# Goodman rebuttal



## ggroy (Jun 20, 2009)

Joe Goodman wrote a semi-rebuttal article to Orcus' (Clark's) article.


Goodman Games • View topic - My opinion on D&D 4E


----------



## Crothian (Jun 20, 2009)

Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 20, 2009)

He seems to be confirming that 4e sales in 2009 are nowhere near 3e sales in 2001 and that it's silly even to compare them.  Hmm, I'm pretty sure WotC were aiming for something comparable.

Edit: In fact, his generational analogy indicates that we should be comparing 4e in 2009 to D&D sales 8-9 years after the 1982 peak... or the 1e to 2e transition.  *eek* - that's a pretty low benchmark of success for a company like Hasbro.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Hmm, I'm pretty sure WotC were aiming for something comparable.



Maybe. But I"m pretty sure their bottom line is something profitable.


----------



## Mark (Jun 20, 2009)

> Will 4E do as well as 3E?





I won't refute Joseph's information or conviction but my own personal question has never been if 4E is doing well but rather if, with a different approach toward the market and 3PPs, it could be doing as well as 3E.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Maybe. But I"m pretty sure their bottom line is something profitable.




I doubt it - a publicly listed company can't afford just to be profitable, as if it were a basement operation like Nec or Goodman.  It needs to meet Return-on-Investment expectations.  Otherwise the shareholders will go elsewhere.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 20, 2009)

Excellent points, and this proves that what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander...

In the meantime, while I am a bit disappointed that I might not be able to buy a Tome of Horrors 4E, I am very happy with my Master Dungeons and Level Up purchases


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2009)

Excellent. Thank you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fiery Dragon putting out the Tome of Horrors 4e?


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 20, 2009)

Mark said:


> I won't refute Joseph's information or conviction but my own personal question has never been if 4E is doing well but rather if, with a different approach toward the market and 3PPs, it could be doing as well as 3E.




Interesting, I have never seen a thread on this specific topic.  It would be interesting if it avoided the "edition war" feel (which I doubt it could).

I would say 100% it's next to impossible, as Joe states in the article.  3E was a combination of things that all had to be just right to reach that benchmark.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

S'mon said:


> He seems to be confirming that 4e sales in 2009 are nowhere near 3e sales in 2001 and that it's silly even to compare them.  Hmm, I'm pretty sure WotC were aiming for something comparable.



Why? My reading of Goodman's article is that WotC aren't foolish. But that they would be to aim for that.



S'mon said:


> Edit: In fact, his generational analogy indicates that we should be comparing 4e in 2009 to D&D sales 8-9 years after the 1982 peak... or the 1e to 2e transition.  *eek* - that's a pretty low benchmark of success for a company like Hasbro.



D&D is a small part of WotC. For all we know, D&D's main purpose from a business perspective might be to drive sales of the far more profitable D&D minis. I'm not saying that is the case, but it may be.


----------



## JeffB (Jun 20, 2009)

Heh..cue up 10 pages of  "armchair experts" proclaiming Joe has no idea what he's talking about


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

JeffB said:


> Heh..cue up 10 pages of  "armchair experts" proclaiming Joe has no idea what he's talking about



I have to say, I was really impressed by Goodman's business credentials - Fortune 50 company, runs a billion dollar division, that's one heckuva good resume - and the seeming depth of his research. And surprised to discover that his gaming company is actually just a hobby, not a full time job.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2009)

JeffB said:


> Heh..cue up 10 pages of  "armchair experts" proclaiming Joe has no idea what he's talking about



Heh.. cue threadcrapping comments that preemptively insult half the people who will post in this thread.

Seriously, Jeff, ask yourself: does a snarky post make the thread better? If not, _don't post it._


----------



## ggroy (Jun 20, 2009)

S'mon said:


> He seems to be confirming that 4e sales in 2009 are nowhere near 3e sales in 2001 and that it's silly even to compare them.  Hmm, I'm pretty sure WotC were aiming for something comparable.
> 
> Edit: In fact, his generational analogy indicates that we should be comparing 4e in 2009 to D&D sales 8-9 years after the 1982 peak... or the 1e to 2e transition.  *eek* - that's a pretty low benchmark of success for a company like Hasbro.




In the 8-9 years after the 1982 peak, that would place the economy in recession in the early 1990's.  (Not unlike today's economy).  From what I remember of those days, it took several years for the economy to almost fully recover in some places.

It would be interesting to compare 2E AD&D sales figures to today's 4E D&D sales figures, and see how close they correlate to one another.


----------



## JeffB (Jun 20, 2009)

OK sorry. Its just my sarcastic nature in which I state the obvious.

How about this? for all those whom are going to refute Joe's assertions, how about they please give their RPG Industry and business credentials and describe the research and methods they have used to come to a contradictory conclusion?  I don't think thats unreasonable?


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Jun 20, 2009)

This article doesn't seem to say that 4e is not doing well, but rather that it's not in "the cycle" that would make it sell as well as 3e. That seems to make sense to me. I mean, everything else seems to be cyclical (the economy, family addictions, etc.) so why not our favorite hobby?

The fact that we're not in the "super-profitable cycle" doesn't mean 4e isn't doing well. If anything, Goodman's article seems to indicate that 4e is doing very well, just that it's not the out of the ballpark smash hit that 3e was. And that's OK, because the game is still selling more than enough, the retailers can't get enough, and we have our games. What more can matter? 

I'd say we're doing well as an industry, and the fact that someone from inside said industry can say we're doing well in this recession says alot about the quality that Wizards is giving to us.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 20, 2009)

I read his post and I certainly didn't see it as a rebuttal of Mr Peterson at all. It was extremely interesting, but it did not address the schism of the fanbase or the health of 3PP (other than his own) at all. It seemed to be a refutation of the "4e is not doing well". He didn't address the poisonous GSL nor the effect of the digital tools nor either's affect on 3PP products. 

