|
Linky here.
Twilight and its sequels took the first five spots? Argh! Small Favors by Jim Butcher (#124) is way, way better!
Linky here.
Twilight and its sequels took the first five spots? Argh! Small Favors by Jim Butcher (#124) is way, way better!
More figures from their bestseller database:
Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook Edition 3.5
Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams
The rulebook for creating characters to use in the role playing game (NF) (H)
Weeks in
Top 150:
2
Current position:
-
Entered
Top 150:
7/24/2003
Peak
Position:
57
Last
appeared:
7/31/2003
Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook
Wizards of the Coast
Subtitle: "Roleplaying Game Core Rules" (NF) (H)
Weeks in
Top 150:
4
Current position:
-
Entered
Top 150:
6/12/2008
Peak
Position:
47
Last
appeared:
7/3/2008
Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook 2
Mike Mearls, James Wyatt and Jeremy Crawford
The rulebook for creating characters to use in the role playing game (NF) (H)
Weeks in
Top 150:
1
Current position:
28
Entered
Top 150:
3/26/2009
Peak
Position:
28
Last
appeared:
3/26/2009
The 4th Edition Player's Handbook was higher on the best-seller list than the 3.5 PHB, and stayed on the best-seller list for twice as long. The 4th Edition Player's Handbook 2 is dramatically higher on the best-seller list than both of the others ever were.
But yeah, everyone knows that 4th Edition is doomed and is selling terribly.
Thanks for finding this, joela.
|
|
I wonder about the Monster Manual numbers.From the USA Today database:
Monster Manual (3.0)
Skip Williams
Core rule book for the Dungeons and Dragons game (NF) (H)Weeks in Top 150: 2 Current position: -
Entered Top 150: 10/26/2000 Peak Position: 58
Last appeared: 11/2/2000* * * * *
Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual (3.5)
Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, and Monte Cook
A catalogue of monsters players may encounter during their Dungeons & Dragons adventures (NF) (H)Weeks in Top 150: 1 Current position: -
Entered Top 150: 7/24/2003 Peak Position: 112
Last appeared: 7/24/2003* * * * *
Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual (4e)
Wizards of the Coast
Subtitle: "Roleplaying Game Core Rules" (NF) (H)Weeks in Top 150: 1 Current position: -
Entered Top 150: 6/12/2008 Peak Position: 143
Last appeared: 6/12/2008
These numbers don't favor 4e as much as the PHB... Odd, isn't one of the complaints that 4e is fun to play, but not so much to DM? The sales data on DMGs doesn't exactly help...
Dungeon Master's Guide (3.0)
Monte Cook
Core rule book for the Dungeons and Dragons game that allows a dungeon master to run a game (NF) (H)Weeks in Top 150: 2 Current position: -
Entered Top 150: 9/21/2000 Peak Position: 58
Last appeared: 9/28/2000* * * * *
Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide (3.5)
Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams
The guide for running a Dungeons & Dragons adventure (NF) (H)Weeks in Top 150: 1 Current position: -
Entered Top 150: 7/24/2003 Peak Position: 92
Last appeared: 7/24/2003* * * * *
Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide (4e)
Wizards of the Coast
Subtitle: "Roleplaying Game Core Rules" (NF) (H)Weeks in Top 150: 1 Current position: -
Entered Top 150: 6/12/2008 Peak Position: 128
Last appeared: 6/12/2008
Before anybody says anything in reaction to this data, keep in mind the stupidity of using relative sales data to argue "my edition's better than yours is". Just because a given edition's PHB, DMG, or MM sold highly in its release week could just mean mediocre sales on a terrible week made them look decently by comparison. Without absolute sales figures, there's nothing to argue here.
How are the books in the three book sets counted? As the three individual books or as the single 3-book set? Most of the DMing people that I know bought the sets when they came out for 4E. If the books didn't get counted separately, that might explain some of the lower than expected ranking for the Monster Manual.
