thecasualoblivion
First Post
Nowhere near half. A large minority of ENWorld posters, probably, but real world gamers not so much.
Irreconcilable differences(Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's...)
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
Nowhere near half. A large minority of ENWorld posters, probably, but real world gamers not so much.
Not that I have any researched numbers to refute you, but on what are you basing your opinion?
Probably given that the 4e core books sold more copies than the initial runs for both 3e and 3.5 (which was greater than 3e).
While not determinative its a good indicator that a lot of people bought the books. Whether people are still playing only time will tell but I am willing to bet they are.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Nobody expressing any opinion on this has any basis in numbers. I will, however give an example:
In Enworld, from where I'm standing(US eastern time zone), there are 18 threads in the 4E section that have a last post listed as "today", and the oldest post on the first page is Oct 24. In the 3E section, there are only 8 threads with a last post listed as "today", and the oldest post is Oct 22.
If you go to WotC's forums, the difference is even greater. The 4E forums get a lot of traffic, and the previous editions forums are very slow.
I would say if you want a more accurate look at things, look at people posting topics about playing games instead of looking at topics and forums where 4E and 3E people are fighting with each other.
CharlesRyan
Adventurer
They made an edition of the game that you don't like. Maybe they made an edition that LOTS of people don't like. At worst, that's a tactical failure.
That's a long way from ditching the RPG category and somehow using the D&D IP for something else, which is the assertion that I was addressing.
Irda Ranger
First Post
The "RPG Category" is pretty big. You could adapt the D&D IP to World of Darkness or a Western using cards instead of dice without leaving the RPG Category. I was simply suggesting within the RPG Category 4E has moved away from D&D's history and tradition. Some people think it's good, and some people think it's bad, but plenty of people on both pro- and anti-4E sides agreed it happened.
And I was two of those sales. I bought the boxed set plus a spare PHB for the wife sight unseen because I was that sure that it was going to be the "best game evar". We'll see how sales hold up.jensun said:
But granted, the use of the word "half" was not a paragon of numerical accuracy. The edition of D&D that's in print and has the marketing budget of Hasbro behind it will always do better in the market than the previous editions. That's a given.
But comparisons are hard without direct polling. We won't see 3E "sales" because most people are already stocked. Further there will be less 3E discussion because everyone's been doing it for eight years and doesn't need to hash out exactly how this or that rule works.
When I said "half" I just meant the "half" that liked D&D the way is was and do not see 4E as better than the _Es that came before it. ... two kinds of gamers in the world, and we're one of them. So that kind of half.
Tetsubo
First Post
I can't argue with your view here. But I take exception to such a marketing philosophy. I am worth more than two new costumers. I am a collector of RPGs as well as a player. I would have spent far more than most "casual" players of the card/skirmish version of D&D. WotC screwed up, plain and simple.
Scribble
First Post
What percentage of the products WoTC released for D&D would you say you purchased over the lifespan of 3e? (3.5 included)
Remathilis
Legend
They lost people at 3e, they lost people at 2e, and they lost Dialgo back in 1975. One need only look around the 1e/2e/OD&D tagged threads to see the truth.
Fourth edition has truly divided the community in ways both foreseen and unforeseen. While we knew there would be hold-outs (those that would descend into grogonard status along with 3e as the market dwindled) no one foresaw Pathfinder, the Retro-clones, and a sudden resurgence of pre-2000 edition D&D. The community, which remained mostly 3e-based (with occasional earlier edition hold-outs fluttering in) broke seven-ways to Sunday. Everyone, it seemed, had an opinion of what Fourth Edition should have looked like, and it seems that Real 4e didn't satisfy a lot of them. The dissatisfaction of many (be it because of mechanics, fluff, or presentation) left a large whole that a lot of other games sought to fill. Some attempted alternate evolutions of 3e (Pathfinder) or 2e/1e (C&C), while others sought to recapture or re concept former glories (retro clones and actual retro games).
While the 1e/2e -> 3e was no cakewalk, the market didn't splinter. It broke exactly as predicted; some stayed in older editions, some upgraded, and some stopped playing. OGL though, for all its wonders, brought D&D the ability to splinter off into so many factions of people believing their version is the most legitimate. (In that regard, OGL was D&D's own worst enemy; it created its own competition).
You can blame it on any number of things, but 4e failed to galvanize the community like 3e did (at least in the beginning).
Scribble
First Post
But one could argue that the OGL galvanized the community, not nessesarily 3e. The two synergized nicely, and it's probably a chicken and the egg sort of question, but would either of them have done the same thing on their own?
OGL/3e and GSL/4e were built with different markets in mind.
Similar Threads
