D&D General Ben Riggs Shares 2001 D&D 3.0 Core Book Sales.

Alphastream

Adventurer
More fuel to @Alphastream hypothesis that Bookscan is only part of the story?
It does seem that way. It is a bit different than Ben taking 2001 instead of the first 52 weeks, since he lacks 2000 sales data, but the Bookscan first 52 weeks total is 127k. If we go with the theory that BookScan is roughly 25% of sales, then that's a total first 12 months of 509k, which is more than double the 3E amount for 2001.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Alphastream

Adventurer
James Fallone steps in to the discord.
This was really the most interesting part for me, because it confirms that the 2E and earlier sales data isn't just the numbers, it is context. You have to understand the history of those numbers and how they were pulled together, and basically none of us understand that. It would be amazing to know what they concluded, but I doubt even they recall what the 2E "reality" was vs the raw data.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
It does seem that way. It is a bit different than Ben taking 2001 instead of the first 52 weeks, since he lacks 2000 sales data, but the Bookscan first 52 weeks total is 127k. If we go with the theory that BookScan is roughly 25% of sales, then that's a total first 12 months of 509k, which is more than double the 3E amount for 2001.

Kinda tracks with other estimates.

Low side 5E has sold around double the big selling editions. High side double that number (3-6 million range). It's probably somewhere between those rooms numbers.
 


GuardianLurker

Adventurer
1E and 4E.
Huh. I would have figured 2e and 6e (or whatever its name-of-the-week is). Just based on "its just a rules revision" flavor of 3.5.

I would NOT have picked either one. 4e may have been a disaster, but it was a genuinely new edition. Ditto for 1e. Now, the shenanigans they tried to play with their non-OGL licensing with 4e definitely was, but for some reason I divorce that from the edition itself. But 1e?
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Huh. I would have figured 2e and 6e (or whatever its name-of-the-week is). Just based on "its just a rules revision" flavor of 3.5.

I would NOT have picked either one. 4e may have been a disaster, but it was a genuinely new edition. Ditto for 1e. Now, the shenanigans they tried to play with their non-OGL licensing with 4e definitely was, but for some reason I divorce that from the edition itself. But 1e?

1E was done to screw Arnson out of royalties.

4E came out 4 years after 3.5 and rushed out the door. They churned through 3 editions of D&D and Star Wars in 7-8 years.

Every other edition the goal was to make a better game for the most part an/or the game had been in print for 10 years or so.
 

Stormonu

Legend
I too, am shocked at calling 1E a "cash-grab", though the explanation does fit - I would have also tagged 4E Essentials instead of 4E proper.

Thinking about it, coming from B/X I'd throw BECMI & Rules Cyclopedia into the cash grab arena, as BECMI came out so quickly on the heels of B/X (at least, in my view) that they never made the promised Companion set for B/X.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I too, am shocked at calling 1E a "cash-grab", though the explanation does fit - I would have also tagged 4E Essentials instead of 4E proper.

Thinking about it, coming from B/X I'd throw BECMI & Rules Cyclopedia into the cash grab arena, as BECMI came out so quickly on the heels of B/X (at least, in my view) that they never made the promised Companion set for B/X.
One could make a case that just about wvery D&D prodict evwr is a cashgrab.
 



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top