# Is Wotc Slipping?



## Stormonu (Mar 20, 2011)

I was just recently ordering some things off Amazon, and out of curiousity, I decided to go look at the ranking for the most popular RPG products ( Books > Science Fiction and Fantasy > Gaming).

A bit to my surprise, The Pathfinder Core book was sitting in the #1 spot (about 10 PM Friday night 3/19/11).  I checked again the next day, and PF is still there. (Whats even wierder is that four books of the so-called Morcyth saga, of which I've never heard, are on the list).  It was very odd, as I've never before seen WotC's products fall out of the #1 spot.

What's also strange was at the time I was looking, the highest-ranked Wotc product on the list was the Dungeon Tiles, followed immediately by the starter set.  The Rules Compenduim was somewhere in the 20s, and the 4E PHB was ranked below the PHB2 & 3.  In each case, the Pathfinder product was placed ahead of the similar Wotc product (Bestiary ranked above Monster Vault, which ranked above the MM1/2/3, Advanced Players outranked Heroes of..., etc).  I was very surpised to see the 3.5 PHB likewise in the top 20.


Since it is unlikely that WotC and Paizo will release direct sales numbers, are there any other places on the web to look up selling trends to see where WotC is sitting at in the sales rank?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 20, 2011)

I have little trust for Amazon sales rankings overall. There always seems to be something odd in the high ranks, especially in the low top ten. I'm sure WOTC's book sales have dropped a bit as there is nothing new, and has not been for a few months now. 

Paizo, on the other hand, is putting out a steady steam of books. 

But WOTC has DDI, which is not on Amazon's rankings at all. 

I know of no good site to tell us real sales figures.


----------



## kramer81 (Mar 20, 2011)

Dice4Hire I think pretty much is right. WotC has not released a new gaming book since November (not including Dungeon Tiles or the Fortune Cards in that), and there isn't another one coming out for about a month.

My suggestion is wait till April 19th and see hoe Heroes of Shadow does then.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 20, 2011)

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook does seem to be a consistent very high seller, considering it's been out for awhile now.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 20, 2011)

They may be slipping on amazon, but as others have said, amazon rankings are only valid on amazon, and only at the time you are looking at them.  

Also, I think most of the gaming books are ranked 2,000+ overall on amazon, so it's likely if a particular product sells a few dozen in a short period, it can move the product up the ranks very quickly.

I think it does show that Pathfinder is selling decently on amazon, but beyond that, I don't think there's much you can conclude form those rankings.


----------



## Keith Robinson (Mar 20, 2011)

It shouldn't be that surprising - at least, I'm not surprised by it.  I was talking to the owner of our FLGS and she said that 4ed sales has 'tanked' (her words, not mine), while Pathfinder was still a steady seller.

While you can only speculate at the reasons, mine would be that WotC are reducing their visibility in the market place (less products, no longer supporting the RPGA, ending ddm, etc), while Pathfinder have shifted up a gear and are putting a lot of stuff out there.  They've essentially plugged the hole left by WotC.

As others have said, WotC have the DDI and it is my opinion that they will concentrate their business model more and more around it, as I get the impression that it has been ver successful and brings in a constant stream of revenue.  In the long term, this may be a good decision, but in the short to middle terms, it will likely have a negative impact on their market visibility IMO (and hence sales).

It will be interesting to see how Pathfinder continues to sell.  They have a brand loyalty that WotC can only really dream of these days, but nonetheless there will (presuambly!) come a time when sales in their core products (Pathfinder core rules, bestiary, etc) will start to decline.  The question is, will their AP sales be enough to sustain their revenue stream or will they, like TSR and WotC before them, be forced to think of a new edition?

It'll be interesting to watch and see.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 20, 2011)

With the cost of the PF core book @ $50 priced normally, I can certainly see why it would remain at or near the top - that 30% off (and free shipping) really helps! I buy all my books (Gaming or otherwise) from Amazon when possible and that included my PF books.


----------



## Matt James (Mar 20, 2011)

WotC has been shifting towards digital releases, while supporting FLGS with the encounters events. There is no good way of comparing sales, at all.


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 20, 2011)

Matt James said:


> WotC has been shifting towards digital releases, while supporting FLGS with the encounters events. There is no good way of comparing sales, at all.




The next round or two of IcV2 (Q4 2010 and Q1 2011) should be quite interesting, even if it's only one segment of the market it looks at.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> A bit to my surprise, The Pathfinder Core book was sitting in the #1 spot (about 10 PM Friday night 3/19/11).




Amazon sales rankings reflect short term selling trends, not historical sales.  So, if the book is selling well today, r this week, the ranking will be high today.  Amazn does not make their ranking algorithm public, so exactly what it tells you is questionable.

It isn't supposed to be telling you how well the book is selling, actually giving you real and comprehensible information.  It is intended as a marketing tool to get you to buy stuff from Amazon.



> Since it is unlikely that WotC and Paizo will release direct sales numbers, are there any other places on the web to look up selling trends to see where WotC is sitting at in the sales rank?




Reliable ones, based on actual data?  No.  That's typically private business information.


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 20, 2011)

I think it depends upon your local area.

Here, the local gaming store is selling far more Pathfinder than 4E.  4E still sells, but it moves a bit slower.

At the local Barnes & Noble, I haven't noticed a change in their 4E display for quite a while.  They've had to start backstocking some of the product because they have more of it than will fit onto the sales floor due to ordering more than what they've sold.

However, as with anybody else's post, this is purely one man's small view in a much larger scheme, so there's really no value I can place upon my observation.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 21, 2011)

Pathfinder Core books have been outranking 4e on Amazon for months. Its nothing new, though skeptics keep making the same arguements everytime the point is raised. I was following it for a while to see how much it fluctuated and it didn't over a period of weeks and I got bored checking on it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 21, 2011)

At the local Borders Pathfinder is selling better with five books than 4e is with their whole line.

I expected Essentials to reverse that, but it didn't. Sales on Essentials were soft, sales on the Pathfinder Core, APG, and Bestiary 2 were solid. Core and APG needed restocks.

An exception was Tiles, which sold better than anything else in the 4e line.  Better than half the 4e sales for the month.

The Basic game tanked, hard.  Folks were not impressed with what they saw.

Sales on 4e have been down since before Christmas. Not just a matter of Pathfinder doing well, though it is, but also the sales on 4e have dropped by a fair amount.

I am curious to see how Ultimate Magic is going to do - it will be the first tightly focused book in the Pathfinder line, everything else has been more or less either core or general purpose.

Seeing how Pathfinder Basic does will also be interesting - perhaps it can begin to draw in some fresh blood? Though at this point all the teens & tweens I know who play have their own core books.  (And I am happy beyond all measure to say that one of them is shaping up to become the next generation of GM. He immediately grasped not only how the handouts of two strip maps worked, but how they fit into the framework of the scenario. Made me feel proud as anything!)

The Auld Grump, week after next I get to see how they handle seeing three hundred and thirty three zombies on the table.... Thirty of them fast zombies.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 21, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Reliable (sales info), based on actual data?  No.  That's typically private business information.




But how I wish Paizo and WotC would just publish their damn numbers just once, just so every side could claim victory and we could put this line of discussion to bed once and for all.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> But how I wish Paizo and WotC would just publish their damn numbers just once, just so every side could claim victory and we could put this line of discussion to bed once and for all.




Oh, that wouldn't end the argument by a long shot.  Sales numbers are, in fact, statistics.  And we all know statistics can be massaged, folded, bent, spindled,and mutilated into saying what one wants them to say.

How I would wish that gamers would not take the business success of one company or another as a point of personal ego - then there would be no sides that would need to claim victory, and we wouldn't see gamers trying to gain supremacy over fellow gamers like this.  

Of course, we are talking about a species that will riot over the outcome of a soccer game, but a guy can dream, right?


----------



## Zil (Mar 21, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Pathfinder Core books have been outranking 4e on Amazon for months. Its nothing new, though skeptics keep making the same arguements everytime the point is raised. I was following it for a while to see how much it fluctuated and it didn't over a period of weeks and I got bored checking on it.




I've been checking the Amazon list several times a week for almost two months now and I have only seen Pathfinder not on top once in that period - the Essentials/Red Box was on top that one time.   Initially it was the Bestiary 2 on top with the Core rules and Advanced Players Guide rounding out the top 5 for Paizo.  The Bestiary 2 has slipped some now, but the Advanced Players Guide and Core book are still up there at the top.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 21, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> At the local Borders Pathfinder is selling better with five books than 4e is with their whole line.
> 
> I expected Essentials to reverse that, but it didn't. Sales on Essentials were soft, sales on the Pathfinder Core, APG, and Bestiary 2 were solid. Core and APG needed restocks.




Out of curiosity, how many Essentials books were stocked versus Pathfinder books? At every Borders and Barnes & Noble I've been to locally, there are plenty of Essentials books available, but none of them stock more than a copy (or two at most) of the Pathfinder core books. So, I mean "The APG needed a restock," might not mean much if that meant they needed to reorder the one copy they had, versus having ten copies of any given Essentials book and selling through five of them.

I'm always very wary of context-free information like that given above being spread around.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 21, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Pathfinder Core books have been outranking 4e on Amazon for months. Its nothing new, though skeptics keep making the same arguements everytime the point is raised. I was following it for a while to see how much it fluctuated and it didn't over a period of weeks and I got bored checking on it.




Yes, I've checked it a few times myself and the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is always sitting up at the top there.  That's not an hourly fluctuation, it seems very stable.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 21, 2011)

If anything, the fact that it IS a very short term trend indicator along with several folks noticing a long term trend provides a stronger point for the healthy sales of the Pathfinder book(s).


I mean, if it is short term, you'd suspect that on several days pathfinder would be bumped down by just about any of the other condenders (including WotC, but not at all limited to them). 

But I do believe it's short term...which seems to indicate a strong trend across multiple short terms (so strong that it is hardly ever bumped out of position) into the long(er) term as several have observed.



Of course, as many have pointed out, WotC is going increasingly digital. I suspect that it will soon (next year or two, and certainly in 5e if they maintain strategy) become the case that they more or less drop off the Amazon rankings entirely. This will not speak to the health of D&D or to WotC's earnings as a company from it...but to the death of WotC's print line in favor of the growth of WotC's digital line.


I've seen a fair amount of anecdotal, sales rankings, quotes from retailers, etc. that all points to Paizo's books being stronger at this point than WotC's. Any of it by itself is "one man's opinion/observation". However, at this point, that's a lot of "one men". I've also not recently seen any info lately saying the converse; that WotC is outselling Paizo.


But, as I said above, this may only speak to the print market, which WotC seems to intentionally be withdrawing from in favor of Digital...This could potentially be their business plan, rather than a "failure" of them to sell 4e books.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 21, 2011)

I have no doubt Pathfinder is selling, and probably selling well. Paizo has stated time and again that they are very happy with how things are going. 

I am very happy Paizo and Pathfinder are doing well. It is nice to see two companies (regardless of who you believe is #1 or #2) competing with each other. It has been a long time, if ever that there has been strong competition in RPGs. 

Competition has to be good for the hobby in the short and long term.


----------



## Perram (Mar 21, 2011)

Yes, they are.

Well, WotC has to actually ship product in order for it to sell, and lately... they haven't.  It's been minor accessories for months now since they've "reorganized" 4e.  Their upcoming products are spread far out, and DDI keeps having delays.

If they aren't putting books on the shelves... there are no books to sell!  They may be shifting online as their primary focus, I don't know.  But I don't see that as a winning strategy, at least not the way they are handling it.

I have no doubts that Pathfinder is doing extremely well right now, and I hope they are doing fantastic.  But it's easy to win a race when your opponent doesn't even show up to the starting gate.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 21, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> But, as I said above, this may only speak to the print market, which WotC seems to intentionally be withdrawing from in favor of Digital...This could potentially be their business plan, rather than a "failure" of them to sell 4e books.



Paizo is also making plenty of digital sales - albeit in a different way - most especially of _extremely_ reasonably priced core book (and key supplement) PDFs. $10 each is very tempting, even for those who mightn't favour PDFs in general, or who are only thinking about getting into, for example, using a notebook PC or an iPad for gaming.

As for actual books, they sell them via their own website, as well (paizo.com) - and that, along with a number of other things, of course will not factored into Amazon stats. Like, I've noticed a good selection of Pathfinder books in every FLGS I've seen (been traveling a bit, lately) - and I've not got the impression they just sit there, for very long at all. For instance. 

Which is to say, I'm pretty sure they'd be doing just fine anyway, _even without_ "winning the Amazon race" or what have you.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 21, 2011)

In my LGS (Orc's Nest) the first RPG materials you see going in are the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, at the top of the magazine rack by the door.  The next thing you see is the WoTC 4e D&D material at the top of the RPG shelves facing the door, and the third thing is the Pathfinder books on the shelf beneath 4e.  Non Pathfinder/WotC material is relegated to relative obscurity round the back.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> If anything, the fact that it IS a very short term trend indicator along with several folks noticing a long term trend provides a stronger point for the healthy sales of the Pathfinder book(s).




I don't think anyone is making a claim that Pathfinder is not selling well.

I think the real issue is, lacking real historical data, there's not much way to tell exactly what that means.  Everyone *feels* they know what it means - but feeling and knowing are not the same thing, especially when the feeling usually falls along usually the lines of what game or company the person happens to prefer.   

To draw proper conclusions, we ought to compare apples to apples. The same retailers who are anecdotally telling us that Pathfinder sells well also mention (anecdotally) that the greatest number of sales for a given product tend to be in the first month it is out, and that sales drop off over time.

Pathfinder is roughly a year younger than 4e is.  So, all other things being equal, we'd expect sales of, say, Pathfinder core rulebooks today to perhaps be comparable to sales of 4e core books a year ago, rather than today.  All other things are not equal, though.  We'd also want to adjust for differences in sales bought on by economic change (and this time last year was notably worse for many wallets, you may recall). 

The complications don't stop there.  Look at the core rules for the games - the three 4e books are equivalent to only two books for Pathfinder.  So, how do you compare?  By number of units?  By gross sales?  By net profits to the companies?  By some projection of how many players those sales represent?

Amazon sales ranking doesn't give us what we need to compare these things properly.


----------



## czak (Mar 21, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I don't think anyone is making a claim that Pathfinder is not selling well.
> 
> I think the real issue is, lacking real historical data, there's not much way to tell exactly what that means.





Are there any bayesian modelers on the boards?


----------



## rogueattorney (Mar 21, 2011)

As a third party observer (as in, not a player of either 3e/pf or 4e), I think all that can be definitively said is that:

1.  Paizo is doing well with Pathfinder.  Probably better than anyone expected they would.

2.  WotC is flailing about a bit with their 4e products.  They seem to be looking for a direction, or have decided to change directions and are mid-stream in doing so.

#1 and #2 do not necessarily have anything to do with each other and #2 does not necessarily have anything to do with WotC's 4e sales.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 21, 2011)

I think it's undeniable that Pathfinder has gained significant market share, but there's no real way to tell if D+D is losing market share.  Pathfinder may be taking some customers from D+D, but they may also taking them from White Wolf, etc.

Market share changes get even harder to quantify when you take legacy systems into account.  If Pathfinder manages to steal some market share from D+D 3e players that didn't plan on upgrading to 4e, has D+D 4e lost market share, or has Pathfinder simply expanded into an untapped market?  I'm sure Pathfinder advocates will tell you the former is the case, while 4e guys will swear by the latter.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2011)

Deset Gled said:


> I think it's undeniable that Pathfinder has gained significant market share, but there's no real way to tell if D+D is losing market share.  Pathfinder may be taking some customers from D+D, but they may also taking them from White Wolf, etc.




Or "taking" fewer customers than naive interpretation of sales would suggest.  

I own 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e rulebooks.  I'll play any of those games.  I also own some nWoD books, and will play those games, too.  Sale of a Pathfinder book to me does not mean I have been "taken" from the 4e market.  It is not valid to assume that people who buy Pathfinder are not also buying 4e products, or vice versa.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 21, 2011)

The evidence does not show Pathfinder is 'beating' 4e.  I just think it's interesting that the evidence we have does seem to show that the D&D brand is no longer the 900 lb gorilla in the RPG world - if 4e D&D is still a 900 lb gorilla, then Pathfinder would appear to be a 700 lb+ gorilla.  Because not since the Vampire craze has any RPG come anywhere *near* to challenging the D&D brand's dominance of the marketplace. That seems to me that it has to be significant.  BTW I play & GM 4e, I have hundreds of pounds of 4e stuff and the only Pathfinder stuff is the first parts of 2 APs, so I'm not personally contributing to this change.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Because not since the Vampire craze has any RPG come anywhere *near* to challenging the D&D brand's dominance of the marketplace. That seems to me that it has to be significant.




Has to be?  I dunno.  You use White Wolf as the analog - ultimately they rose, but didn't really challenge.  D&D had a major resurgence with 3e.  Now, White Wolf seems to be moving away from the tabletop RPG market altogether, with their new software masters.

Which says to me that sales/popularity on the order of a year doesn't speak much to what will happen on the order of decades.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 21, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Or "taking" fewer customers than naive interpretation of sales would suggest.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is not valid to assume that people who buy Pathfinder are not also buying 4e products, or vice versa.




Kinda yes, kinda no.

You are certainly correct about the fact that buying Pathfinder does not preclude buying D+D products.  However, it's also true that gamer's funds are not infinite.  A customer who buys a Pathfinder book is less likely to buy another D+D book.  It's probably more accurate to say that Pathfinder is taking sales, not customers.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2011)

Deset Gled said:


> However, it's also true that gamer's funds are not infinite.  A customer who buys a Pathfinder book is less likely to buy another D+D book.It's probably more accurate to say that Pathfinder is taking sales, not customers.




Less likely, by how much?  A lot?  A little? We can surely find some people who have said they have limited funds, and only buy one or the other, no problem.  Folks who are driven to one side or the other exist, sure.  But how many?  What percentages of the customers? 

The discussion depends in large part upon how big the overlap is.  And even if WotC and Piazo laid all their sales data on the table for us to peruse, we still wouldn't have that information.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Mar 21, 2011)

S'mon said:


> The evidence does not show Pathfinder is 'beating' 4e.




Heh heh.  Sure.  Sure it doesn't.  Heh heh.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 21, 2011)

If one pays some attention to the relevant internet discussion channels since Essentials were launched, he will get the impression that Pathfinder sales are overtaking the 4e ones.

