Licensees not going to 4e because of poor sales?

[Mark]

Well, I _can_ quote it. But then you can ask me for a reference.

I've asked him where he saw that article.

And?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And?

Well, I can only give a contradicting source, by directing people to this Ampersand article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080808

I don't know what the initial sales volumes for 2008 where (maybe they hoped to sell just 100 books?), but this doesn't sound too bad.

 

[Erik Mona]

I think I speak for the community of publishers not going with 4e when I say that sales have absolutely nothing to do with the decisions of any of us.

There are a lot of provisions in the GSL that make established publishers _very_ uncomfortable, and a bit of poking around on relevant threads can turn up most of the issues.

There's a lot of bluster and self-congratulation from WotC on the sales of their core books, and the word on the street from retailers and distributors is that sales are strong.

The idea that 4e is not selling appears to be a fallacy.

There are plenty of other good reasons not to sign the GSL.

This ain't one of them.

--Erik

 

[hailstop]

I think I speak for the community of publishers not going with 4e when I say that sales have absolutely nothing to do with the decisions of any of us.

There are a lot of provisions in the GSL that make established publishers _very_ uncomfortable, and a bit of poking around on relevant threads can turn up most of the issues.

There's a lot of bluster and self-congratulation from WotC on the sales of their core books, and the word on the street from retailers and distributors is that sales are strong.

The idea that 4e is not selling appears to be a fallacy.

There are plenty of other good reasons not to sign the GSL.

This ain't one of them.

--Erik

That's what I figured. When my friend mentioned what he did I was surprised. I told him that I thought it was due to the GSL, and didn't blame them for not signing onto that.

 

[Maggan]

There's a lot of bluster and self-congratulation from WotC on the sales of their core books, and the word on the street from retailers and distributors is that sales are strong.

I suspect that WotC feels that they have to put out a message like that, to counter some of the rumours about 4e sales levelling off that are circulating on the web.

Back to the OP. The way I read the OP, that article, if it exists, could be a hold-over from the "pay us 5000 dollars for a first wave license" debacle. In that context, it is logical to talk about what 3pp were asked to invest, and they could be talking about the reception of 4e before release, ie the outcry from many quarters.

That way it makes some kind of sense.

/M

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I suspect that WotC feels that they have to put out a message like that, to counter some of the rumours about 4e sales levelling off that are circulating on the web.

Do you think WotC really cares what every schlep on the 'net decides to post regarding anecdotal hobby shop 4e sales evidence?

Do you think they jump from their chairs shouting "OMG! SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET! MAGGAN SAYS OUR SALES ARE LEVELING OFF!!!"

I didn't think so, either.

Sales are off the charts (comparatively to previous editions). The GSL sucks ass (comparatively to the previous incarnation). These are the facts, ma'am. What is good for WotC may not be good for 3PP and, depending on your consumer habits, may not be good for you.

WP

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I am less concerned about the sales of the core books than I am about later supplements. Core books sell because people want to check out the game, supplements sell because people like the game and want more stuff for the game. The question will be how did the modules sell and how well will the martial book and the Realms books sell.

Edit: spelling

 

[Mark]

Back to the OP. The way I read the OP, that article, if it exists, could be a hold-over from the "pay us 5000 dollars for a first wave license" debacle. In that context, it is logical to talk about what 3pp were asked to invest, and they could be talking about the reception of 4e before release, ie the outcry from many quarters.

That way it makes some kind of sense.

That might be the case. So, possibly old news rehashed out of context. I wonder, however, if any of the publishers (besides Paizo, since Erik has chimed in already) might have discussed a private licensing agreement with WotC?

 

[Maggan]

Do you think WotC really cares what every schlep on the 'net decides to post regarding anecdotal hobby shop 4e sales evidence?

I apologise for voicing an opinion.



I don't think WotC cares what peeps are saying on an individual level. But I do think that it is in their interest to give out information that indicates that 4e is a commercial success.

There are many reasons for that, and quelling internet rumours that are getting a foothold at RPGnet and EN World, is one of those reasons.

Take that as you will.

/M

 

[Imaro]

Do you think WotC really cares what every schlep on the 'net decides to post regarding anecdotal hobby shop 4e sales evidence?

Do you think they jump from their chairs shouting "OMG! SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET! MAGGAN SAYS OUR SALES ARE LEVELING OFF!!!"

I didn't think so, either.

Sales are off the charts (comparatively to previous editions). The GSL sucks ass (comparatively to the previous incarnation). These are the facts, ma'am. What is good for WotC may not be good for 3PP and, depending on your consumer habits, may not be good for you.

WP

Where are you getting these "facts" from, because as far as I know WotC doesn't release sales information on their games.

I will say I think that WotC, like any company, is concerned with their image and marketing. Making it appear, whether true or not, that their product is selling like hotcakes is in their best interest... especially with the release of a new edition and the fact that D&D has to be played in a group. Thus their customers have a greater incentive to buy if the perception that "everyone" is jumping on the bandwagon as opposed to some people or even a majority.

I also think this discounting of the internet audience which has become such a popular meme on the boards may not be how WotC is necessarily thinking... given that a big part of their revenue stream is based upon this audience (the DDI). So I would say how their products are being perceived on the net is definitely a concern for them.

On a Side Note: I noticed during that first week of release we had Scott Rouse post a thread about D&D 4e being on the Washington Post and USA best sellers list...I'm curious because there was no follow up to that thread and if my memory serves me the 3.5 DMG actually hit a higher position and stayed on the list longer than the D&D 4e one did. But I admit, I could be wrong...it would be great if someone from WotC could follow this up and let us know how they compared overall.

In the end... I think this (below) is a more reasonable look at whether D&D 4e is successful or not...

I am less concearned about the sales of the core books than I am about later suplements. Core books sell because people want to check out the game, suplements sell because people like the came and want more stuff for the game. The question will be how did the modules sell and how well will the martial book and the Realms books sell.

Personally if I continue playing 4e... I just don't see myself buying into most of their releases... I have no interest in the FR (and am a little irritated a new base class is being placed exclusively in the FRPHB), Their fluff has always failed to inspire me, and thus the only book I might possibly buy is PHB 2. Now the only thing keeping me even remotely interested in 4e is the possibility of Earthdawn... if not for this I would probably just keep my corebooks and not buy anything else.