D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[Hussar]

See this is why we're basically piddling in the wind. Icv2 doesn't count Pathfinder subscriptions or Ddi ones either. We're missing huge pieces of the picture.

 

[Shasarak]

It's was technologically and economically feasible for us to continue funding the space program after the Apollo missions and have a Mars colony by now, but the government didn't see the point in it.

sigh

Point being just because you can do something, doesn't mean there aren't better things you could do with that budget instead.

seriously though there's no better way to spend our budget then a mars colony i want my mars buggy dammit

Except for the small inconvenient fact that no one has actually proven that it is feasible to go to Mars, yes exactly like that.

 

[Shasarak]

That one entity can do it commercially does not actually mean that any entity could do it. For example: Paizo can make a business out of selling core rulebooks. I, however, cannot. For me, it would not be a viable business.

That, of course, is aside from how "viable" is not the only thing that decides whether a thing is done. As has often been said: For a given investment of resourses, if WotC can make $X selling game supplements, and $2X selling something else... it is kind of the same as the game supplements not really being a viable choice, for them.

The one entity that has proven that they could do it is WotC itself. So historically we know that they could do it. So that means it is not like you not being able to do it or Trickster Spirit not being able to send his dune buggy to Mars.

 

[Umbran]

Basically I was saying that there was a group of people who championed 4e back in the day. They tried to respond to people who were critical of 4e by defending it. By defense I mean calling them trolls.

And, to be fair, a lot of the people critizicing 4e and defending 3e were also trolls. While you make the conflict sound one-sided, it was not. Trollishness is not edition dependent.

 

[Umbran]

The one entity that has proven that they could do it is WotC itself. So historically we know that they could do it.

That was then, this is now. Business situations change. Past performance is our only measure out here, but it isn't actually indicative of what can happen today.

We *DO NOT KNOW* the internal situation at WotC (like, say, budget structures, or profit expectations). Nor do we know much about the details of sales/profit patterns over the course of the past editions. So we cannot say what is or is not a viable plan for them at this time. We can argue endlessly, in large part because we have little acutal information.

Beating heads against each other in a state of ignorance is sillier than 7-year story plans

 

[Umbran]

Does ICv2 count Amazon and the box chains?

Nope. Nor does it count online sales, or subscriptions. ICv2 isn't even based in numbers - it is based on anectodal polling of impressions.

 

[BryonD]

See this is why we're basically piddling in the wind. Icv2 doesn't count Pathfinder subscriptions or Ddi ones either. We're missing huge pieces of the picture.

Very true. We have a bunch of different barometers. Some of the barometers have numbers on them, but they don't share units with any of the other barometers. Some of the barometers have numbers that are actively misleading. Many of them don't have numbers at all. We are missing huge pieces of the picture if our goal is to quantify anything.

However, if all the barometers move in the same direction then the qualitative picture is reasonably clear.

 

[BryonD]

And, to be fair, a lot of the people critizicing 4e and defending 3e were also trolls. While you make the conflict sound one-sided, it was not. Trollishness is not edition dependent.

Exactly.

The existence of the camps and where the lines are drawn can be interesting. But the nature of people as a whole on either side of those lines never really changes.

 

[BryonD]

The presumption here is that even if the majority had loved 4e, then they would have kept 4e in print. Thing is, 4e had a pretty much unattainable goal - to become a core Hasbro product. To do so, it would have had to nearly triple the size of the TTRPG market, all on its own. Even had it been absolutely adored by every single D&D fan, it still wouldn't continue to be in print because there was no way it was going to achieve that goal.

How can you say this in one breath and make a big deal about how we don't have numbers in the next.

You keep taking single pieces of vague information out of all other context and then making sweeping generalizations to create conclusions. It ends up being nothing but fiction.

Again, I'll ask you, why did we see the end of 3.0 after two years? Was it that hated by D&D fans?

Asked and answered multiple times.

You put a smile on my face every time you repeat this one.

Thanks

 

[Hussar]

Dunno about the answered part. We get 3.5 two years early because it's so popular and they want to make more money but 3.5 goes for about 5 years because ...? And 4e goes two years because it's so unpopular.

I'm thinking there's some inconsistencies here.