But yeah, everyone knows that 4th Edition is doomed and is selling terribly.
It is?
I'll be sure to pass that on then.
These numbers don't favor 4e as much as the PHB... Odd, isn't one of the complaints that 4e is fun to play, but not so much to DM? The sales data on DMGs doesn't exactly help...
Well, that could just be because the average party (four players, one DM) would want to buy five Player's Handbooks but only one or two of them would buy the Dungeon Master's Guide. If nothing else, I only bought the DMG because it seemed like an entertaining read and I still haven't bought the Monster Manual because I would never use it.
You guys missed the core gift set sales numbers:
Dungeons and Dragons Core Rulebook Gift Set
Weeks in Top 150: 2
Current position: -
Entered Top 150: 6/12/2008
Peak Position: 57
Last appeared: 6/19/2008
There's your disparity. The core set sold better than both the 3e MM and the 3e DMG. That the individual books made the top 150 as well pretty much tells you how much stronger 4e's sales have been.
|
|
OK, the gift set sold well. "Well", relative to the other stuff that was out at the same time. But there's that key word there, "relative". There's no absolute quantifiable data here on sales figures, 3.0, 3.5, or 4e to be gleaned from the database. Get figures for how many thousand copies sold the first week, or the first month, or whatever, that's when comparisons can be made.
Fiddle faddle. You yourself were comparing sales figures between 3.5e and 4e.
In general, saying that the numbers may be different due to deltas between dates isn't valid- you may have a point if we compared, say, the week before Christmas to the week before tax day. But the release dates coincide each year and we're talking about #57, not #1. Every booklist will tell you that #10 and below are extremely consistent, with the top ten varying wildly based on the popularity of the books.
Rouse and company stated that 4e's sales dwarfed that of 3e and 3.5e. This data is consistent with that statement. And sales of PHBII indicate that initial sales are apparently quite sustainable.
If I remember correctly, 3.5 sales dwarfed 3.0 sales as well. Rather than using this as new ammo to the "edition wars" arsenal, let's just safely assume more people are playing D&D than ever before. Which, no matter what edition you play, should be a good thing.
OK, the gift set sold well. "Well", relative to the other stuff that was out at the same time. But there's that key word there, "relative". There's no absolute quantifiable data here on sales figures, 3.0, 3.5, or 4e to be gleaned from the database. Get figures for how many thousand copies sold the first week, or the first month, or whatever, that's when comparisons can be made.
When Amazon.com rankings were brought up earlier, the criticism was that Amazon.com isn't an accurate representation of book sales because it [is internet only / offered discounts / whatever]. Now you have accurate representations of book sales, and the criticism is that somehow relative data doesn't tell us anything?
That's the sound of the goalposts moving. I think it's safe to say that "4th Edition isn't selling well," is no longer a claim that can be defended.
Chief Technical Officer
|
OK, the gift set sold well. "Well", relative to the other stuff that was out at the same time. But there's that key word there, "relative". There's no absolute quantifiable data here on sales figures, 3.0, 3.5, or 4e to be gleaned from the database. Get figures for how many thousand copies sold the first week, or the first month, or whatever, that's when comparisons can be made.When Amazon.com rankings were brought up earlier, the criticism was that Amazon.com isn't an accurate representation of book sales because it [is internet only / offered discounts / whatever]. Now you have accurate representations of book sales, and the criticism is that somehow relative data doesn't tell us anything?
That's the sound of the goalposts moving. I think it's safe to say that "4th Edition isn't selling well," is no longer a claim that can be defended.
This is good and useful data, but it *is* true that it's relative, so the conclusions to be drawn from it *are* limited. The data absolutely does not definitely support the conclusion that 4e is outselling 3.5. Neither does it suggest that it isn't. Higher rank in different weeks is NOT equal to higher sales Heck, that's pretty clear from the data itself--if you believe that rank is a consistent indicator across weeks, then you have to believe that PHB2 has outsold PHB1, and I don't think anybody would agree that that's true.