In short, it was very interesting, but comparing it to Orcus' post, it's really apples and oranges.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Jun 20, 2009)

JeffB said:


> OK sorry. Its just my sarcastic nature in which I state the obvious.
> 
> How about this? for all those whom are going to refute Joe's assertions, how about they please give their RPG Industry and business credentials and describe the research and methods they have used to come to a contradictory conclusion?  I don't think thats unreasonable?



So...we can't have a discussion about this unless everyone involved lays out their credentials first?


----------



## JeffB (Jun 20, 2009)

Merlin's Shadow said:


> So...we can't have a discussion about this unless everyone involved lays out their credentials first?




Oh please...Of course not. All I'm saying is we always have alot of "experts" here who discuss these things to death based on nothing other than "wants it to be that way because I like/hate X" and treat that as how things are in the real world. I'd like to see people back up their assertions with facts- Joe has.


----------



## guivre (Jun 20, 2009)

Hmm... glad to hear that 4E is doing well from his perspective. I still suspect it's not doing nearly as well as WotC hoped. There are a lot of problems with it, but it's easy to run so I'm hoping it does well enough to stick around for awhile.

Though I am sad to see the "game stores bring in more new players" nonsense. No amount of retail experience validates that opinion. He's welcome to hold it but I still maintain that it's simply not true. Probably not the real point of the article though so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 20, 2009)

Finally, someone lays out some hard facts and trends from real-world business experience. Kudos, Joe.

I'd love to see the research for the book you didn't publish. Maybe someday you can either publish it or post it. I think it would be fascinating reading about a little-seen side of our hobby.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> I read his post and I certainly didn't see it as a rebuttal of Mr Peterson at all. It was extremely interesting, but it did not address the schism of the fanbase or the health of 3PP (other than his own) at all. It seemed to be a refutation of the "4e is not doing well". He didn't address the poisonous GSL nor the effect of the digital tools nor either's affect on 3PP products.
> 
> In short, it was very interesting, but comparing it to Orcus' post, it's really apples and oranges.




I don't doubt his industry expertise, nor his business acumen.  But he seemed to state his credentials and then his conclusions, with nothing objective to back it up in between.   

It reminded me of all the court cases I've seen.  I worked for a few years as a Judge's clerk, sitting next to him in Court, and watched about 100 or so cases played out in court, both jury and non-jury.  Plus, I've been to court to argue cases for my clients.

Anyhow, to use a personal injury case as an example, if the potential for winning/losing a lot of $$ is great enough, each side will hire an "expert" to come to court to testify. Usually a doctor.  Each doctor will examine the accident victim, and based on that examination, and the examination of the medical records both past and current, render a diagnosis as to the extent of the injuries, what the cause of the injuries was, and the future prognosis of the accident victim.

Each side's doctor, both eminently qualified with credentials out the wazoo, renders completely different and contradictory opinions.  They can point to the same charts and x-rays and say totally different things.  

That same dynamic of hiring experts to toot the horn you want tooted exactly the way you want it tooted is played out in every type of case I've seen, from personal injury, to land use, to construction defect, to divorce, to business litigation.  Each side's expert look at exactly the same set of objective facts and says completely different things which supports the viewpoint of whichever side they are testifying for.

Other than beating up the personal credentials of the other side, or hammering them on their interpretation of the facts, one of the most effctive ways to discredit the other side is to point out all the various ways they have a financial interest in saying what they are saying.  Asking a doctor, for example, how much they testify in cases as opposed to practicing medicine, how much they charged for the diagnosis, how often they do plaintiff's work as opposed to defendant's work, how many times they have testified for that particular lawyer's firm, how much they got paid to testify, the likelihood of a future financial interest in the outcome---such as the patient going to them to be treated if they are awaded money for future medical expenses, etc.

Just as an aside, I'd pay a few bucks to read a pdf of the business history of the industry he talked about in the post...I'm particularly interested where he got the objective concrete numbers for sales figures going back 30 years.  As far as I can tell, that's not publicly available information.


----------



## Psion (Jun 20, 2009)

That's a very good point, joethelawyer. Motivation is probably something you should be examining with just as much, or more, scrutiny than credentials.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Just as an aside, I'd pay a few bucks to read a pdf of the business history of the industry he talked about in the post...I'm particularly interested where he got the objective concrete numbers for sales figures going back 30 years. As far as I can tell, that's not publicly available information.




You know I was wondering about his comparison of 4e sales to (A)D&D sales bertween 1974-1981 and '83 to '00... I was under the impression (from what I believe were discussions here) that even WotC didn't have exact or totally reliable sales numbers for these years from TSR.  Now I'll readily admit I could be remembering something wrong or mistaken, but I don't think I am...am I?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2009)

Psion said:


> That's a very good point, joethelawyer. Motivation is probably something you should be examining with just as much, or more, scrutiny than credentials.




So are we now doubting Joe Goodman's word because he has vested interest in seeing his company earn a profit, which right now is tied to the health of the 4e market?


----------



## Quantarum (Jun 20, 2009)

Psion said:


> That's a very good point, joethelawyer. Motivation is probably something you should be examining with just as much, or more, scrutiny than credentials.




That's always a good idea, whether it's Joseph Goodman or Joethelawyer.

-Q.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Jun 20, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So are we now doubting Joe Goodman's word because he has vested interest in seeing his company earn a profit, which right now is tied to the health of the 4e market?



I don't think anyone around here is claiming that Joe is lying. However, it is clear that he has a vested interest in viewing things in a certain light. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just the way it is. Despite that, I still found his post interesting.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

Interesting. Dont agree with a bunch, namely game stores, and his 47 stores isnt exactly a large sample, but interesting none the less.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 20, 2009)

To respond to Remathilis:

Not "doubting his word"...I certainly don't think he is dishonest (nor do I think the experts Joethelawyer mentioned intend to be at all dishonest).

