Edition Bias and 4e Sales Perception

[NewJeffCT]

I'm neutral on 4E

I was a year into a 3.5 campaign when 4E came out, and since I'm so focused on that as a DM, I have barely perused the 4E books. So, I have no opinion on 4E. I told the group that I planned on finishing the campaign in 3.5, then deciding if we should stick with 3.5 for the next campaign, or move on to 3.75/Pathfinder or on to 4E and that was fine with everybody.

When 3E came out in 2000, there was a clear need for a new edition. While 2E had its good points, it had become so big, unwieldy and inconsistent that it was hard to find two groups that played it exactly the same. Plus, since it had been a decade since 2E came out, things had stagnated in terms of books for so many different gaming worlds - FR, Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, etc, etc - that with kits and skills & powers and so on it was a huge change from the original 2E that came out in 1989 or 1990. People were hungry for change, and 3E was it.

With 4E, I don't think there was a clear need for a new edition. While 3.5 was becoming unwieldy with prestige classes, new core classes, new skills & feats, etc, it was still not to the point where it was unplayable and unrecognizable when compared to the original 3.5. While many had problems with aspects of 3.5, I did not see a huge demand for change out there among gamers. And, if you did not like 3.5, you could always go back to 3E, 2E or 1E as an alternate, or make a few house rules to 3.5 to fix things you didn't like... I know my old group literally had a book of 2E house rules, but far less for 3E and 3.5. (And, don't get me wrong, I have many fond memories of 1E and 2E...)

that is my opinion at least. I understand that Hasbro needs to make money, but I think pushing out a 4E is more of a short-term decision than a long term one. They know a new edition will generate a bump in sales for the new books and first several new products... I think 3.5 was still a few years away from being unworkable and in need of change. And, I would have hoped that 4E would have been more like the change from 1E to 2E.

 

[Treebore]

I've been wondering how much money WOTC could have made if they did their own Pathfinder. Meaning do their own revision of the rules. Balance everything out that was discovered to be broken in all of the splatbooks, rewrite the game to make higher levels more viable, etc...

I would guess they looked at doing this and decided the profits weren't there, but I still like to think "What If...?" Especially since I think 3E is a darn good system, just too many things contributed to making it become too difficult to run at high levels. I have no doubt they could have rewrote the whole thing and made many things much more streamlined, balanced, scalable, etc...

 

[Victim]

I've been wondering how much money WOTC could have made if they did their own Pathfinder. Meaning do their own revision of the rules. Balance everything out that was discovered to be broken in all of the splatbooks, rewrite the game to make higher levels more viable, etc...

I would guess they looked at doing this and decided the profits weren't there, but I still like to think "What If...?" Especially since I think 3E is a darn good system, just too many things contributed to making it become too difficult to run at high levels. I have no doubt they could have rewrote the whole thing and made many things much more streamlined, balanced, scalable, etc...

Like 3.5 was supposed to be? I don't think people would have really been willing to accept another 3.5 from WotC.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I voted "like 4e, think its doing well."

What objective indicators we have suggest good sales. Best seller lists, sales volume rankings, etc. Of course "selling well" is subjective, and none of those things conclusively prove a successful product, but as evidence goes they point in the direction of success. So at the most pessimistic, you could argue that the "selling well" hypothesis hasn't been conclusively proven, but you couldn't argue that the "selling poorly" hypothesis even has meaningful support.

Local stores are at best anecdotal, and since gamers tend to have a bit of a local culture, it isn't surprising that entire stores might go one way or another. In my area(s), one store seems to sell quite a lot of 4e products. I base that conclusion on their tendency to not have 4e products in stock when you ask for them, because someone else already bought them. Fortunately they have a restock rate of under a week delay, and most of what I want are adventures, so waiting isn't a big deal for me. The other store seems to sell 4e products, but not at any particular speed. The first store is mostly a board gaming and roleplaying gaming store, and has a lot of tables and some active 4e games. The second store is mostly a wargaming store, and also has a lot of tables, but no chairs because the tables are for wargamers who need to stand to hover over everything. The second store serves an older clientelle- more middle aged, while the first store tends to serve people in their 20s.

And of course the DDI throws a wrench in any calculations anyways. There are a TON of books I haven't purchased because I can get them online through a service I already paid for. I assume that, net, WotC makes money on the DDI, even though it trades off a bit with book sales.

DDI is a product I am really wondering about. I have no real idea how it sells how important is to WotC "income" from D&D 4.

It is probably doing fine, considering the number of posts that have it here, and I think 3 out of 5 players in my group do have an account (maybe more? I was the one providing the credit card for their accounts and mine.)

But what I really can't estimate is how much it generates for WotC compared to the book or gaming material sales.
Is it 50%? 33%? 25%? 10%? 1%? And what "should" it be compared to the investment?

I'd be happy to know how many subscribers exist in the first place...