If you want definitive, that *must* come in the form of "number of copies sold," and from a source that is both representative and reliable.
For me, that is where the "goalposts" are now and have always been.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
By the way, I do know a bit about the data source they're using here. It's far more representative than Amazon's data, but it still isn't the complete picture, as it includes almost none of the hobby retailers, including Paizo. (If it did, I'm confident the relative rankings for D&D would be even higher.)
For me, that is where the "goalposts" are now and have always been.
And that's really it. Whose goalposts are we talking about?
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall anyone claiming 4e isn't selling well. (If I saw any claims, it must have been from some one I disregarded.)
At best so far, I have seen people question 4e sales because they weren't seeing it sell in their area...
Personally, my 'goalposts' are in the "is 4e selling as well as Hasbro/WotC need it to be?" That is the most important question of all. (Before anyone makes any claims about "it is outselling 3e," that is all well and good. But is it outselling enough for the companies to keep the brand alive?)
And because I was bored and people were throwing numbers around:
The 3e Player's Handbook data
Player's Handbook
Authors: Jonathon Tweet, Skip Williams, Monty Cook
Rules for the Dungeons and Dragons game (NF) (H)
Weeks in the Top 150: 3
Entered Top 150: 8/17/2000
Peak Position: 45
Last Appeared: 8/31/2000
Which puts it's peak position slightly higher than the 4e Player's Handbook, but lasting around a week less that 4e PH on the Top 150.
I don't particularly care what this means and doubt that one can draw many accurate conclusions with just this data. (Well besides the obvious one's like it being good to be on the top seller list) [Edit: Or what Vic Wertz says below]
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
In general, saying that the numbers may be different due to deltas between dates isn't valid- you may have a point if we compared, say, the week before Christmas to the week before tax day. But the release dates coincide each year...
Nonsense. The book trade is not flat year-over-year. Anybody will tell you that some years are better than others (this year is bad). And even if they were, and even if they did come out the same week, if that happened to be the week that, say, a new Harry Potter book came out, that would also cause fluctuation.
Now, don't get me wrong--this data does show that 4E is doing well in the book trade... but don't be fooled into thinking it tells you much about how it compares to previous editions.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
By the way, I do know a bit about the data source they're using here. It's far more representative than Amazon's data, but it still isn't the complete picture, as it includes almost none of the hobby retailers, including Paizo. (If it did, I'm confident the relative rankings for D&D would be even higher.)
By the way, one great thing about this data source is that it's compiled from POS scan data. So, unlike the Alliance rankings we discussed in a previous thread, which represent sales to stores (and thus includes copies that are still sitting on shelves at retailers), this source includes only copies that have actually been sold to customers.
It's not flawless, though, as it only includes books that pass through bar-coded scanners; if a book is stolen, it's not counted; if the barcode won't scan, it's not counted; if the book is rung manually, it's not counted. On the other hand, if the customer returns the book and the store doesn't do the return via a process that includes scannong the barcode into the POS system, then the returned copy *is* counted, even though it shouldn't be.
|
|
Rather than using this as new ammo to the "edition wars" arsenal, let's just safely assume more people are playing D&D than ever before. Which, no matter what edition you play, should be a good thing.
Good point. That's what I'm hearing from some of my FLGS. D&D and M:tG, form the meat & potatoes of their game sales and seem to be growing. Good to hear in this recession.
|
|
By the way, one great thing about this data source is that it's compiled from POS scan data. So, unlike the Alliance rankings we discussed in a previous thread, which represent sales to stores (and thus includes copies that are still sitting on shelves at retailers), this source includes only copies that have actually been sold to customers.It's not flawless, though, as it only includes books that pass through bar-coded scanners; if a book is stolen, it's not counted; if the barcode won't scan, it's not counted; if the book is rung manually, it's not counted. On the other hand, if the customer returns the book and the store doesn't do the return via a process that includes scannong the barcode into the POS system, then the returned copy *is* counted, even though it shouldn't be.
