We know that 4E was released with every brand advantage, but a very limiting GSL and it has been declining while Pathfinder, released at a HUGE brand (among other) disadvantages has been growing to the point it has outsold 4E the last two quarters.
FLGS aren't the market anymore. Internet sales are.
This is ALL KINDS of funny.
In one sentence, you cite FLGS sales (the only data that the IcV2 ranking you're talking about is based on) as evidence that Pathfinder is outselling 4e.
In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you tell us that FLGS sales don't really matter.
What is this I don't even
It can't be stated with surety, but that it's even a possibility proves 4e is a monumental failure and PF a staggering success. Any unbiased person I'm sure would agree with that. That you (apparently) don't says more about yourself Scott imo, than the reality of respective sales.
Heck, we're now being told by Mr Mearls that work on 5e began in response to bad sales of 4e as far back as 2010! Way before the (apparently) corroborative sales figures from games shops - which personally I do feel are relevant based on my own habits of usually buying stuff online, but from game shop websites (usually Leisure Games of London).
Heck, we're now being told by Mr Mearls that work on 5e began in response to bad sales of 4e as far back as 2010!
Did he say that was the reason? The only comment I've seen has been that sales have been steady (with the red box doing spectacularly). As you point out, they began 5E development whilst they were still ranked first in the ICv2 surveys. I'd assumed it was the continued ill-feeling towards the various editions which motivated the shift - not any poor sales.
It can't be stated with surety, but that it's even a possibility proves 4e is a monumental failure and PF a staggering success. Any unbiased person I'm sure would agree with that. That you (apparently) don't says more about yourself Scott imo, than the reality of respective sales.
I didn't say anything about what I thought, Rockheimr. Read what I wrote. Nowhere in there did I voice an opinion.
I was simply pointing out that it's silly to cite FLGS sales as important and significant in one sentence, and then turn around and call those same sales irrelevant in the very next sentence.
So there are really two issues, here.
First, you imagine that I have said things I have not. Definitely a problem.
Second, you believe that a narrow, soft-data look at a segment of the market is enough information for any unbiased person to conclude that 4e was a monumental failure. That's a problem. Should I explain why?
which personally I do feel are relevant based on my own habits of usually buying stuff online, but from game shop websites (usually Leisure Games of London).
We have a name for things that are personally relevant: anecdote.
To expand on the issue of sales:
There seems to be a consensus among a certain group of posters, here, that 4e was a monumental sales failure. They consider this to be proven fact - objective to such a degree that any unbiased person would agree with them.
This is actually kind of concerning.
The only data that is ever cited is the IcV2 rankings. Those rankings are based on interviews with hobby store owners. I will list below the reasons that these rankings are insufficient to draw any generalized conclusion from.
- The rankings are based on interviews, not sales reports
- The rankings are restricted to participating hobby stores
- The rankings have no safeguards against misreported information
- The rankings exclude non-hobby retailers
- The rankings exclude online sales
- The rankings exclude subscription sales and revenue
- The rankings are presented in a relative fashion, and only show performance as measured against other products
That's a pretty hefty list.
On top of this, no real definition of "monumental failure" has been provided - unless, of course, it's assumed that dropping to #2 in the IcV2 rankings itself is a monumental failure, which, given the various reasons that the rankings are a poor judge of actual success I've pointed out above, is a definition for "monumental failure" that I must reject (and you should, too). The goals of the various 4e products are set by WotC, not by us, and it is literally impossible to make categorical statements about whether the line as a whole was a success or failure in WotC's eyes without knowing what their target metrics were.
A bit of advice: When someone tells you that something is proven, but only ever gives you the same tiny piece of inadequate data to back it up, ask yourself why this person is trying to convince you of their point. They do not have an honest interest in the truth, so their motivation must lie elsewhere.
|
We know that 4E was released with every brand advantage, but a very limiting GSL and it has been declining while Pathfinder, released at a HUGE brand (among other) disadvantages has been growing to the point it has outsold 4E the last two quarters.
FLGS aren't the market anymore. Internet sales are.
This is ALL KINDS of funny.
In one sentence, you cite FLGS sales (the only data that the IcV2 ranking you're talking about is based on) as evidence that Pathfinder is outselling 4e.
In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you tell us that FLGS sales don't really matter.
What is this I don't even
Scott, I know you like to cherry pick but it helps if you actually have a leg to stand on.
But I will pretend you aren't just looking for something and explain it clearly.
Two points were made, and conveniently omitted from your quote. It was stated that Paizo wasn't at that much of a disadvantage, brand wise.
To that I pointed out that my local FLGS, a place that should be aware of market trends, didn't even know Pathfinder existed until a month after core was released.
Point two, unrelated, was that FLGS are on the decline and internet sales are the future of the market.
I know you actually understand this and are just trolling. I just want to make sure everyone else does as well.
|
|
To expand on the issue of sales:
There seems to be a consensus among a certain group of posters, here, that 4e was a monumental sales failure. They consider this to be proven fact - objective to such a degree that any unbiased person would agree with them.
This is actually kind of concerning.
The only data that is ever cited is the IcV2 rankings. Those rankings are based on interviews with hobby store owners. I will list below the reasons that these rankings are insufficient to draw any generalized conclusion from.
- The rankings are based on interviews, not sales reports
- The rankings are restricted to participating hobby stores
- The rankings have no safeguards against misreported information
- The rankings exclude non-hobby retailers
- The rankings exclude online sales
- The rankings exclude subscription sales and revenue
- The rankings are presented in a relative fashion, and only show performance as measured against other products
That's a pretty hefty list.
