|
Similarly with 4th edition. I am something of a hoarder - if I'm going to buy a game, I'm going to buy everything. I want some confidence that it's not going to all end in tears and WoTC announcing a record profit would cheer me up on that front. :)
I think there is two things that can be said, the first is that Hasbro is so freaking huge and WoTC not, that WoTC's profitability or otherwise is probably buried to deep in hasbro's financial reporting that 4E's success will never bubble up directly to the public. The other is that if WotC is in financial failure Hasbro will likely sell it off or spin it off, and it may be able to do well with less (costly) corporate overhead. Ultimately Hasbro has to deal with its shareholders interests first, and that means if things are going bad you don't just shut up shop, you shut it up, chop it in to bits and sell it to reclaim your earnings.
So if 4e toilets WotC the licence could for all we know end up with Paizo...
That being said, 4e is selling really well at my local hobby stores, and I can say its books hold a prominent space on my shelf, right next to my PF Beta, and 3.5 stuff (finally let the 2e stuff go.) For that matter of my FLGS I'd say all but 2 of them sell D&D 4e exclusively, and that the non-gaming book stores only carry 4e, which opens it to a much broader market then any other RPG.
|
|
I think people should read reviews, seek opinions etc before spending their money, but I disagree that what is "in" (it would seem meaning higher sales) should then be the overiding factor that finally determines your purchase.
I'd recommend that people try out the game at their FLGS most (good) stores run inter gaming activities. I know WotC bend backwards to provide really decent event packages for the launch of the core books (Core Rules, PHB2, MM2, DM2 etc.) They are a great way to try out the flavour of a game to see if it appeals to you. On a less frequent basis our store runs much more open game days where everything from board games to esoteric niche games are played. You have to pre-reg but typically they get local GMs who are passionate about their game, and are their to sell it. Basically there are lots of opportunities to try before you buy, so you might as well try them both and go with which one appeals to you... or both...
Wahoo! Does that mean we get to see Calistria and Desna mix it up in a vat of Jello?
When Bruce Willis was dead at the end of Sixth Sense, I...
;-)
Wahoo! Does that mean we get to see Calistria and Desna mix it up in a vat of Jello?When Bruce Willis was dead at the end of Sixth Sense, I...
;-)
"Last week, I saw a film
As I recall it was a horror filmWalked outside into the rain
Checked my phone and saw you rang
And I..."
I want to thank the guy who asked which game was doing best, D&D or Pathfinder. That was really funny.
You really need to understand that those two games are not playing in the same league.
Don't believe me? Ask Mona, he often says so.
To give you an idea, Mona has recently stated that most of the Pathfinder products (paraphrasing here) are made with a break even point of 2k units sold. That's a good indication of the ballpark of how many products Paizo sells.
Now, I obviously do not have numbers for how many books WotC sells, but it numbers that have been floating around claim that a WotC book that sells 50k is selling poorly, 10k would be a disaster.
Now, I know the PFrpg beta sold out (well, to the retailers anyway), but how many did they make? The owner of my LFGS claims that Mona said on these very boards that they at some point considered making around 2k beta books, but that they are now glad they made more (I am guessing due to the downloads). But if you considered making only 2k, how many more do you seriously think they have made? 5k? 10k?
It doesn't really matter. You might think PFrpg is better, it doesn't really matter. You might even be right. But people should play what they like. But stop with the delusions that PFrpg is going to sell anything near 4e (or any other edition of D&D for that matter), because it won't. It's like thinking that awesome burger joint down on the corner, that makes the best burgers in the world will outsell McDonalds because it's opening a couple of stores around the towns nearby.
So, in short, just to make sure I am not misunderstood:
Is Paizo awesome or what? Yep, they have some of the best talent in the industry and they make some of the best fluff/stories, if not the best.
Is PFrpg a good game? I do not like it, but then again, I do not like the game it's based on, so it's hardly surprising. But a lot of people seem to think so, so why shouldn't it be?
Is PFrpg going to be a success? Yes, considering their fairly devout fanbase, that seems like a given.
Will PFrpg outsell 4e? Lollerskates; seriously. Wake up.
I want to thank the guy who asked which game was doing best, D&D or Pathfinder. That was really funny.
