Goodman rebuttal

[S'mon]

And if they can't man up and talk straight? Then they need to shut up.

I can't "man up and talk straight" to you, sir, because that would get me a suspension, and you're not worth it.

 

[Xath]

Clearly many of you have not bothered to read the previous moderator warnings in this thread. Those of you who have been unable to maintain civil conversation will now be subject to a vacation.

Xath
Moderator

 

[JeffB]

Just a few more posts and my prophecy will have come TRUE!!!


MEWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Xath]

Just a few more posts and my prophecy will have come TRUE!!!


MEWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha

Enjoy a week off for threadcrapping after you were specifically warned not to by Piratecat on Page 1. What possibly could have made you think that was a good idea after I just posted a general thread warning?

Xath
Moderator

 

[carmachu]

I'm pretty sure gamers trying to get reasonable prices on GW stuff 15 years ago invented the online discount store model in the first place.

Actually having played 15 years ago the models were much more reasonably priced. Trust me on that.

 

[carmachu]

You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.

The problem comes in, that, while interesting as Mr Goodman's post was, there really is no hard information there, from an objective standpoint. He states his credentials(which I dont doubt), says a bunch of stuff(from which he says he pulled from a variety of sources) on a point by point basis, then comes down to his conculsion-that 4e is doing well(again, I have no doubts its selling).

Then most everyone went, ok where's there data? And that seems to be the sticking point and arguing- folks that dont care about 4e are going to run with one way, while 4e fans run the other.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The problem comes in, that, while interesting as Mr Goodman's post was, there really is no hard information there, from an objective standpoint. He states his credentials(which I dont doubt), says a bunch of stuff(from which he says he pulled from a variety of sources) on a point by point basis, then comes down to his conculsion-that 4e is doing well(again, I have no doubts its selling).

Then most everyone went, ok where's there data? And that seems to be the sticking point and arguing- folks that dont care about 4e are going to run with one way, while 4e fans run the other.

And we get the tired old "there is no evidence" thing again. To this I answer(now and for the forseeable future) that "there is no evidence" that 4E is dooing poorly, and replying that "there is no evidence" in response to any quote or opinion is saying absolutely nothing and should be ignored.

"There is no evidence" does absolutely nothing to support the alternative viewpoint, and people should stop using the comment as if it did.

Joe Goodman gave an opinion and speculation(which is the best any of us can do), and gave support for his opinion and why we should believe him. If you disagree or think he's wrong, feel free to post your own opinion, give support for this opinion, and why we should believe you. Instead of lazy discussion where you discount the original quote without offering anything substantive in return.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But isn't this questioning that he does have the data? That he might be lying about it? Or do you think the data could be interpreted differently, if he just would?

But he is telling us where the data is from - mostly public court data. Apparantly that is accessible, so if someone was interested in making his own conclusion based from the data, he could do so. Seems either no one really wants to, or no one had the time yet.

 

[Shemeska]

Why would anyone need to? Unless WoTC is lying, 4e has sold better than 3.0 (and 3.5 sold better than 3.0) 3rd party products on the other hand...

WotC hasn't lied at any point as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe that anyone with them has ever come out and stated that 4e has sold better than 3.0. They've stated that the initial print run for some of the core 4e books was larger, and since it sold out quickly there's a lot that people can read into that. It's marketing speak of pushing out the numbers that look awesome for you, and phrasing them in such a way that good numbers appear all that much better. But it says nothing about continued success in subsequent books, or net sales of the 4e core books versus those of any other edition. We don't have numbers to honestly answer that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

WotC hasn't lied at any point as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe that anyone with them has ever come out and stated that 4e has sold better than 3.0. They've stated that the initial print run for some of the core 4e books was larger, and since it sold out quickly there's a lot that people can read into that. It's marketing speak of pushing out the numbers that look awesome for you, and phrasing them in such a way that good numbers appear all that much better. But it says nothing about continued success in subsequent books, or net sales of the 4e core books versus those of any other edition. We don't have numbers to honestly answer that.

On CM, Truth Seeker is constantly feeding news, and news from Sony and how about the PS3 is doing well despite claims to the contrary, or how other consoles will last only 5 years while the PS3 will last 10 years till the next model, and all such talk just makes be believe more and more that the PS3 is in trouble.

I don't think it would be any good for WotC to say anything definitive about this. The only way they might achieve anything would be if they would release all sales data over the past 15 years or so, plus their original expectations. But even that would be problematic - if Goodmans observation on the "generational peak" is correct, then it would be obvious that 4E is selling less than 3E in 2001, then anyone could consider this a failure. (Aside fromt he fact that they could dispute the validity of the numbers or the validity of the expectations)
To refute that, they would have not just to release numbers, but some kind of statistical model that explains how this can happen and how it is totally not their fault and what not. And... I don't think such a model exists. Maybe it could be created, if you send a few business analysists and mathematicians and psychologists on the job and let them research a few years or so. That would certainly be fascinating to do, but Wizards of the Cost is not a research facility, even if they have an R&D department. And they still can't make any money with it. Oh, and it might give competitors insights into WotC business that they could use against them, too.