However, Goodman DOES have a vested interest. That interest, along with the fact that he got in on "the ground floor" releasing product along with the 4e release (even before they signed the GSL) colors his interpretation of the facts.

What he basically said is that sales of 4e product FOR HIM and the market for HIS 4e product is strong enough.

That I have no doubt at all about.

Whether that is generalizable to the market as a whole (including other 3pps or even to WotC) is something I do not know.

Would he like it to be? Yep. Is it the case? I imagine that he believes it is the case...and for the reasons above, I can understand why he believes it. That doesn't make it so.



Goodman said that distributors are not an issue. Clarke said they were. Who do I believe? 

Both of them.

They're not an issue for Goodman and they are an issue for Clarke. Why? Probably timing, but that's only my guess.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 20, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So are we now doubting Joe Goodman's word because he has vested interest in seeing his company earn a profit, which right now is tied to the health of the 4e market?




Hopefully not.

I've heard nothing but positive things said about Joe in the past.

However...

It may be one of those cases where both Clark and Joe are correct from their own viewpoint.  Joe didn't give any numbers, he essentially just said 4E is doing as well as it has done in previous times.  

Also, if 4E is doing as well as 3E was - why aren't more 3PPs jumping on board?  Or is the price for them to jump on board providing things like spinner racks to game and hobby stores?  In the early 3E era, product was enough.  Now it seems that you need more than a product to get in stores, you have to actively nurture the relationship.  

Anyway, I guess it confirms that GG won't be supporting Pathfinder.  

Was fun while it lasted....


----------



## Zil (Jun 20, 2009)

SpydersWebbing said:


> This article doesn't seem to say that 4e is not doing well, but rather that it's not in "the cycle" that would make it sell as well as 3e. That seems to make sense to me. I mean, everything else seems to be cyclical (the economy, family addictions, etc.) so why not our favorite hobby?




The thing about applying a cyclical generation theory to the hobby, or D&D in particular, is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of thought as to what causes the cycle.  With capitalist economies, there is some rational theory behind what is going on with these recessionary cycles.  What Joe Goodman posited doesn't present any rational theories as to why D&D should be on a generational cycle.  He's just looked at the data and noticed one complete period (peak to peak) and has extrapolated from that the idea that there is a generational based cycle effect going on.  I won't dispute his empirical numbers, but I do dispute this idea this is definitive proof that there is some kind of generational cycle effect that explains everything (e.g. why 4E is not doing as well as the 3E peak).  There could very well be other factors that explain things.

Heck, here's one rival theory.  In tough economic times, people turn to games for a release from the pressures of life, and to find relatively inexpensive entertainment,  The peaks in D&D (and/or hobby gaming) coincide with recessions.  There was a bad recession in the early 80s.  There was another after the dot com bubble (2001 peak).  There was one in the early 90s (but CCGs arose and stole potential D&D customers so parts of the hobby were still doing very well).  And there is a particularly deep one now so the gaming hobby should be doing relatively well.  If 4E and other games fail to take advantage of the fact that people need an avenue of "escape" from the somewhat depressing economic realities, then perhaps they are doing something wrong this time around. 

Once could go on to come with other ways of explaining the peaks other than these cyclical theories - such as what was going on with the game and the hobby in general.  AD&D was when D&D finally burst into prime time in the public consciousness.  2E was warmed over 1E so it didn't go over nearly as well and then they ran into the CCG phenomenon.  3E was a resurrection of the game on a much more consistent set of mechanics and a disruptive force in the hobby (with the OGL).  It transformed things.  4E is a radical departure from what came before so it should also have the potential to do great things for WoTC if it was managed correctly.

I guess my point is that this idea of a generational cycle sounds a bit dodgy and simplistic to me as there are many other factors that could be going on.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 20, 2009)

Forgive me, but I don't think it was intended to address the issues in Clark's post. Rather it placed the question of D&D in a larger context.

What is the benchmark of success? Anti-4E folks will come in and say 
Wizards expected nothing less than the 3.5 peak, therefore 4E must be a failure," and they might be right. And pro-4E folks like myself will read Goodman's post and find solace that our beloved game has a future, and that supporters of D&D (not necessarily 4E) are looking at the big picture, ensuring that I can play this game with my kids 15 or 20 years from now. 

I think, probably, that that's my benchmark for success. I'm ecstatic that 4E is doing well for Goodman Games. I hope that it is doing well for Wizards. I want Dungeons & Dragons (not necessarily 4E) to be around for a long, long time to come.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 20, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Also, if 4E is doing as well as 3E was - why aren't more 3PPs jumping on board?  Or is the price for them to jump on board providing things like spinner racks to game and hobby stores?  In the early 3E era, product was enough.  Now it seems that you need more than a product to get in stores, you have to actively nurture the relationship.




I don't think this is a bad thing. Plants need to be watered, our gaming industry needs to be supported.   



DaveMage said:


> Anyway, I guess it confirms that GG won't be supporting Pathfinder.




I didn't read that. Also, GG is already supporting Pathfinder with their 3.5 DCCs, right?


----------



## Filcher (Jun 20, 2009)

Zil said:


> The thing about applying a cyclical generation theory to the hobby, or D&D in particular, is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of thought as to what causes the cycle...




I read it rather that, "industries have low and high points. It is a mistake to judge your work as a failure if it doesn't automatically exceed the 20 year high point."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Interesting. Dont agree with a bunch, namely game stores, and his 47 stores isnt exactly a large sample, but interesting none the less.



That's just the number he visited personally.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 20, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Goodman said that distributors are not an issue. Clarke said they were. Who do I believe?
> 
> Both of them.
> 
> They're not an issue for Goodman and they are an issue for Clarke. Why? Probably timing, but that's only my guess.