You really need to understand that those two games are not playing in the same league.
Don't believe me? Ask Mona, he often says so.
To give you an idea, Mona has recently stated that most of the Pathfinder products (paraphrasing here) are made with a break even point of 2k units sold. That's a good indication of the ballpark of how many products Paizo sells.
Now, I obviously do not have numbers for how many books WotC sells, but it numbers that have been floating around claim that a WotC book that sells 50k is selling poorly, 10k would be a disaster.
Now, I know the PFrpg beta sold out (well, to the retailers anyway), but how many did they make? The owner of my LFGS claims that Mona said on these very boards that they at some point considered making around 2k beta books, but that they are now glad they made more (I am guessing due to the downloads). But if you considered making only 2k, how many more do you seriously think they have made? 5k? 10k?
It doesn't really matter. You might think PFrpg is better, it doesn't really matter. You might even be right. But people should play what they like. But stop with the delusions that PFrpg is going to sell anything near 4e (or any other edition of D&D for that matter), because it won't. It's like thinking that awesome burger joint down on the corner, that makes the best burgers in the world will outsell McDonalds because it's opening a couple of stores around the towns nearby.
So, in short, just to make sure I am not misunderstood:
Is Paizo awesome or what? Yep, they have some of the best talent in the industry and they make some of the best fluff/stories, if not the best.
Is PFrpg a good game? I do not like it, but then again, I do not like the game it's based on, so it's hardly surprising. But a lot of people seem to think so, so why shouldn't it be?
Is PFrpg going to be a success? Yes, considering their fairly devout fanbase, that seems...
Paizo don't need to outsell wotc's 4e sales to make their game a success. Indeed that it's even being discussed in these terms means they are guaranteed to be successful with their rpg.
Likewise, I'd guess Wotc's 4e sales do not have to be as low as Pathfinder's sales to reasonably be considered a failure.
Wotc have screwed themselves if you ask me (okay you didn't ask, but still ;-) ). They have apparently hacked off a debateable percentage of their customer base (we can argue about how large that lost percentage is, but that it exists is surely a fact) looking to catch new customers to make up for it, or to recoup lost revenue from mini sales and the like. That seems a crazy move to me.
Wotc have screwed themselves if you ask me (okay you didn't ask, but still ;-) ). They have apparently hacked off a debateable percentage of their customer base (we can argue about how large that lost percentage is, but that it exists is surely a fact) looking to catch new customers to make up for it, or to recoup lost revenue from mini sales and the like. That seems a crazy move to me.
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.
I want to thank the guy who asked which game was doing best, D&D or Pathfinder. That was really funny.The Pathfinder game isn't even out yet. The sales of a game that hasn't been released yet, can't be compared to the sales of one that has.
To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.
You're right, you can't compare an unreleased game's sales to a released game's sales, but when you have a useful analog like this you can certainly do a little educated guesswork.
Chief Technical Officer
|
To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.
Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.
I'm not jumping in to make any kind of pronouncement on how well 4E is selling. I'm sure its doing fine, and it caters to a lot of player's desires, so in that, it certainly a success.
However, I really do fail to see any proof that the only people they lost were people ready to keel over and die and thus not of much use in the long term. That may have been the theory, and there was a lot of talk about pushing 4E to a younger crowd when it was announced two years ago, but I don't really see where this push occurred, nor do I see where its proven to have worked.
Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, or that they don't have a slew of younger gamers now, but I don't see any proof of that. I do kind of keep up with various and sundry gaming sites, so it kind of makes me wonder where you have seen proof of a large number younger, "more valuable" gamers being drawn to the game.
I realize this is just anecdotal, and I'll certainly defer to hard numbers and evidence presented, but a lot of the guys I see buying 4E material at the FLGS are guys my age or older, that gave up on the game after 1st edition.
As I have said, I could be wrong, and there could be evidence of this somewhere, but at the same time, I'd be hard pressed to know where this evidence has been presented.
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.Hmm. Except older gamers have nephews and nieces (or even children) whom they introduce to the same systems which they play. (We saw at least one 'gaming family' at PaizoCon UK this year, playing PFS.) Older gamers buy their younger relations Christmas and birthday presents, too...
