Edition Bias and 4e Sales Perception

[Scribble]

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.

I also disagree with this statement.

 

[Dannager]

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.

All of these things remain true of 4th Edition.

 

[Remathilis]

All of these things remain true of 4th Edition.

Depends on what is meant by "fighters play like fighters, wizards like wizards" meant.

Now, if you mean "the fighter is up front, wearing heavy armor and swinging large weapons while soaking up damage" and "wizard is staying back, pelting foes with blast of arcane energy wearing a robe and carrying a walking stick" then yes, 4e feels true to D&D.

If you mean "fighters move and/or attack" and "wizards select powerful effects of a list and can use each one selected once, then they need to rest" then no, it doesn't.

The difference is the first is true of all forms of D&D, but also true of many other FRPGs (even CRPGS and MMOs) because it defines the archetype without defining the rules (does the fighter attack by d20, d%, a die pool of d10s or a complex computer algorithm? Does the wizard cast by spell slots, mana points, recharge/cool down, etc?) while the latter is a specific D&D mechanic true from 1974 to 2008*.

Some people don't mind if the mechanics change if it better supports the archetype. Some believe the mechanic DEFINES the archetype.

* Really, 2000 broke the trend with sorcerers (non-vancian casting) and the replaced the thief class (with its backstab and % thief skills) with the rogue (who had sneak attack and skill system), yet I don't recall a lot of complaining then...

 

[WalterKovacs]

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.

It likely would be a bad idea to have waited until things were as bad as 2nd editon was before going into a new edition. By having a new edition as 3rd was starting to show signs of age (instead of when it's obvious a change needs to be made) means they aren't spending a long time with dwindling sales of 'lame duck' product, or having to convince people to come back instead of convincing them to change over. They cold have tried harder to keep existing players, but from a perspective of wanting a new edition to be succesful they need to:

(a) Make the potential market for the product larger than the one for the previous edition (why bother with a new edition if you are going to compete directly with a previous edition by making it a 'new flavor' of the same edition?)

(b) Do it early enough to avoid an uphill battle of convincing dissatisfied customers to return (in the case of 2nd edition, it was a different company, with the jump from 3rd to 4th, it's still the same company, so you'd be marketing to people who still like 3rd and would resist the change, and those that abandoned 3rd, who would resist a new product from WOTC).

So they make a new edition before 3rd has completely run it's course, and they make it different enough from 3rd to be able to market it to people who weren't playing 3rd, and making it a true alternative system to 3rd, instead of a variant. They still split the gamers, but by offering different systems instead of similar ones, they have a greater chance that the combined group targetted by both games is larger. While there are some players that would be happy playing either game, there is likely groups that wouldn't want to play 3rd or 4th.

Using something similar to your X/Y/Z example:

A - Players that would play 3rd, but not 4th (or prefer 3rd)
B - Players that would play either
C - Players that would play 4th, but not 3rd (or perfer 4th)

At the moment, they are 'giving up' on A, and splitting the B group. If they were to make a new edition that was very similar to 3rd, they would completely ignore the potential to bring in C, and fight with the previous edition over the combined A+B group. Considering that a new edition, even one very similar to 3rd, is going to start at a disadvantage of lacking a lot of the expansions that provide additional classes and races, it would be difficult to convince at least some of that group to come over.

So they still end up splitting their customer base, except they aren't even trying to grow their base, only trying to convince the same base that they targetted when 3e was first released to buy in to a new edition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Relatively good compared to what?

And taking what into account?

And to achieve what goals?

My most comprehensive view is that it's not as easy as "selling well" or "not selling well." You have a global economic stinkyhole, a publishing industry grappling with new technology, Amazon, whatnot...but you also have the DDI, the bestseller lists, blah blah blah blah. And even if it's selling fine, it might not be selling up to the level the bean-counters assumed. And even if it's selling horribly on individual books, it might be meeting expectations or exceeding them in other areas. Maybe they had some redonkulous expectations to begin with. Maybe Mearls's contract demanded a new Ferrari every month filled with fresh caviar, and WotC is feelin' the hurt.

Dudes, we just don't know.

Probably, Wizards is feeling the crunch, economically. I only say that because there's probably a 90% chance that ANYONE in the world is feeling the crunch. Retail sales drop. Less people pop into Borders. Less people happen to pick up 4e while they're lookin' for their pokemans comics.

WotC is probably not dumb enough to go TSR on everything, however desperately some people want to imply that.

4e is probably the most successful PnP RPG out there right now. That might not be saying much, since we're niche city at the best of times, but if they're doing bad, it's not because someone is BEATING them. It's probably also not because people are torqued off about 4e. None of us has ever seen a game printed on a book that is perfect from the outset, so quality ain't what sells a game system (even if you think 4e sucks, that doesn't mean it can't buy and sell your butts).

I believe I've said before that if 4e were FATAL slapped with the D&D logo, it would sell like gangbusters, and while that's hyperbole, we all know that cruddy games still sell in high numbers.

D&D isn't dying or anything. They might be re-assessing some of their riskier moves in light of going friggin' broke, and this might mean more "pandering to the base" by teasing out features of earlier editions that make people pumped up, in hopes of winning a few edge-lurking converts, but they're sticking with 4e 'till at least 2014 (at least, based on the bets I've placed. ), and to try and do otherwise would probably bone them even worse than staying the course and making the best of a bad situation -- which might not even be bad because people don't like 4e. It might just be bad because, I dunno, no one is driving to the mall and browsing at Borders anymore, since we're all broke-smack chumps.

Sorry about the long post, but this subject generally irks me because it's about edition wars axe-grinding on both sides (4e ROCKS SALES, EVERYONE LOVES IT LIKE I DO!/4e SUCKS SALES, EVERYONE HATES IT LIKE I DO), and people loose sight of the big picture because they're too busy wailing on each other for not liking someone else's particular way of dressing up like an Elf on Saturday afternoons.

We're all broke-smack chumps. WotC probably included.

This has little to do with whether or not gnomes were in the PHI. A'ite?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I, too, was going to comment on how its unfair to compare game sales due to the crapsack of a world economy, but your verbiage trumps mine.

My anecdotes...the FLGS replaced all its 3.5e stock space with 4e stock space so it must be selling. The local Borders had every book released on its shelves (last time I looked when the MotP had come out).

DS

 

[Aus_Snow]

Some people don't mind if the mechanics change if it better supports the archetype. Some believe the mechanic DEFINES the archetype.

Yes, and some don't mind if the mechanical changes [partly or wholly] DEFINE an entirely NEW archetype.

(Thus discarding the old.)

 

[howandwhy99]

Not only do I think 4E's sales are strong. I want them to be stronger and the company to succeed.

..though I do not care for the game.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

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?

I seriously, seriously doubt that - just saying. You don´t generate profit through lawsuits or anti-piracy activities.

 

[Wombat]

I am not fond of 4e, as most know.

D&D/WotC is, however, the 800 pound gorilla -- it is everywhere, therefore it sells better than many other games -- the only system that can match it that way is WW/NWoD, as it also has exposure in places like B&N and Borders.

So, much like McDonald's, 4e is probably doing okay ... though whether as much as Hasbro wanted from it may be open to debate.