Objectively:

Because Joseph has cultivated a relationship with stores, that in turn, have a reason to order DCCs through distributors. 

By contrast, Necromancer, a company I love, hasn't released product in a year, and has canceled all their projects for the last year. I can see why game stores and distributors would be slow to order.


----------



## Zil (Jun 20, 2009)

Filcher said:


> I read it rather that, "industries have low and high points. It is a mistake to judge your work as a failure if it doesn't automatically exceed the 20 year high point."




Yes, but it's also sometimes a mistake to simply throw up your hands and accept mediocre sales just because we're at that point in some theoretical cycle and not take a more detailed look as to what is really going on.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 20, 2009)

Zil said:


> Yes, but it's also sometimes a mistake to simply throw up your hands and accept mediocre sales just because we're at that point in some theoretical cycle and not take a more detailed look as to what is really going on.




Total agreement. A good plan requires a strategy as well as tactics. In my opinion, Goodman is advocating for both.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

Zil said:


> I do dispute this idea this is definitive proof



If definitive proof were required before making a business decision, no decision would ever be made.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

S'mon said:


> He seems to be confirming that 4e sales in 2009 are nowhere near 3e sales in 2001 and that it's silly even to compare them.  Hmm, I'm pretty sure WotC were aiming for something comparable.
> 
> Edit: In fact, his generational analogy indicates that we should be comparing 4e in 2009 to D&D sales 8-9 years after the 1982 peak... or the 1e to 2e transition.  *eek* - that's a pretty low benchmark of success for a company like Hasbro.




You seem to be taking his post entirely out of context on purpose, going so far as to ignore very specific parts of it. Mr. Goodman very specifically says that 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. Or, in other words, D&D 4e is doing as well as D&D ever has, with the exception of two. . . er. . .  _exceptional_ years.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 20, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> In short, it was very interesting, but comparing it to Orcus' post, it's really apples and oranges.



I agree.

I read Orcus post and was surprised that he was having trouble even with ToH.  I really thought a banner product title from a big name would be a no-brainer.   But I wasn't really surprised by the overall statements.

I read Joseph's comments and I was not surprised by anything.
Somewhat different perspectives that both fit with my personal expectations.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I don't doubt his industry expertise, nor his business acumen.  But he seemed to state his credentials and then his conclusions, with nothing objective to back it up in between.




That's the conclusion I came to also. He goes straight from telling us what materials he's gathered, without saying what data they actually provide, and then gives us his interpretation of them.

His post was interesting, but if you break it down it reads like so:

Admin here. Portion of post removed. We don't allow "fixed it for you" posts here. Why did you think that a highly sarcastic, exceptionally insulting version of that would be okay? I don't care either way if you disagree or agree with him, but if it's on ENW it'll need to be politely and without personal attacks.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 20, 2009)

Edited.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> You seem to be taking his post entirely out of context on purpose, going so far as to ignore very specific parts of it. Mr. Goodman very specifically says that 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. Or, in other words, D&D 4e is doing as well as D&D ever has, with the exception of two. . . er. . .  _exceptional_ years.




By what objective standard?  Dollars in sales?  Number of books sold?  Amount of shelf space in stores?  Stores that carry the book? Anecdotal evidence from contacts in gaming stores?  Im still curious how he got hard objective concrete measurable benchmarks from the 70's and 80's for purposes of comparison.

Either way though, it's irrelevant how well they are doing as compared to back i n the day.  What matters is how well they are doing as compared to how well Hasbro wants them to do.  How well are they meeting their revenue goals for the year?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> That's the conclusion I came to also. He goes straight from telling us what materials he's gathered, without saying what data they actually provide, and then gives us his interpretation of them.
> 
> His post was interesting, but if you break it down it reads like so:




Hugh. I guess if you have an agenda to prove that 4e is crashing, 3pp is doomed, and X (Paizo, retroclones, Green Ronin) is the only salvation for D&D style RPGs, I could read it like that too.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> By what objective standard?  Dollars in sales?  Number of books sold?  Amount of shelf space in stores?  Stores that carry the book? Anecdotal evidence from contacts in gaming stores?  Im still curious how he got hard objective concrete measurable benchmarks from the 70's and 80's for purposes of comparison.




I'm curious about hard data, too. I'm just reiterrating what Mr. Goodman _said_, a great portion of which S'mon ignored in his attempts to get on with the doomsaying.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> That's the conclusion I came to also. He goes straight from telling us what materials he's gathered, without saying what data they actually provide, and then gives us his interpretation of them.
> 
> His post was interesting, but if you break it down it reads like so:





I haven't laughed so hard in months    Enable your XP so I can give some to you, man.  

"...created the month of May."   LOL


----------



## Ourph (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Im still curious how he got hard objective concrete measurable benchmarks from the 70's and 80's for purposes of comparison.



He states very clearly in the post that he accessed sales figures included in court documents from various lawsuits TSR was involved in throughout the years. Whether those numbers are "hard, objective and concrete" is, I suppose, debatable. But presumably they're coming from the only entity that would know (TSR) and so are at least as reliable as anyone else's data.


----------



## Psion (Jun 20, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Hopefully not.
> 
> I've heard nothing but positive things said about Joe in the past.




To be clear, I was no way impugning Joseph's integrity. Indeed, of all the people I have dealt with in the RPG industry, he's one of the more professional.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Also, if 4E is doing as well as 3E was - why aren't more 3PPs jumping on board?  Or is the price for them to jump on board providing things like spinner racks to game and hobby stores?  In the early 3E era, product was enough.  Now it seems that you need more than a product to get in stores, you have to actively nurture the relationship.




Indeed, there was a period where pretty much anything could be published and put on a store shelf.   This turns out to not be so desirable to retailers, as they end up with junk on the shelves they have to throw away to make room for stuff that will sell.  Distributors don't like it because they end up with junk in the warehouses that the retailers don't want, so they have to throw it away to make room for stuff that is viable.

