D&D 5E Light release schedule: More harm than good?

[BryonD]

You're missing his point, though. He's not talking about what's successful and viable in the fan community, he's talking about what's successful and viable for the companies making it.

You can't go making up your own goals for something a decade ago.

So you can't just tack Pathfinder onto 3.5 and say "Look at the success!"

Yes you can as far as the system is concerned. Clearly WotC made numerous mistakes in how they managed it. But the success of PF shows that the core system is highly viable as a financial item. The fact that WotC let someone else gain that value doesn't change that if they had played their cards differently they clearly could still be making value from it.

3E was a huge success by the goals that were established for 3E. It could have been an even bigger success for WotC specifically if they had played their cards differently, it has nothing to do with the system that they did not.

The goals for 5E *might* be different. But what is "evergreen"? The 3E core system is still highly popular and a market powerhouse 14 years later. If PF gives up tomorrow and launches PF 2.0 on a whole new system, that 14 year benchmark will be a incredibly difficult for 5E to match. Hussar's point is wrong when he generalizes to call the edition an "utter failure" And Hussar's point is wrong when he tries to claim that the core system (even with the mass amount of product that came with it early on) was not viable as long term commodity.



Edit: And yet again, his numbers were factually (significantly) wrong and misleading drawing an equivalence that does not exist.

 

[Iosue]

You can't go making up your own goals for something a decade ago.

This is the point your missing. No one is saying that 3e failed its goals at the time. We're looking back with the benefit of hindsight to examine paths for the future.

Yes you can as far as the system is concerned. Clearly WotC made numerous mistakes in how they managed it. But the success of PF shows that the core system is highly viable as a financial item.

Again, this isn't about the system. It's about the release strategy. The point is not that there's something intrinsically wrong with the system. The point is that the long-term strategy for selling that system was flawed.

What Hussar says failed is not the design of 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. He's saying that WotC's strategy of releasing lots of splatbooks, most targeted at players, as a way to maintain incoming revenue, failed to keep the edition mill stable.

The fact that WotC let someone else gain that value doesn't change that if they had played their cards differently they clearly could still be making value from it.

Hussar's point is that they didn't play their cards right.

3E was a huge success by the goals that were established for 3E. It could have been an even bigger success for WotC specifically if they had played their cards differently, it has nothing to do with the system that they did not.

Not arguing about quality of system.

The goals for 5E *might* be different. But what is "evergreen"? The 3E core system is still highly popular and a market powerhouse 14 years later. If PF gives up tomorrow and launches PF 2.0 on a whole new system, that 14 year benchmark will be a incredibly difficult for 5E to match. Hussar's point is wrong when he generalizes to call the edition an "utter failure" And Hussar's point is wrong when he tries to claim that the core system (even with the mass amount of product that came with it early on) was not viable as long term commodity.

Hussar's not arguing that it had anything to do with the system. He's arguing that the fact that WotC felt the need to introduce 3.5 three years into 3e's life, 4e five years into 3.5's life, Essentials 2 years into 4e's life, and 5e 2 to 4 years into Essentials' life (depending on how you want to count) indicates that the high-pace of releases was not an effective plan for long term stability. That Paizo also felt the need to revise 3.5, rather than release it as is, and now people talk of needing a new edition only reinforces his point.

 

[BryonD]

This is the point your missing. No one is saying that 3e failed its goals at the time. We're looking back with the benefit of hindsight to examine paths for the future.


Again, this isn't about the system. It's about the release strategy. The point is not that there's something intrinsically wrong with the system. The point is that the long-term strategy for selling that system was flawed.

What Hussar says failed is not the design of 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. He's saying that WotC's strategy of releasing lots of splatbooks, most targeted at players, as a way to maintain incoming revenue, failed to keep the edition mill stable.


Hussar's point is that they didn't play their cards right.


Not arguing about quality of system.


Hussar's not arguing that it had anything to do with the system. He's arguing that the fact that WotC felt the need to introduce 3.5 three years into 3e's life, 4e five years into 3.5's life, Essentials 2 years into 4e's life, and 5e 2 to 4 years into Essentials' life (depending on how you want to count) indicates that the high-pace of releases was not an effective plan for long term stability. That Paizo also felt the need to revise 3.5, rather than release it as is, and now people talk of needing a new edition only reinforces his point.

Honestly, I think you are missing my point and if you saw ti your would sere that I'm not missing the thread's point.

The question is regarding light release schedule. 3E was nowhere near "light" and yet that core system has produced a seriously evergreen foundation. Hussar himself has argues that 4E faced an "unfair" challenge because PF was a continuation.