On top of this, no real definition of "monumental failure" has been provided - unless, of course, it's assumed that dropping to #2 in the IcV2 rankings itself is a monumental failure, which, given the various reasons that the rankings are a poor judge of actual success I've pointed out above, is a definition for "monumental failure" that I must reject (and you should, too). The goals of the various 4e products are set by WotC, not by us, and it is literally impossible to make categorical statements about whether the line as a whole was a success or failure in WotC's eyes without knowing what their target metrics were.
A bit of advice: When someone tells you that something is proven, but only ever gives you the same tiny piece of inadequate data to back it up, ask yourself why this person is trying to convince you of their point. They do not have an honest interest in the truth, so their motivation must lie elsewhere.
Scott...
What all of us are saying is that 4E is being replaced less than 5 years after release.
Because it is.
Why? Because it wasn't successful. If it were, successful, it wouldn't need to be replaced so quickly.
These are the facts, and they are not in dispute.
The causes are, hence the post. Which includes links to articles written by the lead designer for 5E as to how OGL was crucial to the success of 3.0.
Which makes your case very, very, awkward.
I would advise you to read your last paragraph again. It is excellent advice.
|
|
It did become industry standard, if you define that as between 80% and 90% of the market was OGL. Even the primary rival of the time, White Wolf, put out d20 OGL books.
I think you and i have different opinions on what industry standard means. For me industry standards means other rpg companies beyond Wotc adopting a similar OGL. You have a handful yet the majority of rpg companies IPs remain closed source because they don't want top encourage competition. I don't like it. Yet I don't blame them either. I would do the exact same thing in their place.
As to industry in decline, that was exactly what was the general consensus said about why TSR went bankrupt. The reasons the industry was "in decline" then are the same as you claim now.
Uh no TSR went under because they not only published poor quality products. They published too many of them. While suing anyone and everyone who dared to use anything of theirs. When your busy spending money on all kinds of lawsuits well your profit is bound to decline. I'm not saying the industry was not suffering. Nothing and I mean nothing like it is now. You can't tell me that the rpg industry of the 1990s was like it was now.
But the table top RPG gaming industry isn't in decline. Just the booksellers.
If you mean companies like Borders or similar bookstores it might be a small factor. I never went to the big bookstore chains to buy rpg products because for years they carried none or very littel of it and second the people that worked theere beyond few exceptions were generally clueless about rpgs. Even going thourgh the internet it's no guaratee gamers will bu 5E OGL. It's not like it was in the first f years of 3E. Gaers are more picky about their products and willing to spend less.
The company that created it abandoned it because they had a 90% market share and thought they could create a monopoly if not for that pesky OGL.
So what. I know for some in the gaming community it's hard to grasp that other companies besides Wotc do the exact same thing. I'm not saying it's fair it's business and it's not fair. What's next "how dare they make a profit". I see nothing wrong with that.
Without it, you have stagnation. With stagnation, people stop playing.
Really. Interesting how rpgs like Shadowrun, Battletech and Earthdawn and other similar closed source rpgs seem to be doing okay without an OGL. There is more to the rpg industry beyond D&D and the OGL. It's not just about one rpg.
If they keep doing that, they will continue to fall farther behind.
No one neither yourself or myself can predict that with any real certainty. I'm willing to concede that a 5E OGL might do as well and help the market. Yet I'm not going to assume it will either.
|
Scott...What all of us are saying is that 4E is being replaced less than 5 years after release.
Because it is.
Why? Because it wasn't successful. If it were, successful, it wouldn't need to be replaced so quickly.
These are the facts, and they are not in dispute.
I guess by those standards 3.0 was also a massive failure.
|
|
I guess by those standards 3.0 was also a massive failure.
Scott...What all of us are saying is that 4E is being replaced less than 5 years after release.
Because it is.
Why? Because it wasn't successful. If it were, successful, it wouldn't need to be replaced so quickly.
These are the facts, and they are not in dispute.
The basis for 3.0 is still selling quite well. 3.0 wasn't replaced
When 3.5 was given up by WoTC it had a 80% to 90% market share and by every account I've read was quite profitable.
I am impressed by the persistence, don't see a lot of evidence that 4E was successful and I see very clear evidence that it wasn't.
Here is what we know. We know that 4E is being discontinued, and that sales that we have access to indicate parody between Pathfinder and Dungeons and Dragons in a market that prior to 4E Dungeons and Dragons absolutely dominated. We see this reflected additionally at Conventions and FLGS.
No, we don't know about the online money. But we do know that Paizo has been expanding, meaning they are gaining in profitablity.
One group is saying the industry is in decline, so if Paizo is growing while the industry is in decline, the other parts of the industry must logically be in decline.
So either the industry isn't in decline, or Dungeons and Dragons is, since clearly Paizo is growing. Personally I don't think the industry is in decline, as I think the internet has opened up the hobby to a much larger group of people, but that is another discussion.
The question on the table is if the GSL worked, and if it was better than the OGL. And for that question we have the proverbial two trains leaving the station.
Paizo we know is growing, and by all accounts it has gone from an fraction of the RPG industry to outselling the competition. Have they had less releases? Yes.
But isn't that part of the point?
We don't have Dungeons and Dragons numbers. All we know is they don't think 4E has enough of a future to keep going rather than releasing a 5E. Was this market strategy, perhaps planning to release a new version every few year.
If so...is that helpful to an argument to once again invest in a game that will be obsolete in 5 years, by design?
If not...why else would they be ending the edition? Why would they have, by your argument, released less product for it, effectively ending the brand as of two quarters ago when they stopped putting out product.
In short, none of the arguments put forth so far make any sense.
If the industry is dying, why is Paizo growing?
If 4E is successful as is, why a new edition now?
