Most influential RPG

Posting that Sims & Stephens are "likely bound by NDAs" is pure speculation that doesn't give their comments about ttrpg sales numbers any real value. They're essentially saying "Trust me, bro" :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, ICv2 is a trusted source of sales data for several industries, not just ttrpgs. D&D being outsold by Pathfinder would be a big deal, big enough to impact D&D's market value. If ICv2's numbers were off, why wouldn't Hasbro issue an official statement pointing out the errors?

Your argument doesn't make sense. Not good business sense, anyway.
It's clear you really want to believe this, but it isn't true.

I seem to remember that Amazon had a really good deal on the core 4e books on release, and that's where I think everyone in my group got their books. Later I bought Martial Power 1 as a pdf and some in my group were subscribers to whatever the digital thing was called. We hardly bought anything from an LGS.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Meanwhile, ICv2 is a trusted source of sales data for several industries, not just ttrpgs. D&D being outsold by Pathfinder would be a big deal, big enough to impact D&D's market value. If ICv2's numbers were off, why wouldn't Hasbro issue an official statement pointing out the errors?
Okay. I might need a citation there because in the years I have been aware of ICv2 that's never been an assertion I've heard put forth. Their description of data gathering demonstrated how unreliable it is for projecting.
 

Okay. I might need a citation there because in the years I have been aware of ICv2 that's never been an assertion I've heard put forth. Their description of data gathering demonstrated how unreliable it is for projecting.
They have a website that details the company's history. Check it out 🤓
 

They have a website that details the company's history. Check it out 🤓
Not really sure how that supports your claim in the slightest?
 


Actually, youz guys made the claim. I'm just supporting the actual facts (y)
But the problem is that the "facts" you are supporting are exactly the things we are claiming are incorrect. You claim that ICv2 is a better source for sales information than people actually familiar with that information. When we challenged that, your response was to link ICv2's website. That amounts to saying "of course ICv2 is a good data source, just ask ICv2!" Similarly, when I pointed out the issues with your use of the "Orr Report," your response was "stats are stats," when the point is that the numbers reflect reality only through the filter of the method used to collect them. If the method is biased, the numbers will be incorrect, on average.

If you really believe you are correct, make an actual argument. Glibly posting a link is not persuasive: the evidence you present might seem like an obvious take-down to you, but we are not inside your head.
 


No WAY VtM influenced general culture. It was a creature of Anne Rice's books + all those vampire flicks of the 80s. VtM LARPs got hot from a merging of the vampire culture (that had been around since at least the 60's) + Goth subculture + VtM.
It had a one season TV show of its own, and it created a ready demographic to convince Fox there was an audience for a revised BTVS...
It also was popular enough to draw the ire of BADD and several other anti-RPG groups... It may not have been important where you were, but it was definitely a significant shakeup. And for the early 90's, a common route into RPGing.
You don't believe Paizo products outsold D&D ...?
For a few months, absolutely - because there was the better part of a year where D&D was between editions and releasing nothing, and not even reprinting. But that's for that time period. Pathfinder is the only one to outsell D&D in a quarter with new D&D releases. And only one of those quarters, IIRC. But for that quarter, both Amazon and ICV2 showed Pathfinder outselling D&D in that quarter.
 

It had a one season TV show of its own, and it created a ready demographic to convince Fox there was an audience for a revised BTVS...
It also was popular enough to draw the ire of BADD and several other anti-RPG groups... It may not have been important where you were, but it was definitely a significant shakeup. And for the early 90's, a common route into RPGing.

For a few months, absolutely - because there was the better part of a year where D&D was between editions and releasing nothing, and not even reprinting. But that's for that time period. Pathfinder is the only one to outsell D&D in a quarter with new D&D releases. And only one of those quarters, IIRC. But for that quarter, both Amazon and ICV2 showed Pathfinder outselling D&D in that quarter.

Wait, wut? How did this thread turn into another episode of la grande guerre des éditions? Fine, I'll repost my abbreviated history of why 4e "failed."

TLDR- I think 4e's "failure" was due to a number of issues- from the economy to the marketing to the corporate expectations that could not be matched to the 3PP issues (OGL etc.) to the choices of the design team that prioritized design over the brand despite warning signs. I also think that 4e, like the Apple Newton, made design choices that continue to be debated, yet also influence the game today. I think that 4e did interesting things, and has passionate fans, and while it is not my favorite, I am very glad it existed.

I look forward to the time when we can talk about 4e without all the hurt and pain and anger people have on all sides. But given it's over a decade later and this hasn't happened yet, I am not holding my breath.

-----
A not-very-brief history of 4e's issues and why it wasn't a success and was killed off:

A. At GenCon in August 2007, WoTC botched the rollout of 4e, causing many in the audience to (incorrectly) believe that a computer was required to play the game. This was the start of misconceptions about this edition that the powers that be never really addressed.

B. June 6, 2008- the release of 4e. Do you know what else happened between the announcement of the product and the release? The Great Recession. Not the best time to release a new product (especially when you were hoping for sweet recurring subscriber revenue).