The cause seems to be that Essentials managed to spread confusion to the fan base and the succeeding publishing schedule to be canceled with no solid newer schedule to be replacing it.

So, the Wotc D&D publishing operations lie on a totally lower profile than what had been going on till Essentials were launched.

What message does this situation convey? Not a highly optimistic one I presume.


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 21, 2011)

I've recently heard that WoTC is moving away from the 'everything is core' idea.

While I think that is smart, I do have to ask: does that mean they are changing gears a second time while already in the middle of the Essentials change?  

...or does it mean Essentials (and other things) were part of a bigger gear change in a manner more akin to 3.5's Book of 9 Swords, 3.5's Knight Class, and other such forerunners of a future game?


----------



## Retreater (Mar 21, 2011)

> Competition has to be good for the hobby in the short and long term.




IME, I have to disagree with that. I've seen the disintegration of long-established gaming groups, unbridled anger between hobbyists, and the death of numerous game stores that can argue the point that not enough players are supporting a single gaming system, causing the collapse of the hobby.

PF doesn't have the brand recognition or easy entry point to lure in new gamers. 4E can't draw in enough of the PF crowd/3.5 fans. Hence, both systems are doomed to become niche products of a niche hobby. 

Just from my local experience.

Retreater


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 21, 2011)

Retreater said:


> IME, I have to disagree with that. I've seen the disintegration of long-established gaming groups, unbridled anger between hobbyists, and the death of numerous game stores that can argue the point that not enough players are supporting a single gaming system, causing the collapse of the hobby.
> 
> PF doesn't have the brand recognition or easy entry point to lure in new gamers. 4E can't draw in enough of the PF crowd/3.5 fans. Hence, both systems are doomed to become niche products of a niche hobby.
> 
> ...






...or another game will gain ground; I've noticed a few books for other games moving up the rankings lately

...or the two companies will put more effort into their product.  It worked for 90s era pro wrestling.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 21, 2011)

Retreater said:


> PF doesn't have the brand recognition or easy entry point to lure in new gamers.




The fact that a thing does not exist at the moment does not preclude it being created in the future. No company ever started with universal brand recognition and yet new house-hold names are being created every day.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 21, 2011)

Retreater said:


> IME, I have to disagree with that. I've seen the disintegration of long-established gaming groups, unbridled anger between hobbyists, and the death of numerous game stores that can argue the point that not enough players are supporting a single gaming system, causing the collapse of the hobby.
> 
> PF doesn't have the brand recognition or easy entry point to lure in new gamers. 4E can't draw in enough of the PF crowd/3.5 fans. Hence, both systems are doomed to become niche products of a niche hobby.
> 
> ...




The collapse of the whole hobby?  _Really?_

Also, if a gaming store's entire business was built around D&D sales (or any other single line of products), I'm not surprised such a business would fail...


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 21, 2011)

Retreater said:


> PF doesn't have the brand recognition or easy entry point to lure in new gamers. 4E can't draw in enough of the PF crowd/3.5 fans. Hence, both systems are doomed to become niche products of a niche hobby.




Umm...   Pen and paper RPGs are already a niche hobby.  Have been for years.  Compared the overall market of RPGs to video games, CCGs, movies, etc, we're barely a blip on the radar.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 21, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Has to be?  I dunno.




Well, TSR did go bankrupt... 

I agree that this is not definitive proof that Pathfinder will dominate the RPG marketplace decades from now.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> PF doesn't have the brand recognition or easy entry point to lure in new gamers. 4E can't draw in enough of the PF crowd/3.5 fans. Hence, both systems are doomed to become niche products of a niche hobby.




Nonsense.

--Erik


----------



## SteveC (Mar 22, 2011)

I say this in all seriousness and as a 4E fan: how could they not be slipping?

To begin with, in order to be a strong company, you have to actually release some products. The last time I picked up any serious amount of WotC products was in August of last year. In September, I picked up a copy of the Rules Compendium, but that's been it.

The entire Essentials line was not targeted at me, as I'm neither a lapsed player or new to the scene, so I had no reason to pick up any of the books. For the existing fanbase, I'm not alone in that regard.

I had a DDI account since day one, and I cancelled it over the online character builder issue (and also because the DDI content was pretty much non-existent). Nothing I've seen lately has encouraged me to rethink that decision.

Since then, a number of books that I would have purchased have been cancelled, and I have Heroes of Shadow to look forward to. That's a book I would most likely have avoided, but since it seems to be the only product that's actually coming out, I'll take a seriously look at it. That's pretty likely to be my only purchase for WotC this year, and quite frankly that's sad.

So there's my anecdote, which is worth nothing, but still, in many ways perception in business is reality. Is there anyone saying "WotC is going great, their sales are through the roof! What good times D&D is having?" If they are, then I haven't seen it in a long while. Even folks who are positive about the game (which, I'll say again, includes me) are acknowledging problems.

What we see a lot of is "I don't know, and neither do you." And yet that in itself is telling: if no one is out there really excited for what's happening with the brand at the moment, isn't that the surest sign of it slipping?

Let me be clear: I love 4E, and until Essentials came along I was really enjoying the way the game was going. I think 4E "classic" is the best edition of the game I've ever played, and I WAS very excited with the direction things were going. So you might think I'm a disgruntled fan (which really isn't true: we're playing a fantastic 4E game at the moment) but if I am just a disgruntled fan, where is everyone who was supposed to pick up the banner with the launch of Essentials? Certainly I'm not hearing them talk.

And perception can (and often does) become reality.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 22, 2011)

czak said:


> Are there any bayesian modelers on the boards?




I'll pretend to be one once I google to find out what on earth it is.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 22, 2011)

Erik Mona said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> --Erik




You game designers are a verbose lot, aren't you?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 22, 2011)

SteveC said:


> Since then, a number of books that I would have purchased have been cancelled, and I have Heroes of Shadow to look forward to. That's a book I would most likely have avoided, but since it seems to be the only product that's actually coming out, I'll take a seriously look at it.




Yeah, I am in the same boat. 

MUST have my D&D fix.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 22, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Yeah, I am in the same boat.
> 
> MUST have my D&D fix.



Hah! That's the truth. This year otherwise appears to be one where I spend the least money on D&D since I started playing back in the 1970s. That's scary to me! How old that makes me feel is also scary.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 22, 2011)

I should elaborate a bit, because I actually found virtually every part of Retreater's post to be objectionable.

1) The idea that "nothing will ever have the brand recognition of D&D, so no one should ever even attempt to compete" is self-defeating. Pathfinder doesn't need to "beat" D&D to be a very successful business. 

2) Pathfinder has an intro product in development at the moment and will have it out by the end of the year. Just because something does not currently exist does not mean that it will never exist.

3) There are PLENTY of things that Wizards of the Coast could do to entice 3.5 or Pathfinder players to their products. Capitulating on this point, as Retreater suggests, shows enormous lack of imagination. I'm beginning to see why he calls himself "Retreater". 

4) If a publisher (like, for example, Wizards of the Coast) has a brand that brings them millions and millions and millions of dollars in profit, are those dollars worth less because they came from a "niche hobby"? Indeed, most hobbies are niche, and yet lots of people make lots of money catering to the interests of hobbyists. Not really a lot of "doom" in this scenario, in my opinion.

The hobby games industry can support lots of games from lots of publishers. It has retailers ready to sell product and hundreds of thousands of gamers--many of them completists--eager to trade money for stuff that makes them smile.

There is no reason to be gloomy about the state of the industry, the state of the hobby, or the state of a given game system, in my view. Even if Pathfinder and/or 4th edition were declared utter financial failures tomorrow and nothing was ever published for them again, there's more than enough stuff already published in both systems to provide fun for years to come.

If all RPG publishers were as fatalistic in their outlook as Retreater, there wouldn't be any RPG publishers left at all.

--Erik


----------



## czak (Mar 22, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I'll pretend to be one once I google to find out what on earth it is.




It's a type of statistical modeling that gets around gaps in knowledge or information.  It would be one way of addressing the shifting baselines / moving goal posts / lack of solid data that people have been mentioning.  Presumably there would be a way to build a model that included the ICV2 data, the surmised DDI subscription levels, BOOKSCAN, and the amazon numbers.

 And then we could argue about the model as well as the data.

I've only run into it in the field of fisheries science (and only as the grunt worker who gets told to "go out and kill 10,000 trout and bring me their earbones, I need them for my model"), they use it cause "counting fish is like counting trees, except they are invisible and they keep moving and they eat each other".


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 22, 2011)

SteveC said:


> To begin with, in order to be a strong company, you have to actually release some products. The last time I picked up any serious amount of WotC products was in August of last year. In September, I picked up a copy of the Rules Compendium, but that's been it.




While certainly WotC needs some way to keep D&D in people's minds, I'm somewhat glad they've finally scaled back on the book schedule - I wish they'd done it back in the 3E days.  It was as if Nintendo put out two Mario games a month or Microsoft put out two new Halo games a month for five years.

Unfortunately, we've all pretty much gotten used to the rapid scale of new books coming out and I think that has gone towards coloring perceptions - if WotC (or whoever) isn't putting out the new shiney, the company must be dying!  Also, while I'm sure WotC's DDI is making decent returns, I hope it doesn't isolate its "in-print" image and actually turn away customers who either are not aware it exists or think the line has become stagnant because there's no new print products.

(As an aside, I hope book glut doesn't happen to Pathfinder.  I'd like to be able to look back some 5-7 years into the game and there be somewhere around 10 major books.  AP's though, keep 'em coming - just not so many new rules).


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Mar 22, 2011)

Erik Mona said:


> 4) If a publisher (like, for example, Wizards of the Coast) has a brand that brings them millions and millions and millions of dollars in profit, are those dollars worth less because they came from a "niche hobby"?




You honeslty think that D&D brings WoTC "millions and millions and millions" of dollars? 

Oh wait, I get it . . . you were speaking purely hypothetically.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 22, 2011)

Yes. I assume that all components of the D&D brand result in profit of many millions of dollars.

--Erik


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 22, 2011)

Deset Gled said:


> Umm... Pen and paper RPGs are already a niche hobby. Have been for years. Compared the overall market of RPGs to video games, CCGs, movies, etc, we're barely a blip on the radar.




Yes. Even compared to books about video games, RPG books are poor sellers. Since we've already had Amazon sales ranks used as a point of comparison in this thread, I can point out that at Amazon UK the PF core rules aren't in the RPG category. They are in hobbies and games, rather than the sub-category for RPGs. And they're not exactly storming away at the top of the charts. Considering the competition includes game guides for video games from a year ago, that doesn't inspire the idea that the niche is particularly large.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 22, 2011)

Erik Mona said:


> Yes. I assume that all components of the D&D brand result in profit of many millions of dollars.
> 
> --Erik




Does this probably mean that the sales of the tabletop rpg branch is not what makes the most profits for the D&D brand?


----------



## Retreater (Mar 22, 2011)

I have a few responses to Mr. Mona's earlier post.



> I should elaborate a bit, because I actually found virtually every part of Retreater's post to be objectionable.




I'm glad you object to it. It would please me greatly to be proven wrong, as that would attest to the strength of the hobby. 



> 1) The idea that "nothing will ever have the brand recognition of D&D, so no one should ever even attempt to compete" is self-defeating. Pathfinder doesn't need to "beat" D&D to be a very successful business.




True. I was merely stating that some players will play only "D&D" due to the name recognition. If you're in a community such as mine (for example) where 50% of the people will play only D&D and the other only Pathfinder, this schism results in a fragmented player base. Stores don't know what materials to carry, GMs have trouble sustaining groups with enough players, etc.



> 2) Pathfinder has an intro product in development at the moment and will have it out by the end of the year. Just because something does not currently exist does not mean that it will never exist.




I am aware of this, and I'm excited about it - and I think it will be a great seller for Paizo. 

However, the Basic Set is not the only way to get new players interested in the hobby. Consider that even in my small area that WotC has Encounters, D&D Game Day, etc., while the Pathfinder Society has no presence. 

What if Paizo could create some short Encounters-like sessions that could be given to game stores so they can test drive Pathfinder with interested players?



> 3) There are PLENTY of things that Wizards of the Coast could do to entice 3.5 or Pathfinder players to their products. Capitulating on this point, as Retreater suggests, shows enormous lack of imagination. I'm beginning to see why he calls himself "Retreater".




I do disagree that most Pathfinder fans will defect from Pathfinder to play 4th edition. Most I know will never purchase another WotC product - even those that are not edition specific including miniatures, dungeon tiles, etc. They consider Pathfinder the final evolution of D&D. They detest 4E and aren't in the slightest bit interested in a 5th edition release.

True, WotC could pull away from 4E and release legacy products, but there is nothing NEW that they can produce that will entice PF players to drop their games.



> 4) If a publisher (like, for example, Wizards of the Coast) has a brand that brings them millions and millions and millions of dollars in profit, are those dollars worth less because they came from a "niche hobby"? Indeed, most hobbies are niche, and yet lots of people make lots of money catering to the interests of hobbyists. Not really a lot of "doom" in this scenario, in my opinion.




But consider this (admittedly very simplified) example: During 3.5 WotC made $10M from selling D&D products. They needed $8M in sales to be profittable due to their overhead (including quality of products, advertising, etc.) 

Now that 4E has failed to meet the expectations of 3.5's sales and Paizo has taken a substantial piece of the pie, each are making $5M dollars in sales. This means that D&D is no longer reaching the $8M in sales needed to be profittable, so quality of products, advertising, etc., must all be cut. 

So what was once the industry leader with the greatest market penetration is now turning out fewer products and has less market presence than they did 5 years ago. 

I fail to see how this isn't bad for the hobby in general. It's terrible for WotC specifically. Good for Paizo. I personally have doubts if the hobby can survive without the D&D brand. 



> Even if Pathfinder and/or 4th edition were declared utter financial failures tomorrow and nothing was ever published for them again, there's more than enough stuff already published in both systems to provide fun for years to come.




True. However, let's look at other "dead" systems. It's incredibly difficult to find a 2nd edition AD&D players or a Palladium fantasy players, esp. compared to PF or 4E. As members of your group leave for various reasons (job, family, moving, death, etc.), it becomes hard to sustain a gaming group until you are left with nothing more than yourself with your old copy of Labyrinth of Madness. 



This post is not criticising Paizo for stepping in to pick up the ball that WotC dropped with 4E's release. You don't need me, some moron on a messageboard, to tell you that Paizo is now considered a major industry leader of tabletop roleplaying games.  What now needs to happen is to grow the Pathfinder fan base. Go for a 75/25 split with WotC. Make it so that GMs can find 3 PF players instead of 2 PF players and 2 4E players. 

Get the word out to gaming stores. Encourage PF playing events. Give free society adventures and gaming aids to DMs willing to spend an entire afternoon finding fans for your product. 

Retreater


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> But consider this (admittedly very simplified) example: During 3.5 WotC made $10M from selling D&D products. They needed $8M in sales to be profittable due to their overhead (including quality of products, advertising, etc.)
> 
> Now that 4E has failed to meet the expectations of 3.5's sales and Paizo has taken a substantial piece of the pie, each are making $5M dollars in sales. This means that D&D is no longer reaching the $8M in sales needed to be profittable, so quality of products, advertising, etc., must all be cut.



I'd bet I could make up some numbers to show the complete opposite.


----------



## tehuber (Mar 22, 2011)

Erik Mona said:


> 4) If a publisher (like, for example, Wizards of the Coast) has a brand that brings them millions and millions and millions of dollars in profit, are those dollars worth less because they came from a "niche hobby"?





They are if Hasbro feels that for the money spent, they could get Tens and tens of millions of dollars releasing new transformers figures, or another edition of monopoly, or something else.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 22, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I'd bet I could make up some numbers to show the complete opposite.




Uhmm... you do realize he was giving a purely hypothetical example to illustrate his thoughts... right?


----------



## czak (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> What if Paizo could create some short Encounters-like sessions that could be given to game stores so they can test drive Pathfinder with interested players?
> 
> 
> Get the word out to gaming stores. Encourage PF playing events. Give free society adventures and gaming aids to DMs willing to spend an entire afternoon finding fans for your product.
> ...




There are three free introductory society adventures coming out in July

http://paizo.com/store/games/rolepl...hfinderSocietyScenarios/season2/v5748btpy8jor

http://paizo.com/store/games/rolepl...hfinderSocietyScenarios/season2/v5748btpy8jos

http://paizo.com/store/games/rolepl...hfinderSocietyScenarios/season2/v5748btpy8jot

There is a free introductory module available now

paizo.com - Pathfinder Module: Master of the Fallen Fortress (PFRPG)

And another due out in June

http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfinderModules/v5748btpy8j5w

And they have continued to roll out their venture captain / co-ordinator program


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> ...I do disagree that most Pathfinder fans will defect from Pathfinder to play 4th edition. Most I know will never purchase another WotC product - even those that are not edition specific including miniatures, dungeon tiles, etc. They consider Pathfinder the final evolution of D&D. They detest 4E and aren't in the slightest bit interested in a 5th edition release.
> 
> True, WotC could pull away from 4E and release legacy products, but there is nothing NEW that they can produce that will entice PF players to drop their games...




I don't believe Erik said anything about buying _4E_ products, just _WotC _products.

WotC doesn't have to entice players to drop their Pathfinder games to get them to buy WotC products. All WotC would have to do is provide equivalent DDI support for 3.x and Pathfinder, and return sales of OoP products (something Paizo cannot do - though I'd love to see Paizo do a 3E/Pathfinder DDI type service). Nobody drops Pathfinder _and_ WotC gets the customers! (Maybe not 100%, but I'm betting pretty close.) Doesn't mean people also stop buying Paizo products, but WotC would definitely be making significant sales to Pathfinder fans.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 22, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> You honeslty think that D&D brings WoTC "millions and millions and millions" of dollars?
> 
> Oh wait, I get it . . . you were speaking purely hypothetically.



Possibly.  But remember that D&D is just a sideshow for WoTC.  They make most of their money out of Magic the Gathering - a large enough concern that it is mentioned by name in _Hasbro's_ corporate reports.  D&D is just WoTC's hobby.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 22, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I have little trust for Amazon sales rankings overall. There always seems to be something odd in the high ranks, especially in the low top ten. I'm sure WOTC's book sales have dropped a bit as there is nothing new, and has not been for a few months now.
> 
> Paizo, on the other hand, is putting out a steady steam of books.
> 
> ...