If it was successful as planned, why should anyone believe this won't play out again in 4 years?
The fact is 4e was an effort to create a true monopoly of the industry (which backfired) while modernizing the product to attract a new audience by simplifying the game and making it more user friendly and balanced...only they also made it harder for new players to test drive the game by making you pay to play from day one.
I argue that Paizo is growing because of the OGL. I argue that if WoTC had not abandoned the OGL, Paizo would be a niche product similar in scale, if not smaller than, Green Ronin and 4E would still dominate the market to the level they did prior.
|
|
So your argument that the industry is not in decline is because Pathfinder is popular. No offence it's going to take more than one rpg being popular to convince me of that. Of course PF will be popular. It's a great product but also because it's supporting 3.5. If Paizo had tried a new system instead of 3.5 I'm pretty sure it would not be as popular or doing as well. If it was not Paizo then someone else keeping the 3.5 product line alive.
As for arguments not making sense it's not so much making sense as an argument that goes against the OGL suddenly makes no sense. I could say that the argumetns for the OGL make no sense. But I'm not that's too much of a cop-out. Don't start a discussion if you don't like the responses your going to get. It's not quite fair to start a topic then expect everyone to agree with the topic all the time.
So far all I'm getting told about the future of the OGL is no guarantees that it will do well. It amounts to so much assumption and that the market will reamin static and unchanging. Which once again another assumption. Companies can't risk profit and jobs on a whole bunch of maybes and best case scenarios. Just because something worked before does not guarantee it will work again. Do I think 5E should have an OGL yes. Do I think that it should be implemented no matter the cost to Wotc and other rpg companies and no matter the stae of the rpg market. No Sorry but OGL for the sake of OGL will never ever sit well with me.
|
|
So your argument that the industry is not in decline is because Pathfinder is popular. No offence it's going to take more than one rpg being popular to convince me of that. Of course PF will be popular. It's a great product but also because it's supporting 3.5. If Paizo had tried a new system instead of 3.5 I'm pretty sure it would not be as popular or doing as well. If it was not Paizo then someone else keeping the 3.5 product line alive.
As for arguments not making sense it's not so much making sense as an argument that goes against the OGL suddenly makes no sense. I could say that the argumetns for the OGL make no sense. But I'm not that's too much of a cop-out. Don't start a discussion if you don't like the responses your going to get. It's not quite fair to start a topic then expect everyone to agree with the topic all the time.
So far all I'm getting told about the future of the OGL is no guarantees that it will do well. It amounts to so much assumption and that the market will reamin static and unchanging. Which once again another assumption. Companies can't risk profit and jobs on a whole bunch of maybes and best case scenarios. Just because something worked before does not guarantee it will work again. Do I think 5E should have an OGL yes. Do I think that it should be implemented no matter the cost to Wotc and other rpg companies and no matter the stae of the rpg market. No Sorry but OGL for the sake of OGL will never ever sit well with me.
No, my argument is if the industry is in decline, why is one product line growing while the others are not.
My answer would be the OGL.
I am not the one arguing the industry is in decline. So I don't have to defend it.
I actually don't think the industry is in decline. I believe the D&D brand is currently in a downswing because of very poor decisions made by the company that owns the brand.
But the D&D brand isn't the gaming industry.
What I do know is that the OGL games seem to be growing and doing well and are expanding.
What I do know is that the people who have access to the numbers are abandoning 4E and rebooting.
What I do know is that when 3.0 came out under the OGL it was successful. And it continues to be successful with the Pathfinder line.
A few months ago I would have said nothing short of WoTC announcing that they would be discontinuing 4E would convince that side of the argument that WoTC had made a mistake.
Now I see even that isn't enough.
It's like arguing with creationists...
I think the data on how much sales are really vague and that hurts outsiders knowing what is going on in the market.
|
I don't think this industry is in decline at all. I think that the market has split into far wider array of games is all.
WoTC seem to be following the tactic of Games Workshop. Release a new edition every 5 years or so. This is because they sell rule books. That's how they make their money.
I gotta say, if 4E was the big money slump that some are suggesting, I actually think Hasbro would just shut it down rather than say "Let's sink a ton more money into developing and printing a new edition." The fact they're releasing a new edition means they believe this market is firm and they can make money from it, because they sure as hell made money from the previous editions.
As for me, I'm disapointed they're discontinuing 4th ed. I really like it. I of course have all the resources I need to run it forever, but occasionally members of the group I play with drop out or move away. Finding replacement players is much harder when your system is no longer being supported <sigh>.
The same will be true when they release Pathfinder 2nd edition I guess, though the SRD may save that a little. It just means most of the modules and other resources I have for that will require "Transitioning". Such is the way of shareholder driven markets I guess.
Cheers
|
|
Ciretose I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it. Yet your presenting opinion as fact while getting unhappy that some in this thread are not taking that as the honest truth. Call me a creationist, an abolishnist, a dietician if yiu like. It still not going to make me agree with something I don't agree with.
Two things that helped the industry at the start of 2000. The release of 3E and to a lesser extent the OGL. I doubt that without an OGL D&D and the industry would have gone under. Imo gamers play D&D for D&D and not the OGL. The offical products are the ones that gamers want to purchase first then the 3pp.
As for OGL games growing and expanding. The only ones that really have brand recognition are Mutants and Masterminds and their latest version is as far removed from 3.5 as can be. Mongoose publishing also used to have many rpgs that used D20 and they dropped that in favor of the Traveller system and just getting into releasing products for PF. Then we have Pathfinder. I'm in no way trying to put down 3PP. Just that when it comes to brand recognition within Pathfinder imo Paizo products overshadow the other 3pp. even with something like Psionics unleashed some of the fanbase are still asking Paizo to release an offical product. Are 3pp products for PF on the rise yes yet imo at a somehwat slower level then the 3.5 years.