Either that, or pay money for years to store a bunch of Wilderness Survival Guides that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.   

And speaking as a consumer, I'm glad I don't have to worry about typo-ridden poorly-indexed books with dithered graphics and doubled-spaced text being on the shelves when I'm looking for stuff to buy.

Yeah, it's nice to have the idea that anybody can dream up some awesome-killer RPG book and serve the world by putting it out there, but the reality is quite different in my experience.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Also, if 4E is doing as well as 3E was - why aren't more 3PPs jumping on board?



Perhaps:

They don't like 4e.
They don't like the GSL.
They waited too long on the GSL and gave up.
The common wisdom is 4e is doing badly, so they aren't interested.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

Ourph said:


> But presumably they're coming from the only entity that would know (TSR) and so are at least as reliable as anyone else's data.




That is a good point — and one that I completely overlooked.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention!


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 20, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So are we now doubting Joe Goodman's word because he has vested interest in seeing his company earn a profit, which right now is tied to the health of the 4e market?



Short answer? Yes, we absolutely can, based on this set of parameters.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Perhaps:
> 
> They don't like 4e.
> They don't like the GSL.
> ...




Or the conception of 3PP ends with Green Ronin, Paizo, Goodman Games, Necromancer, Mongoose, and Malhavoc.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Perhaps:
> 
> They don't like 4e.
> They don't like the GSL.
> ...




I'll give you the first three, but the last isn't so common (as JG is trying to point out) and shouldn't be repeated as gospel.

Remathilis "But it said so on the internet!" Ooi.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> Or the conception of 3PP ends with Green Ronin, Paizo, Necromancer, Mongoose, and Malhavoc.



One Bad Egg seems to be going strong. 

The guy in charge of it posts the company's monthly earnings on his blog, even.


----------



## Psion (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Perhaps:
> 
> They don't like 4e.
> They don't like the GSL.
> ...




Is it?

I thought #2 and #3 were the common wisdom.

#1, I've seen some small publishers that think that. And some (including some I respect a bunch) who lurve 4e.

#4 seems silly. Even if 4e is half the sales of 3e, it's still an order of magnitude more sales that most 3pps ever see, so I wouldn't see why that would be a driving factor.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

Psion said:


> I#1, I've seen some small publishers that think that.



 Some SMALL publishers?

Paizo. Green Ronin. Malhovic.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 20, 2009)

Ourph said:


> He states very clearly in the post that he accessed sales figures included in court documents from various lawsuits TSR was involved in throughout the years. Whether those numbers are "hard, objective and concrete" is, I suppose, debatable. But presumably they're coming from the only entity that would know (TSR) and so are at least as reliable as anyone else's data.




The thing is, having worked in courts, and seen a bit of the legal arena, those types of records typically do not make it into the official court record.  I don't now how it is in other states, but in Connecticut sensitive financial information is often sealed.  The sort of detailed information he refers to is usually passed back and forth as part of the discovery process between the lawyers and not given to the court. They may make it into the court record as exhibits once a case goes to trial, but from what I remember most of the old TSR cases settled before going to court.  Also, the courts in CT throw out old exhibits after a certain period of time, 4 months after a case goes to judgment. Space is limited in courthouses, and they cant afford the space to store old exhibits.  There are always transcripts of the court proceedings once a case went to trial, but you have to pay a lot for those, and like I said, I thought most of them settled before trial anyhow.  Lastly, he could have gotten them from the litigants themselves, but I would assume that any decent attorney would have, as part of the settlement agrement, also gotten everyone to sign confidentiality agreements as to any sensitive financial information shared as part of the case.

He mentions the Dave Arneson cases, where he sued for royalties.  I assume the sales figures he says he read were in the Complaint filed by Arneson.  A Complaint is a court document that starts a case.  It contains alegatons of truth, not the truth itself.  The other side of the case files what is known here as an Answer, wherein they usually deny the allegations in the Complaint.  Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.  If they settle out of court, we generally never find out the truth.  We just know the case is dropped and withdrawn.

I did a quick search for cases Arneson was named in which there was an actual decision available electronically. Keep in mind that a lot of older cases are not available electronically, and you have to physically get them from the courthouse in some manner.  I attached them below.  I can't seem to find anything really meaningful he can use ass reliable benchmark in them.  But, it was a quick search.  He apparently spent more than just the 5 minutes I did doing this research.  Like I said, I'd like to see what he uses for his figures, as well as where he got them, not just a list of sources used.

Again, my experience is in CT.  It may be different in other states.

Like I said, I'd love to see his book.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jun 20, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Excellent. Thank you.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fiery Dragon putting out the Tome of Horrors 4e?




They did the Creature Collection, and have license for the Scarred Lands, but I never heard of them getting the Necro stuff.

The Creature Collection is amazing by the way. Got my print copy day before yesterday. Great stuff.

OK, back to regular topic.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jun 20, 2009)

Interesting post by Goodman. I had a discussion with the chaps who run my FLGS last night when I picked up the Eberron Player's Guide and the Fiery Dragon 4e Battlebox. Yes, I'm a 4e fan. I have come to loathe 3e completely from a rules standpoint. However, I have no problem with Paizo as a company and respect what they are doing with the OGL. I wanted to say that so all my bias' are perfectly clear. 

This discussion occurred before I ever read this thread or Goodman's comments. But basically I asked the managers of my FLGS point blank whether 4e was selling well, and he said it was selling fantastically well even despite the economy. He said they had a great year last year when 4e came out, and it has been selling steadily since then. He credited a lot of that success to WotC's business model of only releasing one major book a month which makes it easy for people to simply buy each new book as it comes out.

I then asked him about Paizo. He did not have very kind words for Paizo. In his opinion Paizo has done everything possible to drive traffic and sales to their own website, and away from hobby retailers.

