between how well a game is likely to initially sell, and how much people are talking about it prior to it's release, given some polling data we have an comparison to prior polling data just before the release of another game.

It's not causation, it's not 100%, but I think it's a fair approximation. If you have serious doubts, you can simply enter an error factor into it, and you will see for most rationale error factors the rough comparison still holds.

 

[Mistwell]

I think Morrus' numbers are good and great. I do worry that not including the Paizo forum that in that one particular way it's skewed. The paizo forum tends to suck in a TON of the pathfinder talk.

He said he ran the comparison with and without the home forums, and the numbers held pretty well anyway, and so determined it was not a major factor in the totals.

 

[darjr]

He said he ran the comparison with and without the home forums, and the numbers held pretty well anyway, and so determined it was not a major factor in the totals.

Ah, i had forgotten about that. It would be cool if there was a table that had those forums included.

 

[darjr]

There is another aspect to this. It might not matter if Next is a huge success. If Wizards can sell things for all editions and be successful at it, then the market success of Next itself might not matter that much.

 

[Imaro]

Compare it to the sales of some other games, like Numenera and Fate (I think we have pretty hard data on their sales numbers), and the ratio seems to hold pretty well.

Lets talk about this because it was a bone of contention between me and neonchameleon in another thread where he claimed FATE was the 2nd most popular roleplaying game next to the D&D games (Of course citing this chart as proof). First I'm curious... how do we compare the sales of these games? Because in September of 2013 both Numenera and 13thAGE ranked over FATE. I also think there is an inordinate number of discussions centered around FATE because there are alot of people trying to understand alot of it's jargon (aspects, invokes, compels, etc.) and concepts (Approaches vs. Stats for FAE)... but I could be wrong... so tell me what sales figures do we use to check these rankings?

 

[Desdichado]

But I just proved its unreliability for these purposes by citing that the game with the highest discussion share has absolutely no market share...

You didn't prove what you think you proved.