While some fans who bought 4E are switching to other rpgs I doubt it's some sort of mass exodus that wil just happen overnight.And I agree that for Paizo the OGl seems to have been successful. For the rest ofthe rpg industry no way to be sure.
I also agree with Wrath that if the sales for 4E were as bad as they ay they are Hasbro is not in the business of investing tim, money and resources into a new edition. If one of their IPS does not do well. It gets locked away. Why do you think G.I. Joe and Transformers skipped an entire generation. Both stopped selling as well as Hasbro wanted and they were pulled from the market.
But the D&D brand isn't the gaming industry.
What I do know is that the OGL games seem to be growing and doing well and...
Actually for me, it's like arguing with highly opinionated people who are sure that they are right. New ideas take time to take hold, Ciretose. If you want to convince these guys that the OGL is good, you're just going to have take advantage of the OGL yourself and show them how good it is.
Create a product or participate in the RPG Superstar event. :)
|
|
If anything it's the pro-OGL faction that seems to think they are right. Everytime I post something negative about the OGL I get told I'm wrong or it gets ignored. Not to say I can't be wrong I admit sometimes I'm wrong yet the pro-OGL faction closes it's eyes to anything negative that the OGL did or may do. If they don't acknowlege that then it does not exist.
And as I said if your not going to like the feedback then don't start a thread on a message board. If all you want to see is posts agreeing with the thread that has been started then it's like stacking the deck in your favor. What kind if discussion can be had if your convinceed from the start that your right. Once again I don't want to see a GSL. Neither do I want to see an OGL that might damage the industry or Wotc. At the very least one that benefits both Wotc and those that want to write under the OGL. I can't see anything wrong with that.
If anything it's the pro-OGL faction that seems to think they are right. Everytime I post something negative about the OGL I get told I'm wrong or it gets ignored. Not to say I can't be wrong I admit sometimes I'm wrong yet the pro-OGL faction closes it's eyes to anything negative that the OGL did or may do. If they don't acknowlege that then it does not exist.
And as I said if your not going to like the feedback then don't start a thread on a message board. If all you want to see is posts agreeing with the thread that has been started then it's like stacking the deck in your favor. What kind if discussion can be had if your convinceed from the start that your right. Once again I don't want to see a GSL. Neither do I want to see an OGL that might damage the industry or Wotc. At the very least one that benefits both Wotc and those that want to write under the OGL. I can't see anything wrong with that.
What if I sold you your car?
Then I came along, grabbed your keys, and drove off with your car, telling you can't use it?
|
|
What if I sold you your car?Then I came along, grabbed your keys, and drove off with your car, telling you can't use it?
Good point. What if I lent you the money to buy the car in the first place you don't pay it back then you demand I lend you money for a sceond car and when I say no tell me I'm being unfair and trying to screw you over.
I think the concept of the OGL was a sound one. Yet at the same time it's one of those things like communism that looke good on paper yet when implementing it had as many bad things as good things.
Another thing while I'm disagreeing for the most part with some posters in this discussion I want it known that I'm enjoying the debate and wish no ill towards anyone in this thred. Even if sometimes both sides can be pasionate about defending their respective positions.
Good point. What if I lent you the money to buy the car in the first place you don't pay it back then you demand I lend you money for a sceond car and when I say no tell me I'm being unfair and trying to screw you over.
I think the concept of the OGL was a sound one. Yet at the same time it's one of those things like communism that looke good on paper yet when implementing it had as many bad things as good things.
Another thing while I'm disagreeing for the most part with some posters in this discussion I want it known that I'm enjoying the debate and wish no ill towards anyone in this thred. Even if sometimes both sides can be pasionate about defending their respective positions.
Alright how about this. Suppose that there was a Guild called Wizards of the Coast, and they were granted an exclusive license to publish roleplaying games in the United States. They were the only one who can publish Roleplaying Games, no one else could.
And Dungeons and Dragons was the only Roleplaying Game that could be legal. You can't play Star Wars, you can't play Rolemaster, you can't play any of the World of Darkness, no other Roleplaying Game would be produced.
The only game you can buy is Dungeons and Dragons and whatever else Wizards of the Coast produced. It's a perfect world for Wizards of the Coast, because they are the only Company that gets your RPG dollars. How would that make you feel?
So your argument that the industry is not in decline is because Pathfinder is popular. No offence it's going to take more than one rpg being popular to convince me of that.
The FFG 40k rpg's are also booming, for lack of a better word.
Make tabletop rpgs people want to buy and play and ... they will.
It can't be stated with surety, but that it's even a possibility proves 4e is a monumental failure and PF a staggering success. Any unbiased person I'm sure would agree with that. That you (apparently) don't says more about yourself Scott imo, than the reality of respective sales.I didn't say anything about what I thought, Rockheimr. Read what I wrote. Nowhere in there did I voice an opinion.
I was simply pointing out that it's silly to cite FLGS sales as important and significant in one sentence, and then turn around and call those same sales irrelevant in the very next sentence.
So there are really two issues, here.
First, you imagine that I have said things I have not. Definitely a problem.
Second, you believe that a narrow, soft-data look at a segment of the market is enough information for any unbiased person to conclude that 4e was a monumental failure. That's a problem. Should I explain why?
which personally I do feel are relevant based on my own habits of usually buying stuff online, but from game shop websites (usually Leisure Games of London).We have a name for things that are personally relevant: anecdote.
