Hard Data dilemma, Forked Thread: Goodman state of 4E

[Filcher]

Forked from: Goodman rebuttal

That's the conclusion I came to also. He goes straight from telling us what materials he's gathered, without saying what data they actually provide, and then gives us his interpretation of them.

Okay. Does the absence of data trump all discussion? I know that anecdotal evidence is worthless, but it also frustrates me to see discussion shut down/trumped, for lack of numbers.

For instance.

Filcher: The sun will rise tomorrow.

User X: Let's see your numbers, pansy boy! I'm going to snark you until you do! Ha!

Filcher: Umm...

User X: See?! Loser.

It doesn't get our discussion anywhere. Rather, it seems like an argument marched out just to shut down discussion, which runs contrary to the point of these forums. None of us have hard numbers, so by the hard data logic, we shouldn't even have the discussion at all.

Bah. Boo.

 

[jdrakeh]

Does the absence of data trump all discussion?

For most people? I don't think so. To me, all 'hard data' does is bring more objective analysis into a discussion. The lack of such data in no way renders discussion pointless or without merit. Citing a lack of 'hard data' as a reason to terminate a discussion is, IME, just the last resort of a desperate individual to derail said discussion by drawing attention away from the fact that they, themselves, have nothing worthwhile to say.

 

[Shemeska]

Forked from: Goodman rebuttal

Okay. Does the absence of data trump all discussion? I know that anecdotal evidence is worthless, but it also frustrates me to see discussion shut down/trumped, for lack of numbers.

It's the appeal to authority going on before any evidence, and then no truly objective figures being given to solidify a specific view on the state of 4e, 3pp, etc. that's trumping much discussion. In my industry for instance, if I write a paper in the journal Cell* and I try to support a finding, not only do I have to provide the data I'm using to justify my analysis and conclusions, I state any possible conflicts of interest (ie I'm getting funding from so and so, etc).

We're not at the point of '4e is doing awesome because I said so and you should trust me because of who I am' like trying to support the fairness of an Iranian election and vote count, but so far we have a large amount of 'from my perspective I believe this, so trust me'.

*ignoring that to get published in Cell at this stage of my career I probably need pictures of the editors in bed with other peoples' spouses

 

[Treebore]

While I agree with Goodmans over all assessment, the data he refers to is "soft", not hard. For example, in the last lawsuit filings WOTC made over PDF's, the sales data in that only describes sales as being "hundreds of thousands of the core books being sold."

That is not "hard" data, that is "soft". Hard data would be" 456,782 4E players hand books sold, 139,462 4E DMG's sold, and 141, 383 4E Monster Manuals sold.

Still, even with what WOTC does say in the court documents, it still supports what Joe G. says as solidly as is needed for what he is saying about the state of the 4E market. Its no where near as good as 3E was, but its more than good enough to be profitable.

However, there will be people who will say that since the data is so "soft" his authority is by association "soft", and therefore unreliable and highly questionable. However, since those people will have no where close to as good a data as Joe's "soft numbers", they cannot reliable refute him either, but they will certainly act like they can.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In my industry for instance, if I write a paper in the journal Cell* and I try to support a finding, not only do I have to provide the data I'm using to justify my analysis and conclusions, I state any possible conflicts of interest (ie I'm getting funding from so and so, etc).

Now we're holding Goodman to a scientific level of proof??! Good God.

Shem, I'm pretty sure you have and continue to form opinions about the rpg industry on the basis of a far less rigorous standard.

 

[Doug McCrae]

However, there will be people who will say that since the data is so "soft" his authority is by association "soft", and therefore unreliable and highly questionable. However, since those people will have no where close to as good a data as Joe's "soft numbers", they cannot reliable refute him either, but they will certainly act like they can.

Absolutely. That's the thing. People *are* forming opinions, it's not like we're all agnostic about everything.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I posted this on the main thread, and it pertains to this discussion as well:

Asking for evidence of whether or not 4E is doing well is like asking for empirical evidence about whether god exists. No matter how much you blather about it, the evidence is not
going to arrive. Using the "there is no evidence" argument when there never will be evidence is discussing things in bad faith. "There is no evidence" does not disprove anybody's opinions or statements given the circumstances of these discussions. Using this argument shows a lack of a real counter argument.

The following are opinions I hold:

1. 4E is doing well
2. 4E is selling D&D books well enough to firmly put 3.5E D&D "in the past"
3. 3PP are not terribly important to the D&D brand
4. 3PP are not in serious competition with WotC, not even combined

One could argue I have no evidence of any of this. Evidence of this is something we will never have, and I see no point in arguing over a lack of evidence. If you disagree, state why and give your reasons.

To add to this, a lot of people state that the lack of 3PP support is hurting 4E. I could say "where is your evidence of this" and just bludgeon the discussion to death. Instead, I say that I disagree and argue that 3PP sentiment is overstated on ENWorld.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why was this forked anyway? It's totally germane to the original thread.

 

[Shemeska]

Now we're holding Goodman to a scientific level of proof??! Good God.

Shem, I'm pretty sure you have and continue to form opinions about the rpg industry on the basis of a far less rigorous standard.

Ok, perhaps too much hyperbole in my analogy for it to work. Heh.

What I was getting at was that he presents no real evidence beyond the suggestion that he knows more than anyone else not in his position, and we should trust the conclusions he comes to because of that. But at the same time, understandably it's in his own best interest to promote the success of 4e in general, because that's just good business sense. But that sort of conflict of interest while not invalidating anything by itself, should certainly be noticed.

Now if say, Steve Jackson popped up and said that 4e was doing awesome or conversely doing poorly, and him without any stake in its success or not, I'd take that a bit differently perhaps.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Ok, perhaps too much hyperbole in my analogy for it to work. Heh.

What I was getting at was that he presents no real evidence beyond the suggestion that he knows more than anyone else not in his position, and we should trust the conclusions he comes to because of that. But at the same time, understandably it's in his own best interest to promote the success of 4e in general, because that's just good business sense. But that sort of conflict of interest while not invalidating anything by itself, should certainly be noticed.

Now if say, Steve Jackson popped up and said that 4e was doing awesome or conversely doing poorly, and him without any stake in its success or not, I'd take that a bit differently perhaps.

I think you're complicating things. Goodmans assertion is a simple one:

1. People who claim 4E isn't doing well usually quote their own FLGS or gaming group as evidence.

2. Goodman states that he has actual personal contact with hundreds of FLGS, and gets business feedback from them. Some of them aren't doing well with 4E, but the vast majority are doing great, and he(unlike Joe Blow and his home FLGS) is in a better position to make that statement than anyone who has made it.