I'm totally lost here :(
I'm totally lost here :(
By the way, one great thing about this data source is that it's compiled from POS scan data. So, unlike the Alliance rankings we discussed in a previous thread, which represent sales to stores (and thus includes copies that are still sitting on shelves at retailers), this source includes only copies that have actually been sold to customers.It's not flawless, though, as it only includes books that pass through bar-coded scanners; if a book is stolen, it's not counted; if the barcode won't scan, it's not counted; if the book is rung manually, it's not counted. On the other hand, if the customer returns the book and the store doesn't do the return via a process that includes scannong the barcode into the POS system, then the returned copy *is* counted, even though it shouldn't be.
POS = Point of Sale
It means, this data counts books that are rung through at the register, i.e., bought and paid for.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
In general, saying that the numbers may be different due to deltas between dates isn't valid- you may have a point if we compared, say, the week before Christmas to the week before tax day. But the release dates coincide each year...Nonsense. The book trade is not flat year-over-year. Anybody will tell you that some years are better than others (this year is bad). And even if they were, and even if they did come out the same week, if that happened to be the week that, say, a new Harry Potter book came out, that would also cause fluctuation.
Now, don't get me wrong--this data does show that 4E is doing well in the book trade... but don't be fooled into thinking it tells you much about how it compares to previous editions.
...which reminds me of another issue with this data source: the list of book retailers that it includes has changed over time. I recall that one of the major book chains was added only recently (I forget which one, but it was Barnes-and-Noble-ish in size). Unfortunately, this means that even if they reported the exact number of copies they were counting, you still wouldn't be able to do definitive comparisons--the newer list would have the advantage of including more stores.
"...which reminds me of another issue with this data source: the list of book retailers that it includes has changed over time. I recall that one of the major book chains was added only recently (I forget which one, but it was Barnes-and-Noble-ish in size). Unfortunately, this means that even if they reported the exact number of copies they were counting, you still wouldn't be able to do definitive comparisons--the newer list would have the advantage of including more stores."
We're talking about relative sales here, though. Adding more data points doesn't affect things drastically Unless you think that Barnes and Noble (or whichever one was added) sells a far different proportion of D&D books compared to other books. If we were talking about gross sales then you would be absolutely right. As it stands, adding more booksellers only makes the rating more accurate. A side by side comparison would be somewhat problematic if we didn't also have the datapoint that 4e sold better than any previous edition. That the data supports this previous statement lends credence to its validity.
Regardless, I agree with one of the previous posters- this shows that D&D is doing well, which can only be a good thing.
We're talking about relative sales here, though. Adding more data points doesn't affect things drastically Unless you think that Barnes and Noble (or whichever one was added) sells a far different proportion of D&D books compared to other books. If we were talking about gross sales then you would be absolutely right.
Actually the reading I got from your previous posts seemed to make me think that you were talking about the gross sales. You seemed to indicate that gross sales each year (during the same months) for things not in the top 10 don't vary that much, which I believe was the point Vic Wertz was addressing.
Well, referencing the OP, Twilight is occupying the top five slots right now. Ipso facto, Twilight must be way better than any edition of D&D. So let's talk about dreamy, sympathetic vampires :D
Really, though, no one's trying to say that X game is better than Y game. This does show (much like Twilight) that 4th Edition has become pretty popular, though. It's nice to see D&D getting this much action.
|
Well it was built for popularity, honestly. And ofr what it is, it seems like it could be fun. My problems have always been that I personally just don't like how it plays for what I want in a "D&D" game and the completeness of the mythos changes have turned me way off. I've got 20 years there and they can take my Great Wheel from my cold dead hands.
The fact is they built 4.0 to be sellable and to appeal to a broader spectrum of people and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it changes the game and in some peoples eyes, a little too much.
