D&D 5E 3 Years Later: D&D's total Domination on Amazon (and Earth in General)

[Mistwell]

Is there any real doubt now that WotC's business model of slower release schedule is anything but a phenomenal success?

Why yes. From this guy:

No Golden Age for D and D 5e.....Its a dinosaur of an edition/game that specifically is built contrary, and as a reaction to, modern Gamist principles - despite its self serving and self proclaimed label as "The Edition for Everyone". Its sloppy, inconsistent, imbalanced, and fluffy.

You present a lot of supposed evidence it is doing well ("Wizards won't release sales figures but....") but the only real thing that matters is how often they release new books/modules/gadgets/etc. If the game was actually doing well, we would see a LOT more releases - strike while the iron's hot so to speak. Capitalism exposes the Posers every time lol....

D and D 5e = Poser, propped up by excited Revolutionaries who won the edition wars and are excited. [yawn]

Yes the decline started earlier. Gaming preferences have changed in the last few decades. Gamists rule now (3 words: World of Warcraft), and 4e was an attempt to reach out beyond the little rpg niche base. It was a great strategy, one that if successful would ensure D and D's survival (in modified form) into the future. But the hardcore rpg D and D base threw a hissy-fit and revolted. Bye Bye 4e. 5e, despite its alleged status as "The Game for Everyone," is a throwback and not at all an attempt to reach out to a wider base. Because of that, D and D will be dying a slow death. Comparing flat numbers across decades and declaring "record sales" doesn't change that. Its all about market share.

 

[Parmandur]

Why yes. From this guy:

He said "real" doubt.

 

[Azzy]

Why yes. From this guy:

Well, it is coming from a person that doesn't seem to know how to use an ampersand.

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, the 3e books, the 4e books, and in fact, ever "E" books are good books. They really are. For the time that they were published, they were very good books (well, the first print runs have had some issues, but, you get my point). Yet, within a year or two of being published, sales crashed. There's a reason we got 3.5 two years after 3e and 4e a few years after that, despite the books being "good".

Now, throughout the print runs, the core books have always been the best sellers. Look at Pathfinder, the core book is still the number one selling Pathfinder books. But, that number one book keeps sliding slowly further and further down the list, meaning that while it's selling better than any other Pathfinder book, there is a continuous downward spiral over all.

Three years after release, the 5e core books haven't budged. Yup, they are the best selling D&D books, but, they are also maintaining that overall position as well.

They did something right this time around.

 

[TerraDave]

 

[darjr]

Camel has it as high at 42 at some point. And it's been up there close since early Sept.

 

[Mistwell]

Tomb of Annihilation is ranked #312 in Books today, October 3, 2017.
Starfinder is ranked #2,687 in Books.
PHB is ranked #96 in Books.
5e Starter Set is #891 in Books.
DMG is #301 in Books.
MM is #326 in Books.

October 28, 2017:

Tomb of Annihilation is ranked 1,334 in Books
Starfinder is ranked #19,009 in Books.
PHB is ranked #63 in Books.
5e Starter Set is #758 in Books.
DMG is #162 in Books.
MM is #176 in Books.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pre-release): #54 in Books.

 

[Parmandur]

October 28, 2017:

Tomb of Annihilation is ranked 1,334 in Books
Starfinder is ranked #19,009 in Books.
PHB is ranked #63 in Books.
5e Starter Set is #758 in Books.
DMG is #162 in Books.
MM is #176 in Books.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pre-release): #54 in Books.

How is ToA doing in relation to the he other APs historically, I wonder...

 

[darjr]

The historical shape of the graph for toa looks like it’ll match xanathars

 

[Parmandur]

The historical shape of the graph for toa looks like it’ll match xanathars

Do the graphs suggest any of the 5E books have performed relatively well or poorly?