In my opinion a good quality game will be handed down from generation to generation, and not be a passing fad that relies on or dies with the generation that first played it.
I dunno, AD&D was plenty good but, According to Joseph Goodman, its market is pretty tiny. I'd be surprised to learn that there were any really significant numbers of AD&D players that were currently bringing in their children or grandchildren using that system.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I dunno, AD&D was plenty good but, According to Joseph Goodman, its market is pretty tiny. I'd be surprised to learn that there were any really significant numbers of AD&D players that were currently bringing in their children or grandchildren using that system.What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.Hmm. Except older gamers have nephews and nieces (or even children) whom they introduce to the same systems which they play. (We saw at least one 'gaming family' at PaizoCon UK this year, playing PFS.) Older gamers buy their younger relations Christmas and birthday presents, too...
In my opinion a good quality game will be handed down from generation to generation, and not be a passing fad that relies on or dies with the generation that first played it.
Well, my son thinks of PRPG as the system for his generation.
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.
Does this mean that WotC is guilty of age discrimination?
*ducks*
Wotc have screwed themselves if you ask me
So if I don't ask you, they won't have screwed themselves up? o_o
*doesn't ask, saves WotC, and becomes a hero* =D
Does this mean that WotC is guilty of age discrimination?
*ducks*
No, but they might as well be the market equivalent of a pedo. =P
While I know jack of marketing applied to tabletop gaming business, I don't think Paizo is commiting a mistake by addressing the oldie audience... it worked for the Xbox after all. Sure, kiddies are more, and kiddies are sociable, but adults are the one with the spending power, and the ones who need no one's permission to spend $30 on a book if they wish to (unless they're married, but it's easier to negotiate with a spouse than with a parent).
Does this mean that WotC is guilty of age discrimination?
*ducks*
No, but they might as well be the market equivalent of a pedo. =P
While I know jack of marketing applied to tabletop gaming business, I don't think Paizo is commiting a mistake by addressing the oldie audience... it worked for the Xbox after all. Sure, kiddies are more, and kiddies are sociable, but adults are the one with the spending power, and the ones who need no one's permission to spend $30 on a book if they wish to (unless they're married, but it's easier to negotiate with a spouse than with a parent).
Heck my spouse simply wants one of her own...
Also up until recently this discussion had avoided any debate of "success over the other" or "Battle royale: WoTC vs Paizo" and stayed simply a discussion of the earnings of one company and speculation on what that means for that company, and for the genre of gaming as a whole. Could we keep it at that?
Another factor to consider is retainage.
You can start out quite strong, but the trick is retaining your consumer base.
Of course, this is another thing that is too early to properly evaluate.
|
|
Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, or that they don't have a slew of younger gamers now, but I don't see any proof of that. I do kind of keep up with various and sundry gaming sites, so it kind of makes me wonder where you have seen proof of a large number younger, "more valuable" gamers being drawn to the game.
I actually stopped gaming at my most locale FLGS because the only people there are < 20. I have no issue with them but I also can't relate to them, so I don't go their to play, but instead to a different FLGS where people are more likely to be my own age. (When not playing in my weekly campaign.
So basically your anecdotal evidence is as useless as my own, as they aren't accurate demographics. FLGS owners would probably be worth asking for how well the game is doing, but even then with Amazon killing the FLGS, it is a hard place to go.
Also some one else mentioned the tradition of gaming being passed from parent to child and in families. For me and most people I know that was far from the truth. We all sort of self taught from books we got from the library, it all started with complex board games like risk and axis and allies, and then moved to magic and wargames like starfleet battles and mechwarrior. From their we graduated to RPGs. Given the number of people who just stop playing, I think it is more likely that kids who are interested in gaming will walk into the FLGS that they have been buying their Magic cards from and buy a D&D book from the big flashy display, or perhaps be invited by one of their slightly older peers to try it out.
PFRPG can be successful and D&D can be successful, and as someone else pointed out, D&D's success can bring PFRPG success, because I think most gamers love games, and don't stick with one games system 100% of the time. Variety is the spice of life as they say.
Anecdotal evidence from my FLGS reflects what Goodman was saying in his post.
4E does not sell as well as 3E/3.5 did, but sales of 4E are what pay the bills.
