|
(my emphasis)
Thanks for spending the time on this excellent analysis. I hope those who think WotC's move was in order to fight piracy read it twice before responding....For this thought exercise let's assume the population of gamers is inherently ten times more likely to engage in copyright violation than music listeners. I don't think it is a fair assumption, but let's see if it makes a difference in the end. So we'll set the download : lost sale ratio to 500 : 1.
We've been told the pdf download legal : illegal ratio is 1 : 10. So WotC lost 1 / 500 * 10 / 1 = 2% of the legal pdf downloads in sales. We also know the books sales outstripped pdf sales. Unfortunately we don't know figures so let's assume the ratio of book : pdf sales is 2 : 1 (almost certainly too high by an order of magnitude). That means WotC total sales are 150% of book sales and the loss to piracy is about 0.67% of total sales. So at 10x the discovered rate of violation in an easier format, piracy would still have no discernable effect on total number of sales.
As I've said about a half-dozen times now in this thread, there's a plethora of studies out there, from industries of all types, that show why WotC's move was an uneducated attempt to combat a business problem they haven't taken the time to understand effectively.
Thanks for posting this, was a really interesting analysis.
As I've said about a half-dozen times now in this thread, there's a plethora of studies out there, from industries of all types, that show why WotC's move was an uneducated attempt to combat a business problem they haven't taken the time to understand effectively.
Thanks for posting this, was a really interesting analysis.
Agreed, I don't think anyone has actually defended WotC decision to pull OPP pdfs as an intelligent move.
Agreed, I don't think anyone has actually defended WotC decision to pull OPP pdfs as an intelligent move.As I've said about a half-dozen times now in this thread, there's a plethora of studies out there, from industries of all types, that show why WotC's move was an uneducated attempt to combat a business problem they haven't taken the time to understand effectively.
Thanks for posting this, was a really interesting analysis.
I suspect that they're considering making various thing (possibly including out-of-print stuff) available via a web site (where it's slightly harder to make good copies compared to a .pdf). I don't know if that would be an "intelligent move" or not, but I bet some people would pay for it (viz. Monte Cook's dungeonaday.com, for instance).
I suspect that they're considering making various thing (possibly including out-of-print stuff) available via a web site (where it's slightly harder to make good copies compared to a .pdf). I don't know if that would be an "intelligent move" or not, but I bet some people would pay for it (viz. Monte Cook's dungeonaday.com, for instance).Agreed, I don't think anyone has actually defended WotC decision to pull OPP pdfs as an intelligent move.As I've said about a half-dozen times now in this thread, there's a plethora of studies out there, from industries of all types, that show why WotC's move was an uneducated attempt to combat a business problem they haven't taken the time to understand effectively.
Thanks for posting this, was a really interesting analysis.
I wonder how many people who have sworn never to give another cent to WotC will end up changing their minds if that was to happen.
|
Can anyone provide an e-mail address of a hasbro or wotc exec where we can write to?
Has anyone written? A good friend, and game store owner asked me if I had spoken with hasbro. But is it even possible that customer feedback is not getting through?
I can give it a shot...It's called an Executive e-mail Carpet Bomb (EECB for short). Putting together an EECB's pretty easy. First you need to find a list of the e-mail addresses for the:
Board of Directors and/or other VPs.
Then you need to find the layout of their:
"typical" e-mail address which can be confirmed to be the correct format by looking up the user on LinkedIn.
Hey look at that, the person I found happened to be the Manager of Community Relations at Hasbro, Brandon Keough.
Then you combine the two:
Board of Directors
averrecchia@hasbro.com
banderson@hasbro.com
abatkin@hasbro.com
fbiondi@hasbro.com
kbrofin@hasbro.com
jconnors@hasbro.com
mgarrett@hasbro.com
ggee@hasbro.com
bgoldner@hasbro.com
jgreenberg@hasbro.com
ahassenfeld@hasbro.com
tleinbach@hasbro.com
ephilip@hasbro.com
pstern@hasbro.com
Now, write everybody in this list (including Brandon) a politely worded, well thought out e-mail explaining your feelings to the situation. Explain (without threats) what their actions have done to your perceptions of Hasbro and WotC and let them know exactly what you think of their business practices...
And get everybody you know to do the same.
This technique is very powerful and it works. This is speaking from experience. I had cell phone provider issues and was given the run-around for two weeks from T-Mobile. One EECB got me a response directly from the VP of Consumer Affairs and an immediate resolution to my issues (the e-mail came within 2 hours). And stories like mine are very common when it comes to what can come out of a well done EECB. I'm not saying in a situation like this they're suddenly going to release all the PDFs, but it may give the board (who's usually insular from these decisions) a good feeling of exactly what decisions like this are doing to their clients.
|
99.9999999999999999999999999% of the people who own the 10 pirated copies (from the 10-to-1 estimate) WERE NOT GOING TO BUY THE PRODUCT ANYWAY - IN PRINT OR PDF.No, I'm pretty sure that's not true.