Pretty much amazon is worthless. On top of that, WOTC does sell more then a few through direct chains(B&N) and Paizo has a subscription model. Neither which amazon takes into account.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> <snip1>
> True. I was merely stating that some players will play only "D&D" due to the name recognition. If you're in a community such as mine (for example) where 50% of the people will play only D&D and the other only Pathfinder, this schism results in a fragmented player base. Stores don't know what materials to carry, GMs have trouble sustaining groups with enough players, etc.
> 
> <snip2>
> ...




*Question:* If the player base is truly split 50/50 as you claim, then Paizo & PF have managed to capture that 50% without doing the things that WotC has done.  Why then, should they adopt a WotC-style model of a PF-equivalent of Encounters, D&D Game Day, etc.?  Clearly what they are doing is working if they've swayed 50% of the available player base.

*Observation:* You act as if it's a zero-sum game.  Game stores, just like any other retail outlet, need to balance inventory against perceived demand.  The idea that a game store can "pick a horse" and only stock that game, while convenient, is a poor business strategy and a likely fast track to obsolesence.

*Opinion:*  Paizo isn't WotC.  It is thriving & growing.  Trying to be WotC or adopting a business plan that works for WotC, has a much higher chance of failure than it does for incremental success.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 22, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Uhmm... you do realize he was giving a purely hypothetical example to illustrate his thoughts... right?



Obviously. I was pointing out that his thoughts are based on some very big assumptions that have no necessary basis in reality.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 22, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Out of curiosity, how many Essentials books were stocked versus Pathfinder books? At every Borders and Barnes & Noble I've been to locally, there are plenty of Essentials books available, but none of them stock more than a copy (or two at most) of the Pathfinder core books. So, I mean "The APG needed a restock," might not mean much if that meant they needed to reorder the one copy they had, versus having ten copies of any given Essentials book and selling through five of them.
> 
> I'm always very wary of context-free information like that given above being spread around.



That is actually the biggest problem that the local Borders is having with Essentials - They got in a dozen of each, two dozen of Heroes of the Fallen Land, put them on the endcaps, but then they did not sell as many as the also new APG - while they only got in four of the APG it sold through, was replaced, and sold through again. Since release they have sold better than a dozen of the APG, getting them in a few at a time, then selling through.

They sold half a dozen of Fallen Land, more than they did for any of the others, aside from the Tiles sets. (The Dungeon Tiles set also sold through an order of eight  - doing better than anything else in Essentials line.)  They got in two dozen of Fallen Land. As a result a bunch of the Essentials books were stripped, their covers returned. (I hate this practice, better for the bookstore, but incredibly wasteful.) Better than two cases of books destroyed. About fifty volumes.

They sold two out of the dozen Basic boxes.  This is the one I thought would be a big seller, but it just sat there. It makes me worry about the boxed Pathfinder Basics. At the time the manager didn't know if they should be returned or crushed. 

Most of the sales for Essentials were just after Christmas, with folks using gift certificates. Sales of PFRPG seemed pretty steady, except for a clump around Thanksgiving where all the PFRPG Core books in the store were bought at once. (I got hired to run their first games.  ) 

Mind you, for a lot of places, selling through eight copies of APG would not be a big deal, but considering how low RPG sales were otherwise PFRPG did really well.

Essentials did better than anything beside PFRPG, but annoyed the manager with how much space was taken for mediocre sales. (Sadly, the real money is in romances.... Oi! )

At this point a vastly reduced Essentials area still holds an endcap, while PFRPG is at eye level on the main shelf, faced. The rest of 4e is above eye level, spined. (The hardcovers are really not doing well - Essentials _did_ out sell them for the Christmas season.) Above eye level is better than below - people would rather stretch than bend. Eye level is where you place items that are moving, or that you want to move. Below eye level includes the nWoD material, Shadowrun, Supernatural, and the WH40K RPGs.

As far as the manager is concerned it is better to have a stock of two and sell through than it is to have a stock of twelve and sell two.

Also, levels for WotC orders are determined at corporate level - given his druthers they would not have gotten two dozen of Fallen Lands. Having them forced on him, then not sell, rankled. Also annoying was Gamma World - one copy, sold within hours, and it took months to restock. And the restock was also a single copy, along with the new expansion. Given his choice he might well have ordered, and sold through, half a dozen. There was a lot more interest in Gamma World than in Essentials, and as far as I can see there still is.
Hell, if it is still there when I hit the store today I will buy ther one copy myself.
Pathfinder levels are determined by the store - he ordered five of Bestiary 2, sold through, got in five more, sold through, got in five more, and I was finally able to get my copy. The first two stockings sold through in a day. (Annoyingly, three of the copies purchased before I could get my own were sold to some of my players....)

To add further context - there is at least one local core of eighteen PFRPG players that I know, not including myself. I think that there is at least one other such group.

I know one Gamma World player, and no 4e players.

So it is possible that I have been skewing the numbers simply by sharing my enthusiasm - that most of the purchasers are either people that I know or people that they in turn know. The fact that the manager at the local Borders pegged me to teach a bunch of new players about PFRPG certainly points in that direction.

An enthusiastic core can skew numbers in weird directions - at one LGS that I used to frequent the biggest seller was Rifts, because of a single, very enthusiastic, core. While I never played in their game they were a happy bunch of folks who likely helped sell the game to a bunch of others.

Does that put it more in context for you?

Oddly enough, writing that helped put it in context for me, I had not stopped to realize that I may be part of the reason PFRPG is doing better than 4e locally. Weird. 4e may not have such a booster who visits Borders.

The Auld Grump, maybe I need to get a tee shirt....


----------



## Retreater (Mar 22, 2011)

*



			Question:
		
Click to expand...


*


> If the player base is truly split 50/50 as you claim, then Paizo & PF have managed to capture that 50% without doing the things that WotC has done. Why then, should they adopt a WotC-style model of a PF-equivalent of Encounters, D&D Game Day, etc.? Clearly what they are doing is working if they've swayed 50% of the available player base.[/*QUOTE]*
> 
> And a hearty congratulations is in order for Paizo. Please don't misconstrue any of my concerns as an attack on the hard-working and dedicated staff of Paizo or on the legions of Pathfinder fans.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> PF doesn't have the brand recognition or easy entry point to lure in new gamers.



In just the past year, my circle of gamers has four new folks playing Pathfinder, fished in (frankly) by the visual appeal of the products.

Nerds will find a way.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 22, 2011)

czak said:


> Are there any bayesian modelers on the boards?



Probably.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> True, WotC could pull away from 4E and release legacy products, but there is nothing NEW that they can produce that will entice PF players to drop their games.




If that is true, then I have absolutely *NO* respect for Pathfinder fans *at all* Not a bit. Zero.

But of course, you are absolutely wrong. The *vast* majority of Pathfinder fans went to Pathfinder because they found it to be a better game for them and their group. They looked at WOTC and Paizo's products and they made their choice.

If WOTC makes something new, I am sure they will look and make that choice again.  

Saying that Pathfinder folks made their choice already and are too short-sighted, insular etc to ever choose again does them no service. 

And is completely wrong.

Edit: If I were a Pathfinder fan, I would be very insulted.


----------



## Retreater (Mar 22, 2011)

> But of course, you are absolutely wrong. The *vast* majority of Pathfinder fans went to Pathfinder because they found it to be a better game for them and their group. They looked at WOTC and Paizo's products and they made their choice.




Exactly. Most Pathfinder fans are happy with Pathfinder. It doesn't matter if WotC releases a much different feel of 4E (the Essentials series) or makes an online-only Character Builder. Most Pathfinder fans seem to be happy with the game that they chose. 

You and I are saying the same thing here, so there's no point in being offended. I was merely politely disagreeing with Erik Mona's statement that WotC could do plenty of things to appeal to Pathfinder fans. (I said they could not unless they started re-releasing legacy, 3.5 or PF material.)

In truth, several particular Pathfinder fans that I know personally have stated that they are so happy with Pathfinder, they wouldn't care even if a 5th edition came out. In their words, not mine, "I'm finished buying game systems." These may be a minority of gamers, but they are there.

Retreater


----------



## Retreater (Mar 22, 2011)

Since everything I'm writing seems to be being used as fuel for a flame-war, I'm going to stop posting in this thread ... after I clear up some of Fifth Element's confusion about my previous post.



> Obviously. I was pointing out that his thoughts are based on some very big assumptions that have no necessary basis in reality.




Let's look at an example with which you may have no emotional interest. 

In this example, we will say that a delicious Subway sandwiches restaurant opens next door to your office. However, you and your coworkers always get together on Wednesdays for chili and Frosties at the Wendy's on the other side of your office. 

Unless you go out to eat twice a week, you and your coworkers will be purchasing your lunch at either Wendys or Subway. If you alternate one week going to Wendys, the next to Subway, Subway will be selling to you exactly one half the number of footlong meatball subs they would if you would go there every Wednesday.

Now out of my hypothetical example, let's switch some terms. Coworkers = fellow gamers; Wendys = WotC and 4E; Subway = Paizo and Pathfinder. The individual products (meatball subs, Frosties, etc.) = game products including DDI, Adventure Path, Campaign Settings, etc. 

WotC has to be making less money than it did during the height of 3.5. This is an assumption, sure, but it is based in reality:
1) The economy is not as good; discretionary income has dropped.
2) Many players (maybe not 50% but a sizable chunk) are playing other systems (either Pathfinder, 3.5, etc.) - let's be generous and say 20%
3) If the existing players of 4E do not purchase product to replace the amount that the lapsed players are not purchasing - and if WotC doesn't get more players to help plug that purchasing gap - they will be making less money.)

So unless you think that WotC's profits during their 3.5 peak were so super-stellar that they could afford to shave off 20% profit and not notice, then you can beat that the lost revenue is coming out of something other than the Hasbro CEO's kids' college fund. 

Not big assumptions. Little assumptions. 

Retreater


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> Unless you go out to eat twice a week, you and your coworkers will be purchasing your lunch at either Wendys or Subway. If you alternate one week going to Wendys, the next to Subway, Subway will be selling to you exactly one half the number of footlong meatball subs they would if you would go there every Wednesday.



That's your assumption: that we'll only go out to eat once per week. That's not necessarily true. Your analogy is flawed as well, since at restaurants you buy consumable goods, while books are not consumable. Once you buy the book, you have it. Since I have no emotional involvement with the subject at hand, you could stick with it and keep away from the analogies.



Retreater said:


> WotC has to be making less money than it did during the height of 3.5. This is an assumption, sure, but it is based in reality:



During the height of 3.5? I'd probably agree, but would still know that it's simply an assumption. But for the rest of 3.x's life? I don't know.

WotC is presumably making good money off of DDI, which didn't exist in the 3.5 days. Many players have probably purchased both 4E and PF products (like me, for instance), so people playing PF doesn't mean they're only PF players, and people playing 4E aren't only 4E players. Many gamers play both systems, and buy stuff for both. We have no idea what the degree of overlap is, but it is there and makes simplistic 75/25 (or whatever) breakdowns of the market naive.

 Also, when you say "making less money", do you mean gross or net? Gross  sales are one things, but costs also factor into profit. And if you  think we know nothing about WotC sales figures, we know even less about  their costs.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> Exactly. Most Pathfinder fans are happy with Pathfinder. It doesn't matter if WotC releases a much different feel of 4E (the Essentials series) or makes an online-only Character Builder. Most Pathfinder fans seem to be happy with the game that they chose.



That's not what he said. You seem to be saying that PF fans made their choice, and they're sticking to it regardless of what happens in the future. While that may describe some people, I'd say most people would take notice of any big changes and investigate them to see if they're to their liking. Most people make (relatively) rational choices, and wouldn't ignore everything WotC does just because they once decided that they preferred PF to 4E.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 22, 2011)

Retreater said:


> Let's look at an example with which you may have no emotional interest.
> 
> [Food example]
> 
> ...




Personally, I don't really disagree with you about the basics of the economics involved.  Your example show the situation relatively well.  There are some interesting nuances that make this an imperfect example, and are worthy of discussion, but I don't see that as being as big of a deal with your stance.

The point where you lose me is when you say (paraphrasing using your example): 

"Subway doesn't have the brand recognition to lure in new eaters. Wendy's is losing the market share of the healthy eaters.  Hence, both restaurants are doomed to turn into food carts."  And, "This means that Wendy's is no longer selling as many burgers, so quality of everything goes down."

Nothing in your example explains how you get from point A (economics) to point B (doom and gloom).  You seem to be assuming that competition will lead to death, when it can really lead to a multitude of different options.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 22, 2011)

carmachu said:


> Pretty much amazon is worthless. <snip>




Ok, this post wasn't bad by itself, really, at all (no offense directed at you carmachu), but I gotta say, it's a very small part of a trend that has really begun to piss me off.


Yes, anecdotes are tiny pieces of information. Yes, Amazon is only a part of the sales of both companies. Yes, ENworld polls are not "all gamers" or even "all gamers who frequent online websites."

But, WOW, to call informaion worthless is missing something. No, it's not scientific...it's not a dual blind comparison, but it is data. Enough anecdotes (especially when there are no counter anecdotes), enough data (even if it's data points that only express single hours of sales) from a major (THE major) online seller of books, enough polls (with the context/perspective of who is being polled taken into account), and you start to have some valuable information.


Is it perfect? No. Is imperfect information used daily by clinicians, scientists, researchers, and companies of all sorts, especially if it is "the best" information they can obtain to inform themselves? *Yes.*



I'm just making the point that small pieces of information can be important...and they can be especially important in aggregate. To dismiss them is shortsighted (whether you agree with them or disagree with them). You might ask for more, you might deny a trend, but to say that "ENworld polls are worthless/don't mean anything" or somesuch is fairly obtuse, in my opinion.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 22, 2011)

Nikosandros said:


> Probably.




Bizarrely that's my research specialisation aka systemic predictive modelling. So far, theory describes RPG industry outcomes at 96% accuracy; but only as a closed system.

It's pretty widely used in most industries and I'd be surprised if larger TRPG companies don't consult with modellers on a regular basis. Not doing so is much like taking a walk along a cliff front with a blindfold on.

Put another way, the videogame industry sure does.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 22, 2011)

xechnao said:


> Does this probably mean that the sales of the tabletop rpg branch is not what makes the most profits for the D&D brand?




I think that's an interesting lens through which to view the brand's development in the last year or so, but I have no data to say one way or the other. I know for the longest time that conventional wisdom said the novels brought in more money than the game. I don't know if that's true, and it does seem like the D&D "footprint" in the novels section of most bookstores has shunk a bit in recent years, but it wouldn't surprise me.

--Erik


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 23, 2011)

Erik Mona said:


> I think that's an interesting lens through which to view the brand's development in the last year or so, but I have no data to say one way or the other.



Don't let that stop you; the theme in the RPG Industry forum lately seems to be "what can we assume about WotC and/or Paizo's finances, based on little or no data?"


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 23, 2011)

Retreater said:


> I have a few responses to Mr. Mona's earlier post.




Cool. I appreciate the measured response and always appreciate a chance to get into it on the business side of things every once in a while.




Retreater said:


> True. I was merely stating that some players will play only "D&D" due to the name recognition.




I'd call those folks "brand loyalists," and my suspicion is that they will migrate to the new version of the game pretty much no matter what it is. I don't think this audience is all that firm in its convictions, though. If they start to sour on the system or can't find any players I think a fair number of them would be willing to migrate, especially if their friends are playing something else, the other game is available in local game and bookstores, and there's decent organized play. A lot of folks who would never touch a non-D&D (or non-WotC) game probably don't have a tremendous amount of experience with other games. Show them something fun, with a good network of local players, and I suspect many of these guys would try it out. If I had friends pulling me to the local D&D Encounters game I'd probably go, even though I'm not all that interested in the system.

Others will never switch, and will eventually end up posting on a future version of Dragonsfoot, only for whatever edition they decide they love the most. More power to them.



Retreater said:


> If you're in a community such as mine (for example) where 50% of the people will play only D&D and the other only Pathfinder, this schism results in a fragmented player base. Stores don't know what materials to carry, GMs have trouble sustaining groups with enough players, etc.




It's the stores' responsibility to keep pace with public demands, and it's the game producers' responibility to make products that appeal to the widest number of gamers possible. Lots of retailers in lots of communities are making lots of money selling Pathfinder, just as lots of them are making lots of money selling D&D. 

We're in the process of reaching out to local retailers and providing them with information about how to stock our product lines. Just this last weekend we held two packed seminars at the Gama Trade Show in Las Vegas where a retailer named Gary Ray at Black Diamond Games in California did a presentation of how he has had success stocking  both Pathfinder _and_ Dungeons & Dragons. Here's a link to his presentation.

It's up to the game companies to make games people want to play. We're certainly going to keep releasing appealing game stuff, and I suspect the folks at Wizards of the Coast (and other publishers, as well) are going to try to do the same. Ideally, everyone's products are so awesome that it grows the pie overall. I think that was certainly Wizards of the Coast's goal with the Essentials line, and for all the internet chatter I hear about relatively new customers becoming engaged in their D&D Encounters program, it sounds like they have had some success with it. See also the Red Box in Target and Wal Mart. 



Retreater said:


> However, the Basic Set is not the only way to get new players interested in the hobby. Consider that even in my small area that WotC has Encounters, D&D Game Day, etc., while the Pathfinder Society has no presence.




Where do you live? We've recently signed on volunteer "venture-captains" who help to get Pathfinder Society chapters started all over the country (and world, but that'll take a bit more time), so this is a problem I can very likely rectify. 

The Pathfinder Society is still relatively young (and the Pathfinder RPG is even younger!), so it'll take a while before we have a completely solid infrastructure of local organized play gaming, but we are working on it!



Retreater said:


> What if Paizo could create some short Encounters-like sessions that could be given to game stores so they can test drive Pathfinder with interested players?




That would be awesome.



Retreater said:


> I do disagree that most Pathfinder fans will defect from Pathfinder to play 4th edition. Most I know will never purchase another WotC product - even those that are not edition specific including miniatures, dungeon tiles, etc. They consider Pathfinder the final evolution of D&D. They detest 4E and aren't in the slightest bit interested in a 5th edition release.




Well, I think a lot of those folks could probably be wooed with a good marketing strategy and some products that appeal to their interests, but that's some other guy's job, not mine. 



Retreater said:


> So what was once the industry leader with the greatest market penetration is now turning out fewer products and has less market presence than they did 5 years ago.
> 
> I fail to see how this isn't bad for the hobby in general. It's terrible for WotC specifically. Good for Paizo. I personally have doubts if the hobby can survive without the D&D brand.