Re the sales point - Ciratose's response broadly covers my opinion too (and surely that of any unbiased person); that the death of 4e really by 2010 - two years after release !!! - is a pretty HUGE confirmation it was a 'monumental failure' by any standard - which has long 'seemed' to many of us to have been the case based upon dreaded and derided 'anecdotal' observation and personal experience - a position you used to vigorously post against. Yes, you did. I have recently this week looked back over a recently threadomancered thread from 2009 iirc, and you were strenuously poo-poo'ing any vague chance PF would ever one day threaten 4e's sales, and that 4e was clearly selling better than beer on saturday night.
Yes, I am well aware these days you scrupulously avoid posting what your own opinion actually now is - but I am forced to believe that you do in fact continue to believe 4e was not 'a monumental failure' sales wise. You do after all continue to post doubting toned and themed posts (oh so often) on the subject. You have also refused repeatedly to clarify your position when I tried to get a clear answer from you on the subject.
If it looks like a duck and quacks ... it's probably a duck.
As another poster here this week has decided further argument/debate with you on this subject is manifestly pointless. We won't convince you of anything, and you are only demonstrating to me that backing down is clearly a very hard thing to do - even in edition wars that are over bar the last few shots.
|
|
I feel it's important to note again, if 4e was a monumental failure, then Hasbro would more likely just shut the brand down rather than spend lots of money speculating that a new edition would do better.
Build it and they will come.
Market it in mass media, and they will come in droves.
Target an audience with enough liquid cash to hook in without regard, and you'll make millions.
Hasbro knows this, and does it well. They're not overly worried about the market that are traditional gamers, for it small fry to their company. They want target the new kids on the block, who don't have mortgages and kids. A new addition hooks these kids without them needing to learn 5 years worth of rules releases and changes.
This is why Games Workshop and their war hammer lines have done so well, they target the right audience and change regularly to bring fresh recruits in.
Cheers
To that I pointed out that my local FLGS, a place that should be aware of market trends, didn't even know Pathfinder existed until a month after core was released.
Point two, unrelated, was that FLGS are on the decline and internet sales are the future of the market.
Look, I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me, or what. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but in this case it's very hard.
You said, in your post, "Pathfinder, released at a HUGE brand (among other) disadvantages has been growing to the point it has outsold 4E the last two quarters." The reason you are able to say this is that you have seen the ICv2 reports, which have recently ranked Pathfinder tied or above D&D in relative sales.
That's fine.
The problem is that you immediately (and I mean literally in the very next sentence you typed) said, "FLGS aren't the market anymore."
The reason that's a problem is that the ICv2 report you use as your sole evidentiary support for Pathfinder outelling D&D is based on nothing but FLGS sales.
If you truly believe that FLGS are no longer the market, why do you give any credibility to the idea that ICv2 reports prove that Pathfinder is outselling D&D? Ignoring the fact that ICv2 reports suck in terms of actually telling us anything about the market as a whole, the fact that you don't believe FLGS are really significant anymore means you ought to care even less about what the report says.
You can believe FLGS are no longer significant compared to online sales. You can believe the IcV2 report proves Pathfinder is outselling D&D. You cannot, with anything resembling intellectual honesty, believe both.
I hope I've been abundantly clear, now.
Scott...
What all of us are saying is that 4E is being replaced less than 5 years after release.
Because it is.
Why? Because it wasn't successful. If it were, successful, it wouldn't need to be replaced so quickly.
I have bolded a portion of the above. The bold portion is the part that I disagree with, and you have not provided evidence in support of the idea that a successful tabletop RPG would be replaced so quickly.
Indeed, as others have pointed out to you, other tabletop RPGs that you might call successful have been replaced as fast or faster.
Prove the bolded part. Convince me that the only explanation for 4e being replaced by 5e within 5 years is that 4e was a monumental failure. Prove that. I don't think you can, but I really want you to try.
To get you started, here is an alternative theory: 4e is a successful product, but 4e is being replaced by 5e because WotC believes that they can increase their customer base by creating a more broadly-appealing product. They are trading a successful product for what they believe will be a more successful product.
You need to explain to me why the above theory is not a possibility.
Re the sales point - Ciratose's response broadly covers my opinion too (and surely that of any unbiased person);
You really need to be careful about what you would assume an unbiased person might think.
If I got anyone with half a background in stats and sales in here, explained the bounds of the ICv2 report to them, and gave them a rough idea of the market dynamics as a whole (even according to my very amateur, layman's understanding of that market), they'd laugh at the idea that the ICv2 report proves anything - hell, I bet even the people in charge of the ICv2 report would caution against it being used beyond a certain point. It's just a woefully threadbare piece of evidence that people have a bad habit of stretching way beyond its ability to generalize.
Let's ignore, for the moment, what I believe to be the case. You're clearly fine with that. I want to know why you believe 4e to be a "monumental failure".
First, it would help if you could define "monumental failure". You haven't really explained that, and at this point the logic seems to be, "4e is a monumental failure! Why is it a monumental failure? Because it's being replaced! Why is it being replaced? Because it's a monumental failure!" I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's not going to cut it. (Worse, you're typically following it up with a quip that "any unbiased person" ought to agree with your circular reasoning.)
Finally, I will caution you against personal attacks. They don't really have any place here, but they are creeping into your posts more and more often. Tone it back.
|
|
So your argument that the industry is not in decline is because Pathfinder is popular. No offence it's going to take more than one rpg being popular to convince me of that.
The FFG 40k rpg's are also booming, for lack of a better word.
Make tabletop rpgs people want to buy and play and ... they will.
And it's worth pointing out the the 40K RPGs don't contain anything even vaguely similar to the OGL.