However, I really do fail to see any proof that the only people they lost were people ready to keel over and die and thus not of much use in the long term. That may have been the theory, and there was a lot of talk about pushing 4E to a younger crowd when it was announced two years ago, but I don't really see where this push occurred, nor do I see where its proven to have worked.
It's not that they're all ready to keel over and die, or that they're no longer of any use in recruiting new players to the hobby. It's that expanding the marketability of the product by removing cumbersome gameplay elements is (WotC believes) more likely to bring people to their game than retaining those cumbersome gameplay elements in order to appease a portion of the older crowd.
You can disagree that those elements are cumbersome, and you can disagree with their conclusion that this will work out better in the end for them, but as far as I can tell that's the strategy they've decided upon, and it doesn't sound half bad to me. You can't possibly retain your entire playerbase when making a new game - all you can try to do is replace the lost players with a larger number of new players.
So basically your anecdotal evidence is as useless as my own, as they aren't accurate demographics. FLGS owners would probably be worth asking for how well the game is doing, but even then with Amazon killing the FLGS, it is a hard place to go.
I probably wasn't as clear as I wished to be, but my point was exactly that. None of us conjecturing on this have anything except for anecdotal evidence, so its going to be hard to definitively declare anything.
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.
Scott, I'm a little confused. In the above post, you seem to be stating that the above is a fact. You don't say that "WOTC's marketing plan, which I happen to agree with, is . . . "
You just state that the people lost are, demonstrably, older, less socially active, and less likely to bring new gamers into the fold. I simply wished to see if you had any source that specifically shows that, regardless of the marketing plan, that this is exactly the group that was lost to WOTC. I would happily look over that source, as I love to learn new things.
On the other hand, if this is just meant to restate WOTC's marketing plan and your agreement with it, then I greatly respect your opinion, but it is, like everyone else's, only your opinion. Its greatly appreciated and interesting to read, but obviously not something that can be stated as a definitive fact.
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.Scott, I'm a little confused. In the above post, you seem to be stating that the above is a fact. You don't say that "WOTC's marketing plan, which I happen to agree with, is . . . "
You just state that the people lost are, demonstrably, older, less socially active, and less likely to bring new gamers into the fold. I simply wished to see if you had any source that specifically shows that, regardless of the marketing plan, that this is exactly the group that was lost to WOTC. I would happily look over that source, as I love to learn new things.
On the other hand, if this is just meant to restate WOTC's marketing plan and your agreement with it, then I greatly respect your opinion, but it is, like everyone else's, only your opinion. Its greatly appreciated and interesting to read, but obviously not something that can be stated as a definitive fact.
I apologize; the second half of my post was definitely opinion (and that's exactly why I added the "as far as I can tell" part). But the first half was less my opinion and more my own educated guess as to how things are. No, there's no hard data for any of this, and certainly not for my claim that those being lost are older gamers who currently bring in few new players per capita. This isn't anecdotal in the sense that I'm basing this on personal experience with such groups. It's just a guess framed within a few basic (and open to challenge) suppositions: that older gamers are more likely to stick with what they've been playing, that older gamers are more solidly established in their groups and thus rotate through new players more slowly (and in the process expose fewer people to the game), that younger players are very socially active and are more likely to both try the new game and invite their friends to try it with them.
Again, these are just the way the situation plays out in my head. It may not reflect reality, but it's interesting to think about. Maybe it's worth exploring (and, perhaps, WotC has already explored it): do you think that younger D&D players are more likely than older D&D players (both in terms of age and length of exposure to the game) to draw new players to the hobby?
To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.Out of the 50000 copies of a particular poorly selling WotC title, how many of these copies end up being returned to the distributor?
If a product has sold 50k units, it has sold 50k units. That's including what has been returned by the distributor, otherwise those products wouldn't have been sold.
Whether it is 50k or something higher or lower is another matter altogether.
I apologize; the second half of my post was definitely opinion (and that's exactly why I added the "as far as I can tell" part). But the first half was less my opinion and more my own educated guess as to how things are. No, there's no hard data for any of this, and certainly not for my claim that those...