Lots more bad stuff needs to happen for Dungeons & Dragons to "die" and leave the hobby without its anchor brand. 

I mean, geez. How did we go from Red Boxes in Wal Mart to "D&D is going to die and leave the hobby in quicksand" so rapidly? Wasn't that just a couple of months ago? I guess time really goes fast on the internet.



Retreater said:


> What now needs to happen is to grow the Pathfinder fan base. Go for a 75/25 split with WotC. Make it so that GMs can find 3 PF players instead of 2 PF players and 2 4E players.




Ok.

--Erik


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

Heh, Pathfinder will find true name recognition when Jack Chick and the 700 Club hold up the Pathfinder RPG as the Devil's Bible. 

Seriously though, D&D has enough name recognition to have impact on non-gamers. The only other game that I can think of that has had similar impact is Vampire: the Masquerade.

I know of folks who use the terms Dungeons & Dragons and D&D synonymously with Role Playing Games. (My mom was one of them.) 

The Auld Grump


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> But, WOW, to call informaion worthless is missing something. No, it's not scientific...it's not a dual blind comparison, but it is data. Enough anecdotes (especially when there are no counter anecdotes), enough data (even if it's data points that only express single hours of sales) from a major (THE major) online seller of books, enough polls (with the context/perspective of who is being polled taken into account), and you start to have some valuable information..




No.  You don't.

This is where the logic train tragically derails and never makes it to understandable conclusion station.  The plural of anecdotes is not "data."  The plural of anecdotes is "more anecdotes."


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfCirno, there was a long discussion between Pawsplay and Obryn (I think) about the anecdotes vs data thing on another of these recent "WotC and/or industry in crisis" threads.

Pawsplay was taking roughly the same line as Aberzanzorax. Obryn was taking roughly the same line as you.

I'm not trained as a statistician or natural scientist, but as a lawyer, philosopher and social theorist. So I'm not really qualified to have an opinion on how, if at all, one goes about generalising from these ad hoc, self-selected comments here and there.

But I do think that sometimes decisions have to be made on the basis of partial and incomplete information, and that sometimes such decisions can be more or less rational. A current example (which I'll try to state without falling foul of the "no politics" rule) - as far as I know no one has statistically significant data (eg of the Gallup poll variety) on the degree of popular support, among Libyans, either for the current government or the rebels who are fighting them. But nevertheless a number of governments, including mine (ie the Australian government) have formed a hypothesis about where popular support might best be seen to lie. And a lot of ordinary but thoughtful people have also similarly formed such hypotheses - and at least among the Australian intelligentsia I think they mostly lean the same way as does the government.

I'm not sure what, if anything, follows from this general point, to be applicable to the issue of support for game systems. I am surely one of the strongest proponents of the merits of 4e on these boards, but looking at WotC's apparent dithering and back-and-forth on its design, marketing and product release plans doesn't give me the impression of a well-oiled machine proceeding smoothly to it's desired destination. And all the other stuff I hear about Paizo and Pathfinder tends to push in the same direction.

I don't think that WotC is about to abandon D&D or anything like that - they're sinking a lot of effort into DDI, it seems, and presumably have Magic and other revenues to cross-subsidise if necessary in any transitional period. But I find it hard to believe that they're doing as well as they hoped they would be at the time of the 4e launch.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

*Sigh* Anecdotal evidence is still data, especially in any situation where perception can influence reality.

It is not weighed as heavily as empirical evidence, but it is weighed. And given the lack of reliable statistics, and the tendency to disregard what little *cough* Amazon *cough, cough* statistical evidence that we do have....

Trying to say otherwise is whistling into the wind. Folks may feel better for the whisltlin' but it ain't gonna carry far.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2011)

The problem comes, TheAuldGrump, when people start making conclusions based on anecdotes.

Can we say that Pathfinder and Paizo's doing pretty well?  Sure, I don't think anyone would disagree here.  Can we say that WOTC is probably not doing as well as it might?  Again, indications in that direction seem strong.

But, beyond that, it's all hearsay and guesswork.  How much has the player base split?  The answer will depend an awful lot on how you feel about the game.  And that applies equally to both sides of the divide.  How much ground has WOTC lost?  Again, we have no real idea, just gut feelings.

I look at it this way.  The following questions cannot be answered right now:

1.  How many current D&D (in any form) gamers are there?
2.  How many of those are playing which edition?
3.  How has this changed over time?

Since no one is forthcoming with answers to any of those, any opinions are about as accurate as a Magic 8 Ball.  Without answers to the very basic questions, we can't even begin to make any sort of conclusions.

For all I know, Paizo could control 99% of the market.  I don't know.  I doubt it, but, I certainly couldn't prove it one way or another.  It could be that WOTC is pulling in massive amounts of cash with DDI that we're just not seeing because it's totally internal.  Again, I have no idea and neither does anyone else in this thread.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> How much has the player base split?



I think this is a different question from the one about how the different firms are doing commercially (although obviously it is related in various ways). That is because the player base is about _playing_, whereas the commercial prospects of the firm depends upon _purchasing_ (including completism, as someone - Erik Mona? - noted upthread).

Because of the comparative ease of monster building in 4e, and also the fact that spell casters can't benefit from ever-longer lists of spells, and also the fact that multi-classing does not involve actually taking a level of another class, it seems at least conceivable that 4e would generate less demand for supplements that essentially add to the lists - be they lists of monsters, or of classes, or of spells - than does 3E or even AD&D.

It therefore seems conceivable that 4e, moreso perhaps than 3E, would be more likely to enjoy a non-purchasing player base.

Anyway, in general terms I agree with you that anything beyond picking fairly obvious trends is highly speculative. My only point is that speculating about player bases is even more speculative than speculating about commercial trends.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The problem comes, TheAuldGrump, when people start making conclusions based on anecdotes.
> 
> Can we say that Pathfinder and Paizo's doing pretty well?  Sure, I don't think anyone would disagree here.  Can we say that WOTC is probably not doing as well as it might?  Again, indications in that direction seem strong.
> 
> ...



I disagree, but only to degree - while folks are making guesses some are making _informed_ guesses.

My problem, however, is with folks who completely disregard anecdotal evidence, which for sales is generally a bad idea, or even go so far as to dismiss sales figures that disagree with their perceptions (Amazon being a case in point).

It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la, I can't hear you!' It is robbing yourself of a data point, no matter how small. 

A related problem, and one that I have been guilty of, is to either overly regard or disregard local sales. Neither is good, and I have done both.

When I noticed that the local Borders was selling more Pathfinder than 4e I assumed that it was a local phenomenon only. (I _did_ confirm that it was at least a local occurrence however, not just my perception.) So I disregarded it, or mentioned it only as a local detail.

Then came similar reports from a widely spread area, contemporary to my own observations - meaning my assumption that local gamers were unusual was somewhat flawed to say the least. (I actually had taken some small amount of pride that my area was unusually discriminating in their tastes for RPGs.)

Later I forgot to allow for the fact that I have likely been skewing the local market in favor of PFRPG - I have been directing folks to the game, and have run games to introduce folks to the game. Enough so that when folks approached the manager at Borders about PFRPG he directed them, in turn, to me.

A given area's pool of gamers is likely small enough that a few outspoken enthusiasts can tilt the local buying habits one way or another, and I had forgotten that.

At this point there is no local store that is supporting Encounters, so there is no real counter to the folks that I have been pushing towards PFRPG and/or away from 4e.

If there is a widely held perception that WotC has dropped the ball then it is likely that they have, anecdotal evidence or not. The real question is 'to what degree does this affect the game?'

Personally, I suspect that those shouting 'endgame!' are just as wrong as those folks yelling ''tain't so!'. While WotC may have dropped there is still plenty of time on the clock.

Me, I'd like to know _why_ Essentials did not do as well as I expected, what piece of evidence I missed.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 23, 2011)

Everyweek the FLGS where I live gets a shipment of at least 2 or 3 PF core books, ditto for APG, 1 to 2 Beastiaries, lately 3 to 4o Beasitary 2s, and they ALL sell out in four days and repeat. They have NOT sold a D&D4e book beyond Tiles in two months. The owner and manager have told me this. I go there often. 

I'm not saying this is the same across the country, just noting how its going here in my local Oregon area.


----------



## Erudite Frog (Mar 23, 2011)

I guess threads like these show people really care about Wizards, yes? I see so many people replying and posting. And, you cant say it is just caring about D&D, because D&D and Wizards are the same. We even have a Pathfinder big-wig replying!


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Everyweek the FLGS where I live gets a shipment of at least 2 or 3 PF core books, ditto for APG, 1 to 2 Beastiaries, lately 3 to 4o Beasitary 2s, and they ALL sell out in four days and repeat. They have NOT sold a D&D4e book beyond Tiles in two months. The owner and manager have told me this. I go there often.
> 
> I'm not saying this is the same across the country, just noting how its going here in my local Oregon area.




This sounds very, _very_ odd to me.

Your FLGS is selling through the same dozen or so Pathfinder books every single week, and not selling _any_ 4e books? I'm having a really hard time imagining how this could be the case, unless your local Pathfinder community is _tremendous_ (like, amazingly, hugely huge) or your owner/manager are feeding you false info.


----------



## Erudite Frog (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> This sounds very, _very_ odd to me.




Same here, this sounds very odd.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Everyweek the FLGS where I live gets a shipment of at least 2 or 3 PF core books, ditto for APG, 1 to 2 Beastiaries, lately 3 to 4o Beasitary 2s, and they ALL sell out in four days and repeat. They have NOT sold a D&D4e book beyond Tiles in two months. The owner and manager have told me this. I go there often.
> 
> I'm not saying this is the same across the country, just noting how its going here in my local Oregon area.




Does your owner and manager advertise one game and not the other?

How are they positioned and advertised in the store?

Is there games being hosted for one and not the other?

Are there sales or out-of-store ads for one and not the other?

I saw a LGS (wouldn't call it friendly!) about a month ago that bragged about how 4e didn't sell, and in the same breath said he'd warn his customers away from 4e.  Wow, what a shocker they didn't buy it!

Also he went out of business last week, so _that worked out well for him!_


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 23, 2011)

Erudite Frog said:


> I guess threads like these show people really care about Wizards, yes?




No, not really.

For me it's more like the train wreck you can't stop looking at. 

However, I think it's important to make a distinction.  "WotC" discussed in this thread (and usually in all other threads on these message boards as well) refers to "Wizards of the Coast handling of the D&D tabletop RPG."  It has very little to do with the company as a whole as the tabletop D&D RPG (from what we know) is just a tiny bit of Wizards of the Coast revenue (Thanks, Magic!).


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Also he went out of business last week, so _that worked out well for him!_



Heh.

We get data point after data point so often they are practically touching.  But we get this "enlightened" refrain of "you can connect those dots, that's just guesswork." And sober heads nob in stern agreement.

Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing.  And a direct line of association is drawn between the two.  And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E.  heh




I wonder how may game stores owners were suggesting games other than D20 ten years ago.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Heh.
> 
> We get data point after data point so often they are practically touching.  But we get this "enlightened" refrain of "you can connect those dots, that's just guesswork." And sober heads nob in stern agreement.
> 
> ...




_*Heh.*_


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing. And a direct line of association is drawn between the two. And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E. heh




Eh.... I think it is a very different thing to draw a big conclusion like "4E is failing" from various anecdotes and short-term data lone... versus saying that a game store owner _who actively steers customers away from buying products he is selling_ is probably somewhat at fault for his store going out of business. 

Saying that a bunch of miscellaneous data giving conclusions about the industry as a whole is equivalent to a single person's story about a single game shop resulting in a conclusion _solely about that game shop... _I'm sorry, that's just silly.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Eh.... I think it is a very different thing to draw a big conclusion like "4E is failing" from various anecdotes and short-term data lone... versus saying that a game store owner _who actively steers customers away from buying products he is selling_ is probably somewhat at fault for his store going out of business.
> 
> Saying that a bunch of miscellaneous data giving conclusions about the industry as a whole is equivalent to a single person's story about a single game shop resulting in a conclusion _solely about that game shop... _I'm sorry, that's just silly.



But you are majorly moving the goal posts here.

Even the title of this thread says "slipping" not "failing" which are far different assessments.

There may be some people trying to say "failing" just to stir reaction.  But the focus of debate has been on whether or not we still have one clear 800 pound gorilla or if the market is split.  And there are people saying we can not even make THAT conclusion as reasonably probable.

As Auld Grump clearly explained, rational people can do very well making rational conclusions from data that need not constitute proof to the fourth decimal.  

Unlike the false standard you set here, the actual claim being routinely made is very well supported by the indications available.  Even assuming the two point made in ProfC's post are both factual (and I have no reason to think otherwise) there is no justification whatsoever for declaring them connected.

You are correct that they are very different.  But you have them backward in terms of which is reasonable and which is not.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Me, I'd like to know why Essentials did not do as well as I expected, what piece of evidence I missed.




Good post. 

And I too thought Essentials would do well. I think, in hindsight, some of this was wishful thinking. Contrary to the claims of those who think all PF players want WotC to die, I suspect most are like myself to one degree or another. We are sentimentally attached to the brand and want it to succeed even though we have no interest in the current incarnation. 

I think if I was going to make an educated guess on why essentials has not done as well as hoped it is because it lacked a large enough, and viable enough, target audience. 

1 - Essentials, while welcome, was too little too late for PF players like myself who feel 4e has left behind too many "classic" D&D assumptions. You can't well argue it harkens back to the things people associated with D&D (i.e. magic missile) but is still fully 4e.

2 - Essentials, while appealing to completist, was not needed by core 4e players who were satisfied with their game.

3 - Essentials (and this one is a guess) is too confusing for new players in that it provides an additional gateway into the game on top of the core books already produced. People don't want to buy the same rules twice if they can help it and I suspect half the new buyers will buy the old books and half will buy the new books, as they try to figure out what should be the first book bought.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

Wicht said:


> 3 - Essentials (and this one is a guess) is too confusing for new players



I disagree with this one.

People who didn't buy something don't then find it confusing.

Though it seems "which product to buy" is also part of the confusion you reference.  But that assumes great numbers of people looking to buy in for the first time.  Have you seen any evidence of that?  It doesn't matter if 90% or 50% or 25% of X bought Essentials versus the PHB if X is not a significant number to start with.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 23, 2011)

Wicht said:


> 3 - Essentials (and this one is a guess) is too confusing for new players in that it provides an additional gateway into the game on top of the core books already produced. People don't want to buy the same rules twice if they can help it and I suspect half the new buyers will buy the old books and half will buy the new books, as they try to figure out what should be the first book bought.




I think in WotC's fervent attempt to assure retailers that Essentials was NOT 4.5 (to avoid the backlash that 3.5 produced), they sacrificed brand clarity for the end user (consumer).  Now it's a mess.  

I mean, which of the old core books are you supposed to buy if you start with all of the essentials products?  Do they tell you anywhere?  Do they tell you how much you'll be buying twice if you do so?  Do they tell you what changes were made in Essentials, that, if you buy the old books, will not be supported with the online tools?  And do they tell you all of this in one convenient easy-to-find place? 

If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then the newbie may find the game too confusing to bother with.  They'll either try another RPG, or just find another diversion that suits their needs.  The RPG books are just too expensive (and there are too many of them) for a casual user to bother otherwise.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I disagree with this one.
> 
> People who didn't buy something don't then find it confusing.
> 
> Though it seems "which product to buy" is also part of the confusion you reference.  But that assumes great numbers of people looking to buy in for the first time.  Have you seen any evidence of that?  It doesn't matter if 90% or 50% or 25% of X bought Essentials versus the PHB if X is not a significant number to start with.




By confusing, I am not referencing the rules. I assume they are not confusing. I am talking about consumer purchasing confusion.

Moreover, as my point is that I would guess essentials lacks a large enough viable target audience, your second point merely reinforces what I was trying to say. Essentials hasn't done as well as expected because it lacks a truly viable target demographic.


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 23, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Good post.
> 
> And I too thought Essentials would do well. I think, in hindsight, some of this was wishful thinking. Contrary to the claims of those who think all PF players want WotC to die, I suspect most are like myself to one degree or another. We are sentimentally attached to the brand and want it to succeed even though we have no interest in the current incarnation.
> 
> ...





good points; if you don't mind that I add a few of my own....


4 - I'm still not entirely sure what exactly Essentials is supposed to be.  It's supposedly an easier introductory product and an easier format for new players, but I find the Heroes of ______ books to be written in a way which is more confusing than the PHB ever was.  For me, the layout of the information jumps around too much.  As someone who knows how to play the game, it takes to long to get to the information I need.  If I were to somehow mind erase myself and be a new player once again; I don't believe Essentials would be easier than how PHB1 was presented.

4b - Essentials isn't necessarily less complex either.  While it is true that some classes do not have ye olde power structure of 4E, many of those classes replace power choice with keeping track of more variables such as auras stances and other such things.  It's also my humble opinion that feat selection is more important than it was before, the Essentials feats tend to be more powerful than their forerunners were.

Overall, I just don't understand what the end goal of Essentials was supposed to be.  It often seems to conflict with itself.

5 - I believe other games have gained ground on the 'industry leader' over the past 2 years.  There was/is (I believe) a group who didn't want to go back to 3.5 (or Pathfinder,) but were also turned off of 4E after the first few books.  They took their first venture into non-D&D territory and discovered a world of possibilities they didn't know existed. They still gave Essentials a look to see if it changed what they didn't like; in some cases it did, but in other cases it took 4E further in the direction they already didn't like... sometimes it somehow managed to do both at the same time.  I count myself into this category.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 23, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> I mean, which of the old core books are you supposed to buy if you start with all of the essentials products?  Do they tell you anywhere?  Do they tell you how much you'll be buying twice if you do so?  Do they tell you what changes were made in Essentials, that, if you buy the old books, will not be supported with the online tools?  And do they tell you all of this in one convenient easy-to-find place?




I've been playing D&D in one form or another since 1981. I'm not a newbie and I must confess that if I was to try, at this moment, to tell someone which 4e book to start with, I honestly wouldn't know what to say other than to point them to the 1st 4e Players Handbook and DM's Guide. And even then I would tell them that I have heard they have had a lot of errata and that after you buy the book you'll have to find out what those changes are on-line. (Which isn't the best way to have to sell a book of rules.)


----------



## xechnao (Mar 23, 2011)

D&D Essentials, as the evergreen D&D essential product should be one, maximum two books (one for the player and one for the DM).