I may not like 4e, but good sales for 4e means good things for RPG's as a whole. So while I may not like it I do not wish to see it sell poorly at all. D&D tends to be the RPG gateway drug after all
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We're talking about relative sales here, though. Adding more data points doesn't affect things drastically Unless you think that Barnes and Noble (or whichever one was added) sells a far different proportion of D&D books compared to other books. If we were talking about gross sales then you would be absolutely right.Actually the reading I got from your previous posts seemed to make me think that you were talking about the gross sales. You seemed to indicate that gross sales each year (during the same months) for things not in the top 10 don't vary that much, which I believe was the point Vic Wertz was addressing.
Yep--it was.
We're talking about relative sales here, though. Adding more data points doesn't affect things drastically Unless you think that Barnes and Noble (or whichever one was added) sells a far different proportion of D&D books compared to other books. If we were talking about gross sales then you would be absolutely right.Actually the reading I got from your previous posts seemed to make me think that you were talking about the gross sales. You seemed to indicate that gross sales each year (during the same months) for things not in the top 10 don't vary that much, which I believe was the point Vic Wertz was addressing.
To tell you the truth, I'm not quite sure what I meant with the second paragraph of the "fiddle faddle" response. That year-to-year variance does matter is obvious, but what I wrote certainly doesn't imply that. The poster I was referencing tried to play it both ways- comparing relative positions of the MM and DMG when he thought they showed what he wanted and then dismissing them when it turns out that they didn't. That's even worse an argument than mine.
And my later point stands. We have two independent pieces of information: Rouse saying that 4e outsold its predecessors, and the rankings implying the same (while clearly omitting gross sales). Assuming that Rouse isn't lying, it appears that the variance between years wasn't great enough to skew the relative results.
To tell you the truth, I'm not quite sure what I meant with the second paragraph of the "fiddle faddle" response. That year-to-year variance does matter is obvious, but what I wrote certainly doesn't imply that. The poster I was referencing tried to play it both ways- comparing relative positions of the MM and DMG when he thought they showed what he wanted and then dismissing them when it turns out that they didn't. That's even worse an argument than mine.
And my later point stands. We have two independent pieces of information: Rouse saying that 4e outsold its predecessors, and the rankings implying the same (while clearly omitting gross sales). Assuming that Rouse isn't lying, it appears that the variance between years wasn't great enough to skew the relative results.
From what I saw the other poster dismissed them before that it was revealed that they didn't. Besides, does it really matter how bad that other argument was if your argument was bad too? That doesn't make your position any better to myself.
I still think that you are trying to extrapolate too much information from the rankings. The rankings say that the 4e Player's Handbook (by itself) had a peak ranking above the 3.5 Player's Handbook and below the 3rd edition Player's Handbook. It doesn't say that the 4e is doing vastly better than previous editions. It doesn't say it isn't either. It is quite possible that had they only matched the sales of previous editions that it would have only had to be the 80th at it's peak, or it might have reached the 30th ranking to match it.
I'm not saying that Rouse was lying or that your conclusion is incorrect, only that I think that it is improper to use it to draw the conclusions you are reaching.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
So Vic, since you mention the flaws in these methods of ranking, does Paizo look at anything other than raw sales numbers when determining the success of a release? Don't the number of subscriptions and such impact that?
Sure. Sales rankings are nice, but ultimately pretty meaningless. Even sales figures are only part of the story--it doesn't matter how many copies you sell if your costs are too high. Profitability, not volume, is the real goal for most products. But then there's also something called "opportunity cost"--even if we made a profitable product, is there something else we could have been doing with those employees and that capital that would be even more profitable?
For some products, though, profitability isn't even the main goal. Take the Pathfinder RPG Beta--that was designed to break even, more or less; our main goal was to bring people in to the playtest. Similarly, our Free RPG Day products aren't about money.
Of course, customer reaction is also important; if we made tons of money on a product that alienated our core audience, we wouldn't be too happy about it.
In short, there are lots of things we look at, and different products have different goals, and different ways of measuring success.
