WotC still has "it" apparently

[Mouseferatu]

As an author--and therefore, by definition, insecure--I often check Amazon ranks on my novels even though I know that said numbers are pretty much meaningless.

How meaningless? Well, when the stock of certain books gets low, Amazon will say "Only X left in stock." So occasionally, it's possible to track how many books they sell over the course of a few hours.

I've seen the sale of one book knock an entire digit off the end of a book's sales rank. They're that fluid.

Bottom line? WotC doing well or poorly, Paizo doing well or poorly, Amazon's numbers prove absolutely nothing.

 

[Perram]

Whether or not Amazon's numbers are good or bad, and whether or not 4e is doing good or poor...

This book will sell well.

Why?

It is the first true supplement to get released for MONTHs. 4e players have had nothing to buy for months, and this will naturally sell, because... what else are they going to buy?

 

[DumbPaladin]

Question of propriety

[MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION], was there something about the fact that the last thread on this topic was forcibly closed, and had quite a few people personally attacking one another, and led to pages of pages of people all arguing something that neither side can ever prove ... that led you to believe starting a NEW thread about it was the right move?

This is post #13 and there are already people above this post throwing insults around. On page 1!

This was not a thread that needed to be started.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Threads like this bother me. They promote division with no Discernable gain. I mean take the Q4 numbers released by icv2 not long ago. Shows d&d is still king. Good for them. I fully expect Q1 numbers to show pathfinder to be 1 and d&d to slip to 2. Wotc didn't release anything major last quarter so naturally they're going to slip some.

But at the end of the day, yes WotC still has "it". They're the largest company staffed by some of the brightest minds in the industry. Amazon sales numbers or icv2 numbers don't change that. They're going to churn out brilliant material no matter how it sales. And with as few titles they're releasing this year, I expect them all to do exceptionally well.

Having said all that it is possible for Pathfinder to surpass d&d this year by shear volume of titles.

 

[Fifth Element]

When you lay the hypocrisy on that thickly, you're probably better off bottling and selling it.

Man what? Where's the hypocrisy in pointing out that Amazon rankings are not a reliable source for anything? That's what I said when Pathfinder was at the top of the list, and I'm saying it now that D&D is at the top of the list.

My point was merely that if you want to argue that Pathfinder has clearly and undeniable overtaken D&D, this data point is something you'd have to explain.

 

[Fifth Element]

It is the first true supplement to get released for MONTHs. 4e players have had nothing to buy for months, and this will naturally sell, because... what else are they going to buy?

This could very well be part of WotC's strategy. By limiting the number of physical products, maybe they believe that a larger proportion of their market will buy each specific product?

 

[dmccoy1693]

This could very well be part of WotC's strategy. By limiting the number of physical products, maybe they believe that a larger proportion of their market will buy each specific product?

Hate to tell you this, but cutting back on things that generate revenue is not a good sign. It means that certain segments are under performing. Fewer titles will help them to maximmize profits, but it also means fewer profits overall. When it happens to employees it's called downsizing.

I'm sure they're doing fine financially, but reducing your number of upcoming products to sale is not a good sign.

 

[Perram]

Hate to tell you this, but cutting back on things that generate revenue is not a good sign. It means that certain segments are under performing. Fewer titles will help them to maximmize profits, but it also means fewer profits overall. When it happens to employees it's called downsizing.

I'm sure they're doing fine financially, but reducing your number of upcoming products to sale is not a good sign.

While I won't call it a good thing that they've cut product, 5th is right that it is part of the their compensation strategy. Though you are right. Scaling back product to match demand / productivity is always a bad sign.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hate to tell you this, but cutting back on things that generate revenue is not a good sign.

Have you heard of product cannibalism? That's where two products offered by the same company compete with each other for sales. If WotC believes that some of their print products were cannibalizing others, that might lead to a decision to reduce the number of print products. In theory (in certain circumstances), you could cut your production costs while maintaining revenue.

I'm not saying this is what's happening; I have no idea. Just an idea.

It means that certain segments are under performing. Fewer titles will help them to maximmize profits, but it also means fewer profits overall. When it happens to employees it's called downsizing.

Under performing is relative, of course, and if the performance standards set were unrealistic to begin with, then it's unsurprising. Again, just a possibility, and we don't know.

It also doesn't necessarily mean less profit overall. Selling a smaller number of products can be more profitable if the additional profit on each product is sufficient to cover the difference. That's basic economics.

Again, these are all just ideas, we don't know if they're relevant at all to what's actually happening.

 

[Fifth Element]

While I won't call it a good thing that they've cut product, 5th is right that it is part of the their compensation strategy. Though you are right. Scaling back product to match demand / productivity is always a bad sign.

I disagree that it must be taken as a bad sign. To begin with, a bad sign of what? Beyond that, it can simply reflect a change in strategy, which by itself is not a bad thing either. It can be reflective of problems, but it might also be the product of improved market analysis.