What they did was an attempt to launch and sell a "new(revised)/not new(compatible)" severely long package line and (if internet claims are true) they failed utterly.

I am not sure whether this was due to wrong marketing or a failed conceprtion regarding the product's commercial potential.

Nevertheless, IMO the design of Essentials is a sincere effort to fix 4e, towards what tabletop D&D has historically wanted to be and it is a well done effort at that. Now, whether the design of 4e can trully be amended on this front is a different matter entirely. But Essentials seems to be the best thing that one could do about it.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

Wicht said:


> By confusing, I am not referencing the rules. I assume they are not confusing. I am talking about consumer purchasing confusion.
> 
> Moreover, as my point is that I would guess essentials lacks a large enough viable target audience, your second point merely reinforces what I was trying to say. Essentials hasn't done as well as expected because it lacks a truly viable target demographic capable.




Corrected and in agreement


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But you are majorly moving the goal posts here.
> 
> Even the title of this thread says "slipping" not "failing" which are far different assessments.




Just to be clear, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either assessment. But either one involves making a very large conclusion about the state of an entire industry based on a variety of uncertain data. And that, as a whole, is a very different thing from saying, "That guy's shop failed because he undermines himself by discouraging people from buying product he is selling."

In the second case, it may still not be true, sure! But I think it is a much smoother declaration to make than claims that WotC is slipping based on the information we have thus far. 

Now, if your claim is that ProfessorCirno is an unreliable witness, so those of us on the internet can't make any judgements at all - then sure, that's more of an argument. Even if I have no reason to doubt him, it has become secondhand knowledge, and I'd be making a conclusion about a store I've never seen based on a statement from someone I've never met. 

But for ProfessorCirno himself, coming to a conclusion about a store he has personal knowledge of, based on his own personal experiences about the owner of the store, seems like a much more reasonable thing than all of us bouncing around bits of various data and trying to assemble it into a complete picture, without ever having access to the data that truly matters. 

Either one, of course, Dannagar's xp comment wasn't celebrating ProfessorCirno making some genius calculation to have definitively shown why that store owner failed. It was about saying, "Yeah, telling people not to buy products you are selling is silly."

Which, _regardless _of why the store failed, is true.


----------



## Belen (Mar 23, 2011)

A table top RPG will not dictate the success or failure of a LGS.  If a LGS is relying on sales of TT games to keep them in business, then they have already failed.  A store owner that is pro-PF or Pro-D&D does not matter except for local sales of one edition or another.

A friend of mine that owns a successful LGS barely stocks PF because she believes that she cannot compete with paizo.com.  She carries a few PF products and mainly WOTC, although sales of WOTC have tanked.  She has considered reducing shelf space dedicated to RPGs because they just do not offer a lot of sales.

The state of PF or D&D really has no influence on a LGS.  In many cases, carrying such books are only used as loss leaders to get people into the store that may buy other items.

Personally, I am happy for Paizo.  

WOTC made themselves largely irrelevant to me when they canceled Saga and complete irrelevant when they canceled the minis.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> But either one involves making a very large conclusion about the state of an entire industry based on a variety of uncertain data.



You are casually brushing off a lot of data here.



> Now, if your claim is that ProfessorCirno is an unreliable witness



I don't claim that at all.  I have no idea.  I'm certainly willing to presume he is right about the facts.  Heck, I can even assume he knows more than he said and the connection DOES exist.  None of that changes my point.




> But for ProfessorCirno himself, coming to a conclusion about a store he has personal knowledge of, based on his own personal experiences about the owner of the store, seems like a much more reasonable thing than all of us bouncing around bits of various data and trying to assemble it into a complete picture, without ever having access to the data that truly matters.



Why does his data get every benefit of the doubt and all the other get presumed false with no option for even consideration?  



> Either one, of course, Dannagar's xp comment wasn't celebrating ProfessorCirno making some genius calculation to have definitively shown why that store owner failed. It was about saying, "Yeah, telling people not to buy products you are selling is silly."



Heh, that is a wildly charitable interpretation of a sarcastic "paragons of mankind", remove it from the context of both the specific post and the overall conversation and declare it to just mean "silly".  So you bend over backwards to distort the xp comment to something unrecognizably passive.  But one post ago you were going out of your way to warp "slipping" into the major overstatment "failing".  You are applying rather stark double standards.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You are casually brushing off a lot of data here.




Amount does not imply accuracy.



> Why does his data get every benefit of the doubt and all the other get presumed false with no option for even consideration?




If my friend in Portland tells me about the weather in Portland, I'm likely to just believe him.  If he isn't also a climatologist, and starts making claims about global climate, I'm going to ask where his information comes from.

It is not unreasonable to think that a single person can accurately observe and report on a local phenomenon.  If  it isn't my locality, I'm not in a position to question their accuracy - barring special circumstances, the local observer is usually more likely to know what's going on than I am at a distance.

The same doesn't hold for more broad scope.  Individuals cannot generally observe global phenomena directly.  They must gather data.  And then how they get what data becomes very important.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> If my friend in Portland tells me about the weather in Portland, I'm likely to just believe him.  If he isn't also a climatologist, and starts making claims about global climate, I'm going to ask where his information comes from.
> 
> It is not unreasonable to think that a single person can accurately observe and report on a local phenomenon.




Yup.

But if my friend in Portland has been known to have an agenda to make me think the weather in Portland is better than it really is, or if I have noticed that whenever actual observations show him to be wrong, he either denies those observations or refuses to admit he is wrong, it makes me suspect that my friend in Portland might be a less-than-reliable witness.

Observation of someone's habits across multiple threads tends to affect how much weight I give their observations.  YMMV.



RC


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> But if my friend in Portland has been known to have an agenda to make me think the weather in Portland is better than it really is, or if I have noticed that whenever actual observations show him to be wrong, he either denies those observations or refuses to admit he is wrong, it makes me suspect that my friend in Portland might be a less-than-reliable witness.




Yes.  Which is why I did say "likely" and "barring special circumstances".  There's always exceptions.  

Mind you, if you want to be completely intellectually honest, if you're going to critique your friend, you ought to critique yourself, too.  Ask yourself if you have an agenda of your own, and if you've been properly skeptical of the sources of information that "prove" your friend wrong, and all that.  

This is all easy when you're talking about the weather, and there are solid sources of information independent from you or your friends and your possible agendas.  

In dichotomy wars, it is a tad more difficult.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Observation of someone's habits across multiple threads tends to affect how much weight I give their observations.  YMMV.




I generally don't give much weight to stuff I read online or offline.

If I really wanted to know how reliable something is, I would check it out myself.

If I didn't really care one way or the other, I just dropped the subject.  Basically an entire huge pile of "maybe, maybe not" stuff in "truthiness".


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Amount does not imply accuracy.



I made no claim that accuracy was implied by the quantity.  I simply pointed out that it was a large amount he was brushing off. There has been a great deal of discussion on the quality of that data and I didn't presume that needed to be reset from the beginning.



> If my friend in Portland tells me about the weather in Portland, I'm likely to just believe him.  If he isn't also a climatologist, and starts making claims about global climate, I'm going to ask where his information comes from.



Agreed.  And, again, I made this wild presumption that conversations about a wide range of sources of data was already known.



> The same doesn't hold for more broad scope.  Individuals cannot generally observe global phenomena directly.  They must gather data.  And then how they get what data becomes very important.



Certainly.  But you are doing nothing but generalizing with no effort presented to show how this actually applies to the conversation at hand.  

Again, my actual point was the simple irony of a third party (not a "friend in Portland", but an anonymous handle on a website) making a single proclamation and that getting praise from the same audience which defaults to rejecting a variety of insider statements.  The idea that I need to defend observing the irony there is itself ironic.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Mind you, if you want to be completely intellectually honest, if you're going to critique your friend, you ought to critique yourself, too.



So you wouldn't suggest someone discard information on one side out of hand while casually giving XP to information on the other side.
You think treating both sides with equal consideration and/or sceptical review is better?
I would agree if this is what you are saying.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You are casually brushing off a lot of data here.
> 
> I don't claim that at all. I have no idea. I'm certainly willing to presume he is right about the facts. Heck, I can even assume he knows more than he said and the connection DOES exist. None of that changes my point.




Fair enough. But my point, at heart, is about the scale. One person experiencing a single event (the closing of a store) and coming to a conclusion based on personal experience (I bet it had to do with poor business decisions made by the owner) remains very different from extrapolating the state of a company from tangential, anecdotal, and incomplete data. 



BryonD said:


> Why does his data get every benefit of the doubt and all the other get presumed false with no option for even consideration?




Didn't you just say you were willing to assume his data is true? 

Either way, I'm certainly willing to assume his data is true _for him_. That's who you were criticizing - ProfessorCirno making a conclusion based on data available to him, while ignoring the data that might imply that WotC is slipping. 

For him, let's assume this is true. He has seen firsthand how this owner acts, and that this store closes down. His conclusion is that the practice of discouraging customers from buying some of your products _did not work out well_ for that store owner. 

Given that he observed the data firsthand, I'd say that counts as pretty reliable information. That doesn't mean his conclusion tells the whole story - the store could have (and probably did) close for any number of reasons. But assuming that bad business practices didn't help? That hardly seems like an unreasonable assumption to make. 

Compare this to the data that some feel indicates WotC is slipping. We have personal anecdotes from various places, often contradicted by anecdotes provided by others about their own stores. It isn't that I don't believe them individually - it is that I don't beleive they add up to a greater picture. 

For example, ProfessorCirno recounts this tale about a local game store. I believe him, and I believe that this information can be used to make assumptions about _his game store_. Similarly, if you tell me that 4E sales are nonexistent at your local game store, I am willing to concede that as evidence that 4E sales are slipping _at your locale game store - _but not that 4E sales are slipping _as a whole_.

If we instead are looking at other elements, such as the various sales reports and amazon rankings, those might have a bit more weight - but they tell so little of the overall picture that I don't think you can make any conclusions from them without a much longer lifespan of data.  



BryonD said:


> Heh, that is a wildly charitable interpretation of a sarcastic "paragons of mankind", remove it from the context of both the specific post and the overall conversation and declare it to just mean "silly". So you bend over backwards to distort the xp comment to something unrecognizably passive.




Bend over backwards? That's how I read it! ProfessorCirno recounts a tale about a game store owner who engages in foolish behavior. Dannager awards XP with a comment that seems the equivalent of shaking his head at such foolishness. What in the world do you think he means? 

Do you really think Dannager's comment was putting forward a theory that _all _game store owners act like this, or was some sort of hypothesis on them _actually _being paragons of mankind?

Or, more likely, was he just recognizing that many game store owners are, unfortunately/fortunately, fans and gamers at heart, and often make decisions based more on personal bias than good business sense?



BryonD said:


> But one post ago you were going out of your way to warp "slipping" into the major overstatment "failing". You are applying rather stark double standards.




Going out of my way? Like I said above - either, both, it's all the same to me. I've heard both claims made. It really doesn't bother me which one is made. My issue is not with the claim itself, but the evidence it is based on!

What possible double standard is in play here? You're either reading way too much into some of my statements, or going out of your way to find specific quotations in my posts to complain about. I'm inclined to assume the former, since I'm really not all that invested in this debate as a whole. 

I just felt it somewhat out of line to claim that someone's objection to using a collection of anecdotes about the industry as a whole meant they weren't allowed to use personal knowledge to come to conclusions about a situation they experienced first hand.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  Which is why I did say "likely" and "barring special circumstances".  There's always exceptions.
> 
> Mind you, if you want to be completely intellectually honest, if you're going to critique your friend, you ought to critique yourself, too.  Ask yourself if you have an agenda of your own, and if you've been properly skeptical of the sources of information that "prove" your friend wrong, and all that.
> 
> ...




All absolutely correct.

The point is, plausibility of evidence has to factor in a lot of things, and some folks are always going to find some evidence more plausible than others.  There is always an observer bias, and the best thing you can do is be aware of it.

Which is actually a compliment to your post (the one I quoted), I think, rather than a contradiction of it.

RC


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Good post.
> 
> And I too thought Essentials would do well. I think, in hindsight, some of this was wishful thinking. Contrary to the claims of those who think all PF players want WotC to die, I suspect most are like myself to one degree or another. We are sentimentally attached to the brand and want it to succeed even though we have no interest in the current incarnation.
> 
> ...



I guess that this is 6 - Appearance of the Product. The look of the book (and other things ending in 'ook') did not grab buyers. A few may not have purchased it because it was not uniform with the rest of 4e. 

Sadly, I know folks who bought PF over 4e and Essentials because it was a better looking product. Me, I played OD&D, with stapled covers and _really_ bad art. Heck, did you ever look at the first edition cover of the AD&D Monster Manual? It looked like, and was, the work of a relative amateur. (Just remember 'Amateur' has a root that means 'Love'. A true amateur does something because he or she loves it.)

But yes, folks buy a good looking product, it very much helped sales of Vampire: the Masquerade.

While I honestly think PF is a better game, for me at the least, I also think that picking a game based solely on how pretty it is ranks as pretty darned silly.

As for turning customers away from 4e... is it possible that some folks are interpreting 'pushing folks towards PF' as 'turning folks away from 4e'? And at which point does one become the other? Back in the 3.5 days I saw a GURPS player physically pull a D&D starter box from the hands of someone who was maybe twelve years old, and tell him not to buy it, and how much better GURPS was. The net result was the kid not buying either.

On the flip side, if someone asks me for a recommendation I am much more likely to describe Pathfinder than 4e, in part because PF is a game that I like, and in part because 4e is _not_ a game that I like. Recommending 4e does not cross my mind. This is part of the reason why the failure of the Essentials Redbox annoys me - there are circumstances where I _would_ have recommended it. I really hope that Pathfinder Basics does a better job - being able to direct a parent to a nice, simple, yet worthwhile gateway drug introductory game would be very nice.

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Mar 23, 2011)

Does it really matter.
In the end they will do what the bean counters tell them on both sides of the aisle.

Did Pazio hurt WotC with Pathfinder?
Maybe, it allowed a successfully outlet to those that didn't want 4E.

Far as market shares, if we are talking just RPG book material.  Than it's no wonder Paizo has made leaps and bounds over them.
If your talking all RPG material(including online) WotC still has the Silverback's share of it.

But in the end actual numbers don't matter here.  
It's a prespective matter especially for those of us on boards that watch it.

You have to remember 3.5E saturated the market with books.  Both WotC and 3rd Party.
I dare say I could easily play for another 30 years without using all the material I acquired during the 3E/3.5E days.

WotC is a victim of its own success in that regard.  
Many of us sufferred wallet-burnout during those years.  $40/month for quite a few years gets expensive quick.  That doesn't even talk about the DDM or 3PP purchases on top of it.

I bought D&D DDM occassionally even after 4E.  Between that and Star Wars Saga and it's DDM line I still was a WotC customer directly buying new products from their retailers.   I just didn't jump to 4E, nor did I jump to PF.  I simply stayed with what I had and was very happy doing it.
Once SW Saga and the DDM lines ended, all of a sudden I wasn't a direct WotC customer anymore.  So their sales further eroded.

As an outsider looking in, it is very easy to look at WotC and Paizo and see Paizo taking over the industry lead.  But that is just appearances.

Using the Amazon numbers as an example, when was the last new thing WotC put out?  That certainly cuts there numbers there.

But in the end as I said it doesn't matter what the numbers are as we will never know the truth.
Play the game you love, and encourage others to play it, cause in the end we are what we are: Gamers.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 23, 2011)

So Auld, you comment that your store sells less 4e products than PF ones, but you only recommend PF ones to your customers when they ask? Surprised?


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 23, 2011)

Before this goes too far afield in attacking 'validity', are there other sites that present info on sales ranking for RPG products?  I saw nothing on B&N's site, for example.  I do seem to recall someone posting an article -I think from ICV2? - discussing general sales ranking for 3rd quarter RPG sales; is there more information such as this somewhere available to us?

----------
As an aside, I went back to Amazon to look at the rankings for the D&D boardgames, and just where Gamma World was sitting in the rankings.  I couldn't find Gamma World in the running on the general list under where I found PF and most RPGs, though it's ranked 32 on the "D&D" list.

Wrath was #42 on the boardgame rankings, which is pretty decent, though strangely way behind Munchin (#20?!?).  Its at least beating out games like Descent


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Didn't you just say you were willing to assume his data is true?



Yes, and I still am.  My comment does not challenge that, it questions why others are permitted a doubel standard.




> Bend over backwards? That's how I read it! ....
> 
> Going out of my way? ...
> 
> ...



You took the most charitable possible interpretation of the pro-4e side and replacing "slipping" with "failing" when assessing the other side.  If that is just how you saw it, then fine, I accept that.  

But it is no less a double standard.




> I just felt it somewhat out of line to claim that someone's objection to using a collection of anecdotes about the industry as a whole meant they weren't allowed to use personal knowledge to come to conclusions about a situation they experienced first hand.



I didn't say that.  I was mocking the XP, not the statement.  And "weren't allowed" is pretty extreme.  I'm not trying to disallow anything.  But just as they are allowed to present it both ways, I think I'm allowed to point it out.





> Do you really think Dannager's comment was putting forward a theory that _all _game store owners act like this, or was some sort of hypothesis on them _actually _being paragons of mankind?



Just to go back to this....

Quite simply, in the midst of "edition wars" the point was to mock someone seen as on the other side.  Do you still claim it was "silly"?
And my point is that the XP was supporting a random claim on the internet in the midst of demanding that such claims from named sources can't be trusted.

Black Diamond has recently stated that the only thing which has saved the market from 4E's decline is PF filling the void.  Now, obviously there is perfectly valid room for calling that just a segment of the market and not definitive of the big picture.  But it at least deserves the same support or dispute as an unnamed claim about a single store.  And, again, I believe them both.  Or at least am willing to accept them both.

And I also know that this data point is consistent with numerous other sources, including my own personal experiences and conversations.  

But that is beside the point.  If we are being sceptical thne lets be sceptical.  If we are bein accepting, then the fact that we need to be accepting over and over and over and over regarding the split market should start to paint a picture in reasonable minds.


----------



## Perram (Mar 23, 2011)

renau1g said:


> So Auld, you comment that your store sells less 4e products than PF ones, but you only recommend PF ones to your customers when they ask? Surprised?




As another person who managed a game store... you would be surprised at how little the owner's opinion of a product is taken into account by any customer.

And you sell the product that the customer wants to buy, regardless of what you prefer.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 23, 2011)

renau1g said:


> So Auld, you comment that your store sells less 4e products than PF ones, but you only recommend PF ones to your customers when they ask? Surprised?



