D&D General Extra Credits: The History of D&D Hasbro Refused to Learn

[Lanefan]

If we're talking sales, the comparison I want to make is with 5E. The video said 5E out sold all the other editions COMBINED? Is that true?

Given the ongoing and - it seems - still rising popularity of 5e after almost 10 years in the market, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest were that claim to be proven true.

 

[Zardnaar]

Given the ongoing and - it seems - still rising popularity of 5e after almost 10 years in the market, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest were that claim to be proven true.

It's plausible depending on exact sales and what you count eg phb only as one of the biggest selling D&D doesn't have a phb.

If the 5E numbers are big enough that distinction doesn't matter.

The rpg market doubling since 2017/18 and numbers earlier in thread via link kind of implies 2.4-3 million 5E phb sold. If they've sold more than say 4 million its fairly definitive.

That's more than the other editions phb combined i 1E sales are on lower end of estimates and if 4E is lower than 800k as implied by said link and is closer to 3rd ed estimated numbers.

 

[squibbles]

While YouTube is a hellscape, Ze Frank is always a cool oasis.

I liked you before Snarf, butt now (cough) *but now I think you might be the greatest.

Extra Credits has something of a history best not gotten into here, but suffice it to say that the focus is on entertaining presentation and opinion rather than accuracy and objectivity in general.

Well, actually, would you mind getting into it here? (now that the thread is partway down an edition war rabbit hole)

I stopped watching Extra Credits years ago after Dan left and was replaced by the new host (whose voice irritates me--which I know is silly and arbitrary, but it prevents me from enjoying EC regardless).

But prior to that, I enjoyed their videos as interesting opinion pieces from 3(ish) people who know a lot more about the games industry than I do. Their history and mythology vids are dubious, since they're non-experts and, I suspect, their Sci-fi vids are dubious too, but they also introduced me to a bunch of sci-fi authors I would otherwise not have heard of, so I'm appreciative.

Is there some history of controversy with them that I'm unaware of? I am genuinely curious after reading your comment if any unpleasantness has happened in the intervening years.

 

[Incenjucar]

Well, actually, would you mind getting into it here? (now that the thread is partway down an edition war rabbit hole)

I stopped watching Extra Credits years ago after Dan left and was replaced by the new host (whose voice irritates me--which I know is silly and arbitrary, but it prevents me from enjoying EC regardless).

But prior to that, I enjoyed their videos as interesting opinion pieces from 3(ish) people who know a lot more about the games industry than I do. Their history and mythology vids are dubious, since they're non-experts and, I suspect, their Sci-fi vids are dubious too, but they also introduced me to a bunch of sci-fi authors I would otherwise not have heard of, so I'm appreciative.

Is there some history of controversy with them that I'm unaware of? I am genuinely curious after reading your comment if any unpleasantness has happened in the intervening years.

I watched EC religiously until the drama started. During a good chunk of that era, I was in the games industry as a tester, and spent a lot of time with game developers at professional meetups, and there were a lot of moments where the difference between what the writer - who worked at a dubious game dev school - thought and what was actually true would make me wince. There's a general issue of lacking humility sufficient to couch opinions as opinions rather than facts that came up quite a bit. Their research is certainly helpful and you can learn from them (at least the old stuff), but it's not exactly peer reviewed so you shouldn't rely on it.

It's not a big deal for someone to be wrong, but it's important to be able to write in such a way that you don't state your opinions as facts unless they are very clearly facts, and to recognize when you don't have enough information to state something strongly.

There's also plenty of drama you can learn about on the Wiki page.

 

[Marandahir]

I turned the video off when it was clear they had a very anti-4e, pro-Pathfinder bias.

No ill will toward Pathfinder, personally, though. Just didn't want to even engage in the complex feelings that come up from that sort of thing.

 

[CleverNickName]

I turned the video off when it was clear they had a very anti-4e, pro-Pathfinder bias.

No ill will toward Pathfinder, personally, though. Just didn't want to even engage in the complex feelings that come up from that sort of thing.

The video seems to have had that "complex feelings" effect on several people in this tread. (And fair enough; it was a rough time in gaming history. I sincerely hope that we never see that kind of rift again.)

 

[squibbles]

I watched EC religiously until the drama started. During a good chunk of that era, I was in the games industry as a tester, and spent a lot of time with game developers at professional meetups, and there were a lot of moments where the difference between what the writer - who worked at a dubious game dev school - thought and what was actually true would make me wince. There's a general issue of lacking humility sufficient to couch opinions as opinions rather than facts that came up quite a bit. Their research is certainly helpful and you can learn from them (at least the old stuff), but it's not exactly peer reviewed so you shouldn't rely on it.

It's not a big deal for someone to be wrong, but it's important to be able to write in such a way that you don't state your opinions as facts unless they are very clearly facts, and to recognize when you don't have enough information to state something strongly.

Thanks for explaining. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that folks who make dubious history videos also make dubious game design videos. I thought they'd be more authoritative on games since it's nominally their area of expertise. Can you recall anything specific that they got badly wrong, or an opinion they badly overstated?

Just curious; I'll stop disrupting the thread after this.

There's also plenty of drama you can learn about on the Wiki page.

It never occurred to me that EC was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, especially one as detailed as it is. What a world.

Also, what a Ship of Theseus. There's basically no continuity between the show at present and at the time that I stopped watching.

 

[Clint_L]

I will say that their videos on the history of science fiction are really good, IMO.

 

[Incenjucar]

Thanks for explaining. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that folks who make dubious history videos also make dubious game design videos. I thought they'd be more authoritative on games since it's nominally their area of expertise. Can you recall anything specific that they got badly wrong, or an opinion they badly overstated?

Just curious; I'll stop disrupting the thread after this.


It never occurred to me that EC was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, especially one as detailed as it is. What a world.

Also, what a Ship of Theseus. There's basically no continuity between the show at present and at the time that I stopped watching.

It's been way too long, I'm afraid, so I don't recall details. Just the usual kind of opinions and guesses disguised as facts and research stuff. Personally I still follow a bunch of the folks who noped out of there on Twitch and YouTube, as the issue was the writing, and the escapees are better at doing research and being humble about opinions.

EC was pretty influential in its day, so there's a lot on it online.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Extra Credits was focused on video games and took a dip into doing history. The history videos then overtook the channel and kicked the video stuff to the side hustle. That development always stuck me as funny.