Again, there was a lot of social media back then, it was just different names for essentially the same communications. MySpace was very big. AOL was big. Friendster was briefly big. Usenet was big. These names are mostly gone now, but back the they held similar positions to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. People were on the net in 2000. It was not the beginning of being on the net by then, the net was firmly established hence the dot-com boom was peaking then. We all talked about D&D back then using those forms of communication. Just because the names have changed, that doesn't mean the quantity of talk has substantially changed.
Either Mike Mearls is just a dirty liar for repeatedly saying it's outsold both 3e and 4e for initial sales, or he's telling the truth. You say it's funny - so funny as in suspicious, as in you're calling Mike Mearls a liar, or funny as in haha, as in nobody but you is getting whatever joke you're trying to tell?
I am not sure why that is relevant to a discussion of sales though. Of course it isn't more popular INSTANTLY in online games, we don't even have the core books yet, the PHB is a month old, and people have not wrapped their prior games.
This is one of those reasons I keep talking about where we are right now, rather than trying to predict where we will be. Number of online games is a "where will we be" sort of question, since it's a given you really can't have more games of a game that isn't even out yet than those games that are already out right now and have been for decades.
Same argument as above. It was not the launch event for the core rules - we still have not had that. It was the launch of the first book. So all you could really have is games sponsored directly by WOTC. It's a silly argument to be making.
WOTC repeatedly said the initial sales of 4e outsold 3e. Indeed they painted a pretty specific picture of how each version has outdone the last in sales, however it's not catching the size of the market they think it could catch relative to other geek-oriented activities out there, hence the new edition was a concern over total market share of all geek related activities and not market share of D&D players. I will ask you again - are you calling them liars?
You do seem to be saying it's not selling well with this series of arguments and exaggerations you've made. You put a caveat in, and then you argue against the caveat as if the caveat makes it "Okay" to then go on to diminish every achievement 5e has accomplished so far (like #1 best seller, disproportionate number of positive reviews relative to other editions, etc..).
This is just yet one more method of you trying to diminish WOTC. First, I don't care how many third parties sell D&D stuff, that's a totally different topic. Second, the idea that Paizo's total staff is somehow representative of prior WOTC D&D staff is flawed - show me where that is a good example of staff size? Their team is a pretty good size team relative to prior teams and RPGs in general. Yes, it's smaller than Paizo's team, but that doesn't mean they cannot sell as many products as they sold for 3e (the two facts are not really connected).
And there is another series of snarky cheap shots at WOTC, claiming sales are from the curious and collectors and that releases are "bubble pops".
So let's cut the BS Zard - is there a different version of D&D that you prefer? Is there bitterness there over something WOTC did that is lasting with you? What is coloring your perception that you feel the need to take cheap shots and diminish every accomplishment WOTC makes right now?