*Shrug* They aren't my customers. 

I am just the guy who gets called over if I am in the area and someones asks the manager about RPGs - I am not an employee of the store, merely an interested bystander.

I only give my opinion on 4e when I am asked, and even then I hardly ever tell customers that 4e makes an awfully good substitute for Charmin.  I tend to use terms like 'overly focused on the encounter at the expense of the setting'. Never coming out and saying '4e is bad', merely that 'Pathfinder is good' or, if asked directly 'I feel that Pathfinder is a better game'. 

And the reason I get called over is that folks are more likely to make a purchase, not less. Directing towards rather than away. Well, one of the reasons, I also know a lot more about RPGs in general.

The Auld Grump


----------



## xechnao (Mar 23, 2011)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Does it really matter.
> ...



Apparently, yes. There is a fraction of the target population we are bothering discussing about here that its choices are ultimately characterized by the behavior of following the lead.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You took the most charitable possible interpretation of the pro-4e side and replacing "slipping" with "failing" when assessing the other side. If that is just how you saw it, then fine, I accept that.
> 
> But it is no less a double standard.




I'm still not sure what the double standard is, here. 

I didn't see Dannager's comment as pro-4E or anti-4E or related to editions at all. It was, as far as I could tell, simply about the foolishness of a game store owner who is more invested in personal bias over actually making good business decisions. You claim I am reading it in the best possible light - I genuinely don't see any other way to read it. 

I mean, you later reference it as having something to do with mocking people on "the other side" of the edition wars. I am genuinely curious here - in what way is it doing so??

As for equating "slipping" vs "failing"... Yes, the thread title refers to WotC slipping. I have also seen plenty of people claim that 4E is failing as well. You refer to Black Diamond's statement about 4E's decline. How much difference is there between these words? 

You claim a double standard because, presumably, I have read the claims by one side of the discussion in the worst possible light. But the thing is, for me, it is irrelevant. Whether one is claiming that 4E is failing utterly or that WotC has simply fallen behind as industry leader, I find both views equally unproven. One isn't in a worse light than the other - my objection isn't to the claims themselves, but to the evidence used on their behalf. 

They are all rooted in the same evidence and logic and arguments. I'm not even saying those details are entirely without merit - I just don't think they add up enough for us to make any true conclusions _at this time_. Maybe six months from now, maybe a year from now... as it is, I haven't seen any numbers that can definitely show me whether WotC is doing poorly or doing well, nor how it is doing in comparison to other products, or its own past performance. 

I've seen a lot of things that, yes, measure one area of the industry. It is clear that 3PP for 4E don't do as well - as a whole - than they did for 3.5... and yet, the ENWorld APs are apparently doing great. I don't know how the sales of their book lines compare to the profit from DDI. I don't know if current book sales, during a period when they have slowed their release of products, are an accurate reflection of how the game is doing as a whole. 

And because of that, regardless of whether you are claiming WotC is slipping, 4E is failing, or whatever, I don't feel anyone has presented a compelling argument convincing me any of those possibilities is currently true.  

My reference to '4E failing' wasn't an attempt to paint your side of the argument in a bad light, whatever you might believe. It was just a phrase, one I've seen made by various posters in this and other forums, and essentially analagous to the claims made in the thread title. I don't know what else to offer you other than that. 



BryonD said:


> And my point is that the XP was supporting a random claim on the internet in the midst of demanding that such claims from named sources can't be trusted.




It might be that my view is different from others. But I don't think - and I could be wrong here - that Dannager (or ProfessorCirno) has said that claims and anecdotes from other sources can't be trusted. Just that they can't be used to extrapolate the state of the industry as a whole. 

That's why this is different for me. I said this in my last post, and you skipped right over it, so here it is again. If ProfessorCirno gives an anecdote about his store, and gives a conclusion _entirely about that store_, that is a self-contained data and conclusion. If you tell me an anecdote about your store, and conclude that your store is not selling a great deal of 4E material, _I will believe you_. 

What I won't believe is that _because _your store is not selling 4E, that 4E as a whole is in decline. It may well be possible - but that one piece of evidence isn't enough. 

And, yes, there are others who offer similar anecdotes. But there are also those who offer anecdotes of 4E selling well. Either way, I don't find that either can be used to universally depict what is going on. 

Whereas ProfessorCirno's one anecdote about his store doesn't try to say anything _beyond _what it concludes about the store itself. 

That's the difference. It's not about trusting one source over another. It is about the conclusion's being completely seperate in scale. Hence why I found it unreasonable to try and compare the two, and point at perceived hypocrisy in favoring one anecdote over the others.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> So you wouldn't suggest someone discard information on one side out of hand while casually giving XP to information on the other side.




And you were complaining about me being too general?  

If one person is talking about a specific local event, and another is talking about a global issue, then we are talking apples and oranges cases.  My criteria for trust in the two cases is not the same. 




BryonD said:


> I made no claim that accuracy was implied by the quantity.  I simply pointed out that it was a large amount he was brushing off.




I merely question why the amount is relevant.



> The idea that I need to defend observing the irony there is itself ironic.




Need?  There is no prize to be won here, and no great loss to be suffered.  There is no credible attack against anything of material value underway.  If you did not defend, the world would continue on just as it would if you did.  Neither WotC nor Paizo nor any other company somehow depends upon the words in this discussion.  

So, maybe I do see an irony here, but I don't think it is the one you allude to.







Raven Crowking said:


> Which is actually a compliment to your post (the one I quoted), I think, rather than a contradiction of it.




Agreed.  We have managed to expound on each other, rather than conflict, which is nice.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 24, 2011)

The idea that me stating "Hey this shop owner was actively telling people to not buy his product then later went out of business, so that didn't work out" is being extrapolated into being part of a *nightmarish pro-4e agenda* is the most hilarious thing I've read in awhile.  How can you even have a pro-4e agenda?  This isn't global politics!

Coming in second place is the idea that "Hey this game owner was a jerk to his customers so they stopped shopping there" is equatable to "Let me take a few anecdotes and tell you exactly how the _entire RPG industry is working_."

Wait Dannager gave me XP, _Dannager, you fool, they know you're a part of the conspiracy now!_


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 24, 2011)

Dannager said:


> This sounds very, _very_ odd to me.
> 
> Your FLGS is selling through the same dozen or so Pathfinder books every single week, and not selling _any_ 4e books? I'm having a really hard time imagining how this could be the case, unless your local Pathfinder community is _tremendous_ (like, amazingly, hugely huge) or your owner/manager are feeding you false info.




It is possible, I don't work there so i dont know for sure, but yes our Pathfinder community is rather large...even on the back wall where there are advertisements for games there are about 4 or 5 PF games to one D&D game. I can only speak of what I have seen, and I don't speak for everybody else. I will also say that the manager could be lying to me so idk.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2011)

Something I would point out because I've got this spidey sense tingling that I started this little sidebar on validity.

Never once have I questioned the facts that are being presented.  Not once.  I never said that what people are claiming are not true, so, there is no double standard.

What I am saying is that because the facts are so irrelavent or anecdotal, the conclusions that people reach from these have far more to do with that person't biases than on any objective analysis.

Again, since you cannot actually answer any fundamental, basic questions, and you cannot even ballpark them, how can you possibly claim that something like Amazon ranking is indicative of anything?

People are taking some very, very narrow bits of information and then trying to spin them into broader facts and conclusions.  And, all you have to do is look at the username and you know before even reading the post, what that conclusion is going to be, one way or the other.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> , how can you possibly claim that something like Amazon ranking is indicative of anything?




It's indicative of Amazon sales.  And Amazon is a big book retailer, probably the biggest by a good margin.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 24, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that me stating "Hey this shop owner was actively telling people to not buy his product then later went out of business, so that didn't work out" is being extrapolated into being part of a *nightmarish pro-4e agenda* is the most hilarious thing I've read in awhile.




And bear in mind that two days ago we were dealing with the ritualistic burning of 4e books as an act of collective emancipation, so this is _saying something_.



> Wait Dannager gave me XP, _Dannager, you fool, they know you're a part of the conspiracy now!_




Oh _crap_, they can see XP awards? I thought only members of the conspiracy had access to that information! Next thing I know you'll be telling me they know about the secret volcano lair, or that they can read these posts.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 24, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If WOTC makes something new, I am sure they will look and make that choice again.




Speaking as a 3.5 fan, I completely agree. All WotC needs to do is produce a better version of D&D's original 1974-2008 gameplay and I'll be all over it.



TheAuldGrump said:


> I'd like to know _why_ Essentials did not do as well as I expected, what piece of evidence I missed.




If I had to venture a guess, I'd point to three factors:

(1) The pay-to-preview Starter Set isn't an effective product. (Products like it have been tried more than a dozen times by TSR and WotC. They have never been big sellers.)

(2) The total price point for the softcover Essentials books is _higher_ than the hardcover PHB/DMG/MM trio. So any new players doing price comparisons will figure that they're getting a better deal by PHB/DMG/MM set.

(3) WotC was probably a little too hyper-interested in avoiding another "3.5". They invested a lot of energy into convincing anyone who would listen that Essentials was 100% compatible with 4E and that absolutely nothing was changing. It's really hard to convince existing players to buy something when you're telling them that they already own it.

(4) The Essentials rulebooks didn't actually fix any of the problems that the vast majority of 3.5/PF holdouts had with the 4E ruleset. (Someone like that probably does exist, but honestly the only people I have _ever_ heard claim that Essentials would appeal to 3.5 players are existing 4E players.)

So you've got a product line that doesn't sell to new roleplayers; doesn't sell to existing 4E players; and doesn't bring ex-customers back into the fold.

That's a product line with some problems.

Also, check this out:

(1) Go to wizards.com. Click on "Dungeons & Dragons". Click "New to D&D". You'll end up on this page, which features two videos telling you to buy the PHB/DMG/MM.

(2) Do a Google search for "what do I need to play D&D". You end up on this page on Wizard's website which also tells you to buy the PHB/DMG/MM... for 3rd Edition.

There are, obviously, pages out there telling you to buy Essentials. But there's some dysfunction here in WotC's message.

More generally, I think WotC is really fighting the fact that they literally do not have any effective branding which translates to, "These are the books you need to buy to start playing D&D."

Core? They spent 2008-2010 degrading that term into meaning nothing at all.

Essentials? Even if you actually needed all 11 products in the Essentials line to start playing (and you don't), the idea that you would need to buy 11 products in order to start playing the game would be completely absurd.

The Starter Set might have fit that bill, but they made it using a proven-to-fail product model.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Mar 24, 2011)

*Boilerplate*

How many threads have there been in the past few months discussing Amazon numbers and other stray bits of hard-to-decipher information, where the talk went on for numerous pages before it became clear no one can read the tea leaves of "rankings on a website owned by some guy named Bezos" ?

I would LOVE to see someone with a deft control of the EN World search engine collate a list of all of the previous threads similar to this, combined into a boilerplate template that we could simply paste into each talk from here on in, which could inform everyone, 

<b>"Numerous discussions prior to this covered the same basic area with no correct answer.  Please refer to the following threads, each of which is linked below:"</b>

That would be awesome.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 24, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Before this goes too far afield in attacking 'validity', are there other sites that present info on sales ranking for RPG products? I saw nothing on B&N's site, for example. I do seem to recall someone posting an article -I think from ICV2? - discussing general sales ranking for 3rd quarter RPG sales; is there more information such as this somewhere available to us?




For bookshops there's Nielsen Bookfind. They have around 20,000 participating stores in America and about the same number in the rest of the world. When a participating store sells a book, that data is sent to Nielsen and gets compiled so publishers/bookstores/libraries/other interested parties can see what sales trends are like. This includes RPG books sold in bookstores. However, it costs money to look at the figures. 
Edit: That's Nielsen Bookscan, not Bookfind.

ICV2 do indeed discuss general sales figures for RPGs. They do so every quarter. It's not as accurate as Nielsen, but they do contact a lot of retailers asking about sales trends. 

It would presumably also be possible to get some idea of the games people are playing (or want to play) by looking at the Looking for Game/Group 'advertisements' on various websites.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 24, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Agreed.  We have managed to expound on each other, rather than conflict, which is nice.




Let's not do that too often, though, or we might herald the End of Days.  

In any event, there is no "double standard" involved in being selective about whose testimony you give greater weight.  Experience teaches you who is likely to be accurate, and who is not, and it is not at all uncommon (esp. as different people have different experiences, and evaluate evidence differently) for two people to have wildly different ideas about the accuracy of any one source.


RC


----------



## Wicht (Mar 24, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> So you've got a product line that doesn't sell to new roleplayers; doesn't sell to existing 4E players; and doesn't bring ex-customers back into the fold.
> 
> That's a product line with some problems.




That sounds vaguely familiar. 

I'm hoping that Paizo manages to avoid the same problems with their new "basic set."

From what I can tell, they need to have...
1) Enough new stuff in it to make it worthwhile, even to existing customers (I think they are going to be good to go here if the box has as much as they say).
2) A lower price point than the Core book ($35 is lower than $50 so again its good).
3) Enough shiny to appeal to a walk-by buyer.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2011)

Umbran said:


> If one person is talking about a specific local event, and another is talking about a global issue, then we are talking apples and oranges cases.  My criteria for trust in the two cases is not the same.



But that is not accurate.  Black Diamond data gets poo-pooed as meaningless and yet "a guy on the internet" is equated to your friend looking out the window at the weather.

Both pieces of data are local and should be considered comparably.

Now, you may question if ProfC has any clue WHY the store actually closed and you may also question whether Black Diamond data is at all meaningful to the larger market.  But those are both follow up questions.

You are using "local" and "global" to cover mixing and matching standards in ways which do not apply.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> People are taking some very, very narrow bits of information and then trying to spin them into broader facts and conclusions.



That is a ridiculous statement.  
What is happening is that repeated and repeated pieces of information from a wide variety of sources keep drawing the same picture.

Using a hand wave to declare it "very, very narrow" does nothing to make that description fit.

Like I've said before I can reach into a bag and pull out a black marble.  You can correctly tell me that this one pull says very little about the contents of the bag.  But if I reach in 10,000 times and get 5,456 black and 4,544 white then I start to have a good idea about the approximate contents of the bag.  You can insist that it is 85% black marbles if you want.  And you can say I have not PROVEN that false.  But you are not presenting a strong case.  Particularly as you lack any evidence at all o the contratry.

In effect you are saying that the first draw was a very small amount of data and doesn't provide enough.  So then you arbitrarily round it down to zero.  And then you round the next 9,999 draws down to zero and declare your final tally of zero to be meaningful.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 24, 2011)

It is actually rational to give more weight to a source that you trust than to a source you do not know.

Of course, depending upon the source, that trust itself might not be rational.

Ex., When evidence is presented that strongly refutes his point, Bob agrees that he is (or probably is) in error, depending up the weight of the evidence.  As a result, I trust that Bob is probably not simply sticking to his guns on issue X, and refusing to look at the data.

OTOH, Bob knows nothing at all about potato farming, so where his opinion on potato farming comes into play, while I certainly believe he means what he says, I also know that it is not an informed opinion.  Joe the Potato Farmer probably knows more, even if I have no direct information about Joe's character.  I have to take everything with a grain of salt.

So, one might accept a given poster's testimony with more weight for a number of reasons, some of which are rational (posting history demonstrates accuracy and ability to change mind), and some of which are not (consistently shares my opinion).  Examination of posting history of the parties involved should give you some idea what is going on.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 24, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But that is not accurate. Black Diamond data gets poo-pooed as meaningless and yet "a guy on the internet" is equated to your friend looking out the window at the weather.




I think is really at the root of the disagreement here. I actually agree with this statement. I am willing to believe Black Diamond (and that in their experience, 4E has not been selling), and I am willing to believe ProfessorCirno (and that his store owner acted in this fashion, and then had to close shop). 

I don't believe that either incident provides enough information to draw conclusions about the industry as a whole. And, in the case of ProfessorCirno, he didn't even try to do so, which is why people found it unreasonable for you to point out perceived hypocrisy about the situation. 

As it is, though - you criticized me for perceived 'double standards' about interpreting the best from someone like Dannager, and the worst about posters in this thread. I don't think either such thing occured, but clearly describing things as precisely and accurately as possible is very important to you. 

To that end... at what point did "Black Diamond data gets poo-pooed as meaningless" by Dannager? 

Has anyone really been that dismissive of the data itself? Or has it simply been that people don't believe that the data is significant enough to be used to draw conclusions about the entire industry? 



BryonD said:


> Both pieces of data are local and should be considered comparably.
> 
> Now, you may question if ProfC has any clue WHY the store actually closed and you may also question whether Black Diamond data is at all meaningful to the larger market. But those are both follow up questions.
> 
> You are using "local" and "global" to cover mixing and matching standards in ways which do not apply.




Honestly, BryonD, I think you are changing your position rapidly here in order to find ways to criticize those you are in disagreement with. What you are saying right now is very at odds with the actual criticism you offered towards ProfessorCirno:

"We get data point after data point so often they are practically touching. But we get this "enlightened" refrain of "you can connect those dots, that's just guesswork." And sober heads nob in stern agreement.

Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing. And a direct line of association is drawn between the two. And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E."

That seems to very much be criticizing, not the anecdotes themselves, but the follow-up question. You are directly equating accepting the various 'data points' about 4E sales as indicative of a larger truth about the industry with drawing a single conclusion about a single local event. 

Now you suddenly are backing off and saying that it isn't about the conclusions or follow-up questions at all, but just about the trustworthiness of the source. 

But that is certainly not what you were arguing yesterday.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 24, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Has anyone really been that dismissive of the data itself?




Yes.


----------



## nnms (Mar 24, 2011)

Another thing to remember is that Wizards still makes the vast majority of their money from Magic: The Gathering.  Sometimes I get the impression that people want Wizards to lose money and go out of business just so they can be right on the internet.  You may have to settle for the minimizing of D&D products instead as I don't think WotC's M:tg revenue is going anywhere any time soon.

So let's assume your dreams have already come true.  That the vast majority of D&D creative staff has been pulled off of D&D and put onto M:tg.  That products being cancelled and redesigned for DDI release is a sign of Wizards not wanting to invest any more capital in D&D than necessary.  That Essentials basically tanked but now they have enough to truly be an evergreen product without reprinting and that Wizards is willing to accept lower revenue from book sales and is concentrating on M:tg and DDi.