The OGL really doesn't matter. QUALITY matters. If you publish crap under the OGL, it's still crap. And, as FFG has proven, if you publish a great product without the OGL, it's still a great product.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this industry is in decline at all. I think that the market has split into far wider array of games is all.
WoTC seem to be following the tactic of Games Workshop. Release a new edition every 5 years or so. This is because they sell rule books. That's how they make their money.
I gotta say, if 4E was the big money slump that some are suggesting, I actually think Hasbro would just shut it down rather than say "Let's sink a ton more money into developing and printing a new edition." The fact they're releasing a new edition means they believe this market is firm and they can make money from it, because they sure as hell made money from the previous editions.
As for me, I'm disapointed they're discontinuing 4th ed. I really like it. I of course have all the resources I need to run it forever, but occasionally members of the group I play with drop out or move away. Finding replacement players is much harder when your system is no longer being supported <sigh>.
The same will be true when they release Pathfinder 2nd edition I guess, though the SRD may save that a little. It just means most of the modules and other resources I have for that will require "Transitioning". Such is the way of shareholder driven markets I guess.
Cheers
To be clear, I don't think 4E was a money slump. I would bet they made a lot of money on it, as it sold really well early on and creating a new edition isn't like going to the moon. There is a cost, but it isn't astronomical.
The problem is that in getting a lot of money very quickly, they damaged the brand and lost market position, meaning it is going to be much, much harder for them to get people to buy this next iteration.
When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche. That isn't true anymore, and so they aren't going to be able to take the "My way or the highway" approach unless they want to lose even more market share.
There is profitable short term and profitable long term. What I am saying is if they don't go back to what saved TSR and revived the golden goose, they are going to kill it.
|
|
To that I pointed out that my local FLGS, a place that should be aware of market trends, didn't even know Pathfinder existed until a month after core was released.
Point two, unrelated, was that FLGS are on the decline and internet sales are the future of the market.
Look, I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me, or what. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but in this case it's very hard.
You said, in your post, "Pathfinder, released at a HUGE brand (among other) disadvantages has been growing to the point it has outsold 4E the last two quarters." The reason you are able to say this is that you have seen the ICv2 reports, which have recently ranked Pathfinder tied or above D&D in relative sales.
That's fine.
The problem is that you immediately (and I mean literally in the very next sentence you typed) said, "FLGS aren't the market anymore."
The reason that's a problem is that the ICv2 report you use as your sole evidentiary support for Pathfinder outelling D&D is based on nothing but FLGS sales.
If you truly believe that FLGS are no longer the market, why do you give any credibility to the idea that ICv2 reports prove that Pathfinder is outselling D&D? Ignoring the fact that ICv2 reports suck in terms of actually telling us anything about the market as a whole, the fact that you don't believe FLGS are really significant anymore means you ought to care even less about what the report says.
You can believe FLGS are no longer significant compared to online sales. You can believe the IcV2 report proves Pathfinder is outselling D&D. You cannot, with anything resembling intellectual honesty, believe both.
Actually it's not, and you know this because you responded to the post where Lisa Stevens said her understanding from distributors was they were outselling "the world's most popular role playing game." I believe your post was the very next one in the thread, and later in the thread you congratulated her.
It just doesn't fit your narrative at this point.
Distributors don't just sell to FLGS. They sell to everyone who doesn't buy it factory direct and are the vast majority of books sold. You know this.
We don't have the WoTC online numbers, but I also don't think with have the Paizo PDF numbers.
WoTC is releasing nothing, so we only have the numbers we have which indicate they are now in 2nd place. I suspect if WoTC had numbers that said otherwise, they would release them to contest this generally accepted claim, but I haven't seen it.
You know very well the FLGS point was demonstrating that people who supposed to "Know" the product were not aware of the Pathfinder brand when it was released and had nothing to do with the sales point. You aren't that cognitively dissonant.
|
|
The FFG 40k rpg's are also booming, for lack of a better word.
Note I said in decline not dying. Yes profits can still be made yet the indusrety is not has healthy as it once was like in the 1990s. Not to mention the 40K rpgs do not have any form of OGL. Which to me shows that it's not a requirement for an rpg to survive. It's a nice added binus yet if you publish a quality rpg gamers will buy it OGL or no
|
|
Scott...
What all of us are saying is that 4E is being replaced less than 5 years after release.
Because it is.
Why? Because it wasn't successful. If it were, successful, it wouldn't need to be replaced so quickly.
I have bolded a portion of the above. The bold portion is the part that I disagree with, and you have not provided evidence in support of the idea that a successful tabletop RPG would be replaced so quickly.
Indeed, as others have pointed out to you, other tabletop RPGs that you might call successful have been replaced as fast or faster.
Prove the bolded part. Convince me that the only explanation for 4e being replaced by 5e within 5 years is that 4e was a monumental failure. Prove that. I don't think you can, but I really want you to try.
To get you started, here is an alternative theory: 4e is a successful product, but 4e is being replaced by 5e because WotC believes that they can increase their customer base by creating a more broadly-appealing product. They are trading a successful product for what they believe will be a more successful product.
You need to explain to me why the above theory is not a possibility.
I don't consider any of the listed quickly replaced products successful as none are significant portions of the market.
ICv2 is the only thing I've found that keeps a top 5 and none of the games listed as successful examples of games that do revisions every few years are on it.
2011 Q2 and Q3
1. Pathfinder
2. Dungeons and Dragons
3. Dark Heresy
4. Dragon Age
5. Shadow Run
I don't see the Q4 numbers yet.
#3 and #4 were developed by Green Ronin, a 3PP who emerged thanks to the OGL, by the way, but that is a secondary point.
Dark Heresy was released in 2007
Dragon Age was released in 2010
Shadowrun's last major revision was 2005.