He currently stocks the Adventure Path books, but they don't really sell. He attributes that to most fans buying direct from Paizo. He is strongly considering dropping the whole line.

He also has no incentive to steer new gamers to Paizo. If they become fans, then they start taking their business to Paizo.com instead of his shop. He doesn't make a lot of money running a game shop and every loss hurts.

So, while they certainly don't pressure customers not to buy Paizo stuff, or disparage them, a sale is a sale after all, they will definitely steer the newbies to WotC and 4e if they come in without a clue as to what to buy.

Paizo's last chance to redeem themselves in his eyes is the release of the Pathfinder core rulebook. They will stock a few and see what happens, but unless it flies off the shelves and Paizo products become steady sellers, they will drop Paizo completely and only get Paizo products if a customer wants to place a special order.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 20, 2009)

This is one heck of a thread.  It's like we've moved from "Joe Goodman is in a position to know this stuff!" to "Ah, to heck with Joe Goodman.  What the heck does _he_ know, anyway?"

Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly.  I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman.  And yes, he stated his opinions.

Not all opinions are created equal, though, folks.  I know this isn't a popular statement on a messageboard populated with egotistical gamer geeks, but expert opinions are, indeed, more valuable than layman opinions.  Often, experts get paid for them.  

No, it's not gospel.  Yes, he could indeed be wrong.  But discounting his opinion entirely is foolish.

-O


----------



## Reigan (Jun 20, 2009)

So, if you can adapt to change, have done your homework and understand the market you can quite easily make money selling 4e products. If Goodman did so could other companies.

Perhaps a rethink is in order, the market really is there.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

Let's be honest here. Everyone on ENWorld has some kind of opinion about the industry. And that opinion is often based on very flimsy evidence - personal taste, what my group think, what my friends think, what the guy down at the local gaming store says.

It seems that what Goodman is saying is being held to much stricter standards of evidence because it conflicts with what the guy down the local gaming store says or whatever. Conflict of interest is being introduced.

Well, there's always a conflict of interest. Even people who aren't making money from rpging have a great deal at stake personally. We all care a lot about the hobby. So if we truly do discount any evidence where there's the slightest possibility of a conflict then, if we apply the same standards equally, we would have to discount *everything*. Because no one is unbiased. We would literally be unable to form an opinion because no evidence would be good enough.

And just how much profit is Goodman likely to make from a post on an internet board saying 4e is doing well? How many extra sales? What does he stand to gain by risking his reputation? Very little I'd say.

Which leads me to the conclusion that he's probably being honest.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 20, 2009)

Reigan said:


> So, if you can adapt to change, have done your homework and understand the market you can quite easily make money selling 4e products. If Goodman did so could other companies.
> 
> Perhaps a rethink is in order, the market really is there.




Don't forget Goodman Games built a great reputation in 3e and I have tio believe that has carried over to 4e for their fans.  Without that 
I imagine it would be a lot tougher for someone new to the scene to have that type of success.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Which leads me to the conclusion that he's probably being honest.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM]YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic[/ame]

[Edit: To be clear, this was not intended as a personal attack upon you, Doug but, rather, commentary upon how this thread seems to be progressing in the context that you alluded to (everybody will have their own opinions and not all of them will be in agreement).]


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 20, 2009)

There is some funny stuff in there:



> 6    Although the Agreement characterized that form as an "oval," its physical depiction in P. Ex. 1 Ex. B is that of an oblong cartouche drawn to appear three-dimensional. It seems that the parties are better developers of games than they are lexicographers. This opinion will use "cartouche" rather than "oval" to refer to the emblem.




Edit: That whole document is rather ... _amazing_ ... in the amount of work that must have gone in to the case and into the judges decision, relative to the substance of the complaint.

There are some values that are of use in the second part:

($109,000 / 2.5) * 100 == $4,360,000

Meaning about $4.4 million for the sames of MMII over the year up to November 2004.  Does anyone know the MMII cover price?  If $20, that would be sales of about 200,000.



> Paragraph 6(g) of the agreement provides that TSR will pay Arneson a royalty of 2 1/2% of the cover price for every copy sold of Monster Manual. Monster Manual is defined in paragraph [*3]  7(f) of the agreement to include "the book currently published by TSR entitled "ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Monster Manual" (2009) and any revised edition or foreign language translation thereof." Paragraph 7(a) defines "revised edition" to mean "a printed work having a title the same as or similar to the related earlier work, revised to include changes or additions to the text, but continuing to include substantially the same rules and subject matter as contained in the earlier work."






> The dispute between the parties centers on whether Monster Manual II is a "revised edition" of Monster Manual under the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties.  TSR initially, for a period of approximately one year, made royalty payments to Arneson [*5]  on Monster Manual II totalling $108,703.50.  These payments stopped on November 2, 1984 when TSR sent a letter to Arneson stating that the payments on Monster Manual II had been made inadvertently and by mistake because it is not a "revised edition" of Monster Manual. The letter went on to state that TSR was therefore crediting the overpayment against the $60,238.68 third quarter (1982) royalty otherwise due on other works and that there remained an overpayment of $48,464.82, which would be credited by TSR against subsequent quarterly royalty amounts.  Arneson, through his attorney, responded in a letter dated November 5, 1984 informing TSR that it has no right to credit or offset royalty payments owing on items other than Monster Manual II and that such actions have placed TSR in default under paragraph 17 of the contract.  This action was filed on November 14, 1984.




I can't say that I agree with the decision in this case,  where the judge seems to equate the MMI with the "series of Monster Manuals".  The MMII is clearly a continuation of the "series of Monster Manuals", but the initial royalty agreement seems to be specifically about MMI.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> He credited a lot of that success to WotC's business model of only releasing one major book a month which makes it easy for people to simply buy each new book as it comes out.