So now what?  What did this get you?  Is Wizards patrolling enworld looking for people who are right on the internet about hobby products to help save D&D for 5E?  Or will Wizards be happy with a trickle of money coming in without much in the way of additional investment and just keep trucking along with a D&D that you don't like?

What does your victory actually look like?  Is being able to post "I told you so!" the end goal?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 24, 2011)

nnms said:


> Sometimes I get the impression that people want Wizards to lose money and go out of business just so they can be right on the internet.




I think you are reading too much into the motives of people. Either that or you are taking the viewpoint of a very, very small minority and extrapolating it to be the viewpoint of anyone who is critical or analytical. 

My impression is that...
1)... the majority of us want Wizards to succeed in the RPG field. 
2)... a good many of us, if we were honest, would like for them to succeed by catering to our particular tastes. 
3).... and some of us feel strongly that the available market evidence is that they are not succeeding as they should be, for a number of reasons.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 24, 2011)

Wicht said:


> I think you are reading too much into the motives of people. Either that or you are taking the viewpoint of a very, very small minority and extrapolating it to be the viewpoint of anyone who is critical or analytical.
> 
> My impression is that...
> 1)... the majority of us want Wizards to succeed in the RPG field.
> ...




Also, some of us don't need WotC to fail to be right on the internet.   













Besides, for all we know, 5e will be an epic win for all parties!


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Mar 24, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> While I honestly think PF is a better game, for me at the least, I also think that picking a game based solely on how pretty it is ranks as pretty darned silly.



Depending on what you mean by "solely."

Presentation is not _perfectly_ correlated with professionalism and quality in other areas of production, but there is a correlation.

And even beyond that, there is a perceptual linkage between art (and other aspects of correlation) and other preferences.  Just for example, one of the players in my game like Wayne Reynolds' art -- he especially loves the iconic barbarian -- and he links that art to what he thinks he will get to enjoy in Pathfinder.

That's not necessarily _accurate_ -- I, for one, hate those ridiculous over-sized weapons, and so when I DM he won't be experiencing that -- but I also wouldn't call it "silly."

Finally, IMO "enjoying the look" of RPG materials is a non-negligible part of enjoying the hobby for many people (me included).  IMO, Pathfinder books are so much prettier than 4E books (or 3.5 books) that I get more enjoyment out of using them ... completely aside from system content.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2011)

nnms said:


> Another thing to remember is that Wizards still makes the vast majority of their money from Magic: The Gathering.  Sometimes I get the impression that people want Wizards to lose money and go out of business just so they can be right on the internet.



Actually, I'm rather certain (as much as we can be.....    ) that Wizards is making a bunch of money of 4E. (which in no way disputes your M:tG point)

I make no claim whatsoever that they are not.  On that question, I specifically claim the opposite.  

But, it seems clear to me that they have lost some of their former market share.  Two related, but different points.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Honestly, BryonD, I think you are changing your position rapidly here in order to find ways to criticize those you are in disagreement with.



That is absurd.  My point has been exactly consistent throughout and remains the same now.




> What you are saying right now is very at odds with the actual criticism you offered towards ProfessorCirno:



First, it should be clear that I have not been critical of ProfC here.  I've been critical of praise of his statement coming from the same source as dismissive comments towards other statements.  (Not that I'm not frequently critical of him, just have not been here)



> "We get data point after data point so often they are practically touching. But we get this "enlightened" refrain of "you can connect those dots, that's just guesswork." And sober heads nob in stern agreement.
> 
> Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing. And a direct line of association is drawn between the two. And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E."
> 
> ...



Yesterday I was not directly responding to Umbran's mixing and matching.  That is a separate point, but they are compatible and consistent.

This is doubly humorous considering your defense when I showed your double standard was little more than "no it isn't".


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 24, 2011)

I think WotC slipped and fell, then got up but with feet slipping and arms waving, fell again, and are now getting up very carefully.


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 24, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> So you've got a product line that doesn't sell to new roleplayers;  doesn't sell to existing 4E players; and doesn't bring ex-customers back  into the fold.
> That's a product line with some problems.







Wicht said:


> That sounds vaguely familiar.
> 
> I'm hoping that Paizo manages to avoid the same problems with their new "basic set."
> 
> ...




4) REPLAYABILITY! (Why does anyone _ever_ forget this main, salient point?) 

_*Replayability is key!*_ -- If the product offers the prospect of, "Buy this box in order to learn what the game is like; then ignore this box, and buy _other things_ if you ever actually want to continue playing the same game," then there will be little need for many people to buy the box. (They can talk with their friends, instead, to learn whether the game might be something they would like to play.)


----------



## Herschel (Mar 24, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> That is actually the biggest problem that the local Borders is having with Essentials - They got in a dozen of each, two dozen of Heroes of the Fallen Land,





A: It's one, local Borders 
B: Borders has a LOT bigger problems than RPG book sales. They're having trouble competeing period (Hence teh Chapter 11 filing)

I gave up reading after a few pages because I got tired of being delayed by edition warriors. There are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Amazon sales figures are crap. They're simply too narrow in focus to give us the big picture.

2. Paizo and WotC customers are not mutually exclusive. Sure a few of the most fervent edition warriors go out of their way to avoid anything  having to do with WotC but they're irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. Most Paizo accessories work with Wotc products and vice verse. By design (duh!)


----------



## xechnao (Mar 24, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> I think WotC slipped and fell, then got up but with feet slipping and arms waving, fell again, and are now getting up very carefully.




Albeit with a broken leg.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 24, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Yesterday I was not directly responding to Umbran's mixing and matching. That is a separate point, but they are compatible and consistent.
> 
> This is doubly humorous considering your defense when I showed your double standard was little more than "no it isn't".




I still don't see any double standard at work on my behalf. I've explained several times why I said what I did, without you responding to those explanations in any way. "4E is failing" _is _a statement that has made, and I don't see particular difference between it, "WotC is slipping", and "4E's decline nearly destroyed the market". 

Anyway, if you are clarifying that your statements are different because one is a response to Umbran and the other criticism of Dannager... well, it still doesn't quite make sense to me, since he was specifically commenting _on that criticism. _

But let me see if I can get this any clearer. From what I can tell, your criticism is for Dannager, for giving XP to ProfessorCirno for a personal anecdote about a store owner failing, and this criticism is based on the fact that Dannager has previously objected to the claims made by Black Diamond or personal accounts of game stores about the decline of 4E. Is this correct?

I may be wrong, but I don't think I've seen Dannager claim anywhere that those anecdotes or claims are specifically _wrong._ Has he mockingly dismissed Black Diamond's info as 'meaningless', as you accuse him of? Or has he simply said that regardless of how true those claims are on an individual or local scale, that isn't enough to make assumptions about the industry as a whole?

And even aside from that, I still think you are reading far more into Dannager's XP comment than is there. 

So I ask - what do you feel he was saying with his comment? ProfessorCirno shares a story in which a game store owner behaved foolishly, and had a comment equivalent to Dannager shaking his head in amused dismay at such behavior. At least, so I read it, apparently due to my own bias. Do you genuinely feel that Dannager's comment was somehow connected to a pro-4E agenda, or was truly somehow 'mocking' your side of the argument? If so, why?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 24, 2011)

Herschel said:


> A: It's one, local Borders
> B: Borders has a LOT bigger problems than RPG book sales. They're having trouble competing period (Hence the Chapter 11 filing)
> 
> I gave up reading after a few pages because I got tired of being delayed by edition warriors. There are a few things to keep in mind:
> ...



So by 'narrow' you mean 'single largest online book retailer'?

[Bill Cosby]Riiiight....[/Bill Cosby]

Waving away evidence that you disagree with does not replace it with sunshine and rainbows. Saying that Amazon does not count, and Borders does not count, and Black Diamond does not count and any of the others mentioned do not count is sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.

For the record, I have not claimed that it is more than my local Borders, though the manager has said that PF Core is outselling any 4e release across the chain (no proof, but seems a reasonable claim) which makes me think that my local Borders is exceptional only in how big the difference in sales is.

And also for the record, my local Borders is doing just fine - and making a profit. It is not one of the Borders that has been scheduled for closure. (It is considered one of the most successful in the region.) I like my local Borders - it has an informed and personable staff, is responsive to questions, and has decent mocha.

Borders 'bigger problems' has no bearing on whether or not Essentials is selling well - and given the cancellations in the Essentials line, I would have to say that WotC is likewise disappointed. Also, please note that I did not say that overstocking was Borders' 'biggest problem' I said that it was the local Borders 'biggest problem with Essentials' - though I suspect that over ordering is one of the places where Borders is having problems, not just for RPGs.

I do not want to see D&D fail, I do not even want to see WotC fail, but I do want to see them do something that actually helps the situation. I had thought that Essentials _was_ that something, but it appears not.... And I have only guesses as to why - it seemed like a good move.

The Auld Grump


----------



## S'mon (Mar 24, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I do not want to see D&D fail, I do not even want to see WotC fail, but I do want to see them do something that actually helps the situation. I had thought that Essentials _was_ that something, but it appears not.... And I have only guesses as to why - it seemed like a good move.




I think the content of Essentials Heroes of the Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms is a good introduction for new players (and is good for old players like me who want a simpler play experience) but it has not been successfully marketed to new players.  The Essentials Red Box is so ephemeral, it has made zero impression.  WoTC didn't dare market Heroes of the Fallen Lands* as "the new PHB", and IMO the line is really suffering for that.  All the new players turning up at my D&D Meetup are bringing along newly purchased copies of the 4e PHB.

*The content of HoTFL closely parrallels that of Moldvay-Mentzer era Classic D&D, and it is highly accessible.  But you wouldn't know that from the cover.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 24, 2011)

Wicht said:


> That sounds vaguely familiar.
> 
> I'm hoping that Paizo manages to avoid the same problems with their new "basic set."
> 
> ...




I agree, but even more, it needs to be 100% compatible with the main line, and has to be totally playable in those 1-3 or 1-5 levels. The players should have some monsters, some treasure, several encounters, and a hint of the larger game.

Not easy to do.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 24, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> So by 'narrow' you mean 'single largest online book retailer'?
> 
> [Bill Cosby]Riiiight....[/Bill Cosby]
> 
> Waving away evidence that you disagree with does not replace it with sunshine and rainbows. Saying that Amazon does not count, and Borders does not count, and Black Diamond does not count and any of the others mentioned do not count is sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.




And making broad conclusions from single data points is simply wrong. It's bunk scientifically and mathematically. Maybe it's just the extremely stressful day at the office but my patience is ay a minimum for the gang of Paizo edition warriors' BS. Erik Mona made some good points but you keep crowing about a few data points like they're the whole story. 

Paizo is doing well catering to those who chose not to move on to 4E. No matter how much some say they have no grudge against WotC, mutliple posts paint a different story.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 24, 2011)

Herschel said:


> And making broad conclusions from single data points is simply wrong. It's bunk scientifically and mathematically. Maybe it's just the extremely stressful day at the office but my patience is ay a minimum for the gang of Paizo edition warriors' BS. Erik Mona made some good points but you keep crowing about a few data points like they're the whole story.
> 
> Paizo is doing well catering to those who chose not to move on to 4E. No matter how much some say they have no grudge against WotC, mutliple posts paint a different story.



Single? 
No.
Two?
No.
Data point after data point after data point?

You are in fact handwaving. At this point even WotC's release schedules point it out.

They _are_ having problems.

I _do_ have a grudge against WotC, and do not hide it, nor do I say otherwise. I do not like their current business model, and I do not like their current game - but these are separate issues. I can, and do, dislike each on its own merits.

Of the two I would much rather see WotC fix the problems that I have with their current business model then I would like to see them come out with a new edition of D&D - the 4th edition is not going to be a game that I play, but there are a lot of games that I do not play. Not playing 4e is not going to change all that much. Even if they fix their business model it is not at all likely that I will suddenly shout '4e Rocks!'

Seeing what I see to be some fairly major mismanagement, on the other hand, is something that can cripple the brand. While I do not like the current edition of that brand it does not mean that I want to see that brand fall and die.

If you go back and look though, you will find that my early posts about Essentials were largely positive - I felt that the trade paperbacks were a step in the right direction on what I see as the biggest problem that 4e is facing - high returns. Returns make the owners and managers of bookstores grouchy. Stripping and returning covers only is something that they much prefer. (My hate of stripping books is also separate - I think that it is an enormous waste.)

And I am fairly certain that most 4e sales are through the book trade, not game shops. So saying that Amazon does not count, that Borders does not count, that B&N does not count is just plain silly. Discounting major retailers? Not a good idea.

Seeing WotC stumble and fall would not be fun - it could be bad for the hobby in general. D&D is the name most associated with RPGs. While I do not care about WotC, and do not much care about 4e I do care about the health of the RPG industry, and WotC is too big a part of that for me to wave my hand and say 'pfft, unimportant', much as I , personally, may want to.

TSR falling was bad, WotC slipping, and at this point it is only slipping, not falling off of a cliff, is not as bad, but far from good. There just aren't enough names that reach the level of recognition that D&D commands.

The Auld Grump


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2011)

You must have an interesting definition of "few".

I'm curious what data points are available to the contrary?

I recall when it was completely accepted and understood that D&D was the undisputed, sole 800 lb gorilla of tabletop gaming.
I recall when it was considered a huge deal that World of Darkness really did have ONE data point in which they topped D&D.
I recall a lot of people disliking 3E and rather than foolishly claiming that it wasn't still "D&D 800 lb gorilla", they frequently complained that the exact opposite was happening and the overwhelming popularity of D20 was stifling innovation.
We have a lot of people seeing a lot of data and all that data strongly *suggests* the same thing. And the thing that data suggests just happens to perfectly match what a lot of people are observing in their own personal day to day experiences.
Contrary to popular belief, I'd love to see D&D as a brand doing well.  I certainly predicted that this path wouldn't lead to that, though admittedly, reality seems to have exceeded my expectations so much, that I find it hard to think of it as having been right.  But looking at a situation and anticipating a result is not the same as wanting that result.  I don't think the hobby would die if D&D went away.  But I do think it is better off with a strong brand name leader.  And even if there were ten great games taking its place, eleven would be better than ten.
But I've been accused of cheering for failure. Really I'm just observing, and I love the debate.  And when people want to argue back on this case, its just too easy to resist.  I'm not cheering for failure.  I'm just enjoying the debate and calling it the way the cards lay.
On the other hand, the insistence that it MUST be false despite having no evidence certainly smacks of emotional investment in wishful thinking.

Even in the depths of 2E's decline this debate would have never happened.  Even during the glut/bust post-3.5 3PP exodus, this debate would have never happened.  It didn't even come up.  If it had the person bringing it up would have just been laughed at.
Today the only defense available is "we don't know".
That in itself is a radical change.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 25, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> You are in fact handwaving. At this point even WotC's release schedules point it out.
> 
> They _are_ having problems.



That's an assumption. Their release schedule does _not necessarily_ point to problems. It might simply be a deliberate change in their business model, which is in turn _not necessarily_ the result of problems.

Can it be an indication they're having problems? Of course it can. They might be sinking fast, or just trailing off slowly. But we don't know, and we don't really have anything to go on. We can make as many conjectures as we like, but they remain conjectures.

You can interpret the "evidence" that we do have if you like, and who knows, you might turn out to be correct. But that would not be the result of some deep understanding of WotC's business; it would be a lucky guess. So far as I know, no one here is in any position to do anything other than guess.

I'm not arguing that you must be wrong. I'm not arguing that 4E is going strong and making piles of money, and that WotC is overjoyed with its success. We don't know that either. We don't know anything; we're not privy to the information that would be required to make such a judgment.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Even in the depths of 2E's decline this debate would have never happened.  Even during the glut/bust post-3.5 3PP exodus, this debate would have never happened.  It didn't even come up.  If it had the person bringing it up would have just been laughed at.
> Today the only defense available is "we don't know".
> That in itself is a radical change.



The thing is, _Pathfinder is D&D_ _too_, regardless of the name on the cover. These are two editions of D&D competing against each other, the radical change is that now, thanks to the OGL, the editions are currently published by two different companies.

When I started playing D&D we had BECMI and AD&D at the same time, both taking up shelf space and competing for my gaming dollars. The difference is that back then the two editions were published by the same company.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

Heh, Ok +1 for Fifth Element.


But 
A) Are you agreeing that the market is now split between these two versions of D&D? 
and
B) I think the BRAND element is a key part of the whole 800 lb gorilla thing.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> You can interpret the "evidence" that we do have if you like, and who knows, you might turn out to be correct. But that would not be the result of some deep understanding of WotC's business; it would be a lucky guess.




There is such a thing as an "educated guess."


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Heh, Ok +1 for Fifth Element.
> 
> But
> A) Are you agreeing that the market is now split between these two versions of D&D?
> ...



A. Yes. But that in itself is nothing new. Also, the degree of overlap is unclear. Just as many people played both BECMI and AD&D back in the day, many people also play both PF and 4E now.

B. The whole thing has gotten kind of convoluted. Are we comparing WotC to TSR, or WotC now to WotC three years ago, or 4E to 3.5, or what? They key question in any such comparison is, of course, is it a fair comparison. That is, are there factors not being considered that should be?




Wicht said:


> There is such a thing as an "educated guess."



"Educated guess" is another term for "informed inference." We're missing the "informed" part here.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> A. Yes. But that in itself is nothing new. Also, the degree of overlap is unclear. Just as many people played both BECMI and AD&D back in the day, many people also play both PF and 4E now.



Ok, well at "yes" you are agreeing with me.    I agree 100% that there are people playing both.  But my observations suggest that is not a large slice.  




> B. The whole thing has gotten kind of convoluted. Are we comparing WotC to TSR, or WotC now to WotC three years ago, or 4E to 3.5, or what? They key question in any such comparison is, of course, is it a fair comparison. That is, are there factors not being considered that should be?



It isn't that convoluted.  Some people say that PF is in the same ballpark of 4E.  Some people say that we can't observe that.  (And some of the latter group go on to suggest that this therefore leaves the default conclusion of 4E's dominance)




> "Educated guess" is another term for "informed inference." We're missing the "informed" part here.



No we aren't.  It is like the difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 25, 2011)

When asking the question is WoTC slipping, I keep thinking of those commercials. "Is trying to leave a boring meeting in tap dancing shoes a really bad idea?"

When you've got WoTC people chimming up that the reason their Dungeon and Dragon articles are so late, when they appear at all, is poor quality control, and they keep the same people writing them... well, you've got some type of problem. Slippage may be the least of it.

