Has 3.5E "failed"?

[MerricB]

I recently came across this comment on another board: "3.5E was just a grab for $$$. Which, from what I've heard was a failure."

Now, as to the first claim, I did what I normally do and posted links to a couple of comments by Rich Redman on the revision:
http://www.thegamemechanics.com/opinion/rich-003.asp
http://pub156.ezboard.com/fthegamemechanicsfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=1.topic&start=1&stop=30

As to the second claim - sales of 3.5E have been disappointing - I have no information at all as to what sales are like. Does anyone know? Indeed, what were the expectations? I really doubt anyone at WotC/Hasbro expected sales to be as great as they were for the initial release of 3E!

Cheers!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

...sounds like just another cry of 'WotC is EEEEVIL!' to me.

It sure seems to me that the Revision is doing just fine, and I've not really seen any evidence otherwise.

 

[Snoweel]

Now, I'm sure they've done the sums, and found the intersection between the curves showing profit per book and percentage of customers alienated, but for mine, I still haven't bought 3.5 because of the price.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think it was a failure. I'm sure it sold pretty darn good, most of the people I know picked up the core rules or multiple copies of them.

 

[Olive]

I thought that most people who were going to play 3.5 had picked it up, but I had my first game with a new group of people I don't know very well the other day and they all looked at me like I was mr. money bags when I whipped out my 3.5 PHB...

So who knows?

 

[Treebore]

I do not think 3.5 is a failure. I just think there is a significant percentage of people like me who are waiting to buy new books for a good reason. Such as our 3.0 books have fallen apart. Why buy the 3.5 books otherwise? The SRD has made me aware of all the rules changes I want to know about.

3.5 did its job, it fixed the rules that were broken, or thought to be broken, and provided people new to the game with updated books to buy. So it is not a failure.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I don't think it was a failure. I'm sure it sold pretty darn good, most of the people I know picked up the core rules or multiple copies of them.

Whoa! You know people who picked up multiple copies?

 

[Wombat]

I don't think 3.5 is a failure, in that many copies of the book have sold, but I think it was both unnecessary and disappointing. What we are paying for in the book is not truly a new edition of the game, but rather an official set of House Rules, some of which people like, some of which people don't, and some of which people go "So what?" to.

I didn't think 3.0 was broken. There were the usual tweaks I would do (and do) in my own house games, but nothing, nothing at all to justify plunking down an extra $90 when my core books are still in fine shape. OTOH it was easy for me to justify the purchase of Monte's AU, with its many new ideas, concepts, and feel -- that felt more like a "new edition".

Nope, no need for 3.5 personally, but probably not a "failure".

 

[Wormwood]

I don't believe WotC really meant for all D&D players to rush out and plunk down $90 for the revision. While I'm sure they'd have liked that to happen, I doubt they intended it to.

Rather, I believe WotC intended for existing D&D players to use the online revision update and the SRD to update their games---with 3.5 core books only being purchased by new players or by those replacing their old 3.0 books.

For example, I'd sold my 3e core books on eBay a while ago. Later, when I felt like running D&D again, I bought the 3.5 books.

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised by the scope and quality of the revision.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Whoa! You know people who picked up multiple copies?

Whats odd about that? I've got two copies (as DM I like to keep a "table copy" handy for player reference and keep one of my own at hand).