Frankly for the last decade until last year the list was "Dungeons and Dragons" and a bunch of also ran games.
The fact that Pathfinder is even competitive with the game that dominated the market to a 80% to 90% share (when they were OGL) is ridiculous.
They are the Kleenex brand of roleplaying. My group still refers to playing Pathfinder as getting together for D&D. The fact that they are fading to a product that is functionally an update to what they had been producing made by a division they sold off...
Paizo basically kept doing what WoTC had been doing prior to 4E and that business model is thriving.
If WoTC had done what Paizo did, they would still be the 800lb gorilla in the room. If they go back to it, they could very well become it again (depending on product) if they don't...well...they will bump up to the number one slot for about a year after the release the new products before fading down again, repeating this every few years with diminishing returns each time.
Does anyone think the 5e release will has anticipation of the 4e release?
|
|
So your argument that the industry is not in decline is because Pathfinder is popular. No offence it's going to take more than one rpg being popular to convince me of that.
The FFG 40k rpg's are also booming, for lack of a better word.
Make tabletop rpgs people want to buy and play and ... they will.
And it's worth pointing out the the 40K RPGs don't contain anything even vaguely similar to the OGL.
The OGL really doesn't matter. QUALITY matters. If you publish crap under the OGL, it's still crap. And, as FFG has proven, if you publish a great product without the OGL, it's still a great product.
If by booming you mean "Selling in a distant 3rd place" sure. And it should also be noted that they were written originally by a 3PP (Green Ronin) that Games Workshop outsources to, and then bought by a card company after they were successful.
Thanks for helping me make my point about how the OGL helps develop R&D.
To be clear, I don't think 4E was a money slump. I would bet they made a lot of money on it, as it sold really well early on and creating a new edition isn't like going to the moon. There is a cost, but it isn't astronomical.
The problem is that in getting a lot of money very quickly, they damaged the brand and lost market position, meaning it is going to be much, much harder for them to get people to buy this next iteration.
When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche. That isn't true anymore, and so they aren't going to be able to take the "My way or the highway" approach unless they want to lose even more market share.
There is profitable short term and profitable long term. What I am saying is if they don't go back to what saved TSR and revived the golden goose, they are going to kill it.
This is a much more nuanced view than has been put forth during a lot of these discussions, and I'm glad to see it.
That said, I am not seeing a marked lack of interest in 5e. In fact, I'm seeing pretty much the same reactions from the same places as the pre-4e release, except with much less gnashing of teeth from current WotC customers. 5e is already generating a lot of positive buzz - and very little negative buzz - even now that we're starting to find out some basic information on how it plays and what's included.
Whether this interest with translate to sales remains to be seen, but the amount of, "5e? I don't care, I already have a game I like," traffic seems about equal to the "4e? I don't care, I already have a game I like," traffic from back when.
Actually it's not, and you know this because you responded to the post where Lisa Stevens said her understanding from distributors was they were outselling "the world's most popular role playing game."
You're right, I'd forgotten about Lisa's note on sales. Assuming that includes distributors for online retailers, you have a solid point. Apologies for the mental lapse.
|
|
Lisa can take into account Paizo's online sales, and the FLGS sales for both Paizo and WotC, but any assumptions on her part about WotC's online sales are just that...assumptions and speculations.
Given that it's really slowed down on print releases, yet still manages to be a very close second in the FLGS suggests to me that the online sales, which is where WotC has focused 4E for the past year or so, MIGHT be substantially more than Paizo's online sales. Might, or might not.
|
Lisa can take into account Paizo's online sales, and the FLGS sales for both Paizo and WotC, but any assumptions on her part about WotC's online sales are just that...assumptions and speculations.
Given that it's really slowed down on print releases, yet still manages to be a very close second in the FLGS suggests to me that the online sales, which is where WotC has focused 4E for the past year or so, MIGHT be substantially more than Paizo's online sales. Might, or might not.
I believe they can get at WoTC's online sales through Amazon by way of Neilson Bookscan. Bookscan lets you track your sales, and the sales of rivals etc... I think there is a comment floating around to the effect that they have much better data on amazon and bookstore chains then they do the hobby channel. [edit]Found it: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2zpq&page=3?Pathfinder-is-Tied-for-1st-Cong rats-to-Paizo#118[/edit]
And a decent estimate of DDI subscriptions is available by way of that forum community account status thingy right?
Ciratose's response broadly covers my opinion too (and surely that of any unbiased person);
So anyone who doesn't share your opinion is biased? Gosh, if only you'd explained things sooner...
If WoTC had done what Paizo did, they would still be the 800lb gorilla in the room. If they go back to it, they could very well become it again .
Its somewhat tangential, but I always presumed that the gorilla metaphor referred to size and resources, rather than success or popularity. Given M:tG they're still the 800lb gorilla, as I see it, since they still have the money and power (to get such wide, mainstream media coverage for a new edition which hasn't even been produced yet, for example).
|
|
Ciratose's response broadly covers my opinion too (and surely that of any unbiased person);So anyone who doesn't share your opinion is biased? Gosh, if only you'd explained things sooner...
Agreed. If somone is not going to be pleased at the answer then they should not bother asking the question in the first place. Not to mention disagreeing with someone else post does not make me biased. That s like saying anytime someone has a different opinion on something they must automatically be biased against something.
|
|
Ciratose's response broadly covers my opinion too (and surely that of any unbiased person);So anyone who doesn't share your opinion is biased? Gosh, if only you'd explained things sooner...
I though about responding to that, but it really doesn't deserve a response. It's on the same level as "neener neener".
