Why doesn't WotC license older editions?

[xechnao]

It's just a fact of life.

Regarding the things you are talking about I would want to specify here and say it's just a fact of consumerism.

 

[Reynard]

I think we can all be pretty certain that WotC will neither license nor sell older editions of D&D. Even if "self competition" weren't the issue, there'd be issues of controlling and maintatining aspects of the IP and the "definition" of D&D.

More likely, if 4E seems to be less of what consumers want (say, if Pathfinder does well or 3.x remains viable and noticable for a log period of time, at the same time that 4E underperforms) then 5E will be more of a "return to the roots" of the game -- whatever that means to the design department at the time.

I personally believe WotC grossly underestimated the enjoyment and investment most D&D groups get out of the game between combats or otherwise "action" encounters. I think they relied on self selecting, biased samples of players to survey -- RPGA members, in particular -- and I think they misjudged the typical D&D group when assuming that a homogenized playstyle was desirable. So, i think we'll see 5E in far fewer than the 8 years it took for 4E. But, again, that's all opinion and conjecture.

 

[diaglo]

I think we can all be pretty certain that WotC will neither license nor sell older editions of D&D.

we can still hope.

diaglo "keeping the OD&D(1974) dream alive since 1979" Ooi

 

[haakon1]

If initial sales at Amazon for 4e were stronger than initial sales at Amazon for 3.5e (which they were), you can draw some useful data from that. It's not a full answer to your question, but it is a partial answer based on something objective.

My theory: there are more computers, internet users, and Amazon customers in 2008 than in 2000. Therefore, I don't know if you observation is significant or not.

It would not matter if it were a thousand polls. Of course they result in the same answers. That doesn't make them more accurate however. As I said, they are internet polls, which are inherently unreliable. They are self-selecting for responders, and disgruntled people are more likely to answer an internet poll they seek out than happy people who do not feel the same level of urge (on average) to seek out such a poll and express their opinion. Do I really need to explain that internet polls are not accurate? Do I really need to point to all the articles on the topic, and how internet polls can never be relied on?

I understand that self-selecting polls are inaccurate. (That all internet polling is less accurate than all phone polling is not proven -- one of the more accurate polls in the Presidential election was an internet poll and the internet betting on political results is quite reliable.) However, the reason self-selecting polling is inaccurate is because it (might) give a disproportionate weighting to people who care more about the subject, and given the level of passion around the edition change on both sides, I doubt 4e fans were disproportionately wilting lillies who didn't want their voices counted. And there's no denying this is the most popular D&D site on the internet. So dismissing that 45% of the hundreds of people who completed the polls, care most about D&D (bothering to be here), and are thought-leaders in the peer groups (well, if you believe the poll that ~80% of the people here are DM's) don't like the product, that just seems silly to me.

Clearly, a LOT of D&D customers don't like 4e and aren't buying it. Whether "a lot" is 15% or 75% you can dispute, but it's a significant number.

If your point is "the real number may not be 45%, it might be something very different", fair enough. But given a lack of any other data, I'll GUESS it's probably somewhere in that general vicinity.

Which represents, what, .00000000001% of FLGS hours? Come on now, you know you cannot personally present your visits as representative. They are not.

You said my opinion was wrong because my observations were from "my FLGS", implying that my N was 1 and that it was a self-selected sample of only stores I agree with. I corrected that: my sample size was 6, not 1; it included one store that sold the books at WotC's 4e launch party so clearly is not a partisan anti-4e or anti-WotC store, and it included 100% of the D&D stores known to EnWorld players in 1 country where I'd never been to a game store before (Singapore). I submit that's not an entirely worthless sample set. My observation from that data set is, I think, non-controversial: significant numbers of stores have not converted fully to 4e.

If you think that's not the case, what's your observation about FLGS conversion to 4e?

You have no actual data to go on. You've taken the classic hasty generalization position, and then accuse me of being pollyanna?

I am not saying you are wrong or right, I am saying you have no basis for knowing if you are correct or not, nor do I beyond those two relatively minor actual data points (Amazon, and the WOTC employee statement regarding reprintings). You have pretended that your non-data is actual representative information based on your personal opinion. It's silly. It's not something you would appreciate if someone else did that sort of thing in some other aspect of life.

We have no idea if they gained or lost customers. You going around claiming internet polls and your 6 visits to different game stores is some kind of proof of ~45% loss in customers is ridiculous. Have a little respect for your fellow peers here, be completely honest with them, and just say it's your guess that they lost a lot of customers but you do not have anything firm to back that up. Lets put an end to claims of hard numbers that are actually based on internet polls and your store visits.

I think I've been clear as to my sources/observations all along; if not, that wasn't my intent. Disagreeing with my opinion and criticizing my sources/observations is one thing. Saying I'm dishonest and don't respect my fellow gamers is another. I understand emotions get out of control easily in internet discussions, but I'm trying hard to be civil, so I'd appreciate the same from you. If I've been unclear or have come across as insulting to you and you're reacting to that, I apologize -- let's both drop it. We should undoubtably stop this conversation anyhow, for two reasons:

1) The poll argument is kinda pointless. It's just plain true that self-selecting polls are inaccurate. How inaccurate these particular polls are is the question, and we'll never settle it. I admit the 45% is just a guess . . . but directionally, I don't see why it would be completely wrong.