 

[Treebore]

Like 3.5 was supposed to be? I don't think people would have really been willing to accept another 3.5 from WotC.

Um, no. 3.5 only changed a dozen or so things (Alchemy, Scry, Haste, Buff spells) and rewrote rules to make them easier to understand (AoO). What I am talking about they probably would have called 4E. I am talking about revising many things across many books.

 

[SteveC]

As someone who picked the slightly-more-popular-than-lemon-curry option, let me explain. I like 4E: I'm playing it, having fun, it's all good. Still, I think it isn't doing what WotC wanted it to, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing any of the issues that have come up recently.

If 4E were doing what WotC wanted, the PDF, cards and fansite issues would never have come up. I mean if you're selling like hotcakes, does your non-gamer CEO even know about the tiny PDF market? Does that even show up on the balance sheet anywhere?

So my evidence is anecdotal, but as someone who's been in corporate culture for a long time, management doesn't start making any issues as long as things are moving in the direction and at the speed they hope for.

--Steve

 

[Scribble]

Um, no. 3.5 only changed a dozen or so things (Alchemy, Scry, Haste, Buff spells) and rewrote rules to make them easier to understand (AoO). What I am talking about they probably would have called 4E. I am talking about revising many things across many books.

What would be the difference between the 4e you imagine and the one we have?

Not specifics, but what areas do you consider not a part of the game plan you envision?

 

[Cadfan]

But what I really can't estimate is how much it generates for WotC compared to the book or gaming material sales.
Is it 50%? 33%? 25%? 10%? 1%? And what "should" it be compared to the investment?

I'd be happy to know how many subscribers exist in the first place...

What I'm curious about, and will probably never know, is the degree to which DDI subscriptions trade off with book sales. I know that I'm certainly not going to buy any books of pure character material if I can get that material in the character builder. I'm not going to buy monsters if I can get those monsters in the compendium.

This means that the $60 I gave them this year trades off with money I otherwise would have given them.

Where this gets interesting for me is this: the pricing on the DDI has to take into account not only the cost of producing it but also the cost of trading off sales of the same information through other channels (ie, hardcover books). This means that for someone like me who trades off 100% (if its on the DDI, I will not buy it, ever), they might be losing money on my DDI subscription (depends how many books I would have purchased, however many, that's how much traded off). But for someone who purchases books even though their information is on the DDI, that person is an extra revenue boost. The price point for the DDI takes both of those into account, essentially meaning that people who buy a DDI subscription and also buy books are essentially subsidizing my access to D&D material by pushing the price point downwards.

I have no idea what the actual sales data looks like, and probably never will. But I do think its interesting.

Editted to add: there are other tendencies which affect this as well, such as a willingness to spend a certain amount of money per month on entertainment- I bet that the month I subscribed to the DDI, I spent less on other entertainment items. But since then, I probably spend about the same per month, possibly meaning that I spend more on D&D accessories like adventures or dungeon tiles than I would if I were buying books. Of course, some of that extra expenditure goes to companies other than Wotc.

 

[Beginning of the End]

What would be the difference between the 4e you imagine and the one we have? Not specifics, but what areas do you consider not a part of the game plan you envision?

I can't speak for Treebore, but I would have preferred to see a game that still had the core gameplay present in OD&D through 3rd Edition. That would mean fighters who still play like fighters; wizards who still play like wizards; and so forth. This would also extend to things like saving throws and the core tropes of the assumed setting.

I think there were meaningful, deep revisions that could be made to 3rd Edition that would have kept that core gameplay intact while fixing the balance-between-classes and DM prep issues without doing the "completely new roleplaying game" approach that 4th Edition adopted instead.

The design and marketing strategy of 4th Edition virtually guaranteed a huge split in the player base. Exacerbated by the existence of the OGL, it may be the largest split in the player base D&D has ever seen. (Although it's impossible to know that for sure.)

X = existing players who stick with the old edition
Y = existing players who adopt the new edition
Z = new players are attracted by the new edition (who would not have been attracted by the previous edition)

As with any new edition, WotC is hoping that Z + Y is larger than X + Y.

It worked with 3rd Edition. But the 3rd Edition team went out of its way to make it happen and had two decades of disaffected customers who could be potentially drawn back into the fold by correcting a multitude of problems in both system design and customer relations.

The 4th Edition team, OTOH, seemingly went out of its way (and continues to go out of its way) to alienate their customers and had a much narrower range of legitimate mechanical problems that needed to be corrected.

 

[Scribble]

I can't speak for Treebore, but I would have preferred to see a game that still had the core gameplay present in OD&D through 3rd Edition. That would mean fighters who still play like fighters; wizards who still play like wizards; and so forth. This would also extend to things like saving throws and the core tropes of the assumed setting.

Not really the thread for it, but the reason I asked is that while I understand where you're coming from, having played the game for a while now, I feel I can see a lot of where the ideas sprouted from in the game. It looks a lot different then it really is... at least in my opinion.