Sequels to Successes

[BryonD]

Well, if I'm understanding you correctly, then that question can only be answered if, at some time in the future, we all get access to precise sales figures for 3e and 4e.

Possibly so. In which case we will never really know. And in that scenario 4E will have done "well enough" that the effective answer will be "No, 4E didn't suffer".
But, I think in 2 - 3 years it will be clear one way or another.

 

[A'koss]

The one thing that they say about people at the top is that they've got nowhere left to go but down.

From what I can tell, 3e was the best selling edition of D&D to date.

While 3e was a significant revival from the late 2e era, I've heard many times that D&D's true hey-day was during the Basic Box Set/1e days in the late 80s. I remember reading something about the print runs of D&D not so long ago and the box set was selling something like a million+/year and adventures were selling twice the numbers (and more for the popular ones) of 3e, not to mention the sheer volume of stuff they produced back then.

Taken on the whole, 3e was certainly a resounding success, but it still stands in the shadow of their "glory years".

 

[Hussar]

While 3e was a significant revival from the late 2e era, I've heard many times that D&D's true hey-day was during the Basic Box Set/1e days in the late 80s. I remember reading something about the print runs of D&D not so long ago and the box set was selling something like a million+/year and adventures were selling twice the numbers (and more for the popular ones) of 3e, not to mention the sheer volume of stuff they produced back then.

Taken on the whole, 3e was certainly a resounding success, but it still stands in the shadow of their "glory years".

I tend to take the whole "1e was unbelievable" with a very large grain of salt. Considering TSR's business practices, I just can't find them very credible.

But, in any case, KM's point is still pretty valid - 3e saw a huge revival in D&D, the likes of which we had not seen in decades.

 

[VannATLC]

They should be asking Microsoft for advice.

WOTC isn't making any new 3e books.

Or, it appears they already did.

I don't anticipate a change any different to that of Win2k Desktop to WinXP.

Its better at somethings, others think the original works just fine, and won't replace.
At the end of the day, though, the original product has reached EOL (End of Life) and is no longer supported. Meanwhile, market presence remains the same either way, the main brand is the only serious brand to the common man, and the market continues to expand.

If they had their brains in gear, they'd re-tool DDI so that it is compatible with XBLA and the PS3 equivalent, referencing their servers, and allow games to be run between all 3 major platforms, utilising voice and vision, and computerised tools.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't anticipate a change any different to that of Win2k Desktop to WinXP.

I think the danger is that the change will be more like WinXP to Vista, or the change to Windows ME.

I tend to take the whole "1e was unbelievable" with a very large grain of salt. Considering TSR's business practices, I just can't find them very credible.

Part of me does wonder how much of this is hearsay, but if there is truth to it, it actually backs up my points

Namely, 1e was such a great success, that 2e (which, by most accounts, has been D&D's low point -- or at least, I've not seen very many people holding out as 2e grognards, usually they're 1e or earlier) did significantly worse. I'm hesitant to make the "4e is the new 2e!" comments, but in light of "succeeding after a success," it could be relevant. It's also a little eerie how similar some of the goals are: to clean up math, to focus on narrative...but that just could be because they want to do that in EVERY edition.

Heck, if 1e was the "heyday," it means that even now, we haven't repeated the success, despite ostensibly having some "better rules."

 

[loseth]

It's interesting from a music and movie point of view, BUT and here's the key - the closest thing to compare D&D to out of entertainment is electronic gaming. And in the case of games, well they don't have the same problem pulling off great sequels as other mediums. In fact, a good franchise often becomes more and more successful with each new game.

You mean like Master of Orion and Wasteland?

 

[Spinachcat]

From what I can tell, 3e was the best selling edition of D&D to date. It was a rousing success in many areas.

Your theory falls apart because it is based on an absolutely wrong assumption. 3e never sold close to AD&D 1e. They would be lucky if they had 50% of the sales of AD&D with everything 3.0 and 3.5. TSR did not have to be smart. All they had to do in the early 80s was keep books in print.

Sadly, unless WotC gets really aggressive with long term marketing, 4e won't do any better than 3e...maybe less.

The analogy of a new album or a sequel does not fit. Game mechanics are not art. They are math so the better comparison is old device vs. new device. OD&D may be the 1965 Mustang - beloved and badass, but its 43 years old and you can't get parts for it and you can't just buy one at your local dealership. Thus, people get all excited about the 2008 Mustang which has the newest technology and its easy to get one at the dealers.

But what about those people who liked the original, and who are comfortable with the original?

They don't matter. They join the pile called "not the audience" and life goes one. Maybe they will buy the minis and map tiles, but they are no longer the core audience.

Once I gave up on 3e, I did not matter as a WotC customer. There was nothing 3e could do to make me buy their product. You can only market to people who possibly have interest in your product.

What about those people for whom 3e has been "good enough?"

They have the OGL and bazillion third party products created over the last 8 years. There will be small publishers (see RPGnow) who will keep making 3.5 products for years. Paizo going to try 3.75 and maybe those products will be compatible enough for 3e fans.

What incentive can you give them to change?

When their DM says "Screw this noise, I am running 4e!", then the players will change. Or when the players say "We want to play 4e or we are bailing", then the DM will change.

If both DM and players are okay with 3e, then why should they change? I still run OD&D and I see no reason to abandon that even though I am excited to see 4e.