I am pretty sure this is true. There is a huge difference between curiosity and making a purchase. If I were to set up a booth where people could enter a building and take a look at flowers of all different colors, for free I would get a lot of people who aren't interested in the flowers at all. Many would come just to see what it looked like. If I charged a dollar then, I would lose a huge chuck of thoes people. Now if I charge $20 I can easily see 99% of my previous onlookers not paying that money. That is what we have here. There are tons of people who have heard about the new prodeuct, but have no interest in paying money for one. If it is available for free, A huge percentage will grab it, look at it once, maybe even just look at a few pages, and then never think about it again.
The idea that the people downloading the book are users of the book is just silly. Do some use it? Absolutley, but only a very small percentage. 1% seems about right in my opinion. (And in my world my opinion mean a lot more than yours.)
|
Let's assume hundreds of thousands core books really means hundreds of thousands player handbooks. If we limit the range to 200,000-900,000 (thereby excluding "just over 100,000" and "nearly a million"), we end up with 302,000 - 1,356,000 book equivalents in use.
That assumption is probably the biggest stumbling block to actually figuring anything out from the phrase "The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies are are now in their third printing." Is he talking about each book of the three core rulebooks, or the core rulebooks as a whole? The language would lead me to believe he's speaking of the collection of books known as the core rulebooks since it's consistent with earlier language in the filing:
In 1978, the original publisher of the game, TSR, released Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, with its comprehensive and elaborate rules contained in the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide core rulebooks. Since that time, the game's rules have principally been detailed in updated versions of those two rulebooks along with the Monster Manual core rulebook. These three core rulebooks have been revised and released in highly anticipated updated editions over the past two decades. TSR released 2nd editions of the core rulebooks in 1989.
16. In 1997, Wizards acquired TSR and began development of 3rd editions of the core rulebooks. This substantially revised set of core rulebooks was released in 2000. Updated to reflect fan feedback, in 2003, Wizards released revised versions of the 3rd edition core rulebooks (version 3.5). These editions enjoyed worldwide success and formed the basis for hundreds of supplemental D&D role-playing game products over the ensuing decade.
17. After years of additional development, and again inspired in part by player feedback, Wizards released a 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons in 2008. The 4th edition provided for more streamlined game play, plus new options for character creation and interaction. Again, the rules were detailed in the three core 4th edition rulebooks. Release of the rulebooks was highly anticipated, and Wizards sponsored a Worldwide Dungeons & Dragons Game Day and coordinated release of the 4th edition with D&D events held around the globe. The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies and are now in their third printing.
Sounds to me like every previous reference to "core rulebooks" was to the collection of books known as the core rulebooks and not each one individually. If this is the case, you can basically take all of the numbers guessed at (some with greater mathematical backing than others) and divide by somewhere between two and three (as it's probably not appropriate to assume that everyone who buys one of the books will buy all three, but most likely will buy two of the three, and some will buy all three... again, wild guessing on my part as I bought none and don't know anyone who has bought them).
As an aside, to anyone who has seen these kind of filings before... are they always filled with marketing spin like this one?
|
|
At least the whole debacle has made me realize that ENWorld is no place for me as a non-4E fan anymore. Too many 4E-fanboys who defend WotC no matter what they do, and would only be too happy if any other D&D game died, and far too few useful talk about roleplaying that's not tied to 4E. So, after 9 years, it's curtains for me there.
Same here. I have been a reader and poster there since it belonged to Eric, and been on all the offshoots (CM, nothinglang, Nutkin, etc) and once I started to see people get talked to because they were bashing 4th, but others say all they wanted to about other editions, I decided it wasn't the place for me. I know they are much better now about being more equal in thier moderation, but for a time there it pissed me off so much, I left, never to look back. (ok, naver=rarely)
Let's assume hundreds of thousands core books really means hundreds of thousands player handbooks. If we limit the range to 200,000-900,000 (thereby excluding "just over 100,000" and "nearly a million"), we end up with 302,000 - 1,356,000 book equivalents in use.
Some individuals acquire multiple copies either for replacement, alternate format use, or other reasons. Other individuals acquire the books, but do not play. Let's assume 10% of acquisitions are negated. The range is now 271,800 - 1,220,400.