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game. On the other hand, their potential new customer base is young, socially active (which means they can spread the game), and will be sticking around for a long time. Their old base (specifically those who shunned 4th Edition) was rooted in a different generation, and continuing to cater to them would eventually result in the hobby dwindling to nothing. Their move not only advanced the game in terms of modern game design theory, but also allowed them to replenish their fan base a bit.Scott, I'm a little confused. In the above post, you seem to be stating that the above is a fact. You don't say that "WOTC's marketing plan, which I happen to agree with, is . . . "
You just state that the people lost are, demonstrably, older, less socially active, and less likely to bring new gamers into the fold. I simply wished to see if you had any source that specifically shows that, regardless of the marketing plan, that this is exactly the group that was lost to WOTC. I would happily look over that source, as I love to learn new things.
On the other hand, if this is just meant to restate WOTC's marketing plan and your agreement with it, then I greatly respect your opinion, but it is, like everyone else's, only your opinion. Its greatly appreciated and interesting to read, but obviously not something that can be stated as a definitive fact.
That's all pretty convoluted imo, how about WOTC release a version of D&D that aims to please older and younger players?
My fear about 4e as strictly being an entry level game, which seems to be your view of what it is(?), is twofold; firstly 4e insists on miniature use, being a radical move away from Basic D&D's proud statement of rpgs being 'a game without board or counters'. I think minis actually turn off some potential gamers, and I don't like that the main entry level game has shifted emphasis so far toward table-top minis combat. I can well imagine some players graduate from the game not toward proper rpgs, but rather toward more dedicated table-top games.
Secondly, if D&D (4e) is now all about being 'entry level above all else' doesn't that mean those new customers will inevitably move away from the game (pretty quickly if my early roleplaying years are anything to go by), never to return to it? D&D should be accessible, but without equal attention given to depth and good fluff (settings etc), it's doomed to be only played for relatively short time spans before seeming very limited. A fact you can see from numerous posts on these very boards if you browse around, I've read this week posts from previously pretty fanatical seeming defenders of 4e who are now admitting they are losing interest in the game, or finding it ultimately limited in scope.
I never used 3e and 3.5 but I've bought stacks of 3 and 3.5 books, because they were high quality products, with good and imaginative fluff and ideas, many of which I mined. I do the same with Paizo's books. I've looked at 4e books to do the same, without ever buying one (after the originals), as they just don't have the same 'adult' (sorry that's best word I can think of here) feel. Everything feels light, vague, without depth, and just not that good or useful to me.
This is a real shame imo, and I do blame the culture behind 4e at wotc for it.
To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)
If we had an official statement from WotC, we wouldn't have this debate.
But how about Paizo, who isn't owned by a listed company show us their numbers. After all, why should WotC be the only company constantly asked to show and tell?
|
To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)If we had an official statement from WotC, we wouldn't have this debate.
But how about Paizo, who isn't owned by a listed company show us their numbers. After all, why should WotC be the only company constantly asked to show and tell?
Except Paizo have given numbers admitadly not exact numbers but we do know they have had more than 50000 Unique downloads for the Beta
Except Paizo have given numbers admitadly not exact numbers but we do know they have had more than 50000 Unique downloads for the Beta
And the reason the numbers don't matter is variable. How many of those 50,000 unique downloads are actually playing Pathfinder. We don't know... I for one had downloaded the Beta and choose not to play it but we can't just assume that means there is still 49,999 unique downloads that are actually playing it.
Secondly, if D&D (4e) is now all about being 'entry level above all else' doesn't that mean those new customers will inevitably move away from the game (pretty quickly if my early roleplaying years are anything to go by), never to return to it? D&D should be accessible, but without equal attention given to depth and good fluff (settings etc), it's doomed to be only played for relatively short time spans before seeming very limited. A fact you can see from numerous posts on these very boards if you browse around, I've read this week posts from previously pretty fanatical seeming defenders of 4e who are now admitting they are losing interest in the game, or finding it ultimately limited in scope.