So what DOES convince people to buy into the sequel? How do bands who make top-selling sophomore albums pull it off?

Easy. Did you like Star Wars? Phantom Menace is your chance to see more Star Wars. Yeah, it may not be as good as the old Star Wars, but you are going either watch the same movie again for the 200th time or you can see something new instead.

BTW, for all the kvetching about Jar Jar Rastaman, both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith made insane profits and EVERY person I know who whined about how Jar Jar ruined everything can also tell me how the two additional sequels ruined everything too...in detail...from their multiple viewings...on the DVDs they own.

So this is my point: all this talk about 4e being "better" is just making those who think that 3e is probably "good enough for them" defensive.

Defensive won't save them. 4e is coming with Tide of Iron and Magic Missiles that do not stop! While the 3e fans are figuring the math on their Power Attack, the 4e fans will be moshing their skulls with encounter powerz! Plus, even us 1st level 4e fans have way more hit points than most 5th level 3e fans and we move on the diagonal!

 

[Pssthpok]

I think it's somewhat fallacious to assume that if one person enjoyed "the first album" that they would be turned off by the promise of higher production values on a new album. If you like a product and a new iteration of it promises to be better, only a silly person thinks "Who the hell wants a better version of what I already know and love?"

Now, whether 4E IS better than 3E in all the ways and capacities that the marketing directors have claimed is a matter of discussion, at least until June.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your theory falls apart because it is based on an absolutely wrong assumption. 3e never sold close to AD&D 1e.

Actually, as I noted later, this would STILL prove my point, and might even prove it better.

The analogy of a new album or a sequel does not fit. Game mechanics are not art. They are math so the better comparison is old device vs. new device.

The same analogy is drawn between a new album as New Coke as Green Ketchup as Windows ME. The theory goes: it's hard to follow up on something that's successful with something that is equally as successful.

Pay attention, man.

Easy. Did you like Star Wars? Phantom Menace is your chance to see more Star Wars. Yeah, it may not be as good as the old Star Wars, but you are going either watch the same movie again for the 200th time or you can see something new instead.

Right. Thus the "Your old one was good, and this is the new one!" approach being preferable to the "Your old one sucks, this new one rocks!" approach.

You might also compare it to the Star Wars remakes, with the little added scenes and little critters in the corners and the "Greedo Shot First" fiasco. That'd be a little closer to what I'm getting at, since you seem to have trouble grokking the idea.

4e is coming with Tide of Iron and Magic Missiles that do not stop! While the 3e fans are figuring the math on their Power Attack, the 4e fans will be moshing their skulls with encounter powerz!

Dude, put away the drugs, we're here to have a conversation not shout catchphrases.

I think it's somewhat fallacious to assume that if one person enjoyed "the first album" that they would be turned off by the promise of higher production values on a new album.

That's not quite the assumption, though. The assumption is that if someone enjoyed the "first album," that they don't HAVE to enjoy the second album. This is what makes a success hard to follow up on: if it was really good, it's especially hard to sell it on the promise that it's "better."

"Better" doesn't make anyone who likes the first one want to check it out, because they don't need anything "better." "New and different!" might make people check it out, because the need for new and different things is pretty constant, though that's slightly tougher in a DIY community like D&D has had (as the aforementioned "But you could do that in 3e!" posts show, it's even harder for D&D to be "better" than your house rules for your own game).

It's really just not very persuasive for the "average consumer" to say that the new thing is SO MUCH BETTER than the thing that they already enjoy. Heck, to a certain extent, the HD systems are going through this problem, too. HDTV, BluRay, even HDDVD, don't improve enough over regular DVD's for most consumers, so the market is a tiny fraction of what the "older edition" can do.

D&D is, as always, a bit of a different story. Because the D&D brand is so strong, it's definately possible that the vast majority of D&D buyers are more attatched to the name than to any particular rule set (the polls over here are *especially* pointed in this regard, since ENWorld is often better informed than most of the average consumers), and that those who aren't are, in this edition like every edition before them, going to be simply not a big enough slice out of the pie for WotC to be really affected. But if more current 3e players than I'm assuming *are* more like "rational consumers," 3e might be good enough for them to not really need 4e to make their games any better. This won't affect the initial sales much, but I'm sure it could affect the longevity of 4e.

 

[smathis]

I'm definitely not a 4e-hater. But I gotta agree with the gist of the OP.

Since it's announcement, the 4e team has flat out ridiculed many aspects of older editions (grappling, having nothing to do in combat, etc).

And I agree that's just short-sighted marketing.

While it was enough to perk up the ears of lapsed DMs such as myself -- who were turned off by the bookkeeping of 3e, I gotta admit I cringe every time I hear them talk down 3e.

3e's a good game. There's not a whole lot wrong with it. It's still just as playable (maybe moreso) than any previous version of D&D (outside of my personal favorite the Rules Cyclopedia, of course ).

So, I gotta agree on the main point. The 4e team should be celebrating 3e for what it was (warts and all) and pitching 4e as a natural outgrowth -- instead of a much needed overhaul of a hopelessly flawed and broken system (which 3e wasn't).

I know it's hard to do with the marketing blitz on so many fronts and with many members of the devteam being so active on the internet. But WotC could've used a bit more discipline in their Marketing.

Outside of the perhaps ill-chosen sequel analogy, the OP had some good points (I think).