D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[Desdichado]

It's funny how each definition is based around actual sales... of which Next and N.E.W. have none... but you keep on making up your own definition of words...

That's absurd and you know it. You're trying to do one of those "that depends on what the definition of is is" type of semantic acrobatics to prove a point that is clearly wrong. And even then you're making a fundamental error, because a sale is still a sale even if the cost is 0.

Riiiiight, anyone can keep saying "faulty logic!!" I've asked you to show me the fault in it and you haven't so far. Again, how about we agree to disagree...

I will certainly agree that continuing to attempt to hold a rational conversation with you is tedious and I've had enough of it.

 

[Imaro]

That's absurd and you know it. You're trying to do one of those "that depends on what the definition of is is" type of semantic acrobatics to prove a point that is clearly wrong. And even then you're making a fundamental error, because a sale is still a sale even if the cost is 0.

Definition of sale...

the exchange of a commodity for money; the action of selling something.

Emphasis mine... So no, if the cost is 0 as in no money is exchanged for a commodity it is not a sale... but you keep making up meanings for words and trying to argue from that standpoint, and I'll keep using an actual dictionary...

I will certainly agree that continuing to attempt to hold a rational conversation with you is tedious and I've had enough of it.

Well it might not be if we were both using the common meanings of words... instead one of us (and it's not me) keeps creating his own meanings for the words being used. But yeah tedious is exactly the word I would use for how this conversation is going and the fact that I have to repeatedly cite definitions for the words you're choosing to argue about makes it even moreso.

 

[Halivar]

"I cast a friendship​ spell on both of you."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's absurd and you know it. You're trying to do one of those "that depends on what the definition of is is" type of semantic acrobatics to prove a point that is clearly wrong. And even then you're making a fundamental error, because a sale is still a sale even if the cost is 0.

This isn't semantics.

While freebies can influence consumers, they're generally not considered sales- they're mostly accounted for in R&D or marketing/promotions budgets- and tell us nothing of market share.

 

[Mistwell]

Wasn't this site founded right before 3E came out in 2000? Weren't all those old threads people complaining about how terrible 3E was, how it ruined D&D, how they changed too much, it was too complicated, it was written for 5th graders, etc, etc. Yet, 3E gave birth to 3.5E and then Pathfinder, which are both still pretty popular games.

And, if you go back to 2E days and Dragon magazine letters to the editor, the letters were filled with people complaining about how 2E was ruining D&D for them, it wasn't needed, too much was changed, it was dumbed down, etc (though, I do agree with the complaint about demons & devils becoming Baatzu or Tannari, or however you spell them, I'm trying to block them from my memory)

Yes. And in my opinion I am seeing a lot less complaining about 5e, than I saw before 3e. There are about an even dozen posters here who make up 90% of the complaining about 5e it seems...back then, there were literally hundreds of people making regular complaints about 3e.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I see the discussion getting heated and personal.

Stop it, please. It doesn't make any of you, or your positions, look good. Try sticking to addressing the logic of the post, and not the person of the poster.

Thank you.

 

[the Jester]

I have to say, it seems a bit absurd to even argue over the market share of a game that isn't even on the market yet.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have to say, it seems a bit absurd to even argue over the market share of a game that isn't even on the market yet.

it started when someone said that no one was talking about next... then someone pulled data that it was the most talked about game... it spiraled from there...

 

[Desdichado]

This isn't semantics.

While freebies can influence consumers, they're generally not considered sales- they're mostly accounted for in R&D or marketing/promotions budgets- and tell us nothing of market share.

Of course it's semantics. Anytime you're nitpicking details of a definition you pulled out of a dictionary, you're playing semantics. Especially if you reach a conclusion that is direct contradiction to a generally accepted understanding of what "market share" actually means.

Unless, of course, you want to pretend that only dollar market share is market share, and not unit market share. I don't know anyone who knows anything at all about marketing who would agree with that, though. Unit market share is about number of units in the market, and whether or not they were distributed through a "sale" or a freebie is immaterial. As is the cost ($0, in this case.)

Plus, now you're arguing about my "and another thing!" point. The original point was that comparing discussion of a product that isn't officially released in a final form to one that is is a meaningless comparison. A product that is due to come out soon should b expected to generate chatter, but that says absolutely nothing about any putative correlation between chatter and sales of products that are already out and have been for some time. Therefore, using that to "disprove" the idea that online chatter is a proxy indicator of the use of the product in the market, is nonsensical. Imaro's claim was an attempt to be clever, but it failed at two levels because 1) it was not an apples to apples comparison, so his "proof" of the flaw in the methodology is meaningless, and 2) it's not even true anyway, because D&DN is, in fact, already present in the market--at least in a beta version. The more we dance around those two points to try and salvage his argument, the more we wander further and further into la-la-land.

Aaaaaannnndd... with that, I'm officially done with this completely stupid conversation.

 

[Imaro]

Of course it's semantics. Anytime you're nitpicking details of a definition you pulled out of a dictionary, you're playing semantics. Especially if you reach a conclusion that is direct contradiction to a generally accepted understanding of what "market share" actually means.

Unless, of course, you want to pretend that only dollar market share is market share, and not unit market share. I don't know anyone who knows anything at all about marketing who would agree with that, though. Unit market share is about number of units in the market, and whether or not they were distributed through a "sale" or a freebie is immaterial. As is the cost ($0, in this case.)

Plus, now you're arguing about my "and another thing!" point. The original point was that comparing discussion of a product that isn't officially released in a final form to one that is is a meaningless comparison. A product that is due to come out soon should b expected to generate chatter, but that says absolutely nothing about any putative correlation between chatter and sales of products that are already out and have been for some time. Therefore, using that to "disprove" the idea that online chatter is a proxy indicator of the use of the product in the market, is nonsensical. Imaro's claim was an attempt to be clever, but it failed at two levels because 1) it was not an apples to apples comparison, so his "proof" of the flaw in the methodology is meaningless, and 2) it's not even true anyway, because D&DN is, in fact, already present in the market--at least in a beta version. The more we dance around those two points to try and salvage his argument, the more we wander further and further into la-la-land.

Aaaaaannnndd... with that, I'm officially done with this completely stupid conversation.

Emphasis mine... that wasn't what I was proving. I was proving that the hot games list (as a whole) is not an accurate tool to determine percentage of market share. Showing that certain games on it's list had no market share was just one way of showing the limitations of it's numbers since they do not correlate on a 1:1 basis. If you didn't understand what I was trying to prove... all you had to do was ask.