Most games have more than one copy of the book. Let's set the average number of books per table at 2. That provides 135,900 - 610,200 games. WotC survey of games found the mode size of a game was 4 players and the DM. That's why the expected party size fell from 6 to 4 in 3e.
That places the number of gamers playing 4e between 679,500 and 3,051,000.
You know it just struck me this morning.
WotC says there are an estimated 6 million D&D players. But there is a bit of misdirection here in that almost all of us realize that this number does not represent 6 million 4e players. WotC then is still counting those that play older editions of Dungeons and Dragons as players. I'm not sure what that means, but I am convinced it means something. :-)
Interestingly, the polls on ENWorld indicate that we should estimate that about 50% of the roleplaying community play 4e. This would put the number at around 3 million.
ENWorld is nowhere near an accurate representation of the roleplaying community. They represent the tabletop equivalent of the "hardcore" (just like the Paizo boards do). The overwhelming majority of ENWorld posters are DMs. Polls from ENWorld cannot be generalized to the gaming population at large.
I'm 100% that it is true.99.9999999999999999999999999% of the people who own the 10 pirated copies (from the 10-to-1 estimate) WERE NOT GOING TO BUY THE PRODUCT ANYWAY - IN PRINT OR PDF.No, I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Not only are you not certain, but I'm still pretty sure it's not true.
|
|
ENWorld is nowhere near an accurate representation of the roleplaying community. They represent the tabletop equivalent of the "hardcore" (just like the Paizo boards do). The overwhelming majority of ENWorld posters are DMs. Polls from ENWorld cannot be generalized to the gaming population at large.
Sure they can. I just did. ^_^
Granted that most ENWorlders are DMs, I am sure of course that you have stastical information to show how the average ENWorlder differentiates from the average DM.
And that you can explain how the gaming habits of DMS, in regards to editions, has no bearing on the gaming habits of the players who play in their games.
ENWorld is nowhere near an accurate representation of the roleplaying community. They represent the tabletop equivalent of the "hardcore" (just like the Paizo boards do). The overwhelming majority of ENWorld posters are DMs. Polls from ENWorld cannot be generalized to the gaming population at large.Sure they can. I just did. ^_^
I should have added: "...with any degree of reliability."
Granted that most ENWorlders are DMs, I am sure of course that you have stastical information to show how the average ENWorlder differentiates from the average DM.
Nope.
And that you can explain how the gaming habits of DMS, in regards to editions, has no bearing on the gaming habits of the players who play in their games.
Not definitively, no. But I know that the DMs generally determine the game that will be played. And I know that, because of the nature of ENWorld, there are a lot of 4th Edition DMs there.
Again, ENWorld is not a reliable sample when you're discussing the tabletop community, for the same reasons that the Paizo board is not a reliable sample.
Scott, no offense, but how can you honestly tell someone that they are or are not certain about a fact. Even if they are wrong (and not saying they are), they still might be rather sincere in their error.
Not only are you not certain, but I'm still pretty sure it's not true.
Sincerity and certainty are not the same animal. Simply put, there is no way for anyone to be certain about statistics like that. The legwork hasn't been done.
|
|
Not definitively, no. But I know that the DMs generally determine the game that will be played. And I know that, because of the nature of ENWorld, there are a lot of 4th Edition DMs there.
According to the last poll, taken in January I believe, the total percentage of 4e players was only about 50%. A good percentage of us had never even tried it and an increasing number had tried it and dumped it. Tellingly the percentage of 4e players at Enworld had decreased between July and January.
So there are a lot of 4th edition DMs at ENWorld only because there are a lot of posters over there. Almost half of the ENWorld community (according to the poll)(take it for what its worth) had little use for 4e. I really suspect that if Edena does his poll again in June or July that the percentage of 4e players will have decreased once again. (In large part, IMO, because of this latest debacle.)
Not definitively, no. But I know that the DMs generally determine the game that will be played. And I know that, because of the nature of ENWorld, there are a lot of 4th Edition DMs there.According to the last poll, taken in January I believe, the total percentage of 4e players was only about 50%. A good percentage of us had never even tried it and an increasing number had tried it and dumped it. Tellingly the percentage of 4e players at Enworld had decreased between July and January.
No, the percentage of ENWorld forum-users who chose to respond to the poll decreased between July and January.
So there are a lot of 4th edition DMs at ENWorld only because there are a lot of posters over there. Almost half of the ENWorld community (according to the poll)(take it for what its worth) had little use for 4e. I really suspect that if Edena does his poll again in June or July that the percentage of 4e players will have decreased once again. (In large part, IMO, because of this latest debacle.)
