What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

[SSquirrel]

Those two statements don't go together. How many slots 4E holds is completely irrelevant to its quality as data.

It IS irrelevant when it can be shown that it changes significantly from week to week and that declaring PF the victor when they had a definite minority of the books on the list is statistically incorrect.

Aspersions at data they choose not to release do not matter as to the quality of the data they do release. It's not the detail we want, but it's one of the best data sources we have.

The quality of the data released here is nil. We don't know how many copies we are discussing here. For all we know, they sold 20 copies of book #1 and 19 copies of book #2. The rankings don't have enough information to tell us degree.

 

[Hussar]

About the only thing Amazon might be able to tell you would be trends. If a given book remains at a particular spot for a long time, we can at least infer that it's doing repeat business.

 

[Fox Lee]

I think the lesson here is that what gamers really want are flavorful mechanics. Splitting them out into separate sections is a mistake; the two should be integrated, so that you take in the flavor at the same time you're learning the mechanic.

I tend to disagree with that; or, at least, I really appreciate that in 4e, there is almost never any ambiguity between what is "fluff" and what isn't. Nothing aggravated me in 3/3.5e like prestige classes/feats/whatever with pre-requisites which had no connection to mechanics (culture, organisation, race in many cases*, and even the odd case of gender).

Alignment was always the worst offender. Yes, okay, maybe you designed that class to represent a berserking half-orc warrior, but it's perfectly for my concept for a mild-mannered poet possessed by a demonic spirit that occasionally seizes control. Sure, he isn't chaotic, and he's an elf not a half-orc, but were those requirements ever designed to control power levels, or were they just put there because that was your concept? Granted, many GMs would agree, and allow a houserule, but in examples like those not everbody agrees on where the line between crunch and fluff lies. That, in my opinion, is when fluff is getting in the way of creativity, not stimulating it.

Anyway - including quality fluff with the mechanics is excellent, and I'd never say that books should be pure crunch (even power names are flavour elements, after all). But I do think they should be always distinguished from each other, so that individual groups/players can fluff the mechanics differently if they choose. I think 4e does an excellent job of this; the mechanics have solid falvour attached, but they are clearly delineated and nobody needs to argue over whether or not "Str vs. AC" is a thematic restriction.

(*Race was sometimes a genuine mechanical concern, yes, but more often it was just a flavour concern.)

 

[Maxboy]

I find it funny that any poll or data point, that does not fit into a persons narrative of how well their "edition" is doing, is patently false, and can't be trusted.

 

[Fox Lee]

Aspersions at data they choose not to release do not matter as to the quality of the data they do release. It's not the detail we want, but it's one of the best data sources we have.

How about this then: isn't Amazon sales data based on what is available as well as what people buy? There are no new books for 3.5, and Pathfinder is also sold directly through Paizo, so people who want either of those things have reasons to avoid Amazon anyway. Plus, it's horribly skewed towards NorthAm consumers - I can barely find anything Amazon (or their third-party sellers) will ship to my country any more, let alone something that it would be worthwhile paying them to ship, especially if it's a big heavy RPG book. So I'm just one example of a group whose buying habits that are a mystery to Amazon.

It's not totally useless, but it is profoundly biased, which puts it in basically the same camp as the two previously-cited polls. Interesting, and provocative of further thought perhaps, but certainly not real statistical evidence.

Still a little better than "everybody at my gaming club" though

 

[Hussar]

I find it funny that any poll or data point, that does not fit into a persons narrative of how well their "edition" is doing, is patently false, and can't be trusted.

I don't think that's the case though. Or, at least it shouldn't be. However, what is often the case is people putting a LOT more weight on numbers that don't really hold up to scrutiny. "Paizo is kicking 4e's butt! Look at the ICV2 numbers!" or "Paizo spends more money on its organized play efforts than WOTC does!"

The numbers are very vague. About all you can tell from the numbers is trends up or down. But trying to make any absolute conclusions is about as accurate as chicken entrails.

 

[prosfilaes]

How about this then: isn't Amazon sales data based on what is available as well as what people buy?

Strictly speaking, no. If it's not available, people aren't buying it. But yes, this tells us about relative sales, not who's playing what, so it gives us little information about 3.5. Though we can look at the prices of used books, and see that people aren't dumping 3.5 books like they're dumping 3.0 and earlier versions.

Pathfinder is also sold directly through Paizo, so people who want either of those things have reasons to avoid Amazon anyway.

Amazon is still cheaper for Pathfinder then Paizo. And D&D 4 has DDI to keep people away from Amazon.

Plus, it's horribly skewed towards NorthAm consumers

That, however, I find less important. We can look at Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de and Amazon.jp for non-North American consumers (and Amazon.ca for more North American consumers.) In any case, the US is 2/3rds the world's English native speakers, and the largest English speaking country in the world, so for the English speaking market just Amazon.com should give us information.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't think that's the case though. Or, at least it shouldn't be. However, what is often the case is people putting a LOT more weight on numbers that don't really hold up to scrutiny. "Paizo is kicking 4e's butt! Look at the ICV2 numbers!" or "Paizo spends more money on its organized play efforts than WOTC does!"

The numbers are very vague. About all you can tell from the numbers is trends up or down. But trying to make any absolute conclusions is about as accurate as chicken entrails.

Yet, detractors to ICv2 reports, or Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo stating that at certain given months, other non-public reports like from Bookscan suggest that Paizo IS doing better in a given quarter than the competition, seem to think that in the absence of verifiable data, that the only conclusion is that this is false information, and nobody can beat D&D, so the ICv2 report cannot be true.

I don't mean to suggest this is your point of view, but many pro-4e'ers seem to suggest that this is the case.

 

[Pentius]

I find it funny that any poll or data point, that does not fit into a persons narrative of how well their "edition" is doing, is patently false, and can't be trusted.

I find this pretty funny as well. I also find it funny how when the poll or data point does fit a person's view, it is automatically undeniable rock solid Science.

I think science gets beat up more on messageboards than a pro-boxer's punching bag.

 

[Fox Lee]

Strictly speaking, no. If it's not available, people aren't buying it. But yes, this tells us about relative sales, not who's playing what, so it gives us little information about 3.5. Though we can look at the prices of used books, and see that people aren't dumping 3.5 books like they're dumping 3.0 and earlier versions.

Okay, but that only tells us that people aren't dumping their 3.5 books - not whether or not they want to buy more. Which would be WotC's concern if they were to pick up 3.5 again. It's not enough that people still play 3.5 - they must be willing to spend more on it, despite their existing collections, than they are on 4e. Many gamers may think that this is the case, but WoTC clearly does not, and since they have the actual sales figures I'm willing to bet they are a better judge of that than any of us.

Amazon is still cheaper for Pathfinder then Paizo. And D&D 4 has DDI to keep people away from Amazon.

D&DI is a supplement to the gamebooks, not a replacement, and is rather hard to use in the same way (especially to share at the table). For that matter, until the uni upgraded their wireless network this very semester, my group couldn't use D&DI at the table at all. It's a similar thing, but it's really not the same.

That, however, I find less important. We can look at Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de and Amazon.jp for non-North American consumers (and Amazon.ca for more North American consumers.) In any case, the US is 2/3rds the world's English native speakers, and the largest English speaking country in the world, so for the English speaking market just Amazon.com should give us information.

It is[/i[] inherently biased, though. Especially since it is only one retailer from amongst many, regardless of whether or not it is the most popular. I'm not saying it's useless, just that claiming it as concrete "proof" of a trend would be wrong (unless that trend related specifically to buyers of a given nationally or subset of nationalities, who chose Amazon as their shopping site).