will 4.0 succeed?

[Storminator]

AS things stand now

4E will be successful, maybe a big success.
DI will not be successful, at best it will be a mediocre income stream.

If DDI is a mediocre income stream, isn't that a step up from what they had before? It might be that even if it doesn't make a ton of money, but regularizes the revenue, it's successful.

Overall, I think 4e will be a huge hit. Remember when the 3e PHB was in Amazon's top 100 sellers? Do you know where the gift set is?

PS

 

[Dragonblade]

D&D 4 will be a huge success. By this time next year, I say that 95% of existing player base will have switched editions, including almost everyone who has said they will stay with 3.5 or play Pathfinder.

D&D 4 will be a huge success because of two simple reasons:

1) Its just flat out fun to play 4e on both sides of screen.
2) Its EASY to DM 4e games.

Eliminating the barriers to DM entry will be a key factor in its success. 4e advocates unable to find a group will find it easy to offer to run games instead. And once they convince their friends to try a game, for the most part they will enjoy themselves.

They may still tell themselves things like "I don't consider it 'true' D&D," to assuage their conversion guilt, but over time most will find that they just can't go back to the clunkiness of prior editions. D&D 4e will be insidious that way.

 

[Imp]

I bet it does ok, but I'd be surprised if it makes the RPG market grow a whole lot.

It'll get a good amount of free press, but it doesn't seem like WOTC/Hasbro really has it together for a big push to sell the game to new players.

I'd imagine the first-year "conversion" rate to be ~70% maybe. Hard to tell because a fair number of people may buy the books without really "switching" as such.

 

[Ranes]

By this time next year, I say that 95% of existing player base will have switched editions...

Talk to a bookmaker. I think he'll give you good odds.

D&D 4 will be a huge success because of two simple reasons:

1) Its just flat out fun to play 4e on both sides of screen.

You don't have enough experience with it to know that for certain. You haven't DMed a high level 4e game or a game with any of the classes people are waiting for that won't appear till PHB [rolls d6] 4.

2) Its EASY to DM 4e games.

See my previous response.

Don't get me wrong; I'll be delighted if 4e becomes a success, even if it isn't for me.

To throw my 2cp into the debate: I think 4e will be moderately successful, in terms that I suspect Hasbro will consider moderate. I haven't read anything about 4e that convinces me it's less clunky than 3.x. I've read some things that I think make it sound less complex and I've read a lot of responses to those changes that make me think that a significant number of players don't find those simplifications to their taste.

I've read nothing that convinces me that this edition will pull in any more players than any previous edition. There are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with the design philosophy of 4e that make me believe it will not pull in more players than previous editions.

Everything, without exception, that I've read about DDI tells me that it's going to be clunky and incomplete in terms of the status of official print product at any stage.

Everything I've read tells me that 4e is going to the basis for a slew of books that will ultimately present players with many of the same problems as players of 3e. (For example: "How do I tell a player that he can't have what he wants because I don't have that book and don't know it?" "This class/feature is unbalanced compared to core options.")

Normally, fans nostalgic for older editions are accused of seeing things through rose tinted glasses. In the case of 4e advocates, I have the nagging suspicion that it's the other way round.

Differ if you will but please don't do me the disservice of calling me a 4e hater. I love D&D and I want any new version to be successful, even if I prefer an older one (ie - in the interests of full disclosure - 3.5). I don't believe there's one true D&D. If I did, I wouldn't be playing 3.5.

But I have my doubts about 4e. And those doubts extend towards the degree of success it will enjoy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dragonblade By this time next year, I say that 95% of existing player base will have switched editions...

Given the number of people still playing older editions than 3.X by preference, I'd call that highly unlikely.

Combine that with the (admittedly) anecdotal evidence of those who (like myself) are finding 4Ed to be full of changes they don't like, I'd say 65% of 3.X players would be a good- but not sure- bet though.

Ranes, post #64

<Many good points>

Agreed, agreed.

 

[Dragon Snack]

I might not be the typical computer gamer, but I honestly believe that a lot of people don't care that much about "flashy" computer games, as they care about a satisfying play experience and good gameplay. And D&D can provide that just as well as a video game. Computer Games just have the "instant use" option - turn on your computer/console, fire up the game, and you play. That's why I believe that the DDI aspects can become very important...

I agree with the satisfying game experience, that IS a major factor to a successful game, but don't doubt that making it look good isn't a big factor. After all, how successful are text based computer games today? I'm sure someone will be along to point out one, but the big dogs are definitely visual based.

For the DI to succeed it has to bring in current and lapsed gamers. I find it hard to believe that tons of new gamers will embrace it, given the other options available to them.

 

[Dice4Hire]

If DDI is a mediocre income stream, isn't that a step up from what they had before? It might be that even if it doesn't make a ton of money, but regularizes the revenue, it's successful.
PS

Yes, but the difference between income stream and profit-maker is a huge one. I never said it would be profitable. In fat, I do not think it will be, but some people will use it.

Though some of them (and very unlikely, but maybe me) will sign up only once or twice a year to read all the goodies. Though I doubt I will do that.

 

[Tetsubo]

Another way to see it is to say that if you change a system long enough, it might become actually a lot better then it's original form, and that this was the goal of the game in the first place, and is the most important thing.
Or that D&D 4 is a typical example of trying to create a system that is just simply better in many ways, even if some of the changes might feel extreme...

Judging by the "Is D&D 4 Retro" thread, 4E does contain a lot of elements that lead us back to previous editions, while also changing a lot of things from previous editions, and it only matters which part of the things it kept are in your personal definition of "what makes D&D", and what are in the part of things that were changed...

And if the consumers of the game have to add enough House Rules to make a system work, it sucked to begin with. House Rules should be optional, not required,.

 

[Will]

Well, I keep hearing about how 1e was the best edition BECAUSE it required lots of house rules.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Normally, fans nostalgic for older editions are accused of seeing things through rose tinted glasses. In the case of 4e advocates, I have the nagging suspicion that it's the other way round.

*Bumps Nose* Ding ding ding ding ding!

My sneeking suspician is that those excited about 4E sight unseen are more excited about the POTENTIAL of what 4E could do rather then what 4E ACTUALLY is. I have a feeling that the "15 minute" day will continue after everyone blows their daily powers in the first combat. I have a feeling that the rules lawyering will continue as will munchkining and certain rules being to clunky and "to much math" and plenty of other complaints about the current edition, just presented in different ways. So really, I don't see how 4E is going to fix any of this.