I'd suspect the same. I'd also suspect that such a shift downwards means almost nothing to the overall tabletop community, especially since the average D&D player probably was never even aware that PDFs of the rulebooks existed, much less that they've been removed.
Let's assume hundreds of thousands core books really means hundreds of thousands player handbooks. If we limit the range to 200,000-900,000 (thereby excluding "just over 100,000" and "nearly a million"), we end up with 302,000 - 1,356,000 book equivalents in use.That assumption is probably the biggest stumbling block to actually figuring anything out from the phrase "The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies are are now in their third printing." Is he talking about each book of the three core rulebooks, or the core rulebooks as a whole? The language would lead me to believe he's speaking of the collection of books known as the core rulebooks since it's consistent with earlier language in the filing:
Excuse me hmarcbower, for quoting your post. This isn't directed at you, but it does refer to assumption of core books sold.
I can't refute anyone's analysis of the numbers, even if I don't believe the results. The math is solid.
But as far as the assumption of how many "hundreds of thousands" results in, I'd think all of you were assuming too high.
If we assume the filings aren't exaggerated (and 101,000 doesn't equal hundreds of thousands) then I would put the number of core books between 200,000 and 400,000. With 260,000ish being my uneducated guess.
Once you start to break 300,000 I'd expect the speaker to want to say "half a million," "nearly half a million," or "about half a million," to strut their stuff and/or brag about it.
But that is just my take on it.
|
|
According to the last poll, taken in January I believe, the total percentage of 4e players was only about 50%. A good percentage of us had never even tried it and an increasing number had tried it and dumped it. Tellingly the percentage of 4e players at Enworld had decreased between July and January.
No, the percentage of ENWorld forum-users who chose to respond to the poll decreased between July and January.
Are you saying "no" to Wicht's statement, or trying to provide a reason for the outcome of the poll?
Since nobody provided links to the polls, I can't check for myself the actual situation.
If you're providing a lower number of respondents as a reason for a lower percentage... I'm sure you know that math doesn't work that way. :) If Wicht was quoting a wrong stat (drop in percentage versus drop in respondents) and that is what you were correcting, please do enlighten.
|
|
Let's assume hundreds of thousands core books really means hundreds of thousands player handbooks. If we limit the range to 200,000-900,000 (thereby excluding "just over 100,000" and "nearly a million"), we end up with 302,000 - 1,356,000 book equivalents in use.
That assumption is probably the biggest stumbling block to actually figuring anything out from the phrase "The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies are are now in their third printing." Is he talking about each book of the three core rulebooks, or the core rulebooks as a whole? The language would lead me to believe he's speaking of the collection of books known as the core rulebooks since it's consistent with earlier language in the filing:
Excuse me hmarcbower, for quoting your post. This isn't directed at you, but it does refer to assumption of core books sold.
I can't refute anyone's analysis of the numbers, even if I don't believe the results. The math is solid.
But as far as the assumption of how many "hundreds of thousands" results in, I'd think all of you were assuming too high.
If we assume the filings aren't exaggerated (and 101,000 doesn't equal hundreds of thousands) then I would put the number of core books between 200,000 and 400,000. With 260,000ish being my uneducated guess.
Once you start to break 300,000 I'd expect the speaker to want to say "half a million," "nearly half a million," or "about half a million," to strut their stuff and/or brag about it.But that is just my take on it.
Not a problem at all - and I agree entirely. I actually had a lengthy post that said the same thing as you just did but used three times the words (which I abandoned before posting). ;) Essentially the company is going to use the most flowery language it can to *imply* (or cause the reader to infer) the greatest number of sales possible without actually lying.
According to the last poll, taken in January I believe, the total percentage of 4e players was only about 50%. A good percentage of us had never even tried it and an increasing number had tried it and dumped it. Tellingly the percentage of 4e players at Enworld had decreased between July and January.No, the percentage of ENWorld forum-users who chose to respond to the poll decreased between July and January.Are you saying "no" to Wicht's statement, or trying to provide a reason for the outcome of the poll?
Since nobody provided links to the polls, I can't check for myself the actual situation.
If you're providing a lower number of respondents as a reason for a lower percentage... I'm sure you know that math doesn't work that way. :) If Wicht was quoting a wrong stat (drop in percentage versus drop in respondents) and that is what you were correcting, please do enlighten.
No, I was pointing out that this poll isn't an accurate representation of ENWorld gamers because of its self-selected nature.
Sincerity and certainty are not the same animal. Simply put, there is no way for anyone to be certain about statistics like that. The legwork hasn't been done.Scott, no offense, but how can you honestly tell someone that they are or are not certain about a fact. Even if they are wrong (and not saying they are), they still might be rather sincere in their error.
