Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="teitan" data-source="post: 6614637" data-attributes="member: 3457">A lot of the speculation in this thread seems to be based on the misperception that 4e was a failure when for d&d it was a success, not for Hasbro who wanted to make it a core brand. People also seem to, for some reason, be calling 3.x a failure when it definitely wasn't a failure, being the best selling edition since 1e was launched in the seventies and reached its peak in 83. 3e was HUGE and is still huge when you think about it. Unlike 1e and 2e the 3.5 core books are expensive, sometimes selling for higher than cover price and not in the eBay overinflated sense you sometimes see for modern comics or people trying to sell their ad&d stuff as "collector's items". The rereleased versions dipped the price a bit but its still a thing. Essentials, hell, goes for a lot of money in regards to the red box, dm's kit, and monster vault! So these games were a success and it makes me shake my head the way people seem to be implying that they were failures.3.5 started dipping towards the last two years but why? The quality wasn't there aside form a handful of books but some of those were big like the phbII and DMgII, rules compendium, and the last few monster manuals. I managed a game shop at the time, I talked to other retailers. 3.5 was still a thing when they announced 4e. Products like the expedition series and the adventures just sucked up shelf space though and towards the end of 3.5 those were the products. The weirder stuff like Incarnum and such died out quick but looking at the rereleases the Spell Compendium was big, it was an essential text for 3.5 and a late edition release. Pathfinder Chronicles launched and it was a thing as well. I couldn't keep Rise of the Runelords in stock and it was beginning to outpace 3.5 sales aside from the aforementioned handful of books.I had to keep my finger on the general pulse of RPG sales, especially after the nWOD failed to kick up the same sales the original did. 3.5 was all there was going on, and Mutants & Masterminds. WFRP died slowly, 40k just launched and was doing really well but nothing like 3.5 had been. So to imply, as I've seen in this thread, that 3.5 died from poor sales is misleading. 3.5 died because Hasbro wanted d&d to become a core brand and it was too late in the life cycle to try to do it with what they had already. It wasn't going to be a $50 mill line especially with Hasbro not including the novels and licensed products as part of the bottom line unlike Transformers, GI Joe and eventually MLP. Doing a revision was out of the question because it would just appeal to the then current base, as demonstrated with Pathfinder's player base and lesser sales, as slight as those lesser sales are. It hasn't really brought in a significant amount of new people. They've made a valiant effort with the beginner's box I will tell you that though!Fourth is a different critter. If you look at it, it is designed to appeal to four different audiences. D&D players, collectors, board gamers and video gamers. It actually does emulate d&d play really well. The collectible element died in the minis though, sales were starting to bottom out on d&d minis before fourth launched anyway. But the minis did appeal to board gamers! The modularity of the tiles and tactical play made a great bridge between war gamers and role players and the system itself was, in fact, very much like a video game. How it failed wasn't bad design or even the fractured market because SOMEONE was playing and a LOT of someone's at that because it still outsold Pathfinder! So those players lost to Pathfinder were certainly made up for in new players and lapsed players. How fourth failed was delivering the number Hasbro wanted! That and the constant errata and updates that came out, modifications to rules like skill challenges and monster math requires extensive errata, essentially (pun intended) making those first few core rulebooks null & void as far as reference books and the changes were so extensive that silently updating the next printing was a way to generate more confusion. Essentials didn't flop or even thud. Well, phb books did but those boxed sets and the rules cyclopedia? The boxed sets still, damn, I was offered $90 for my dm kit and saw the red box at HPB for $60! But fourth failed more because of Hasbro than being 4e or essentials. It failed because revenue generated from novels and licensing didn't count. The video games didn't count towards the bottom line. Drizzt novels and Elminster novels didn't count. But those books did sell well. DDI did very well. Hell, it was such a huge and integral part that people are demanding digital tools for fifth and it doesn't even need it! In fact, when the line was cancelled, it was almost to a turning point as a line. Product seemed to be just hitting it's stride in terms of quality. Compare Gardmore Abbey or Tomb of Horrors to the H1-P3 series or the Giants adventure. OP was growing. Then things dried up and fifth was announced. That vocal minority crying about fourth made it seem like fourth was a failure. I have a friend insist to me, constantly, that fourth was a dismal failure and required collectible cards like MTG to even play the game. He even know I own the books and still tells me that.Note that unlike in fourth, the guy in charge at Hasbro is praising d&d sales? He wouldn't be doing that with just three core books, a starter set and a couple adventures, something is different and it boils down to the licensing. The branding structure reworked so that the video games, novels, minis and other license material now counts. That is good for the brand AND the RPG. When the Sword Coast game launches and some other factors like the film deal are worked out, I have a feeling the RPG will change directions a little bit. We will get more books because under the new structure, the brand will have more money alloted to it.</blockquote>

Verification