C. It was hoped that 4e would have MMO licensing, computer games, and more. But the timeframe was not favorable. Moreover, we can forget how ambitious this was for the time; the idea of "always on" internet was still novel, and services such as Roll20, twitch, and so on weren't around yet. Heck, the original (very slow!) iPhone had just been released. Yes, the D&D audience was more tech-savvy than regular consumers, but the rosy projections did not match the reality.

D. Building on (C), there exist players who view D&D as a mostly tech-free time. A respite from screens and technology. Sure, they might be luddites, and they might be a very small part of the market now, but they exist. Which also goes back to B, and the botched rollout- computers weren't required, but WoTC chose to emphasize it.

E. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Yeah, sure, the announcement was botched, and the timing was horrible, but they also had terrible, terrible luck! The 4e designers acknowledged that the final push was rushed by directives from the top, which caused them to make the classes too "samey" and left further differentiation on the cutting-room floor. So many parts that could go wrong, did go wrong- key parts of the computer component that was supposed to be rolled out were entrusted to a developer, and that person was unstable and it ended in a horrific tragedy (and also meant no product). The projections for the product, which were too optimistic, combined with the lack of immediate success, resulted in Hasbro immediately slashing funding. But the time Essentials was rolled out in 2010, 4e was already dead internally and they were debating what to do.

F. Within the 4e community, there has been some debate about whether Essentials was a necessary correction that would have appealed to the mass market, or a betrayal of the essential ethos of 4e.

G. Going back to (B), the concept of subscription services and "Everything is Core" (repeated releases of core books each year) is an idea that was, at best, ahead of its time- we are all about subscriptions now, but it wasn't that common then. At that time, it came off as more of a cash grab, especially given the economy.

H. The design team was too insular and wasn't aware that the reception wouldn't be great, and therefore didn't do enough to "sell" the product. When they had 3PP come and playtest 4e, Jason Buhlman of Paizo saw what was going on and that provided Paizo the confidence to continue on with Pathfinder. In other words, outside playtesters realized it would be divisive to some of the core consumers.

I. Building on (H), we now know that there were issues flagged by members of the design team, but were ignored. In addition, there were some inexplicable errors (such as the monster hit points) introduced in the initial release.

J. One more thing- while the internet wasn't "always on" enough for the ambitions of some aspects of 4e, this was the first edition launch that had many D&D players (I assume, I don't have stats for this) have easy access to some form of the internet, which enabled extreme and intense opinions to both form, spread, and become much more noticeable and toxic.

K. Finally, this history has to be measured in terms of what is a "flagship" product. It's not enough for a D&D product to be "good" or "better" than other editions or other products- it's not sufficient or even necessary that it has great design. It has to be broadly and widely popular so that it continues to dominate the TTRPG marketplace. That is the raison d'être for D&D. People can, and do, argue endlessly about what makes D&D better or worse or good or not, but in terms of a product, D&D must always be #1. Starbucks coffee might not taste the best, but they have to careful changing it ... if you know what I mean.

Now, why write this history? Certainly not to rubbish 4e. I think it's an interesting, but essentially unanswerable, question as to whether or not it would have succeeded if the stars had not been aligned against it. The product was already essentially dead internally two years after the launch, yet aspects of the system itself were incorporated into 5e, and it was never as unpopular as its detractors say - just not popular enough given expectations and the brand.

Please remember that people have very strong opinions about the transitions in D&D that occurred from oe to 1e, 1e to 2e, 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e, and 4e to 5e, and you are unlikely to change those opinions. You are, however, likely to anger the blood of other people on all sides- especially w/r/t 4e. No matter how good or clever your point is, it has definitely been said before and it will not change any opinions. But what you choose to write is up to you, your God(s) (or lack thereof), and the forum rules and the moderators that enforce those rules.

Now, the sales thing? Let's make it simple. It's a silly argument for a multitude of reasons. What reasons?

A. Yes, at one point Pathfinder surpassed 4e. But 4e was already dead by that point. So PF did, but also who cares?*
B. The more important point is that even putting aside that data point, 4e was already dead. If you know the history, 5e was only put out by a skeleton team with no real Hasbro oversight. The actual sales (look, we're beating 4e this quarter!) didn't matter. What mattered were the trends, and the fact that this was even an argument. By Q3 of 2010 (when Essential weas released), 4e was already dead internally at WoTC. For their expectations, it was a fiasco. Arguing about the sales numbers is meaningless, because we can see how the company viewed the sales.
C. Finally, sales numbers are not a reflection of quality. I've often argued that people should take popular things more seriously, because you can learn interesting stuff by studying what appeals to the most people, but it doesn't mean that something is "good" or "great," just that it has the most appeal. For example, understanding why the Big Mac sells so well might be interesting because you learn that consumers value things like price and convenience (for example), but it doesn't mean that the Big Mac is the best hamburger made.


*And is there any point in getting into an argument over, "Your source with actual numbers has bad data, and is therefore better/worse than my source which is someone's quote with undisclosed numbers that can't be verified."
 

Many RPG history myths that people repeat have been debunked. Pathfinder outselling 4e for a long period (or the duration of 4e) is one of them.

The proof? I bought all the 4e books for the first 2 years. Never bought a single Pathfinder book, 1e or 2e. :p:D;)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top