Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5830301" data-attributes="member: 957">Actually, I'm quoting others, but ok."Golden Age" isn't tied to "after tax profits of the publisher".  AgreedAgain, that is a hell of a lot of taking crap for granted from a guy who spent the last several years saying we knew "nothing" and could only make wild guesses.  It is amusing to see the shoe on the other foot.But that misses the point anyway.  I have repeatedly stated that I do believe the DDI is a brilliant marketing approach.  (I've also pointed out that Paizo has a not completely unrelated subscription model that is a key part of their own success)But you and I specifically had at least one conversation in which I point out that WotC may very well have been making as much raw cash on 4E as they were on 3E because, (completely in theory and ballparking here) they could be making so much more per fan that it makes up for the loss of fan base.  You made some point that then they shouldn't care because they still making the money.  I pointed out that if you are making more money per person then it just makes losing fans that much more of a shame.  I said multiple times, if they are doing ok with a DDI supported 4E, just imagine how much cash they could rake in with a DDI supported game that was highly popular.And that is the point you have changed topics on here.  DDI made a lot of money for WoTC.  I have never before, nor now challenged that idea.  4E had a lot less fans than 3E.3E was selling a lot of copies to a lot of people in 2002.In 2002 WotC decided to ramp up 3.5 (earlier than Plan A) so it would be on shelves in 2003.  I don't know why, but I strongly suspect it was because they wanted to use the combination of feedback as an excuse and popularity as fertile field to re-sell a whole lot of books.You claimed it was a "new edition" and then went further and claimed that this was clear evidence that 3E was selling poorly.  I am saying I don't think those are reasonable conclusions and I think they fly in the face of a lot of other data.I said nothing about the OGL being black and white.  It certainly ties back to the key point.  But I was responding back to a very specific claim from you about popularity.Ok, so we now agree about the split?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Again, there is a fundamental difference here between a fan base split and a market share split.  There may have well been a lot of 3E fans not buying WotC stuff because OGL publishers were making better stuff.    But that says nothing about the merits of the 3E core system and a lot about the merits of WotCs products.  If you want to say that WotC put out a decent stream of crap post 3.5 and were getting their butt kicked by their competition, I won't argue.  I don't personally think it was that extreme, but I won't get worked up enough to argue if someone else does.Paizo has demonstrated that the OGL isn't a barrier to huge success.  But quality is key more than ever.  All the OGL really does is lift a key element of the monopoly.Agreed.  And I have (now three times) answered that question.  And not once did I claim WotC did it from kindness.  (nor should they be expect to do so)(Again, still amusing how comfortable you are making bold, and contrary to other data, claim about 3E sales.)First, recall that 4E fans over and over trumpeted that 4E 1st print run > 3.5  > 3.0That makes sense.  The overall market base grew steadily throughout 3E.  First, I still find it laughable that you claim things like changing Wilderness Lore to Survival equate to a "new edition". But beyond that, it seems clear now that 4E drove a spike in D&D sales.  And yet it would be stupid to claim that WotC expected that.  It was an unintended consequence.  You can't look at a clearly unintended consequence and then try to say that was part of the design strategy.  Your presumption about 2002 sales is wrong.  But either way talking about something that happened AFTER 3.5 came out doesn't tell us how things were going a year BEFORE.If anything we have a lot of clear statements from 3PP leaders about how 3.5 was a kick in the nuts to THEM because it caught them with a bunch of product that instantly lost the whole "new shiny" thing and became behind the times just for not saying "3.5" on the cover.  Their response was to stop playing in harmony with WotC and start going more head to head with them.So, if anything, that is evidence against you.  WotC failed to develop a plan that took the strength and value of the OGL into account and it worked against them.But again, look at what you are saying.  3E "lasted three years" because sales were bad, so they brought out 3.5, which "put a spike in sales".  So it went from "bad" to "bad with a spike in it".  And that lasted 5 years.I think the OGL helped WotC until WotC started making mistakes and overrating their control of it.  Yes, the way things played out the OGL hurt WotC.  But that is because of poor choices WotC made.  They COULD have used it to make themselves huge.</blockquote>

Verification