Also, the claim that 3E/3.5/PF are new "editions" is highly questionable, as is the claim that they "needed" to do so.
3.5 took a lot of feedback and re-tooled the game. It is also was "striking while the iron is hot". 3E was so wildly successful at that point in time that rebooting the core was a great excuse to sell a lot more books in a hurry. You can argue about the wisdom of that. It worked short term, maybe not so much long term for a variety of reasons. But on the topic at hand the claim that they "needed" to release 3.5 because it was not thriving is a total historic error. 3E was BOOMING at that time. Wotc was not trying to salvage anything, they were doubling down / cashing in.

As to the PF change, if the system has gone from green to brown then Paizo would not have been interested. They stayed with the system because it was still thriving. Yes, they made changes. Putting their own stamp on it made sense, they needed to turn it into something that they were associated with and that worked. The claim that they "needed" to because there was a challenge of maintaining long term sales without change is completely flawed.

It is just flat wrong to spin it that way.

The long term success of 3e is the best available model of "evergreen" in the current environment.

And you keep tying it to quality of the system. When I talk about the system here I am not saying it is the a debate over quality. I am saying that the system, including the release volume that came with it was a good example.

Edit: and the attempt to put the 3E life and 4E life on equal footing is quantifiably wrong and misleading.

 

[Iosue]

Honestly, I think you are missing my point and if you saw ti your would sere that I'm not missing the thread's point.

I see your point quite clearly. I'm pointing out that you are missing Hussar's point.

The question is regarding light release schedule. 3E was nowhere near "light" and yet that core system has produced a seriously evergreen foundation.

Three revisions and rereleases in nine years is not evergreen. That's the opposite of evergreen.

3.5 took a lot of feedback and re-tooled the game. It is also was "striking while the iron is hot". 3E was so wildly successful at that point in time that rebooting the core was a great excuse to sell a lot more books in a hurry. You can argue about the wisdom of that. It worked short term, maybe not so much long term for a variety of reasons. But on the topic at hand the claim that they "needed" to release 3.5 because it was not thriving is a total historic error. 3E was BOOMING at that time. Wotc was not trying to salvage anything, they were doubling down / cashing in.

I've bolded the part that is Hussar's point (and that I agree with).

As to the PF change, if the system has gone from green to brown then Paizo would not have been interested. They stayed with the system because it was still thriving. Yes, they made changes. Putting their own stamp on it made sense, they needed to turn it into something that they were associated with and that worked. The claim that they "needed" to because there was a challenge of maintaining long term sales without change is completely flawed.

Why did they need to "put their own stamp" on it? If 3.5 was thriving and evergreen, why not just release the game as it was, adding their own branding and support? Why the big year-long playtest? 1e lasted 10 years, 2e lasted 10 years (and that's with some pretty crappy business practices). If 3.5 was so strong, why go through all that trouble and expense? It was abandoned by WotC, all they had to do was release the OGL material in their own trade dress and rake in the money.

It is just flat wrong to spin it that way.

I'm not seeing any argument other than, "Nuh-uh. 3e/3.5/Pathfinder all count as one game, so it's evergreen." When the whole point that Hussar and I are making is that the fact that you even have to make that argument is indicative of the problem.

And you keep tying it to quality of the system.

What part of "Not arguing about quality of system" was difficult to understand? The fundamental disconnect here is that you keep saying "3e/3.5/Pathfinder" are all the same thing, while we are saying, "Even so stipulated, three total reboots in 9 years is a problem."

When I talk about the system here I am not saying it is the a debate over quality. I am saying that the system, including the release volume that came with it was a good example.

If 3e had continued for 14 years maintaining that release schedule and no rebooting the whole system, I'd be right there with you. But we don't have that. We have three versions of the PHB, three versions of the MM, three versions of the DMG, and a high degree of duplication in all the following sourcebooks.

Edit: and the attempt to put the 3E life and 4E life on equal footing is quantifiably wrong and misleading.

I'm just hearing edition warring rhetoric here, not any persuasive arguments.

 

[BryonD]

I see your point quite clearly. I'm pointing out that you are missing Hussar's point.


Three revisions and rereleases in nine years is not evergreen. That's the opposite of evergreen.

Obviously you are missing my point if you repeat this rebuttal.

Hussar's point relies on the idea that a revision means the system isn't "evergreen". But neither 3.5 nor PF support that premise and a look at the history shows the opposite.
3E was very much still completely green when 3.5 came out. 3E was still booming. So any conclusion tied "it was needed" is flawed. You can do a revision because sales are flagging and your product is no longer green. But that is not the only reason. Hussar's argument is stuck on the faulty assumption that this is the only explanation.

Why did they need to "put their own stamp" on it? If 3.5 was thriving and evergreen, why not just release the game as it was, adding their own branding and support?