Not to rain on anybody's relative sales parade, but since the book retail industry as a whole is down this year (and has been declining for several years), isn't it possible that basically the gross sales of D&D products are flat (at least statistically) but are growing as a percentage of overall book sales?
Plus, I think there's been a plague of RPG/Comic/hobby store closings, who often don't do barcode-scan sales, and thus their absence may have pushed more purchasers over to the big-box retailers (and online retailers). Not to mention the likely year-over-year increase in illegal distribution of RPG materials. I don't think anyone was filesharing the 3.0 (or even 3.5!) books when they came out.
Popularity of the hobby (or specific systems/editions) and commercial health of the industry overall are related, but it's a fairly complex relationship.
Not to rain on anybody's relative sales parade, but since the book retail industry as a whole is down this year (and has been declining for several years),
Could you provide a source on this? Data I've seen from Book Industry TRENDS shows nominal or flat growth in the book industry, current and predicted through 2012.
isn't it possible that basically the gross sales of D&D products are flat (at least statistically) but are growing as a percentage of overall book sales?
In order for your theory to hold up, there would need to be a significant decline in industry sales as a whole for D&D products to shift up like that. Unless you have data that I'm not aware of, current industry trends and projections don't support that.
One of the sources of my data.
Not to mention the likely year-over-year increase in illegal distribution of RPG materials. I don't think anyone was filesharing the 3.0 (or even 3.5!) books when they came out.
While filesharing is clearly more widespread now than it was in 2000 or 2003, an increase in pirated e-books should translate to a drop in sales, not the higher relative sales figures that we're seeing now.
Not to rain on anybody's relative sales parade, but since the book retail industry as a whole is down this year (and has been declining for several years),Could you provide a source on this? Data I've seen from Book Industry TRENDS shows nominal or flat growth in the book industry, current and predicted through 2012.
While filesharing is clearly more widespread now than it was in 2000 or 2003, an increase in pirated e-books should translate to a drop in sales, not the higher relative sales figures that we're seeing now.
I'm not talking future predictions, I'm talking past facts. Book retail revenue is up because book prices are up, not necessarily because people are buying more books. It's much like how domestic box office receipts have been increasing slightly the last couple years, except that actual ticket sale numbers have decreased. You can check out the NY Times, the trade papers, the business journals, wherever you like - the print publishing industry is hurting and has been for a while now.
As for filesharing, it affects books (and other media) across the board in any given year, so while it might not affect relative sales figures in a year at all, it would be a consideration when trying to compare year-to-year.
I'm not trying to play Cassandra here. I sincerely hope that print (and all media) find a business model that weathers the next several decades. I'm just saying that a number of factors are involved in relative sales rankings, and you have to look at the industry and market as a whole if you're going to read deeper meaning into it.
I'm not talking future predictions, I'm talking past facts. Book retail revenue is up because book prices are up, not necessarily because people are buying more books. It's much like how domestic box office receipts have been increasing slightly the last couple years, except that actual ticket sale numbers have decreased. You can check out the NY Times, the trade papers, the business journals, wherever you like - the print publishing industry is hurting and has been for a while now.
If you'd read the source article I provided you'd know that unit sales were up slightly in 2008 (at 3.127 billion), and that unit sales are projected to rise (to 3.15 billion) by 2012.
If the book industry is hurting, it's because they're not growing swiftly. If the growth rate is flat it shouldn't make relative sales dip in the way you're describing in order to elevate D&D books.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
You also need to account somehow for how RPG books are selling in relation to other books. If the industry as a whole is experiencing flat sales, but RPG books are up 10%, then RPG books will have a higher rank on this year's top 150 lists compared to RPG books on a previous year.
|
Contributor
|
Just to throw a few more points out there to consider, I'm pretty sure the marketing on 4e is considerably more intensive than 3.0 or 3.5 ever were.
True story- I was playing 2nd Ed pretty regularly through the '90s. When the Black covered reprints came out, we had a look at them, but they seemed to be the same books, so we didn't bother to buy them.
