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

[Dausuul]

So there are at least 2 cases (thought I'm almost certain there are others as well) we know it doesn't correlate for... correct?? which would mean we know the the charts are not 100% (without us discounting data that doesn't support a pre-supposed conclusion) accurate for determining which games have a larger market share, or are more popular then others.

This is like saying helium balloons disprove gravity.

 

[Imaro]

This is like saying helium balloons disprove gravity.

Just answer this question... If we can determine percentage of market share using the numbers from the hot game list (which was the initial claim)... How can we have numbers for games on the hot games list that don't correlate to market share?? Here's another how did the places of 13th Age and Numenera change so drastically over the course of five days? Just answer those questions, they should be simple enough.

EDIT: And no... it's actually nothing like what you posted above.

 

[Desdichado]

So there are at least 2 cases (thought I'm almost certain there are others as well) we know it doesn't correlate for... correct?? which would mean we know the the charts are not 100% (without us discounting data that doesn't support a pre-supposed conclusion) accurate for determining which games have a larger market share, or are more popular then others. All we know is which games are being talked about the most. Is there a correlation, sure... does that correlation give us the data we need to rank the market share of each of the games on that list accurately? No it doesn't. Now, I've shown that the lists are not accurate for the purposes of determining market share (I only need one case where the result can be proven to be inaccurate)... what is your evidence that they do in fact correlate accurately to market share?

No, not correct. D&D Next has had tons of downloads of the players packet. For purposes of your your analogy, that is a "purchase."

You're just nitpicking to try and shore up your point, which is entirely speculative. I didn't actually make a point, I merely said that Morrus' claim was close enough to at least talk about. So I don't know why you're trying to "Cite!" Cite!" evidence trump me.

 

[Imaro]

No, not correct. D&D Next has had tons of downloads of the players packet. For purposes of your your analogy, that is a "purchase."

No, that's a download of a playtest... it isn't market share, which was the original claim... but nice try. Oh, and that wasn't an analogy.

You're just nitpicking to try and shore up your point, which is entirely speculative. I didn't actually make a point, I merely said that Morrus' claim was close enough to at least talk about. So I don't know why you're trying to "Cite!" Cite!" evidence trump me.

If requiring that someone provide some kind of proof for statements made is nitpicking, I guess I am...

You are making a "point", one which I am asking you to back up with something more than because Hobo believes it... as I said I've shown there is error present in the numbers insofar as using them to determine percentage of market share. The fact of the matter is you don't know how accurate or inaccurate Morrus's numbers are so again I am asking you to provide evidence that they are correct otherwise you don't know if they are or aren't close enough to talk about...


EDIT: How about you provide some proof for your claim or we just agree to disagree... the burden of proof is on the person claiming these numbers can be used to determine market share... you've shown no proof that the numbers are valid for determining that, so if you don't have anything how about we agree to disagree.

 

[steeldragons]

I don't like 4th edition because of the mechanics period, and I know people who don't like 3rd edition for it's mechanics so why in the hell would the designers think that making a game containing elements from both, would be a great thing?

Simply put? Because the people working on 5e, now, are the people that came up with 4e, and possibly there are still a few from 3.x clinging on. It's only natural that they think their creations/creative additions/alterations are [were] the cat's pajamas. It is similarly natural that they would be looking/trying to incorporate as much of their "innovations" into 5e as is possible, within the current developmental direction/framework, just "repackaged" [renamed] and re-marketed ["rebranded"] as 5e.

"What we did before was awesome! The public just didn't notice/"get it" enough...so we'll call everything something else, mush it up with a few older things we can live with, and make them think they're getting something new that they asked for."

It's the ole hide the peas in the mashed potatoes. DON'T EAT IT! NO! DON'T OPEN THE HANGER DOORS! THAT'S NOT AN AIRPLANE AT ALL!!! It's a spoon of blecky peasiness wrapped up in potatoes!! AHHHHH! Oh the humanity...

iow, <invoke Admiral Akbar>"It's a TRAP!"</invocation>

teehee.

 

[Desdichado]

No, that's a download of a playtest... it isn't market share, which was the original claim... but nice try.

Of course it is. If a portion of the market is playing the playtest packet, then it has a market share.

EDIT: How about you provide some proof for your claim or we just agree to disagree... the burden of proof is on the person claiming these numbers can be used to determine market share... you've shown no proof that the numbers are valid for determining that, so if you don't have anything how about we agree to disagree.

I haven't made any claim other than that your logic is faulty. Your insistence that Morrus' point is in fact my point, and that I need to back it up, is yet another example of your faulty logic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My group is just the opposite of yours. We are seeing a 3e/43 hybrid and not much of anything resembling a classic D&D product. Different tastes and all, but the fact that two groups with diametrically opposite wants in a D&D game are both dissatisfied does not bode well for the game.

Honestly, that seems to be a thing about Next, and the biggest worry. D&D Next seems to almost be a Rorschach blob of D&D - it will remind you a lot of D&D, but the versions of D&D it seems to remind a lot of people of are the versions they disliked rather than the ones they liked. Meanwhile it seems to miss why people liked those editions. (I'm in the position of it reminding me a lot of 2E in ways I don't especially want to see again).

 

[NewJeffCT]

Wasn't this site founded right before 3E came out in 2000? Weren't all those old threads people complaining about how terrible 3E was, how it ruined D&D, how they changed too much, it was too complicated, it was written for 5th graders, etc, etc. Yet, 3E gave birth to 3.5E and then Pathfinder, which are both still pretty popular games.

And, if you go back to 2E days and Dragon magazine letters to the editor, the letters were filled with people complaining about how 2E was ruining D&D for them, it wasn't needed, too much was changed, it was dumbed down, etc (though, I do agree with the complaint about demons & devils becoming Baatzu or Tannari, or however you spell them, I'm trying to block them from my memory)

 

[SkidAce]

[MENTION=10784]NewJeffCT[/MENTION] has a valid point.

 

[Imaro]

Of course it is. If a portion of the market is playing the playtest packet, then it has a market share.

Here's a few definitions of "market share"...

1. The proportion of industry sales of a good or service that is controlled by a company.

2. 1. (Marketing) the percentage of a total market, in terms of either value or volume, accounted for by the sales of a specific brand

3. the percentage of sales of a particular product achieved by a single company in a given period of time.

4. : the percentage that a company has of the total sales for a particular product or service

It's funny how each definition is based around actual sales... of which Next and N.E.W. have none... but you keep on making up your own definition of words...

I haven't made any claim other than that your logic is faulty. Your insistence that Morrus' point is in fact my point, and that I need to back it up, is yet another example of your faulty logic.

Riiiiight, anyone can keep saying "faulty logic!!" I've asked you to show me the fault in it and you haven't so far. Again, how about we agree to disagree...