Not only are you not certain, but I'm still pretty sure it's not true.
I have to disagree here. One can be certain even with a complete lack of evidence. It's called faith. Billions of people practice it in one form or another.
|
|
The latest poll is here. Though I believe, IIRC, that a couple of people were trying to see if they could mess with it towards the end and it was closed as a result. But if one follows the thread the percentages held pretty true right up until the end.
Also, contrary to what Scott inferred,this poll had more respondants than the first, though I realize that statistically that's meaningless.
The first poll, for comparisons sake is here.
And while the polls are not random sampling I don't think they're all that far off in their assessment. YMMV.
EDIT: One of the first things I looked at in the newer poll was to see if the number of people who had not tried 4e went up or down. As was natural, it went down.
|
|
No, I was pointing out that this poll isn't an accurate representation of ENWorld gamers because of its self-selected nature.
So you're not disputing the results of the poll (that show a drop in percentage of respondents who play 4e, presumably), but questioning the validity of the results because people have to choose to answer the poll? I think you're going to find that an awful lot of polls wouldn't meet your criteria for being legitimate in that case. I doubt Decima or Nielsen is going to be doing a D&D 4e poll any time soon, so the best you could do is analyze the questions, the most likely kind of people to self-select, and then sore-thumb the results.
Regardless, though, when comparing one poll to another, as long as the methodology remains the same the imprecision is likely to carry from one to the other, thus a statement can be somewhat reliably made when comparing the results relative to one another. The actual percentages (whether it's 50%, 40%, or 60%) could be questionable, but if the same poll is given later then a trend could be seen.
And having fewer people answer a poll doesn't change percentage outcome.
If a legal PDF store is put up that functions exactly as Paizo's does, with similar prices, then I'll buy from it regardless of who runs it. What I won't do is buy from such a site if it's using non-standard document types, obtrusive DRM (e.g. limited activations or no printing) or is set up so that I can't save documents to disk and maintain access in perpetuity.
Or, as has been speculated, as a DDI add-on, where you will need an ongoing subscription to maintain access and do not have the option of saving the infomation to your own computer.
No thanks ...
|
|
Also, contrary to what Scott inferred,this poll had more respondants than the first
Well, that *is* interesting. Scott?
And for those who want to take a look at the polls, I've screencapped them for you. The top one is the old poll, the bottom is the new poll.
For a quick analysis....
Those playing any amount of 4e (from Slight Changeover to Complete Changeover) went from 50.59% down to 44.83%.
Those who tried 4e but left it behind for an older edition went up from 22.17% to 29.12%.
Those who have never tried 4e dropped slightly from 27.24% to 26.06%.
The biggest move seems to have been people who tried 4e then decided not to continue playing it. All of the "partially 4e" options went down, with those choosing not to play 4e anymore going up 31% and those choosing to play only 4e going up about 8%.
Overall, on a website seemingly quite dedicated to D&D4e, surprising results (to me, at least).
I have to disagree here. One can be certain even with a complete lack of evidence. It's called faith. Billions of people practice it in one form or another.Sincerity and certainty are not the same animal. Simply put, there is no way for anyone to be certain about statistics like that. The legwork hasn't been done.Scott, no offense, but how can you honestly tell someone that they are or are not certain about a fact. Even if they are wrong (and not saying they are), they still might be rather sincere in their error.
Not only are you not certain, but I'm still pretty sure it's not true.
Do you have proof for your alleged billions? :)
If a legal PDF store is put up that functions exactly as Paizo's does, with similar prices, then I'll buy from it regardless of who runs it. What I won't do is buy from such a site if it's using non-standard document types, obtrusive DRM (e.g. limited activations or no printing) or is set up so that I can't save documents to disk and maintain access in perpetuity.Or, as has been speculated, as a DDI add-on, where you will need an ongoing subscription to maintain access and do not have the option of saving the infomation to your own computer.
No thanks ...
That's not been my experience entirely. Now, I can't save anything from the compendium on my computer, but I can save PDFs of the "Dragon" and "Dungeon" magazines to my computer. AFAIK, I don't have to delete those files when I end my subscription.
Also, contrary to what Scott inferred,this poll had more respondants than the firstWell, that *is* interesting. Scott?
Oh god, I just realized I made a pretty significant mistake in what I originally said.
I meant to say "No, the percentage of ENWorld forum-users who chose to respond to the poll and play 4th Edition decreased between July and January."
The bold part wasn't said, and I imagine that made my statement look rather silly. I apologize for screwing that up.
