Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Treebore" data-source="post: 4835358" data-attributes="member: 10177">While I agree with Goodmans over all assessment, the data he refers to is &quot;soft&quot;, not hard. For example, in the last lawsuit filings WOTC made over PDF's, the sales data in that only describes sales as being &quot;hundreds of thousands of the core books being sold.&quot; That is not &quot;hard&quot; data, that is &quot;soft&quot;. Hard data would be&quot; 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 &quot;soft&quot; his authority is by association &quot;soft&quot;, and therefore unreliable and highly questionable. However, since those people will have no where close to as good a data as Joe's &quot;soft numbers&quot;, they cannot reliable refute him either, but they will certainly act like they can.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Treebore, post: 4835358, member: 10177"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification