Aus_Snow
First Post
It's completely understandable that you consider it relevant. That you consider there to be a strawman created by me and/or whoever else in this context. . . well, fair enough. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, somehow.Mistwell said: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 youguys created.

For the topic itself though - 'will [4e] succeed?' - I doubt that it really means much, and I've said so, and why. In addition, I've certainly made some mistakes along the way, granted. But at no time have I intentionally set up any 'strawman', and I have no wish to do so. I was arguing the points that I perceived to be there, and that I wanted to respond to, for better or worse.
If I have managed in the process to **** you off or whatever, sorry about that. Not my intent. I honestly haven't seen or heard any data that confirm the future success (i.e., the 'will it succeed' thing) or otherwise of 4e. I'm open to the idea, though.
On that note, it really would be very interesting to see some comparison of early 3.0 sales to early 4e sales, particularly in the months ahead. I seriously do believe that this would help in gauging 4e's relative success. After all, how else does one gauge the success of anything, other than relatively? And there is no true competitor handy for that purpose, as is widely known. So. . . why not the closest, most direct and relevant comparison in existence?
Anyone got some sales data on 3.0 handy? They would be very useful.
If not, cool. I'm happy to leave the topic alone. And hey, if 4e is outselling 3.0 (or is at a point where that can be determined, perhaps), I'm hardly going to protest. Surprised. sure. Protesting, no. For that matter, if 3e turns out to have been outselling 4e at some point, I'll say no more about it.