If a legal PDF store is put up that functions exactly as Paizo's does, with similar prices, then I'll buy from it regardless of who runs it. What I won't do is buy from such a site if it's using non-standard document types, obtrusive DRM (e.g. limited activations or no printing) or is set up so that I can't save documents to disk and maintain access in perpetuity.Or, as has been speculated, as a DDI add-on, where you will need an ongoing subscription to maintain access and do not have the option of saving the infomation to your own computer.
No thanks ...
That's not been my experience entirely. Now, I can't save anything from the compendium on my computer, but I can save PDFs of the "Dragon" and "Dungeon" magazines to my computer. AFAIK, I don't have to delete those files when I end my subscription.
While I can't dispute your ability to maintain the PDFs you downloaded, the hitch here is that WotC won't offer PDFs anymore.
They are looking for a more secure format. (Good luck with that.)
While I can't dispute your ability to maintain the PDFs you downloaded, the hitch here is that WotC won't offer PDFs anymore.
They are looking for a more secure format. (Good luck with that.)
I don't think there is anything to dispute. :)
As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, as a paying customer of WotC, I haven't heard a word about anything regarding their digital initiative and the new electronic format they are going for. I also haven't heard anything about suspension of 4E PDF sales. Still. It's been nearly a week, now. I think they screwed up by taking PDF sales away, and they are screwing up on an ongoing basis by not letting anyone know what is going on.
Those two factors will drive me to quit my subscription.
(I mention 4E PDF sales specifically because I don't expect WotC to communicate anything about PDFs for previous editions)
Do you have proof for your alleged billions? :)I have to disagree here. One can be certain even with a complete lack of evidence. It's called faith. Billions of people practice it in one form or another.Sincerity and certainty are not the same animal. Simply put, there is no way for anyone to be certain about statistics like that. The legwork hasn't been done.Scott, no offense, but how can you honestly tell someone that they are or are not certain about a fact. Even if they are wrong (and not saying they are), they still might be rather sincere in their error.
Not only are you not certain, but I'm still pretty sure it's not true.
:-D
That's not been my experience entirely. Now, I can't save anything from the compendium on my computer, but I can save PDFs of the "Dragon" and "Dungeon" magazines to my computer. AFAIK, I don't have to delete those files when I end my subscription.
But, if they have some way of making the files not work unless you maintain a subscription I would equally not be interested. Though I haven't been keeping up with the technology, I know several music download providers used to give you unlimited music as long as you ponied up $15 a month. When you stopped paying something in those music files made the information unreadable. I am not a tech person, but I dislike this format for either music OR PDF/whatever. I would rather buy the information as a whole, then 'lease' it for a subscription.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
|
But, if they have some way of making the files not work unless you maintain a subscription I would equally not be interested. Though I haven't been keeping up with the technology, I know several music download providers used to give you unlimited music as long as you ponied up $15 a month. When you stopped paying something in those music files made the information unreadable. I am not a tech person, but I dislike this format for either music OR PDF/whatever. I would rather buy the information as a whole, then 'lease' it for a subscription.
That's not been my experience entirely. Now, I can't save anything from the compendium on my computer, but I can save PDFs of the "Dragon" and "Dungeon" magazines to my computer. AFAIK, I don't have to delete those files when I end my subscription.
Oh, yeah. That is perfectly understandable. Not having the files unless you have a subscription is worse than what I currently have. I would drop my subscription in a heartbeat, if that were the case.
I was just trying to show that there are currently "artifacts" of the DDI that one can keep. Whether that changes or not, I can't begin to guess, but things don't look promising.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the number of people who bought the books and don't play is probably dwarfed by the number of people who didn't by the books but who play anyway - whether by using communally available books (the DM's, their friend's, a library's) or by using illegal digital copies of the books.Could be less than 250k. I picked up the core rules so I could see what they were like, and I've kept up with the others in PDF format (legal downloads only), but I don't actually play. People like me who bought the core and for whatever reason didn't play would skew the real player estimates even more.
For that matter I don't play Pathfinder either, though I enjoy the books for reading. Lack of time and a group unfortunately.
Sorry, but there is no way with the number range given by WOTC in the court documents for there to be more than 2 million players, because that number is assuming a ration of 1 set of core books per group of 6. 4 million would mean 12 players per set sold.
I am betting that a group is much more likely to have on core set and 3 additional PH's among them. If I were to go by what I have typically seen over the last 20 years is every player has a PH, and each group probably has at least 2 DMG's and MM's among them.
ENWorld is nowhere near an accurate representation of the roleplaying community. They represent the tabletop equivalent of the "hardcore" (just like the Paizo boards do). The overwhelming majority of ENWorld posters are DMs. Polls from ENWorld cannot be generalized to the gaming population at large.Sure they can. I just did. ^_^I should have added: "...with any degree of reliability."
