4 years of 5E on Amazon: same old same old

[Zardnaar]

It’s semi-annual update thread revised periodically, which provide a historical perspective when looking back at sales rankings over the months. So we can look back and get data, otherwise finding numbers for exact periods cane be tricky.
It’s not just about praising 5e: you’ll bet if/ when 5e tanks or Pathfinder 2 sells better, these threads will report that as well.

While these threads offer new information with updated numbers and sales figures, your criticism and disbelief doesn’t, offering the same negativity and doubt that 5e again and again. Typically with repeated assertions that 5th Edition hasn’t exceeded the magical sales numbers of 1e. You could cut-and-paste one of your comments from 2015 and it would largely be as relevant.

Never mentioned 1E but we don't have actual numbers for 5E.

If an edition has outsold 1E it's 5E or Basic.

5E PHB is impressive but people seem to think top 500 is good. From the sounds of it you can break the top 100 with sales of a few dozen if that.

Also not claiming 5E is not doing well mostly that posters are overly enthusiastic about data they don't have. Do some googling top 5 and 10 can barely mean anything.

Outselling 4E isn't hard it probably did worse than 3.5 and 3.5 didn't do that well in the grand D&D scheme of things.

 

[Jester David]

5E PHB is impressive but people seem to think top 500 is good. From the sounds of it you can break the top 100 with sales of a few dozen if that.

First, it's not a dozen. It's a couple hundred: https://www.tckpublishing.com/amazon-book-sales-calculator/

Second, we're not just talking about top 500, but top 50. And while a few dozen copies can do it for a brief spike, for bragging rights, we're not talking about a brief spike. Instead, we're talking about a continued presence for multiple years. And we're also talking about the Wall Street Journal and New York Times bestseller lists

Also not claiming 5E is not doing well mostly that posters are overly enthusiastic about data they don't have. Do some googling top 5 and 10 can barely mean anything.

We have the CEO of Hasbro saying in an interview that "D&D had its best year every." Not 'best year this edition'. Not 'best year in ages' or even 'best year in decades'. Ever. Which would include 1983 with 1e and the Red Box doing gangbuster sales.

That's some pretty good data.


Also... what the eff does it matter to you if we're "overly enthusiastic"? How does it affect you slightly in the most remote of ways that we *might* be needlessly excited a hobby we love is a hit?
Seriously. You're coming into a thread you don't believe matters and killing our happy buzz. Why? For what benefit? You're not going to convince us, and we're evidently never going to convince you? Why kill the mood?

 

[Zardnaar]

First, it's not a dozen. It's a couple hundred: https://www.tckpublishing.com/amazon-book-sales-calculator/

Second, we're not just talking about top 500, but top 50. And while a few dozen copies can do it for a brief spike, for bragging rights, we're not talking about a brief spike. Instead, we're talking about a continued presence for multiple years. And we're also talking about the Wall Street Journal and New York Times bestseller lists


We have the CEO of Hasbro saying in an interview that "D&D had its best year every." Not 'best year this edition'. Not 'best year in ages' or even 'best year in decades'. Ever. Which would include 1983 with 1e and the Red Box doing gangbuster sales.

That's some pretty good data.


Also... what the eff does it matter to you if we're "overly enthusiastic"? How does it affect you slightly in the most remote of ways that we *might* be needlessly excited a hobby we love is a hit?
Seriously. You're coming into a thread you don't believe matters and killing our happy buzz. Why? For what benefit? You're not going to convince us, and we're evidently never going to convince you? Why kill the mood?

They also claimed 4E was doing well. 1983 if you adjust for inflation D&D was bigger than the entire RPG market now so I take his claims with a dose of salt. He doesn't quantify his claims offer any evidence or sales numbers.

If you don't adjust for inflation with what we do know then yes D&D would have had its best year in terms of revenue so its believable. But we don't know if he is referring to profit, sales numbers, revenue or whatever metric he is using. The interview was for investors so he used buzzwords and PR and people are lapping it up.

Note I am cynical in general

 

[ad_hoc]

We also have them saying that NA has over 15 million active players.

That is staggering.

(compare that to 2002 when they estimated that 20 million people had played D&D before. So that isn't active, that includes people who played once in the 80s and worldwide).

 

[Oofta]

They also claimed 4E was doing well. 1983 if you adjust for inflation D&D was bigger than the entire RPG market now so I take his claims with a dose of salt. He doesn't quantify his claims offer any evidence or sales numbers.

If you don't adjust for inflation with what we do know then yes D&D would have had its best year in terms of revenue so its believable. But we don't know if he is referring to profit, sales numbers, revenue or whatever metric he is using. The interview was for investors so he used buzzwords and PR and people are lapping it up.

Note I am cynical in general

WHAT??? Say it isn't so!!! I'm used to nothing but happiness and rainbow farts that smell like cinnamon from our z-man!

Considering the number of mentions in publications I never thought D&D would be mentioned in a light other than "that thing geeks play in their parent's basement" and instead we're getting positive articles in The New Yorker. Too bad it's all doomed. DOOMED!!!

 

[Zardnaar]

WHAT??? Say it isn't so!!! I'm used to nothing but happiness and rainbow farts that smell like cinnamon from our z-man!

Considering the number of mentions in publications I never thought D&D would be mentioned in a light other than "that thing geeks play in their parent's basement" and instead we're getting positive articles in The New Yorker. Too bad it's all doomed. DOOMED!!!

Heh na D&D is not doomed at all lol, never claimed it was. Mentions in other things are just that though, cute nothing to be drastically excited about IMHO. I have gone through 6 edition changes I suppose so have sen most things before.

CEOs and similar positions will claim everything is great right up until the SEC is knocking on the door. Not that it applies here of course 5E is doing great regardless and I think its one of the better D&Ds if not the best one (only B/X and 2E can compete I think mostly because they do different things, domains and settings/toolbox+ classic adventures).

 

[Morrus]

Why are you so invested in proving that 5e isn't selling well?

My advice is to remove unrelenting negativity from your feed.

 

[ad_hoc]

I think it is interesting that there is a large amount of D&D enthusiasts who not only have no idea about the popularity of 5e but actively oppose the idea of it (even going so far as to say the numbers announced by WotC are lies; lies which would result in serious legal repercussions).

It came up with someone else in the Eberron thread just a couple days ago. They were arguing that 3e and 5e have comparable numbers and wouldn't back down.

There was a time when no one thought it was possible for D&D to pull in the numbers (of players) of the 1980s. 5e has now left those numbers far behind and yet people are still thinking that it is in the same realm as 3e.

 

[Mistwell]

Im not but top 500 means basically nothing. People give me grief for reptile bless posts but we get this thread or variants 3 or 4 times a year.

So don't read it.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it is interesting that there is a large amount of D&D enthusiasts who not only have no idea about the popularity of 5e but actively oppose the idea of it (even going so far as to say the numbers announced by WotC are lies; lies which would result in serious legal repercussions).

It came up with someone else in the Eberron thread just a couple days ago. They were arguing that 3e and 5e have comparable numbers and wouldn't back down.

There was a time when no one thought it was possible for D&D to pull in the numbers (of players) of the 1980s. 5e has now left those numbers far behind and yet people are still thinking that it is in the same realm as 3e.

It is peculiar, isn't it?