2) IMHO, most of this comes down to "I don't like 3e" and "you like 4e". That's not going to change, so there's no point arguing around the point and pretending it's about something else.

As long as you admit 4e has been rejected by a significant number of D&D customers, and there's no particular basis for the theory (which may not even have been yours, I don't remember) that "everyone will convert eventually", I happy to walk away and agree the details are unknown to us.

 

[haakon1]

Depending what site you go to and how you word the survey, you could get a survey that shows that most of the RPGers want to be fire engines.

Yes, if it was a joke survey, you could get that result here, perhaps.

But I see no reason why polls of people who care about D&D about what edition they prefer/are playing/have purchased would yield completely nonsensical results.

There's a difference between "has an unknown, possibly large margin of error" and "is completely wrong".

You do realize a random poll of 1000 people is able to predict the voting behavior of 100 million people within +/-4%, right?

Several hundred people out of the few hundred thousand who play D&D seems like a large sample to me. So the question becomes: it is a sample that represents trends in opinions about editions. That answer, we'll never know. It could be that the views of the passionate online geeky community that is EnWorld reflect the views of the mass of geeks playing D&D. Or, it could be that because we're more passionate about the game, our views are skewed -- it's quite possible that the average gamer doesn't doesn't care what edition it is. It's quite possible that the average EnWorld doesn't care either. But among people who care much about D&D and have an opinion, why guess the polling is all wrong? Occam's Razor says it's probably not all wrong.

 

[mhensley]

Several hundred people out of the few hundred thousand who play D&D seems like a large sample to me.

I'd say it's a good sample. Especially since the large majority of people on forums like this are mainly DM's. Since DM's are the one's who organize and run games, their preferences are crucial to the success of any rpg. For example- I don't like 4e so I don't run it. This has a much larger effect than just the loss of my business. It also means that my four players (all in their early 20's and WoW players so that makes them wotc's target market), who don't frequent rpg forums, aren't exposed to and have no interest in buying 4e products either.

 

[Maggan]

Y
You do realize a random poll of 1000 people is able to predict the voting behavior of 100 million people within +/-4%, right?

Right. After the statistical analysis guys do their thing, I think.

So yes, a random poll of 1000 people will predict the opinion of a much larger population. But that poll has to be a lot more secure than the polls here at EN World.

Otherwise the "+/- 4%" turns into "+/-30% or so give or take and hope that no one played the numbers to prove a point".

EN World polls are not as statistically valid as properly conducted polls. They are indicative of something, sure, but putting them on the same level as a professionally conducted poll with high quality statistical analysts crunching the numbers is giving EN World polls too much credence.

/M

 

[kitsune9]

Look to the simplest answer.

Competition.

You don't want older editions competing with your current flagship.

Xyxox said it right. Competition. It would fragment their market even more if there were more than one official edition out there.

 

[Keith Robinson]

My theory: there are more computers, internet users, and Amazon customers in 2008 than in 2000. Therefore, I don't know if you observation is significant or not.

According to Internet World Stat News there was a 106% increase in Internet usage in the US from 2000 to 2005. This data is pretty well supported by data360.org which show a similar increase up to 2008. If we say that the number of D&D players today is equal to the number playing back in 2000 (in relation to the population), then sales online should also have increased similarly. Of course, if there are less or more people playing D&D, then this will also be reflected in the sales numbers. There are, of course, also a large number of other factors that will impact on the number of sales. And this is just looking at the number of Internet users over that period - we have absoluetly no way of knowing whether Amazon's D&D customer base in anyway reflects the general increase in Internet usage (it could be a far greater increase for all we know).

Making a direct comparison between numbers of sales on Amazon between editions is completely flawed - likewise using it to argue the success or otherwise of one edition over another.

 

[RogerWilco]

I personally believe WotC grossly underestimated the enjoyment and investment most D&D groups get out of the game between combats or otherwise "action" encounters. I think they relied on self selecting, biased samples of players to survey -- RPGA members, in particular -- and I think they misjudged the typical D&D group when assuming that a homogenized playstyle was desirable. So, i think we'll see 5E in far fewer than the 8 years it took for 4E. But, again, that's all opinion and conjecture.

I have to agree with this, already in the move from 2nd to 3rd to 3.5 edition we noticed that the options for "out of combat" encounters has dwindled, certainly what spells can do (take Polymorph). It's a big reason I'm not so interested in 4e.

One of my big gripes with how WotC handled the transition from 3.5 to 4 was that way they pulled the plug on E-Tools and PCGen support a year before 4e was released and while they were still selling and publishing new books for 3.5e.

As to the analogy with car parts, it's known that there have been lawsuits if 3rd party manufacturers can make after market parts for cars, especially after they go out of production and the manufacturer no longer provides parts themselves.
I would buy a lot of 2e books if I could (no big second hand market here in Europe), I played it a lot, but with borrowed books as in 1999-2003 getting them was already near impossible, only our DM had a full set. It's why when we switched to 3.5 (skipped 3.0 mostly), I bought all books I could (I have over a meter on my shelve).
I would hope that WotC would licence the older editions out, I think the amount of competition with their own 4e would be minimal. If they'd find that they are selling more 3.5e then 4e that way, I think that would also send a pretty strong message. I'm not talking new books, just existing ones either reprints or PDF, preferably both in a nice bundle.
If 4e is good, then people will buy it, if they are afraid that people will buy 3.5e instead then they need to improve 4e.