Because they wanted it to be Paizo's game and brand associated with them. They also said they had some changes they they simply liked.
If it wasn't thriving, why would they invest in it? (I think they thought it was thriving. Their poster literally said "3.5 Thrives")

Why the big year-long playtest? 1e lasted 10 years, 2e lasted 10 years (and that's with some pretty crappy business practices). If 3.5 was so strong, why go through all that trouble and expense? It was abandoned by WotC, all they had to do was release the OGL material in their own trade dress and rake in the money.

Who would they "rake in the money" if it was failing?
Paizo has made community involvement a huge foundation of their business model. Again, you are pointing at something that had nothing whatsoever to do with poor sales and proclaiming a connection.

I'm not seeing any argument other than, "Nuh-uh. 3e/3.5/Pathfinder all count as one game, so it's evergreen." When the whole point that Hussar and I are making is that the fact that you even have to make that argument is indicative of the problem.

Right, so we agree that you are missing the point.

If 3e had continued for 14 years maintaining that release schedule and no rebooting the whole system, I'd be right there with you. But we don't have that. We have three versions of the PHB, three versions of the MM, three versions of the DMG, and a high degree of duplication in all the following sourcebooks.

And huge sales throughout. What is the goal you are seeking?

At this point in 3E the number of "upcoming" titles was significant (ignoring the OGL/3PP onslaught) . 5E has a very sparse list, as motivated this thread.
3E was booming when 3.5 came out. If you are disputing that point, please flat out say it.
If the 3E rate of production was a bad thing, why was it booming when 3.5 came out?

Nothing you have said addresses my point that 3.5 was a CASH IN on success. When you look at a "reboot" from a very simplistic and out of context perspective it is easy to say that it means the system NEEDED it. But if you look at BOTH of the D20 reboots that you keep harping on, thoughtfully and in context, they demonstrate the exact opposite of need.

I'm just hearing edition warring rhetoric here, not any persuasive arguments.

Hussar is the one who used factually incorrect numbers to make a faulty comparison. Is that not edition war rhetoric? All I have done is correct him. The numbers he used are wrong and the resulting conclusion he based on his wrong numbers is also wrong.


Again, 3E was BOOMING when 3.5 came out. BOOMING is not failure under any definition. Cashing in on booming is being used to redefine history.
You either have to admit that 3E was booming when this happened and therefore not "indicative of a problem", or you can claim it was failing and NEEDED a reboot to save it, which will make you look silly to anyone who was around at the time.

 

[BryonD]

Here is a question: PF alone is approaching 6 years (this August, not counting the playtest period which would add more than a year). They have a decent steady release schedule.
Is this "evergreen"? How long does a system need to last to be evergreen?

When will we know if 5E has succeeded? Is it fair to say that a 5.5 year (and counting) bar has been set?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Here is a question: PF alone is approaching 6 years (this August, not counting the playtest period which would add more than a year). They have a decent steady release schedule.
Is this "evergreen"? How long does a system need to last to be evergreen?

When will we know if 5E has succeeded? Is it fair to say that a 5.5 year (and counting) bar has been set?

For an edition to be evergreen, it should never have a subsequent edition. Repackaging, or reprints with minor errata are fine, but the books you bought when it was new should still be adequate and compatible with new products decades later.

 

[Kramodlog]

Here is a question: PF alone is approaching 6 years (this August, not counting the playtest period which would add more than a year). They have a decent steady release schedule.
Is this "evergreen"? How long does a system need to last to be evergreen?

When will we know if 5E has succeeded? Is it fair to say that a 5.5 year (and counting) bar has been set?

15 years? I see PF as a continuity of 3e and 3.5 and represent of type of evergreen edition. Some people call PF D&D 3.75. I guess some could say 1e/2e was evergreen for a longer period of time, as they were both similar and lasted 20 years put together.

Pathfinder 2.0 should really be a continuity of Pathfinder and by continuity I mean backward compatible like PF is with 3.5 and 3.5 with 3e. PF 2.0 really should be PF 1.5. It would still be evergreen if it did that.

 

[Bluenose]

For an edition to be evergreen, it should never have a subsequent edition. Repackaging, or reprints with minor errata are fine, but the books you bought when it was new should still be adequate and compatible with new products decades later.

I think that would depend on how much the edition changed and how much it instead added or made slight modifications to. There's plenty of RPGs where the changes from one edition to the next are small. Simply because the publishers have decided to stick a new number on a book doesn't mean that the changes are significant, though it also doesn't mean they're minor - you have to test each one to find out.

 

[bmfrosty]

Changes due to errata shouldn't count. I guess crunch changes vs fluff changes?