My opinion is that WotC made 4e the best game they could, as they understood the current market. A market dominated with computer RPGs and MMORPGs, console (x-box and ps3) RPGs, and miniature games. However, these formats are constantly advancing as their technology advances. When WotC makes a 5e or 6e, they may focus more on setting, roleplay, and character development as the general public (and I mean at the entry level, not long time gamers) will have a greater appreciation for these things.
|
And the reason the numbers don't matter is variable. How many of those 50,000 unique downloads are actually playing Pathfinder. We don't know... I for one had downloaded the Beta and choose not to play it but we can't just assume that means there is still 49,999 unique downloads that are actually playing it.
Except Paizo have given numbers admitadly not exact numbers but we do know they have had more than 50000 Unique downloads for the Beta
Same goes for 4e edition. How many people have bought it but arent playing it. I know im one.
Again, these are just the way the situation plays out in my head. It may not reflect reality, but it's interesting to think about. Maybe it's worth exploring (and, perhaps, WotC has already explored it): do you think that younger D&D players are more likely than older D&D players (both in terms of age and length of exposure to the game) to draw new players to the hobby?
I actually think both age groups bring people into the hobby. I think younger gamers "cast a wider net," but have less "retention" as they have friends who could care less what they are doing, but they will play D&D if their buddies are, but older gamers tend to bring in people that they have targeted as already being interested in a hobby like D&D.
My curiosity as to WOTC's plan is less about if they want me to buy their stuff and if I'm too old, honestly. When I first read that they were going to push younger players to get more entry level people into the hobby, and they started talking about TV ads, I briefly pictured something like my youth where I'd see commercials for D&D during shows like Clone Wars or Brave and the Bold, but the only ad I really saw them work up was the obtuse "Beholder on a street corner" ad that only works for people that are already "in the know."
While I'm not the biggest 4E fan, I do play it from time to time, and I honestly wouldn't care at all if people come to the hobby from playing 4E, because it increases the over all gamer "pool," and eventually some of those people new to the hobby will end up playing Call of Cthulhu, or World of Darkness, or even Pathfinder. WOTC is the company that has the biggest chance of bringing big numbers into the hobby, and I think they could, but I have a feeling their plans and their alloted resources are dispartiate things.
One of the problems that threads like this have is that its sometimes hard to stay on the topic at hand, i.e. "4E Commerical Success," which isn't directly about the rules system, etc.
I know my comments have little to do with the game system and any mistakes WOTC may or may not have made with the design of the game, and much more to do with the marketing of the game and the focus that WOTC laid out when they first announced a new edition.
|
|
To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)If we had an official statement from WotC, we wouldn't have this debate.
But how about Paizo, who isn't owned by a listed company show us their numbers. After all, why should WotC be the only company constantly asked to show and tell?
I think what Vic was saying was that if the poster is going to state something as fact, the poster should have evidence to back up that fact.
If a product has sold 50k units, it has sold 50k units. That's including what has been returned by the distributor, otherwise those products wouldn't have been sold.
That's actually quite incorrect. Returns, especially returns from the book trade, come with a penalty for the return. Often a book is returned to the distributor then placed back out into the channel through another store's purchase. If that second store then returns the item, that's yet another penalty to the publisher. (This process can repeat.) If a product sells 50k units to the book trade and then 25K of them are returned, they actually only sold 25K units; one could argue that based on dollar value they may have actually sold LESS than 25K units since they're being penalized for the returns. Sold units = units the publisher was paid for, not units the publisher shipped to distribution.
That's actually quite incorrect. Returns, especially returns from the book trade, come with a penalty for the return. Often a book is returned to the distributor then placed back out into the channel through another store's purchase. If that second store then returns the item, that's yet another penalty to the publisher. (This process can repeat.) If a product sells 50k units to the book trade and then 25K of them are returned, they actually only sold 25K units; one could argue that based on dollar value they may have actually sold LESS than 25K units since they're being penalized for the returns. Sold units = units the publisher was paid for, not units the publisher shipped to distribution.If a product has sold 50k units, it has sold 50k units. That's including what has been returned by the distributor, otherwise those products wouldn't have been sold.
Thanks for that explanation, but you didn't understand my post. My point was that if you say X book has sold 50k, it means that 50k sold units = Y-Z=X, where Y is total number of books sold, and Z is the number of book returned. At least that's what I meant. Maybe my English just sucks.
That's all pretty convoluted imo, how about WOTC release a version of D&D that aims to please older and younger players?