Granted that most ENWorlders are DMs, I am sure of course that you have stastical information to show how the average ENWorlder differentiates from the average DM.Nope.
And that you can explain how the gaming habits of DMS, in regards to editions, has no bearing on the gaming habits of the players who play in their games.Not definitively, no. But I know that the DMs generally determine the game that will be played. And I know that, because of the nature of ENWorld, there are a lot of 4th Edition DMs there.
Again, ENWorld is not a reliable sample when you're discussing the tabletop community, for the same reasons that the Paizo board is not a reliable sample.
In response to this "without any degree of reliability" comment about on line polls, that is total baloney. Whenever online polls have been "debunked" or claimed to be useless, its because they were, for a degree of error of +/-3%, or whatever error was aimed for.
So those so called "useless" polls on ENWorld and such can still be useful, you just have to determine what the margin of error is. Those polls, even if the margin of error is +/-10%, or as high as +/-20%, are still useful.
I don't have access to the software anymore, I haven't worked in statistics since 1999, but I would be willing to bet the error would be +/-10%, or less, for those ENWorld polls.
Which would still mean 4E is tanking, on RPGnets poll too.
Let's assume hundreds of thousands core books really means hundreds of thousands player handbooks. If we limit the range to 200,000-900,000 (thereby excluding "just over 100,000" and "nearly a million"), we end up with 302,000 - 1,356,000 book equivalents in use.That assumption is probably the biggest stumbling block to actually figuring anything out from the phrase "The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies are are now in their third printing." Is he talking about each book of the three core rulebooks, or the core rulebooks as a whole? The language would lead me to believe he's speaking of the collection of books known as the core rulebooks since it's consistent with earlier language in the filing:Excuse me hmarcbower, for quoting your post. This isn't directed at you, but it does refer to assumption of core books sold.
I can't refute anyone's analysis of the numbers, even if I don't believe the results. The math is solid.
But as far as the assumption of how many "hundreds of thousands" results in, I'd think all of you were assuming too high.
If we assume the filings aren't exaggerated (and 101,000 doesn't equal hundreds of thousands) then I would put the number of core books between 200,000 and 400,000. With 260,000ish being my uneducated guess.
Once you start to break 300,000 I'd expect the speaker to want to say "half a million," "nearly half a million," or "about half a million," to strut their stuff and/or brag about it.But that is just my take on it.
Yes, I agree if the total sales weren't even close to being a million, say even 800,000, WOTC would probably have said "close to ONE MILLION sold!"
So when working up the likely ranges and deciding on where the real numbers were likely to fall, I am confident their "hundreds of thousands" sold aren't close to 1 million. I also think they would have said, "Over half a million sold!" if they could have.
I wish we could get a reliable total on just one of those 3 books, if we could the accuracy would go way up.
At least the whole debacle has made me realize that ENWorld is no place for me as a non-4E fan anymore. Too many 4E-fanboys who defend WotC no matter what they do, and would only be too happy if any other D&D game died, and far too few useful talk about roleplaying that's not tied to 4E. So, after 9 years, it's curtains for me there.
Arrived at that conclusion over a year ago. enworld is useless.
You're probably a pirate. I can tell.I have it on good authority most of us are. :)I would have to disagree here.
I am more about ninjas. Pirates ? Meh.
I also want to affirm my allegiance to the ninja camp.
I don't really blame WotC for pulling the recent-product PDFs and can even see why they didn't give much warning, since they were worried about prompting the pirates to act quickly.
If they really thought that would, they have their head in the sand, not just buried, but paved over.
The cat was long out of the bag. Not releasing new books can work against illegal copies, but withdrawing PDFs from sale is completely futile as a foil to fight illegal distribution.
I might as well say "criminals use streets" and close down the highway in the hope of stopping crime.
They're either exceedingly clueless, or they just don't care, or have an ulterior motive, like making it harder for people to get previous edition material to shove the new game down the customer's throats.
|
|
Oh god, I just realized I made a pretty significant mistake in what I originally said.
I meant to say "No, the percentage of ENWorld forum-users who chose to respond to the poll and play 4th Edition decreased between July and January."
uh huh? right.
To get back on topic, Now that Wizards is allowing an extra day to DL products, does this mean that they are trying to salvage making a mess of this pr-wise, or are they worried about possible legal action (Whether or not there is a legal basis, it could be cheaper to make the effort that to go to court over it). thoughts?
EDIT: Sorry, there was supposed to be more to the post.
