Has 3.5E "failed"?

[Phoenix]

Re-releasing the D&D line for 3rd edition was a good move for TSR/Wizards/Hasbro/Whoever they are today. But the basis that dropping the 'Advanced' title of 2nd edition, then creating 400,000 patches, erratas, and extra rules sure didn't help a lot of people to jump on their band wagon. I know a few people who saw 3.5 as yet another chance to re-learn the rules...yay! But 3e was definately the inferior copy looking back, with too many gaps in the game, I wonder sometimes how it ever got through playtesting...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, my local gamestore has sold more 3.5 than they did 3.0.

They sold more 3.0 than they did 2e. (A lot more.)

So no, I wouldn't call either 3.0 or 3.5 a failure.

As for ethics - WotC mentioned multiple times, both on their web site and in print that you did not need to buy 3.5 if you already owned 3.0. You could keep on playin' 3.0 and you would be able to figure out how to fit 3.5 products in pretty easily. I haven't tried doing that, but going from 3.0 to 3.5 is quite doable, so I suspect that they are right.

A 2 year revision schedule is a tad fast, but I have seen revisions pop out much faster for other games. (Editions 3 and 4 of Call of Cthulhu were also 2 years apart, and 5 was revised a year after publication.) Revisions can spark new interest in a game, new editions are also more likely to appear on store shelves than restocks. (This last is unfortunate, and has killed several smaller companies - restocks are what keep a company alive between major products.) Even D&D suffers this effect, several local bookstores - one of them part of a nation wide chain - let their stock of D&D fade until the new edition came out, in the case of one of the stores for more than a year, so all they had for D&D was a single copy of Sword & Sorcery's Creature Collection.

Software such as Office, Word, and Word Perfect have new editions every year and cost more than D&D 3.5. And these revisions occur for much the same reason - to keep the product in the public's eye.

The Auld Grump

 

[Monte At Home]

Since Wizards is not in the habit of publicly discussing the sales of D&D books (except to say "better than expected" when they are pleasantly surprised), the first real information most of us are going to have in this regard is when one of these happens:

• WotC announces they are hiring (good news)
• product announcements are delayed, and are thicker than expected
• WotC announces more layoffs (bad news)
• product announcements are delayed, and are slimmer than expected
• Hasbro sells the D&D brand (VERY bad news)
• products on the schedule start being canceled

Actually, I disagree with the 1st, 3rd, and 5th points as being signs of what you label them to be. One of my biggest gripes with WotC/Hasbro and their management of the D&D brand is the fact that the layoffs in their rpg department that happened after I left came within 12 months of the launch of 3rd edition, which was massively successful. Instead of getting the bonuses they deserved, those people got laid off. Because the success of 3E made so little difference to WotC, let alone Hasbro, in terms of overall success.

Further, the selling of the D&D brand would indicate that someone felt it was worth pursuing, and thus could mean extreme success for D&D. (Remember, Hasbro bought WotC when WotC was at its peak.)

For what it's worth, I've heard little of the sales of 3.5, but what little I've heard is good. 3.5 hasn't sold as well as 3.0, but then no one thought it would, and that shouldn't be a measure of its success or failure. Personally, I think the real success or failure of 3.5 won't be measurable for at least another year, when its release--and subsequent products' releases--can be measured against the decrease in sales of long term sellers, like the splatbooks.

 

[MerricB]

Thank you very much for your comments, Monte.

. Personally, I think the real success or failure of 3.5 won't be measurable for at least another year, when its release--and subsequent products' releases--can be measured against the decrease in sales of long term sellers, like the splatbooks.

Indeed; of course, the fact that the splatbooks are being updated to 3.5E does muddy the issue somewhat.

I personally think that, with regard to the future of D&D and role-playing in general, the release of 3.5E could be minor compared to the impact that the new D&D Basic Set/Adventure game may have.

If the alienation of a certain part of the 3E audience with the release of 3.5E is countered (or exceeded!) by a substantial increase in new players from the Basic set's release, then things will look very good for D&D's future, regardless of whatever negative impact 3.5E may have had.

Cheers!

 

[craftyrat]

From the Amazon angle, the Player's Handbook currently has an Amazon(.com) sales rank of 451. I'd say that's pretty good. If I remember correctly, when it was released it had a sales rank of 1 or 2. The DMG is 2236 and the MM is 1965 (BoED 2235, Draconomicon 1479, UA 389). For comparison purposes, Mutants and Masterminds (80,116), MM Crooks (48,320), Arcana Unearthed (14,295), EQ GM's Guide (63,373). Nothing really scientific, but interesting. I'll stop now before my statistics fetish gets totally out of hand .

craftyrat

 

[Silveras]

Actually, I disagree with the 1st, 3rd, and 5th points as being signs of what you label them to be. One of my biggest gripes with WotC/Hasbro and their management of the D&D brand is the fact that the layoffs in their rpg department that happened after I left came within 12 months of the launch of 3rd edition, which was massively successful. Instead of getting the bonuses they deserved, those people got laid off. Because the success of 3E made so little difference to WotC, let alone Hasbro, in terms of overall success.

Further, the selling of the D&D brand would indicate that someone felt it was worth pursuing, and thus could mean extreme success for D&D. (Remember, Hasbro bought WotC when WotC was at its peak.)

For what it's worth, I've heard little of the sales of 3.5, but what little I've heard is good. 3.5 hasn't sold as well as 3.0, but then no one thought it would, and that shouldn't be a measure of its success or failure. Personally, I think the real success or failure of 3.5 won't be measurable for at least another year, when its release--and subsequent products' releases--can be measured against the decrease in sales of long term sellers, like the splatbooks.

Oddly enough, I agree with your counter-interpretation.

In truth, we on the outside will not know if 3.5 was a failure until someone who is/was on the inside when WotC makes the call "spills the beans".

We can sit here and point at things they do, calling them good signs and bad signs, forever and a day. Each "side" will then take its signs and call them "proof". In the end, though, they are just circumstances that can be interpreted any way you want to.