Irreconcilable differences(Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's...)

[thecasualoblivion]

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).

This is both true and misleading IMO. While I feel its true that the D&D community has splintered to a degree, I still say a comfortable majority has switched to 4E.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

It isn't that simple at all. I know a dozen players who played 3.5 halfheartedly, but have picked up the majority of new 4E books at the drop of a hat. I know several players who were big spenders with 3rd Edition, but dropped off as more and more splatbooks were released - and now are back to collecting everything that comes out. And most others I know have maintained about the same purchasing habits between the two editions.

And, guess what? All of this is largely meaningless, because it is just one group of people and not an accurate representation of the gaming economy as a whole. But it is equally meaningless to say that by losing your support, WotC has screwed up - if by doing so, they have gained more purchasing power from new customers or others who have returned to the fold or gained greater interest in the game, then they have succeeded (from a marketing stand-point, at least.)

But we aren't going to be able to know whether they have accomplished that through anyone's specific examples of how many books they are or are not purchasing, and claiming otherwise is honestly an exercise in futility.

 

[Imaro]

I just wanted to say...I don't know if sales can really be used to determine the number who have actually switched over to D&D 4e. Case in point the Chicago D&D meetup is still running all 3.5 games, no 4e as of right now. Also I was another who bought the 4e books...you know, because everyone swore they played different than they read...loved the ease of DM'ing, but my players hated how pronounced, jarring, and drawn out, the miniature tactical combat was. They would rather play C&C, 3.5, or nWoD to name a few than go back to 4e.

You see as far as sales go...I think the corebooks as well as KotS might be a little misleading as these were the first products, I think a more telling sign is that we've heard nothing about how great the other modules, FR books, Adventurers Vault, or DDI are doing. I mean WotC reps bragged when the other books were selling well, so I see no reason to not let us know when H2, FRPG, or FRCG or anything else for that matter hits it's second printing...but there's been nothing.

 

[Cadfan]

You see as far as sales go...I think the corebooks as well as KotS might be a little misleading as these were the first products, I think a more telling sign is that we've heard nothing about how great the other modules, FR books, Adventurers Vault, or DDI are doing. I mean WotC reps bragged when the other books were selling well, so I see no reason to not let us know when H2, FRPG, or FRCG or anything else for that matter hits it's second printing...but there's been nothing.

Meh, you always think everything is "telling."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

(In that regard, OGL was D&D's own worst enemy; it created its own competition). .

I could see saying that OGL was Wizard's worst enemy, but I'm going to have to say that it's the best thing that ever happened both to D&D and especially for the player.

 

[Tewligan]

Yep, they are still so bad I couldn't even talk about my opinion of the 4E starter set without getting the thread locked.

Its beyond the interests of their message board. I forgot it wasn't my message board too, that it caters to the interest of a rabid few.

Oh, that was you who started that thread? In fairness, DF does state in no uncertain terms up front what topics aren't allowed. You knew better.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I could see saying that OGL was Wizard's worst enemy, but I'm going to have to say that it's the best thing that ever happened both to D&D and especially for the player.

I have to disagree here. The reality is more complex than that. I don't think the OGL was either good or bad for WotC. The big result of the OGL was to change the RPG world so it revolved around D&D. This really didn't have a positive or negative effect on WotC or the sales of D&D, aside from solid support from published adventures(positive) and a degree of lost control over D&D(negative). To RPG players, the OGL was largely a double edged sword. The OGL made D&D and non-D&D alternatives closer and an easier sell to mainstream D&D players, and made it easy for D&D and OGL players to travel back and forth between them. On the other hand, the OGL had a profoundly negative impact on game systems not based on d20, which IMO was bad for the RPG world.


From WotC's perspective, the OGL was neither a success or a failure. It did give a boost to D&D, but at the cost of a loss of control over what D&D was. In the end, the OGL didn't really deliver what it promised.

 

[Imaro]

Meh, you always think everything is "telling."

Yeah, well I won't even go into what my group is telling me to do with 4e...

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It isn't that simple at all. I know a dozen players who played 3.5 halfheartedly, but have picked up the majority of new 4E books at the drop of a hat. I know several players who were big spenders with 3rd Edition, but dropped off as more and more splatbooks were released - and now are back to collecting everything that comes out. And most others I know have maintained about the same purchasing habits between the two editions.

Just because people have the 4e books, doesn't mean they're playing them. I think that half of my group including myself does have the 4e books, but we were playing a 3.5e Iron Kingdoms game, and just started on Pathfinder in all of it's beta glory. 4e hasn't been touched yet and I can only think of 2 people I knew that even mentioned playing in a 4e campaign.

It's only been 4 months, so it's hard to say what the results are. I think that as the spring comes along, there'll be a better idea on actual figures.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Ya know there are 3 guys I know that have the 4e books. I dont play in there games but we know each other and there not playing 4e right NOW. I was told maybe there try and get a 4e game going next summer but there not sure.


So yeah not all buyers have played it or like it. Some stores[my BAM] cant even unload what they have.