Is Wotc Slipping?

[ProfessorCirno]

Everyweek the FLGS where I live gets a shipment of at least 2 or 3 PF core books, ditto for APG, 1 to 2 Beastiaries, lately 3 to 4o Beasitary 2s, and they ALL sell out in four days and repeat. They have NOT sold a D&D4e book beyond Tiles in two months. The owner and manager have told me this. I go there often.

I'm not saying this is the same across the country, just noting how its going here in my local Oregon area.

Does your owner and manager advertise one game and not the other?

How are they positioned and advertised in the store?

Is there games being hosted for one and not the other?

Are there sales or out-of-store ads for one and not the other?

I saw a LGS (wouldn't call it friendly!) about a month ago that bragged about how 4e didn't sell, and in the same breath said he'd warn his customers away from 4e. Wow, what a shocker they didn't buy it!

Also he went out of business last week, so that worked out well for him!

 

[DaveMage]

I guess threads like these show people really care about Wizards, yes?

No, not really.

For me it's more like the train wreck you can't stop looking at.

However, I think it's important to make a distinction. "WotC" discussed in this thread (and usually in all other threads on these message boards as well) refers to "Wizards of the Coast handling of the D&D tabletop RPG." It has very little to do with the company as a whole as the tabletop D&D RPG (from what we know) is just a tiny bit of Wizards of the Coast revenue (Thanks, Magic!).

 

[BryonD]

Also he went out of business last week, so that worked out well for him!

Heh.

We get data point after data point so often they are practically touching. But we get this "enlightened" refrain of "you can connect those dots, that's just guesswork." And sober heads nob in stern agreement.

Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing. And a direct line of association is drawn between the two. And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E. heh




I wonder how may game stores owners were suggesting games other than D20 ten years ago.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Heh.

We get data point after data point so often they are practically touching. But we get this "enlightened" refrain of "you can connect those dots, that's just guesswork." And sober heads nob in stern agreement.

Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing. And a direct line of association is drawn between the two. And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E. heh

I wonder how may game stores owners were suggesting games other than D20 ten years ago.

Heh.

 

[MrMyth]

Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing. And a direct line of association is drawn between the two. And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E. heh

Eh.... I think it is a very different thing to draw a big conclusion like "4E is failing" from various anecdotes and short-term data lone... versus saying that a game store owner who actively steers customers away from buying products he is selling is probably somewhat at fault for his store going out of business.

Saying that a bunch of miscellaneous data giving conclusions about the industry as a whole is equivalent to a single person's story about a single game shop resulting in a conclusion solely about that game shop... I'm sorry, that's just silly.

 

[BryonD]

Eh.... I think it is a very different thing to draw a big conclusion like "4E is failing" from various anecdotes and short-term data lone... versus saying that a game store owner who actively steers customers away from buying products he is selling is probably somewhat at fault for his store going out of business.

Saying that a bunch of miscellaneous data giving conclusions about the industry as a whole is equivalent to a single person's story about a single game shop resulting in a conclusion solely about that game shop... I'm sorry, that's just silly.

But you are majorly moving the goal posts here.

Even the title of this thread says "slipping" not "failing" which are far different assessments.

There may be some people trying to say "failing" just to stir reaction. But the focus of debate has been on whether or not we still have one clear 800 pound gorilla or if the market is split. And there are people saying we can not even make THAT conclusion as reasonably probable.

As Auld Grump clearly explained, rational people can do very well making rational conclusions from data that need not constitute proof to the fourth decimal.

Unlike the false standard you set here, the actual claim being routinely made is very well supported by the indications available. Even assuming the two point made in ProfC's post are both factual (and I have no reason to think otherwise) there is no justification whatsoever for declaring them connected.

You are correct that they are very different. But you have them backward in terms of which is reasonable and which is not.

 

[Wicht]

Me, I'd like to know why Essentials did not do as well as I expected, what piece of evidence I missed.

Good post.

And I too thought Essentials would do well. I think, in hindsight, some of this was wishful thinking. Contrary to the claims of those who think all PF players want WotC to die, I suspect most are like myself to one degree or another. We are sentimentally attached to the brand and want it to succeed even though we have no interest in the current incarnation.

I think if I was going to make an educated guess on why essentials has not done as well as hoped it is because it lacked a large enough, and viable enough, target audience.

1 - Essentials, while welcome, was too little too late for PF players like myself who feel 4e has left behind too many "classic" D&D assumptions. You can't well argue it harkens back to the things people associated with D&D (i.e. magic missile) but is still fully 4e.

2 - Essentials, while appealing to completist, was not needed by core 4e players who were satisfied with their game.

3 - Essentials (and this one is a guess) is too confusing for new players in that it provides an additional gateway into the game on top of the core books already produced. People don't want to buy the same rules twice if they can help it and I suspect half the new buyers will buy the old books and half will buy the new books, as they try to figure out what should be the first book bought.

 

[BryonD]

3 - Essentials (and this one is a guess) is too confusing for new players

I disagree with this one.

People who didn't buy something don't then find it confusing.

Though it seems "which product to buy" is also part of the confusion you reference. But that assumes great numbers of people looking to buy in for the first time. Have you seen any evidence of that? It doesn't matter if 90% or 50% or 25% of X bought Essentials versus the PHB if X is not a significant number to start with.

 

[DaveMage]

3 - Essentials (and this one is a guess) is too confusing for new players in that it provides an additional gateway into the game on top of the core books already produced. People don't want to buy the same rules twice if they can help it and I suspect half the new buyers will buy the old books and half will buy the new books, as they try to figure out what should be the first book bought.

I think in WotC's fervent attempt to assure retailers that Essentials was NOT 4.5 (to avoid the backlash that 3.5 produced), they sacrificed brand clarity for the end user (consumer). Now it's a mess.

I mean, which of the old core books are you supposed to buy if you start with all of the essentials products? Do they tell you anywhere? Do they tell you how much you'll be buying twice if you do so? Do they tell you what changes were made in Essentials, that, if you buy the old books, will not be supported with the online tools? And do they tell you all of this in one convenient easy-to-find place?

If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then the newbie may find the game too confusing to bother with. They'll either try another RPG, or just find another diversion that suits their needs. The RPG books are just too expensive (and there are too many of them) for a casual user to bother otherwise.

 

[Wicht]

I disagree with this one.

People who didn't buy something don't then find it confusing.

Though it seems "which product to buy" is also part of the confusion you reference. But that assumes great numbers of people looking to buy in for the first time. Have you seen any evidence of that? It doesn't matter if 90% or 50% or 25% of X bought Essentials versus the PHB if X is not a significant number to start with.

By confusing, I am not referencing the rules. I assume they are not confusing. I am talking about consumer purchasing confusion.

Moreover, as my point is that I would guess essentials lacks a large enough viable target audience, your second point merely reinforces what I was trying to say. Essentials hasn't done as well as expected because it lacks a truly viable target demographic.