I'll reiterate what I said, again. WotC did not aim to alienate older fans, and did not aim to only appeal to younger gamers. They aimed to create a game that would thrive in today's gaming culture. That meant removing certain gameplay elements that were, they concluded, unnecessarily cumbersome. They also added new gameplay elements that they felt were elegant and made the game more fun to play. A portion of gamers (which I think is probably made up largely of older D&D players, both in terms of age and exposure to the hobby) disliked these changes for whatever reasons and decided not to play 4th Edition. WotC understood that losing a portion of your fanbase when switching games was inevitable, and aimed to make up those losses with new gamers drawn to D&D because of how well it plays.
My fear about 4e as strictly being an entry level game, which seems to be your view of what it is(?),
Mmm, not quite, I don't think. While it certainly was designed to be approached by gamers new to the hobby, describing it as "entry-level" implies that it lacks depth and that gamers tend to graduate to other games as time goes on, leaving D&D behind (which, amusingly, I see you've even mentioned later on in this post). I don't believe that either of these things is true at all.
I think "easily approachable" would be a better way to describe what I think WotC aimed for.
is twofold; firstly 4e insists on miniature use, being a radical move away from Basic D&D's proud statement of rpgs being 'a game without board or counters'.
This is hardly a change from 3.5, where attacks of opportunity, reach weapons, 5-foot steps, weapon ranges, spell radii, and incremented movement speeds all demanded that you either have a flawless mental image of the entire battle at all times, or use miniatures. Of course, you could ignore the rules in order to make playing the game manageable without minis, but then you were ignoring the rules. I know that there was a battle mat present at every 3.5 game I encountered, whether I was running the game or playing in it.
I think minis actually turn off some potential gamers, and I don't like that the main entry level game has shifted emphasis so far toward table-top minis combat. I can well imagine some players graduate from the game not toward proper rpgs, but rather toward more dedicated table-top games.
Is there something wrong with this?
Yes, it's quite possible that minis turn off some potential gamers. It's also possible that sword-and-sorcery games turn off some potential gamers. It's also possible that the d20 mechanic turns off some potential gamers. But the fact of the matter is that WotC does not ignore its marketing research, and in order for them to stick with minis that research must indicate that most potential gamers think minis are acceptable or even kinda cool.
Secondly, if D&D (4e) is now all about being 'entry level above all else' doesn't that mean those new customers will inevitably move away from the game (pretty quickly if my early roleplaying years are anything to go by), never to return to it? D&D should be accessible, but without equal attention given to depth and good fluff (settings etc), it's doomed to be only played for relatively short time spans before seeming very limited. A fact you can see from numerous posts on these very boards if you browse around, I've read this week posts from previously pretty fanatical seeming defenders of 4e who are now admitting they are losing interest in the game, or finding it ultimately limited in scope.
Burn-out will always happen. Bear in mind that the most fanatical 4e players are also likely to have been playing it a lot. But what tends to happen is they take a short break from the game when they get tired of it, and then something comes along and sparks their imagination, getting them fired up to play again.
But I know that, for me at least, I feel as though I've only scratched the surface of what 4th Edition can offer.
I never used 3e and 3.5 but I've bought stacks of 3 and 3.5 books, because they were high quality products, with good and imaginative fluff and ideas, many of which I mined. I do the same with Paizo's books. I've looked at 4e books to do the same, without ever buying one (after the originals), as they just don't have the same 'adult' (sorry that's best word I can think of here) feel. Everything feels light, vague, without depth, and just not that good or useful to me.
This is a real shame imo, and I do blame the culture behind 4e at wotc for it.
It is a shame that the 4th Edition books don't hold the same value for you as others have had in the past. And yes, the "culture" as WotC is responsible for what you describe. That's because 4th Edition products are meant to be played. It's as simple as that.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario in 2012 or 2013 when the 4E D&D line has run its course, but Hasbro decides not to renew the D&D product line. Instead Hasbro auctions off a license to make a 5E D&D to the highest bidder, for which Paizo wins the auction.
After the Dungeon/Dragon Magazine deal, I don't think Paizo would be too interested in staking their entire revenue stream on a license. Licenses end, ya know?
I'd guess they would either acquire it outright or not be interested.