Will D&D gamers be hooked on 4e for more than 2-3 years at most? Cause it is a pretty focused & heavy game.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Everyone on Enworld has some kind of opinion



I think replacing "EnWorld" with "The Internet" in the above (narrowly quoted) statement is far more accurate. 



			
				xechnao said:
			
		

> Will D&D gamers be hooked on 4e for more than 2-3 years at most? Cause it is a pretty focused & heavy game.



3e was pretty heavy, and look how well it continued to do.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2009)

Please read this before posting. If you posted, and your post runs contrary to this reminder, I strongly suggest you edit that post.

I don't care if you love 4e or don't like it, if you agree with Joe Goodman or don't believe him. You will *not*, however, make personal attacks against him or anyone else. If catch the faintest hint of cheap shots or rudeness in this thread, we're going to suspend you without bothering to email. Our patience on this matter has pretty much dissolved.

As always, feel free to PM me if this is in any way unclear.

 - Piratecat


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Don't forget Goodman Games built a great reputation in 3e and I have tio believe that has carried over to 4e for their fans.  Without that
> I imagine it would be a lot tougher for someone new to the scene to have that type of success.




Which leaves him as the de facto 3pp for 4e. Moreover his major competition for customer share is Paizo, not Wotc because Paizo is holding a share from his potential market.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> 3e was pretty heavy, and look how well it continued to do.




It's different. 3e was less focused. Moreover this breadth was actually exploited with the OGL "movement". This breadth may also create illusions, for example regarding the heaviness of the game since you know you have the possibility to model it. And at this point it is irrelevant if it is in practice heavier or not than 4e.


----------



## Zil (Jun 20, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> This discussion occurred before I ever read this thread or Goodman's comments. But basically I asked the managers of my FLGS point blank whether 4e was selling well, and he said it was selling fantastically well even despite the economy. He said they had a great year last year when 4e came out, and it has been selling steadily since then. He credited a lot of that success to WotC's business model of only releasing one major book a month which makes it easy for people to simply buy each new book as it comes out.



I posed a similar question to the owner of a successful FLGS (had been in business for about 30 years) at a city about five hours from here last Fall and got a similar response.  4E was doing fantastic for his store!  I was curious because I was seriously considering opening a FLGS in my own community.  That said, the FLGS I visited is no longer in business so now I'm not as sure he was telling me the truth.



> I then asked him about Paizo. He did not have very kind words for Paizo. In his opinion Paizo has done everything possible to drive traffic and sales to their own website, and away from hobby retailers.




This is more interesting to me.  I am a huge fan of Paizo, but I was wondering similar things.  By offering discounts on some items if you sign up for subscriptions, are you in effect hurting some of your potential distributors.  

On the other hand, Amazon and the like are also effectively trashing the FLGS for any items that you can find there, so what is going on with Paizo is probably not all that unique.  Their discounts are nowhere near as steep and they don't have the same "free shipping" that the big Internet shops can offer.  

What the FLGS store should provide is a venue that gamers can go to to browse through material and decide if they want to buy or not.  It also serves as a place to introduce new things that they may not have heard of.  

I know that with the later WoTC 3.x books, I was unwilling to buy them sight unseen.  That hasn't been the case with Paizo because the quality of the lines I've subscribed to has been outstanding.  Is Paizo potentially a victim of their own success (and quality product)?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 20, 2009)

Regarding this back and forth.

I think it's okay to have a sense of health skepticism and question facts and figures.

However, I also know in this day and age, it has become the status quo for people to start attacking the messenger and not the message.  You see it in politics all the time--people start attacking the media for "biased coverage", or they think everybody has an agenda that interferes with them being able to come to a reasonable conclusion.  People start attacking reporter's and experts agendas and biases.

I dislike that viewpoint.  One of the key things in life is to accept that you might be wrong.  The more dogmatic you believe in an opinion, the less likely you are to be open to another viewpoint, even if it's the factual one!  

So I guess what I am saying is I'd like to see more people give at least some trust to these people that they are basing their statements on facts and not biased agendas.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is one heck of a thread. It's like we've moved from "Joe Goodman is in a position to know this stuff!" to "Ah, to heck with Joe Goodman. What the heck does _he_ know, anyway?"
> 
> Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly. I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman. And yes, he stated his opinions.
> 
> ...




I dont doubt his credentials at all. He sounds like a very smart businessman.

But his opinion is just that, opinion. Like someone said earlier, he states his creds, and his conclusions.......but where is the actual evidence? Data? that he talks about. 

Its just not there. Mind you I think 4e is selling well, not as well as 3, but good enough that its selling well. No interest myself, mind you.

Would love to see it. I dont doubt his GW conclusion because andocetely I've seen it in action.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> So I guess what I am saying is I'd like to see more people give at least some trust to these people that they are basing their statements on facts and not biased agendas.




The most potentially dangerous avenue is this one you are talking about. Why would Joe Goodman make a post like this? He has made himself an opening and he is rushing to take advantage of it. To judge things you must not listen the stories of one or the other but try to spot the battlefield itself, see the actual match to see what is happening. 

Of course perception is limited. Joe Goodman knows this. This is why he speaks. But I wont alter what I can already perceive by someone's words. Joe Goodman's post is interesting nevertheless for us and for him because it informs us for his acclaimed status as the most probably greatest standard bearer of 3pp support of 4e.

It is relevant to Orcus posting. Orcus had to post for his reasons too. And Goodman had to respond to this. It is not about what they are saying directly. It is all about what they are saying indirectly.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is one heck of a thread.  It's like we've moved from "Joe Goodman is in a position to know this stuff!" to "Ah, to heck with Joe Goodman.  What the heck does _he_ know, anyway?"
> 
> Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly.  I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman.  And yes, he stated his opinions.
> 
> ...