I happened to be walking past a bookstore that had the 3.0 player's handbook in a display at the front, picked it up and flipped through it, realized it was a total revamp of the game and bought it.
Later I learned that this was 3rd edition. The internet has become a much more pervasive entity in the decade since, and now I knew more than a year in advance that 4th ed was coming. I bought the 3 core books, but still haven't played. I bought them within a week of release.
My point is that 4e may have had it's sales skewed to it's initial release far more than previous editions simply by virtue of the heavier marketing campaign and the wider use of the internet in modern times.
And beyond all that we can talk about fourth edition's place in "D&D-dom" after a couple of years when it's actually out (assuming they don't do a 4.5) and has had a chance to actually run on it's own after the 4th ed splats, errata, and the like. After all I like 3.5... but I still play 2nd ed whenever I have the chance. Once we get past the actual release of 4th ed, then we can start to see something about it (in my opinion it's not released until it can do what the previous editions did, which 4th ed still can't say it can do).
And beyond all that we can talk about fourth edition's place in "D&D-dom" after a couple of years when it's actually out (assuming they don't do a 4.5) and has had a chance to actually run on it's own after the 4th ed splats, errata, and the like. After all I like 3.5... but I still play 2nd ed whenever I have the chance. Once we get past the actual release of 4th ed, then we can start to see something about it (in my opinion it's not released until it can do what the previous editions did, which 4th ed still can't say it can do).
So...a game isn't released until it's caught up to all previous editions, even though by the time it's caught up it is, presumably, time for an edition change since it took previous editions the same amount of time to reach this level of material after which the new edition was promptly released?
Are you saying we can't tell anything about the new edition until after it's over? I find this particular metric lacking quite a bit.
That's fine by me Scott because that's the metric I use for my start time. 2nd could do what 1st could do when it came out. 3rd ed could just about do everything second ed could do when it came out with its core 3. You could do monster race characters, you could do multiclass characters, and you could hit all the base classes. Granted somethings where new but all the 'core' material from the previous edition was there. I was highly annoyed when they switched over to 3.5 and made so many new changes, but 3.5 could still do what 3.5 could do, and was backwards compatible to boot.
I can't say the same about 4th edition yet. Major races are missing, meaning that some characters can't be 'reborn' in the new edition yet. Significant classes are still missing, and several of the "key features" of the previous editions are not completely supported yet. Until I can actually full on play 4th edition like I can previous editions, it's just a beta.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen 4th edition played, it does catch my eye, and I'm fully willing to give it ago, but it's not complete yet on a basic level, nevermind when the errata comes out, and splat books start really hitting the shelves. My only caveat for 4th ed right now is that I must realise that it is to D&D as 3.0 was to 2nd ed. It's not the same game.
That's fine by me Scott because that's the metric I use for my start time. 2nd could do what 1st could do when it came out. 3rd ed could just about do everything second ed could do when it came out with its core 3. You could do monster race characters, you could do multiclass characters, and you could hit all the base classes. Granted somethings where new but all the 'core' material from the previous edition was there. I was highly annoyed when they switched over to 3.5 and made so many new changes, but 3.5 could still do what 3.5 could do, and was backwards compatible to boot.
Hmm, I think you're talking about edition release maturity, right? 4e won't have matured as an edition (by this metric) until it covers at least all of the supported universes & play-environments (urban/dungeon/wilderness/planar/etc.), which is maybe early 2010, I think. Not that it's unplayable, just that it's not quite ready-for-primetime.
Sounds reasonable, assuming I understand where you're coming from. Eberron folks, for instance, probably still have to homebrew adventure-conversions with little guidance until their World Guide comes out. And there still isn't anywhere near the 3rd-party adventure/info support for 4e that the last couple editions had (for lots of reasons that aren't really relevant to the current discussion). So perhaps any edition-acceptance/success comparisons are incomplete at best at this point.