To be clear, I don't think 4E was a money slump. I would bet they made a lot of money on it, as it sold really well early on and creating a new edition isn't like going to the moon. There is a cost, but it isn't astronomical.
The problem is that in getting a lot of money very quickly, they damaged the brand and lost market position, meaning it is going to be much, much harder for them to get people to buy this next iteration.
When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche. That isn't true anymore, and so they aren't going to be able to take the "My way or the highway" approach unless they want to lose even more market share.
There is profitable short term and profitable long term. What I am saying is if they don't go back to what saved TSR and revived the golden goose, they are going to kill it.
I wonder if they are also considering ceding the TTRPG ground somewhat and broadening the brand. That appears to have been a big part of their focus over the last couple of years - the boardgames and Gamma World did very well (apparently). They've also recently settled the long-running Atari dispute and put out the facebook game (no idea how that's been doing).
.My impression (nothing more than that) from the comments they've been making is that D&D:Next is targetting players of AD&D/2nd edition/4E - there hasnt seemed to be much discussion about what a 3.5/PF fan is going to enjoy from the new version.
|
|
To be clear, I don't think 4E was a money slump. I would bet they made a lot of money on it, as it sold really well early on and creating a new edition isn't like going to the moon. There is a cost, but it isn't astronomical.
The problem is that in getting a lot of money very quickly, they damaged the brand and lost market position, meaning it is going to be much, much harder for them to get people to buy this next iteration.
When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche. That isn't true anymore, and so they aren't going to be able to take the "My way or the highway" approach unless they want to lose even more market share.
There is profitable short term and profitable long term. What I am saying is if they don't go back to what saved TSR and revived the golden goose, they are going to kill it.
I wonder if they are also considering ceding the TTRPG ground somewhat and broadening the brand. That appears to have been a big part of their focus over the last couple of years - the boardgames and Gamma World did very well (apparently). They've also recently settled the long-running Atari dispute and put out the facebook game (no idea how that's been doing).
.
My impression (nothing more than that) from the comments they've been making is that D&D:Next is targetting players of AD&D/2nd edition/4E - there hasnt seemed to be much discussion about what a 3.5/PF fan is going to enjoy from the new version.
Well they mentioned they played pathfinder as well as 3.5 when they were brainstorming the new edition. I think bringing Monte Cook back is also a signal.
|
|
Actually it's not, and you know this because you responded to the post where Lisa Stevens said her understanding from distributors was they were outselling "the world's most popular role playing game."You're right, I'd forgotten about Lisa's note on sales. Assuming that includes distributors for online retailers, you have a solid point. Apologies for the mental lapse.
No worries.
I see it as a tale of two WoTC. The one that saved the brand from the mismanagement of TSR and the one that tried to parlay the market dominance they gained into monopolizing the industry.
Now they have gone from the 800lb gorilla to a 250 pound linebacker. They are still the toughest guy in the room, but people can stand up to them a bit.
I think the cause of the rise and the fall had a lot to do with the OGL, which is the premise of the post. If they don't go back to what got them to the top of the mountain, in another 5 years Paizo could be dead even or pass them.
That was all but inconceivable 5 years ago.
When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche. That isn't true anymore, and so they aren't going to be able to take the "My way or the highway" approach unless they want to lose even more market share.
I'm sorry, but this can't be true. There have been plenty of viable options to D&D for almost as long as D&D existed. Not to mention the many 3.5 derivatives that were already on the market when 4E was released. Nobody was forced to buy 4E because of some sort of imaginary monopoly.
|
|
The basis for 3.0 is still selling quite well. 3.0 wasn't replaced
Funny, I seem to remember WotC publishing a new PHB, DMG, amd MM. Despite the fact that they had just put out those same books three years prior. They also put out conversion documents for the 3.0 rulebooks that had been published in that time.
3.0 was replaced after 3 years, marking it as a monumental failure, using your logic. You don't get to change the rules of logic when they don't suit your argument. If 4E is a monumental failure because it was replaced within 5 years, then so too is 3.0.
Of course, using that logic, original D&D was also a failure, as was the Holmes Basic Set, and the Moldvay Basic/Expert Set. And even 3.5 itself...it was a month shy of reaching a full five years (July 2003 to June 2008).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo is what Newt Gingrich wanted from his wife. An open relationship.
Why do people always seem to feel that edition arguments need extra vitriol to be properly unpleasant? :P
4E is like George Bush: It's dumb.
Pathfinder is like Obama: It had high expectations and failed miserably to meet them.
Call of Cthulhu is like Winston Churchill: It's...
Yeah, I'm just pulling these out of my arse. Moving on!
My impression (nothing more than that) from the comments they've been making is that D&D:Next is targetting players of AD&D/2nd edition/4E - there hasnt seemed to be much discussion about what a 3.5/PF fan is going to enjoy from the new version.Well they mentioned they played pathfinder as well as 3.5 when they were brainstorming the new edition. I think bringing Monte Cook back is also a signal.
Yeah, I meant in terms of the features of the game (as they're leaking out bit-by-bit). I'm sure they looked at PF - they'd be mad to put out a new RPG at the moment without looking at what the other 'major players' are doing. However, the comments they've made all seem to be focussed on bringing back into D&D those elements from AD&D and 2nd edition missing from 4E.
.As I said, it's nothing more than an impression, but it seems to me that when they refer to 3.5 it's more along the lines of the similarities with 4E (ie the 'skill system' of 3.5/4E compared with previous editions, the focus on tactical, miniatures based combat as opposed to narrative, etcetera).
I don't know enough about Monte Cook to comment - as you made reference, he's clearly deeply associated with 3.5, so that may well be an indication that a similar 'developmental style' will be included. I don't know how attached he is to 3.5 mechanics/philosophy.