Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8970529" data-attributes="member: 87792">Not after all this time. But 100k subscribers at $70/year (<a href="https://nerdvanamedia.com/gaming/dd-insider-raising-subscription-prices/18295/" target="_blank">the cheapest package as of 2009</a>) is $7 million income per year with pretty low overheads - and that was the sort of numbers that they were pulling in 2014. So your own estimates make 4e pretty profitable (for comparison <a href="https://www.zippia.com/paizo-careers-1572779/revenue/" target="_blank">Paizo's total revenue in 2021</a> was $12 million).Meanwhile I note you have nothing to say about how 3.5 was selling in 2006 or 2007 or the profitability of the equally short-lived 3.5.The big difference of course is that 3.5 made most of its money off glossy dead trees - and those are expensive. 4e managed a digital subscription. And then 5e was daft enough to let D&D Beyond eat its lunch before they bought them out for $146 million.You mean that there's a reason that they replaced 3.0 two years into its lifetime? But didn't make the old books redundant in 4e's case I didn't declare overwhelming success - just profitability compared to the 3.5 that lasted about five years or the 3.0 that lasted two and a half.And like I said 4e was making millions in 2014. That's after the launch of 5e and with no new material having come out for over a year.So 3.0 was a failure, completely replaced after two and a half years and then 3.5 only lasted another 5 years. That's a comparable lifespan.The biggest financial failure, of course, was 2e - which brought TSR down.I am however interested in debunking your nonsense. Even by your own figures 4e was profitable - and didn't have to shovelware hardbacks. If you're not interested in discussing things then you can always keep quiet about them rather than spread urban legends.</blockquote>

Verification