will 4.0 succeed?

[Mistwell]

Well, gee. Even if those data are accurate, how established and popular was Amazon in 1999 (or was it early 2000?. . . whichever), compared to this year? Yeah, exactly.

I said 3.5, and I said the data went back to Nov 2004. You even quoted that section, so I am not sure what the source of confusion is in this case.

And how much more gaming product is being sold online in general (and largely at Amazon), as opposed to at what FLGSs still remain, compared to the state of things not so many years ago . . and so on.

So, not a particularly relevant set of figures, in reality.

I disagree. The difference between 2004 and 2008 for game book sales online is not so great as to make it irrelevant. I think you can factor it into your analysis, but dismissing it entirely seems unwise in this case.

This is the month before the new edition comes out. Of course sales are going to be at least reasonably good at that stage. It's the new shiny, so that's a given. It wouldn't even matter what was in the books; the same rule would apply.

Indeed. But, that is part of what matters. A lot of the total sales, for anything, take place as they are being released for the first time. Pre-orders for 3.5 were also a huge part of 3.5 sales. I think it remains a relevant point.

It remains to be seen how the system and associated merchandise are actually received, in the bigger picture.

Yes, because we don't have the bigger picture. But I would venture to say that a huge portion of sales for all D&D items happen right around the release date, so we have at least one important, relevant set of facts to consider. Right now, signs are pointing to success. Can that change? Sure. But the odds are with success right now, based on actual data and not guesswork. And this is for the full set of core books, not just the PHB. At 250 full-set orders a day just through Amazon for several months in a row now, it's at least one indication that 4e is succeeding.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, since Amazon is a lot more popular today then 1999 to 2000, this means a higher ranking probably means even more customers?

But I agree, it's of little use. Maybe we can use this as a benchmark for the next edition.

Again, what I posted referred to 2004, not 2000, and referred to 3.5, not 3.0. And, again, I am not sure how this confusion started. It was even quoted that way by the guy you just responded to.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I said 3.5, and I said the data went back to Nov 2004. You even quoted that section, so I am not sure what the source of confusion is in this case.

Oops.

My mistake, sorry.

Somehow, I saw 2000, or maybe 3.0. . . either way, not what was there, I guess. Meh, probably seeing what I wanted to see. I am after all anti-4e, insofar as 4e bothers me at all, so my bias could have been (and probably was) misguiding me, I'll admit. That, and/or I was tired (which is also true.)

However, this puts things in another light altogether. I know a lot of people who bought into 3.0 didn't buy into 3.5 - really, the numbers you produced mean even less than I was claiming they did!

Although, kudos for actually bringing some kind of figures (or in fact anything - easily shown to be - 'objective') to the discussion.

Now, 3.0 versus 4e - that would be interesting to see. And er, what I thought was being compared.

 

[Agamon]

I remember a post like this in mid-2000, too. Pre-orders on 3e were pretty good, too. Anyone wanna bet cash that it 'fails'?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Okay, let's stop the name-calling and general snarkiness here.

Thanks,
Dinkeldog/Moderator

 

[jdrakeh]

Seriously though, I hope 4th edition does well. If it doesn't, the entire hobby is in for a rough ride over the next few years.

I mention this elsewhere, though it's worth repeating. D&D is the hobby, whether other publishers like it or not. It comprises what -- 98% of the market share or something? If D&D goes away, so will most of the hobby.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not at all interested in 4E.

I hope it does very well, because I agree that the industry as a whole will be strongly impacted by it.

I think it will do quite well out of the gate.
I think it will be a success.

I do not think it will come close to 3E's success or duration. Partly just because the market was starving for something good when 3E came along. That market isn't anywhere to be found right now.

Partly because I think the idea that a simplified game will bring in more gamers is a pipe dream. For better than 90%, table top RPG gamers are what they are. Complexity of rules has not been a litmus test ever before, and it won't suddenly start now. Sure, there will be new players, and the hype of a new edition will concentrate the growth into an above average rate for a while. But over the long haul the rate of new gamer emergence isn't going to change as a result of 4e.

And I know lots of people will jump up and tell me that this doesn't apply to them personally, therefore the big picture claim MUST be wrong, but the "simple is better" tactic will appeal the least to people who want more and more rules in more and more books and most to "less is more" types. And without a value judgment of what is "fun", I'll just claim that isn't the best case scenario if your job is to sell books. Trading die-hard completeists for casual grab and go gamers is a losing proposition. (Modules will likely sell better than before.)

I also think that the been-there-done-that factor will hit much quicker in 4E. Not in weeks or months, but much quicker than 3E.

IMO

 

[BryonD]

However, this puts things in another light altogether. I know a lot of people who bought into 3.0 didn't buy into 3.5 - really, the numbers you produced mean even less than I was claiming they did!

I agree. 4E vs. 3.5 doesn't mean much at all.

 

[Mistwell]

Oh for goodness sake read the friggen message again. A comparison was never the primary point of that post! The meaning of the post didn't come from comparing it to 3.5 or 3.0, that was just a side note!

It's selling hundreds of book sets a day on Amazon itself in presales, for half a mil a month on Amazon itself, for months now, which doesn't account for sales from any other sources like game stores or Barnes and Noble, or Walmart or anywhere else. THAT is the point of the post! Simply that we know for a fact that, right now, it is selling well, and right now, a lot of folks are at least buying the full Core set of books (as opposed to just the PHB).

That is relevant information.

It's not proof of sustainability, but it is relevant to this discussion. Quit dismissing it because it doesn't disprove the strawman you guys created.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, what I posted referred to 2004, not 2000, and referred to 3.5, not 3.0. And, again, I am not sure how this confusion started. It was even quoted that way by the guy you just responded to.

Lack of attention to detail, bad reading comprehension? That's my excuse.