D&D 5E I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""

[Zardnaar]

I don't think so, maybe, but it is hardly a harbringer of success. Whether or not it would have happened anyway, we can confidently say bringing 2E to market in the fashion they did was a bad business decision.

2E did not sell as well as anticipated or well enough to keep TSR afloat given the over abundance of 2E product printed.



I understand what you are saying for 3E, but I don't see anyway you can quantify 2E as a business success. 1E to 2E saw the 1E trajectory collapse (which as you noted might have happened anyway), same with 3.5E to 4E.

The bottom line though is I think there is ample evidence to say that edition switch has not consistently been a successful business tactic.



I don't think of essentials as an edition update or change, it was a streamlined version meant to appeal to a different audience. I look at this as fundamentally different than 3.5 or 5.5.

It is closer to the supplements, like essentials, released with 5E



From a business point of view it was certainly more successful than 2E or 4E.



A temporary bump is a bump and a "successful business tactic".

2E sales weren't as bad as internet says at least with core.

Non core bloat sold at a loss did them in. Sold around 2/3rds of 2E similar to 3E overall.

Theoretically it could have made it. TSR was never run well.

80s TSR has two product lines doing gangbusters though comparatively. Until they didn't.

 

[mamba]

I don't think so, maybe, but it is hardly a harbringer of success. Whether or not it would have happened anyway, we can confidently say bringing 2E to market in the fashion they did was a bad business decision.

I’d say it was a good decision to have 2e, they just did stick with it too long

Pretty sure the bump in 1e was triggered by 2e too, otherwise it would have continued its decline

The bottom line though is I think there is ample evidence to say that edition switch has not consistently been a successful business tactic.

It was consistently able to generate more sales for a while, because the previous edition had already dropped considerably. From 1e to 4e, every edition sold less than the one before it however, so it never resulted in a successful edition long term

From a business point of view it was certainly more successful than 2E or 4E.

3.5? No, it was considerably less successful than 2e

A temporary bump is a bump and a "successful business tactic".

getting a bump after sales have dropped to near 0 is not all that hard. Also, you were the one calling 2e not a success despite it doing exactly that

 

[mamba]

Like I said it depends on your metric. If you are going to ask if adoption has been "enthusiastic", you need some metric by which to define and judge that. Gross sales is one, but perhaps not the right one.

I am fine with the metric, I just think it is way too early for a conclusion. Of course sales will pick up initially, you have essentially the same number of new people coming in and created people upgrading to the new edition, the latter is obviously a bump. Having no bump would have been a disaster, but that does not mean having one therefore is a success, it will take time for that to become clear

 

[Zardnaar]

I’d say it was a good decision to have 2e, they just did stick with it too long

View attachment 403883

Pretty sure the bump in 1e was triggered by 2e too, otherwise it would have continued its decline


It was consistently able to generate more sales for a while, because the previous edition had already dropped considerably. From 1e to 4e, every edition sold less than the one before it however, so it never resulted in a successful edition long term


3.5? No, it was considerably less successful than 2e


getting a bump after sales have dropped to near 0 is not all that hard. Also, you were the one calling 2e not a success despite it doing exactly that

3.5 may have made more money than 2E. Didn't sell remotely as many units though.

WotC are just better at not burning money.

 

[mamba]

3.5 may have made more money than 2E. Didn't sell remotely as many units though.

WotC are just better at not burning money.

lol, that is possible, have no numbers on that though

 

[ECMO3]

I’d say it was a good decision to have 2e, they just did stick with it too long

I would say you are wrong. I would say it was a terrible decision.

It was consistently able to generate more sales for a while, because the previous edition had already dropped considerably. From 1e to 4e, every edition sold less than the one before it however, so it never resulted in a successful edition long term

But generating sales is not everything in terms of being a good business decision. Bump or no they could not even sell all their product and stores were sending unsold product back to TSR is what bankrupted them.

3.5? No, it was considerably less successful than 2e

No it wasn't. 3.5 generated a profit for WOTC. 2E bankrupted TSR.

getting a bump after sales have dropped to near 0 is not all that hard.

Sales were not near 0. You are looking specifically at the core rulebooks, back in the 80s a lot of sales volume came from modules.

Also, you were the one calling 2e not a success despite it doing exactly that

So I was commenting on someone who stated releasing a new edition has been a "successful business tactic"

That is what I have a problem with. Releasing 2E was NOT a scucessful business practice, releasing 4E was NOT a successful business practice.

 

[ECMO3]

2E sales weren't as bad as internet says at least with core.

2E sales were not bad at all, but the release of 2E was a disaster financially for TSR.

Theoretically it could have made it. TSR was never run well.

We are nto talking about theory here, we are talking about the historical record with respect to new editions.

It is a mixed record at best (I would actually argue poor) and has certainly not been a repeatable "good business tactic"

 

[Azzy]

I would say you are wrong. I would say it was a terrible decision.

Why? First edition was a disorganized and sometimes opaque mess. It needed to be reorganized, made clearer, and cleaned up. While I don't agree with all of 2e's changes, it did clean up the mess.

 

[billd91]

Why? First edition was a disorganized and sometimes opaque mess. It needed to be reorganized, made clearer, and cleaned up. While I don't agree with all of 2e's changes, it did clean up the mess.

Full agreement there. While I think they bungled the ranger in particular, cleaned up rules for initiative and surprise in 2e were much easier to actually work with rather than work around. The thief was much improved (though still on crappy saves). And having non-weapon proficiencies in one place (for a while) was better than having to tote around my survival guides. Plus, massively backward compatible so win most of the way around.

 

[mamba]

I would say you are wrong. I would say it was a terrible decision.

without it they would have closed their doors years earlier, so I do not see it as a bad decision. Their problem was bad management, not the release of 2e

But generating sales is not everything in terms of being a good business decision. Bump or no they could not even sell all their product and stores were sending unsold product back to TSR is what bankrupted them.

no it isn’t, but without sales your other decisions do not really matter

No it wasn't. 3.5 generated a profit for WOTC. 2E bankrupted TSR.

eh, TSR bankrupted TSR, it just happened during 2e. If they had stuck with 1e they still would have been bankrupt, just sooner