I think this links have not been posted yet. It's worth the time to read the blog post and all responses for determining if the main claim is right: 4e is tanking.
It starts with this blogpost by rpgpundit "Why Are Any of You Surprised?" about WotC cancelation of PDFs. The first answer to this is by Ryan Dancey. In his comment to the blog he analyzes how WotC's recent actions are sign of a death spiral D&D is currently in.
Naturally, that provoked some responses. Especially after some guy challenged his claim by asking if the scarcity of PH2 does not proof the contrary, Dancey once again analyzes what conclusions we can draw from this situation, and he states:
What does this tell us about scarcity for PHB2? It tells us that 4E in general is selling poorly.
[...]
By my money is on "internal decision maker doesn't believe in the product" as the reason you're seeing scarcity.
Given the credentials of Dancey, I believe he has a point.
|
uh huh? right.Oh god, I just realized I made a pretty significant mistake in what I originally said.
I meant to say "No, the percentage of ENWorld forum-users who chose to respond to the poll and play 4th Edition decreased between July and January."
Chill...
It's an easy thing to drop out of a sentence, and as soon as you see the participation numbers on the polls, follows pretty naturally.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic mentioned to me that there was a company at a recent trade show who was touting a way to display PDFs on your screen and searching through them without the ability to copy text or download the file. This kind of tech could allow the PDFs to be shared via the DDI in a way that would make them almost as useful as the PDF version while again putting up a barrier to piracy. Of course, once your sub expired, so would your access...
The documents in question were not PDFs, but the presentation was PDF-like. (And it was Windows-only.)
That comment by Ryan about 3E selling 300,000 copies in 30 days is very interesting. Especially with the number range claimed for 4E in the WOTC court documents, coupled with WOTC claims that 4E is out selling 3E. IE those claims are not supported by Ryan D.'s claim and the court documents claim. It would imply 4E is underselling 3E, by a lot, since 4E is almost done with its first full year.
Vic mentioned to me that there was a company at a recent trade show who was touting a way to display PDFs on your screen and searching through them without the ability to copy text or download the file. This kind of tech could allow the PDFs to be shared via the DDI in a way that would make them almost as useful as the PDF version while again putting up a barrier to piracy. Of course, once your sub expired, so would your access...The documents in question were not PDFs, but the presentation was PDF-like. (And it was Windows-only.)
That is what I was afraid of. WotC already proved they aren't concerned with cross platform - assuming this is the path WotC was considering.
That comment by Ryan about 3E selling 300,000 copies in 30 days is very interesting. Especially with the number range claimed for 4E in the WOTC court documents, coupled with WOTC claims that 4E is out selling 3E. IE those claims are not supported by Ryan D.'s claim and the court documents claim. It would imply 4E is underselling 3E, by a lot, since 4E is almost done with its first full year.
Careful now...
WotC claims that 4e outsold 3.5. Ryan Dancy's comment was for 3.0.
Tricky and misleading, but not an outright lie.
Vic mentioned to me that there was a company at a recent trade show who was touting a way to display PDFs on your screen and searching through them without the ability to copy text or download the file. This kind of tech could allow the PDFs to be shared via the DDI in a way that would make them almost as useful as the PDF version while again putting up a barrier to piracy. Of course, once your sub expired, so would your access...The documents in question were not PDFs, but the presentation was PDF-like. (And it was Windows-only.)That is what I was afraid of. WotC already proved they aren't concerned with cross platform - assuming this is the path WotC was considering.
That comment by Ryan about 3E selling 300,000 copies in 30 days is very interesting. Especially with the number range claimed for 4E in the WOTC court documents, coupled with WOTC claims that 4E is out selling 3E. IE those claims are not supported by Ryan D.'s claim and the court documents claim. It would imply 4E is underselling 3E, by a lot, since 4E is almost done with its first full year.Careful now...
WotC claims that 4e outsold 3.5. Ryan Dancy's comment was for 3.0.
Tricky and misleading, but not an outright lie.
Actually its even worse, I went back and reread what he said, and it was:
"We sold 300,000 copies of the 3E PHB in 30 DAYS. I have a screen shot of Amazon with the 3E PHB in the #1 slot."
I think WOTC needs to be more careful about what they claim in court documents. Then again, US Corporations aren't known for their honesty in court documents.
Edit: Plus I am pretty sure in those same court documents WOTC said 4E outsold 3E. I'll go back and check though. This time I'll save them, because I bet by now WOTC is asking the court to seal their records.
Edit 2: Well, wherever they said 4E was outselling 3E, it wasn't in the court documents. I didn't spot it after reading through twice, anyways.