The inability of WoTC to use common words in English to sell their product may be another problem. "Monster Builder" for example has a set of expectations to it that were completely NOT meet.

Slipping? Yeah.

My personal satisfaction with WoTC has been slipping since the online CB and well, it hasn't risen.

Maybe Heroes of Shadow will change that but I am dubious at this point. Seems it was written by more of those people who WoTC needs more time to do that quality control on.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> It isn't that convoluted.  Some people say that PF is in the same ballpark of 4E.  Some people say that we can't observe that.  (And some of the latter group go on to suggest that this therefore leaves the default conclusion of 4E's dominance)



"Dominant" is not a word I would use for 4E versus PF. For D&D (which includes PF) versus other games perhaps. But then we all probably have our own definitions of "dominant."



BryonD said:


> No we aren't.  It is like the difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".



I do shudder a bit if people think they can make truly reasonable inferences based on the pittance that we really know. But once again, we all have our own definitions of "reasonable."


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> "Dominant" is not a word I would use for 4E versus PF. For D&D (which includes PF) versus other games perhaps. But then we all probably have our own definitions of "dominant."



Well, seriously, the whole "lump PF under 'D&D'" ignores the point of discussion.  The position that the D&D brand is now sharing its position with the game Pazio produces is in question.  You answer says that "yes, WotC is slipping."  Adding a reason of PF "is D&D" doesn't change that.

Your point is legitimate in its own right.  But it doesn't speak to the question at hand.



> I do shudder a bit if people think they can make truly reasonable inferences based on the pittance that we really know. But once again, we all have our own definitions of "reasonable."



Shudders and declarations don't reduce the available information down to "pittance".


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 25, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I agree, but even more, it needs to be 100% compatible with the main line, and has to be totally playable in those 1-3 or 1-5 levels. The players should have some monsters, some treasure, several encounters, and a hint of the larger game.
> 
> Not easy to do.




I think that's totally false.  BECMI proved to be pretty successful without being anywhere near 100% compatible with AD&D.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2011)

Weird double post


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I do shudder a bit if people think they can make truly reasonable inferences based on the pittance that we really know.




Heh. Maybe we have a different definition of "Pittance," or maybe some of us just have been paying better attention.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 25, 2011)

Looks like we have again reached the tail chasing, wash, rinse, and repeat stage of this discussion. (Yes, that includes me.)

Anyone have anything _new_ to add?

If not then I will leave this discussion to fizzle out on its own.... Otherwise I am going to get annoyed.

The Auld Grump, when I am annoyed I have a blood pressure. I prefer lying in a state of apathetic shock....


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 25, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> I think that's totally false.  BECMI proved to be pretty successful without being anywhere near 100% compatible with AD&D.




Arguably that's because BECMI was a line unto itself: 36 levels, 4-5 core rulebooks (depending how you count), and a massive amount of support material.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Mar 25, 2011)

Wicht said:


> I think you are reading too much into the motives of people. Either that or you are taking the viewpoint of a very, very small minority and extrapolating it to be the viewpoint of anyone who is critical or analytical.
> 
> My impression is that...
> 1)... the majority of us want Wizards to succeed in the RPG field.
> ...




I was just going to give you xp and say i agree. But it says I need to spread xp around. Who knew. Anyways, while I am not a fan of WotC that is mostly cause of their PR and customer relations and a few things like how they pulled the PDF's etc. I don't want DnD or even WotC to fail. I would like to see WotC be more costumer friendly and reach out to the community more.

I also agree I think 4e is under performing. Now what does that mean in the big picture? That's hard to say, it seems fairly evident that in the book trade from enough sources that Pathfinder is rivaling 4e. Of course that doesn't take into account all sources of information, such as other distribution forms, Paizo's subscription model, WotC DDI model etc. All it really tells us is that many sources point to 4e doing worse than most expected and Pathfinder is doing better than most expected and thats all we really know for sure.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark Mistress said:


> I was just going to give you xp and say i agree. But it says I need to spread xp around. Who knew. Anyways, while I am not a fan of WotC that is mostly cause of their PR and customer relations and a few things like how they pulled the PDF's etc. I don't want DnD or even WotC to fail. I would like to see WotC be more costumer friendly and reach out to the community more.
> 
> I also agree I think 4e is under performing. Now what does that mean in the big picture? That's hard to say, it seems fairly evident that in the book trade from enough sources that Pathfinder is rivaling 4e. Of course that doesn't take into account all sources of information, such as other distribution forms, Paizo's subscription model, WotC DDI model etc. All it really tells us is that many sources point to 4e doing worse than most expected and Pathfinder is doing better than most expected and that's all we really know for sure.



It does seem like WotC is turtling up - once upon a time they were quite open in their communications, and then, somewhat before 4e appeared on the horizon, they closed channels.

Symptoms:

The manner in which they shut down PDFs. (Likely in preparation for their DDI, though they do not cover the same ground in any substantial way.)

The manner they ended licenses, even though their own plan was to have extremely limited support for settings. 

No notice that 4e was in the works, to the point of outright denial. ('Cause lying to your customers is _always_ good....)

Waffling on the GSL. (Thus spurring Paizo to strike off on their own.)

Most recently the release of the Monster Builder and the rather misleading e-mail preceding the release. 

I think that a large amount of their difficulties could be, or could have been, handled with better outreach and communication.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark Mistress said:


> I would like to see WotC be more costumer friendly



Maybe 5e should be a LARP . . .

(Sorry, I couldn't help it.)


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 25, 2011)

I'll stand alone.

Maybe I'm the only person brave enough to say it, or maybe I'm the only person bizarre enough to feel this way.


I *DO* want WotC to fail (with some MAJOR caveats, please allow me to put in some context).


Here's the main thing. I don't feel as though they've been very "nice" to their customers, for many of the reasons that the Auldgrump mentions above. I'd like the collective behavior of WotC as a company (including communication, policies, etc) to improve. I'd like them to learn that there are better ways to conduct business, and I think the only way they'll learn that is with a negative impact on their wallets.


Here's the other thing. I don't want them to cease to exist. I don't want D&D to end. When I say I want WotC to fail, I mean I want them to have enough of a negative impact on their wallets that they learn better ways to treat customers, gaming stores, business partners, etc. I want them to "fail" in the sense that they get a wakeup call, but not so badly that people are fired, divisions shut down, etc. 


Here's the last thing. As the (or a) industry leader, I want this better policy, communication, relationship forming, and HOBBY ENRICHING behavior from them because it directly affects the health of the hobby. I think that one reason why Paizo is so beloved, and has garnered such a response is because they are doing the things I wish WotC was doing. 

So, in the end, what I'd like to see is WotC start acting like an industry leader that is conducive to the health of the industry or to fail and have another take their place as leader.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'd like them to learn that there are better ways to conduct business, and I think the only way they'll learn that is with a negative impact on their wallets.
> 
> 
> Here's the other thing. I don't want them to cease to exist.




Part of the problem is "failure" can be a loaded word and most people are going to equate "failure" with "cease to exist."

I can agree with the idea that, in, and so far, as people are "misbehaving" or doing harmful things, to themselves or others, I want them to fail. That is I don't want them to have success in doing bad. In business, this is a tricky judgment call though. For some companies/businesses, spartan service which provides just the essentials may be a recipe for success. In others it should be anathema.

I think your larger point, however, is that what you really want is for people to learn the right lessons from their failures (i.e. mistakes, things that did not work). WotC has done things that, for many, just don't work. That is, they were, for us, failures. What we want is for them to learn from that and cater to our desires as a company by producing both products and services we want. In fairness, and conversely, however, we must admit they do seem to be meeting the needs of some people and that what I think of as failure, they may, in fact, percieve to be some measure of success.


----------



## sheadunne (Mar 25, 2011)

WOTC won't fail. The D&D line might fail. The same way Heroscape failed or DDM failed, or any other WOTC/Hasbro product has failed. It has minimal impact on the company as a whole (probably more so for WOTC than for Hasbro). They'll just refocus on products that are currently strong. Then, in a few years, someone will re-evaluate the product line to see if it's feasible again. Meanwhile, D&D will be boxed up and the IP will be sitting over at Hasbro central gathering dust as all discontinued Hasbro IPs do.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

I think the real value of D&D ties to its wide name recognition.
I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of the people who immediately know what D&D is, have never played.  
This whole conversation is about *right now*.  I think WotC is making good money, but I think they could have made a lot more.  And I have no idea if they are making the kind of return they wanted or not.  But, again, that is just about right now and how the tabletop gamer market is experiencing things.  

If they canceled 4E tomorrow and sat on the brand for two years and released 5E in 2013, the brand identity amongst the "other 95%" would not be significantly impacted.

To be clear, I'm not saying that is in any way a good or reasonable plan, it is just an extreme scenario under which "D&D" still doesn't fail.

It isn't zero impact.  A more popular 4E would have been better for the brand value and a less popular 4E has a negative impact on the brand value.  But these are short term variations on the big picture.  Who knows maybe something else can come along and being just "a little bit weaker" is enough to sink the brand.  But I think that is very remote.  

Part of the cultural awareness of D&D ties back to the very imagery of the name itself.  Even if "Pathfinder" became the household term for geeks pretending to be elves in their mom's basement ten years from now, the term "Pathfinder" will never provoke the same association as the term "Dungeons and Dragons".  

I think the D&D brand will do fine.
I just also am convinced that the day "the boss" said "go" on 4E, they were picturing a much larger fan base than has played out.  Whatever they are making now, they could have been making more and I'd be shocked if they were not planning and expecting to be making more.


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Mar 25, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'll stand alone.




Nae. Ye have my sword.

I also feel WotC should "fail", because they made - several, in sequence - marketing errors (and that's not counting 'they didn't market 4e to me' as an error).

("Fail", not "die". I feel the industry needs WotC alive.)

As a business, the only way for them to learn not to do that is negative consequences. The only way for them to learn that some of the paths they have chosen were ill-thought-out is to lose money.

I only regret that the "money lost" over the PDF choices will, as far as WotC is concerned, forever remain hypothetical. If I could give them negative-money, to let them know I <would> have given them money, but couldn't, I would.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 25, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Here's the last thing. As the (or a) industry leader, I want this better policy, communication, relationship forming, and HOBBY ENRICHING behavior from them because it directly affects the health of the hobby.




Here is the thing. I do not believe that Wotc can or wants to be the hobby industry leader anymore. What they do want is to maintain the brand value of D&D, because this is what Hasbro ultimately wants.
They know that, as a brand, Dungeons & Dragons will most probably outlast Warcraft, because Warcraft is connected with the merits of a technology product that is going to be outdated, most probably in the next 5 years.



Aberzanzorax said:


> I think that one reason why Paizo is so beloved, and has garnered such a response is because they are doing the things I wish WotC was doing.
> 
> So, in the end, what I'd like to see is WotC start acting like an industry leader that is conducive to the health of the industry or to fail and have another take their place as leader.




Wotc, wanted to enter the digital realm. This was their intention with 4e. 4e was structured on the idea of a product being cool and manageable by a digital environment. Thus the utterly structured tactical encounter environment that 4e limits its balance upon. As a player, you do not want to fight monsters and traps, you do not want to swing mighty swords: your job now is to be a good defender, however the game rules tell you how to do it. 

OTOH, Paizo has been trying to focus on the merits of 3.5e as a traditional tabletop rpg.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

xechnao said:


> because Warcraft is connected with the merits of a technology product that is going to be outdated, most probably in the next 5 years.



There is some truth to that, but I wouldn't underestimate Blizzard's ability to adapt and keep up.



> Wotc, wanted to enter the digital realm. This was their intention with 4e. 4e was structured on the idea of a product being cool and manageable by a digital environment. Thus the utterly structured tactical encounter environment that 4e limits its balance upon. As a player, you do not want to fight monsters and traps, you do not want to swing mighty swords: your job now is to be a good defender, however the game rules tell you how to do it.
> 
> OTOH, Paizo has been trying to focus on the merits of 3.5e as a traditional tabletop rpg.



I think that is all correct.  But there is still more to it.
I think WotC wanted to go digital because they saw what a huge boon it was for WOW.  And I still don't think 4E is WOW, that isn't my point here.
My point is, I think WotC saw and coveted:

A) Vast numbers of people pretending to be elves
B) Those people handing over credit cards numbers for automatic monthly charges.

With books every single customer looks at each unique title and makes a call whether or not to lay their money down.  With a subscription everyone buys everything.  It is far more efficient.  As long as the average is good enough to keep the customer coming back, every product is tied with your best product.  So not only do you have more people, you have more money person.  And as icing on the cake, being able to reliably forecast cash flow months out allows you to manage your finances better.  Those reliable dollars, in real terms, end up being worth a little more.

Paizo gets very similar advantages from their, admittedly different, subscription model.

But your second point also gets into the game itself.  And that is where they tripped up.  The assumed, or at least hoped with enough faith to roll the dice, that people willing to be an elf in WOW meant there were a hell of a lot more people willing to be an elf in D&D.  There are very fundamental differences and when they designed 4E as a game aimed at the new market, it failed on that front.  Yes, there are new players.  But there is no evidence that the rate of new blood into D&D is any better now than it has been at any other point in time.  Those non-D&D playing WOW fans stayed non-D&D playing WOW fans.  And they lost a bunch of their existing fan base for their effort.  4E was not designed to appeal to me.  Of course they WANTED me to find it appealing.  But priority one was getting those completely new players.  And if losing me was the price of five new players, sorry Bryon, but it is a non-brainer choice.  And if they were right, it would have been.  But the five new players did not materialize.  Rather than getting 5 for 1, they are left with fewer people playing the current edition of D&D than there has been in a very long time.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 25, 2011)

xechnao said:


> As a player, you do not want to fight monsters and traps, you do not want to swing mighty swords: your job now is to be a good defender, however the game rules tell you how to do it.
> 
> OTOH, Paizo has been trying to focus on the merits of 3.5e as a traditional tabletop rpg.




I guess I'm doing it wrong then. I do want to fight monsters and defeat traps (not fight them) and want to swing mighty swords...and *gasp* I play 4e... damn you cruel fates! 

Pathfinder has rules for combat also. Fighters/Paladins act as "defenders" in previous editions (they kept the wizards/rogues safe from the front line monsters). 4e _did_ actually state that outright, but rogues have always been about high damage, wizards have always been about controlling the battlefield with their spells, and clerics have always been about keeping the others upright to continue killing their things and taking their stuff.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Rather than getting 5 for 1, they are left with fewer people playing the current edition of D&D than there has been in a very long time.




Allegedly.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 25, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I *DO* want WotC to fail...




In my mind, they already have.

The success of Pathfinder is vindication for me of all the complaints I've had since 4E was introduced.

I'm very happy to say that the thousands of dollars I would have spent with WotC has gone to Paizo instead.  

And, frankly, reading that "Paizo and 4E" thread again (and seeing all of the crow that has been eaten) has made me feel even better.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Allegedly.






BryonD said:


> Today the only defense available is "we don't know".
> That in itself is a radical change.




I allege the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> And, frankly, reading that "Paizo and 4E" thread again (and seeing all of the crow that has been eaten) has made me feel even better.





It is a lot of fun watching the goal posts move into completely different stadiums.

And don't think the moving is done.  Wait and see where we are in a year, two years...


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> And, frankly, reading that "Paizo and 4E" thread again (and seeing all of the crow that has been eaten) has made me feel even better.




Which one?


----------



## renau1g (Mar 25, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Which one?




I believe this one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/210320-paizo-d-d-4th-edition.html


----------



## xechnao (Mar 25, 2011)

renau1g said:


> I guess I'm doing it wrong then. I do want to fight monsters and defeat traps (not fight them) and want to swing mighty swords...and *gasp* I play 4e... damn you cruel fates!




In every game, players are directed to  carry on by going against the challenges that the game suggests. Gameplay greatly impacts the player's creativity channels because following the gameplay channels is something that the  game does need you and expects you to do. 
 The problem, regarding 4e, is that many people complain that as a  player, you do not end up wanting to show the world that you can fight  monsters and traps or that you get to swing the most mighty sword.  Instead, your job now is to be as a good defender on the board map as  possible, however the game rules tell you how to do it (because it is  your duty is to explore and understand these game rules and put them in  practice).

Just saying "I am doing it wrong then" proves nothing against this point, when we know what the gameplay channels of 4e are.





renau1g said:


> Pathfinder has rules for combat also. Fighters/Paladins act as "defenders" in previous editions (they kept the wizards/rogues safe from the front line monsters). 4e _did_ actually state that outright, but rogues have always been about high damage, wizards have always been about controlling the battlefield with their spells, and clerics have always been about keeping the others upright to continue killing their things and taking their stuff.




What is the difference with previous editions?
Older editions tried to respect genre tropes and game balance by  designing situations (example dungeon crawl) and conditions (example  damage) on a different level, that is without making them one and the  same - mixing both in one dimension was a step that 4e took for the  first time (this was done for the reasons about being able to manage all game things within a controllable environment as the digital environment, mentioned earlier). So, 4e took things on a totally different level.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I allege the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.




No, that's a fact. Science proves it. Again, we're back to the tail chasing. If you can point out such data proving your suggestion, then I'll agree, if not, c'est la vie.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2011)

renau1g said:


> No, that's a fact. Science proves it. Again, we're back to the tail chasing. If you can point out such data proving your suggestion, then I'll agree, if not, c'est la vie.




We are not chasing our tail.  All you have is *unreasonable* doubt and a shallow "we don't know" defense.  If you prefer sheltering behind that, c'est la vie.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I allege the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.




It won't.



You see, the earthquake in Japan (and I hope I don't seem callous to be brining it up...those poor people) has knocked the Earth 6.5 inches off of its axis as well as shortening Earth's days by 1.26 microseconds.

Japan Earthquake May Have Shifted Earth's Axis : NPR


So what WAS East is no longer east (it's close, but NOT the same). And tomorrow? Don't even get me started on that! When is tomorrow? At midnight, or 1.26 microseconds off of it!?!?

But, I guess if I'm willing to be charitable, I'll assume that you meant "pretty close to the East" and "pretty close to tomorrow". But really, we can't know if the sun will come up in this "East" that you can't even define, or "tomorrow" which happens when again?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> And, frankly, reading that "Paizo and 4E" thread again (and seeing all of the crow that has been eaten) has made me feel even better.





Ah, now we see the point? 

Guess what - EN World exists for you to revel in having games you like to play.  It does not exist for you to revel in seeing fellow gamers personally humbled.  We do not wish to support this behavior, so...

Thread closed.


----------

