Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 8690631" data-attributes="member: 4348">The information doesn't jive exactly with what I've seen in the past.  The graphs look about right in shape and form, but the numbers differ somewhat from what I've seen.That said, there may be some gaping holes in the information he has gotten.  I don't think he has access to some of the papers as I don't think he's gone to the actual sources with the hardcopy with the paperwork (that's not to fault him though, even WotC and their reports I think we off of small indications and minimal accounting papers, but not the actual financial paperwork done at the time, at least prior to the early 90s???).  I don't think he's even asked most of those who were involved with the early days paperwork and accounting (doesn' t mean he has not, just it doesn't feel he has or the numbers presented may be somewhat different).  The other question is if these papers even still exist.  Last I heard (and that would be hearsay I suppose), some of them were piled up in white file/book boxes in a place that definitely was not a good area for storing things.Places that COULD be looked at for some solid numbers of sales of them if he could access their databases...KB Toys database for actual sales of books, WaldenBooks and B. Dalton books for actual sales numbers, Toys R Us for sales numbers....and several other outlets that carried the books and sets.  Many of these companies are now defunct and getting that information would be...difficult, but maybe less so than those that are still holding onto privacy concerns in relation to law and legal obstructions.  It may also require a LOT more research and going after that information than he wants to spend (Especially in costs vs. what is expected in sales for his book).For early days, I would think you would HAVE to have an in with either the  Blumes or Gygax's (if they even kept that type of paperwork) or those who did their financials (which probably were the Blumes or Gygax's themselves, but if not, whoever it was that did it, though good luck getting it from an accountant in that situation).  I don't think that information was ever given out beyond their small circle.  If that's his source, I'm not sure how other sources would feel about him going to them.  That could be an antagonistic conflict of sources right there.  I suppose Mentzer might have been in with the knowledge of at least some of it.  MAYBE Kuntz?  If he was approached he probably could tell us as he is on these forums.If they weren't asked, I'm not sure where he could be getting his information on early sales and be accurate...but maybe there is some super secret source we've never heard of that was there (and actually was close enough to the gygax's to be granted a look at the actual numbers...not sure who that would be though)?PS:  AS for the Red Box and Basic, it was a Mega seller from what I understand.  Millions of copies sold if I remember right.  Mentzer has mentioned the numbers on that previously (though, I think in other locations).  I don't want to say the exact number that's been stated, as I may be remembering wrong, but it was a LOT of copies.  That would not be the Red Box in general I think but specifically the BECMI version?  AT least that's the impression I was under, the graphs present much lower numbers than what I've heard from those who were there...which is...interesting???PPS: As far as the chart goes, from the mid to late 80s you can see that the sales of AD&D were greater than Basic, if you go just by the chart.  For later, that is only 1e, not 2e.  After 2e's release you can see low sales of 1e in relation to the Basic sales.  That shouldn't be that hard to figure out why that would be.  Eyeballing it though, the sales numbers seem a bit lower than what has been talked about in the past from those who were there....Could it be because it's not taking into account ALL the sales that were done?  I'm not sure.  It's not looking exactly right from my perspective from a numbers game though.  Graphs probably look good overall in shape, but numbers seem to be off??? or something???</blockquote>

Verification