I know one thing, this thread is a good example of the reason why he chose to remain silent until now.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Joe laid out his credentials pretty strongly.  I can't think of anyone who's in a better position to know about the third-party publisher business under both 3e and 4e - and thus, I can't think of a better expert in this than Joe Goodman.  And yes, he stated his opinions.
> 
> Not all opinions are created equal, though, folks.  I know this isn't a popular statement on a messageboard populated with egotistical gamer geeks, but expert opinions are, indeed, more valuable than layman opinions.  Often, experts get paid for them.
> 
> ...



I think his opinion is highly valid.   Again, I've always felt that grab and go modules are a great fit for 4E and expected Goodman to do well.  

Do you have the same respect for other industry professionals opinions?  Such as those described by Orcus in the post that got all this started?


> Retailers are less than excited about 4E supplemental material. Distributors even less so. Print partners still less excited.



I don't see these positions and Goodman's as in conflict.  Other people in the industry are not going to ignore larger trends just because Goodman is an exception.  Particularly if there is an understandable basis for the exception.

Yeah, these are not direct quotes.  But Orcus has a solid reputation and a clear strong eagerness to publish for 4E.  And yet he posts these comments, in plural, for three different tiers of sales.  Now maybe he didn't do his homework and he is blowing one nay-sayers comments out of proportion, and setting aside his desire to publish for 4E based on that one slanted statement.  But I doubt it.  

It is probably more reasonable to develop an understanding in which both of these professional opinions are compatible.

Do you see these opinions of those retailers, distributors, and print partners as more valuable than ENWorld laymen?  I do.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

Zil said:


> That said, the FLGS I visited is no longer in business so now I'm not as sure he was telling me the truth.




Of course, he could have gone out of business for reasons completely unrelated to 4E, like the landlord raising the rent, a medical emergency, bad gambling debts, winning the lottery...any number of things.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Just as an aside, I'd pay a few bucks to read a pdf of the business history of the industry he talked about in the post...I'm particularly interested where he got the objective concrete numbers for sales figures going back 30 years.  As far as I can tell, that's not publicly available information.




Yeah, I am wondering the same myself, because of the lawsuits I have read, which are only a half dozen of them, TSR and WOTC never give "exact" sales numbers. Like in the last lawsuit WOTC describes their sales numbers as, "Hundreds of Thousands" of Core rule book sets sold. All that tells anyone is that 4E numbers are very significantly lower than 3E at its peak.

Still, I think his over all assessment that 4E is doing "fine" is accurate, just not a bigger hit than 3E was, like some WOTC posters have claimed. In fact, Joe out right admits 4E isn't close at all to being the sales hit that 3E was.

So sales wise, 4E is not better than 3E, and is now irrefutable fact. Well, its been irrefutable fact since the WOTC law suits, but now maybe more people can accept the facts with Goodman spelling it out like he has.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I know one thing, this thread is a good example of the reason why he chose to remain silent until now.




When Orcus posts to a D&D 3pp community and creates a feeling of doubt about the viability of 3pp and thus their relevance in the hearts of the fans Joe Goodman has to rise the consumer morale, hasn't he? Seriously why did he make his only comment only right now? Wouldn't this support my argument here?


----------



## Zil (Jun 20, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Of course, he could have gone out of business for reasons completely unrelated to 4E, like the landlord raising the rent, a medical emergency, bad gambling debts, winning the lottery...any number of things.



  Indeed.  I suspect he mostly wanted to retire, but it is strange that he didn't (or perhaps couldn't) sell the business as a going concern.  The name alone should have been worth something.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I know one thing, this thread is a good example of the reason why he chose to remain silent until now.




This thread is a good example of why some publishers take long hiatuses from publishing and/or give it up altogether.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

Asking for evidence of whether or not 4E is doing well is like asking for empirical evidence about whether god exists. No matter how much you blather about it, the evidence is not 
going to arrive. Using the "there is no evidence" argument when there never will be evidence is discussing things in bad faith. "There is no evidence" does not disprove anybody's opinions or statements given the circumstances of these discussions. Using this argument shows a lack of a real counter argument. 

The following are opinions I hold:

1. 4E is doing well
2. 4E is selling D&D books well enough to firmly put 3.5E D&D "in the past"
3. 3PP are not terribly important to the D&D brand
4. 3PP are not in serious competition with WotC, not even combined

One could argue I have no evidence of any of this. Evidence of this is something we will never have, and I see no point in arguing over a lack of evidence. If you disagree, state why and give your reasons.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 20, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Of course, he could have gone out of business for reasons completely unrelated to 4E, like the landlord raising the rent, a medical emergency, bad gambling debts, winning the lottery...any number of things.



FLGS became a dying breed well before 4E.  
I doubt Paizo stubbing his store's toe killed it nearly so much as Amazon's blow to its head.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> FLGS became a dying breed well before 4E.
> I doubt Paizo stubbing his store's toe killed it nearly so much as Amazon's blow to its head.



  yeah this. Amazon, ebay and discount places hurt the FLGS more than Paizo subscription model....


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

Yes, and a downturn for FLGS has nothing to do with M:tG cooling off or being a slow time for Games Workshop.

Amazon and discount places never hurt FLGS in terms of M:tG, though eBay might have. None of those three affected Games Workshop sales that much.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> FLGS became a dying breed well before 4E.




Well, for what it's worth, FLGS have been living and dying since the industry began...



> I doubt Paizo stubbing his store's toe killed it nearly so much as Amazon's blow to its head.




True, but Amazon is very nearly a complete competitor with nothing much to do with the FLGS, whereas Paizo should conceivably want the FLGS to at least look on them somewhat favorably.  It's like how SJGames doesn't offer regular discounts on their own products sold through Warehouse 23.  Why?  Oh yeah, because they don't want to upset other retailers.

Yes, Amazon is bad for FLGS.  So are rising Fuel Prices and a poor economy, and so is not opening on the weekends because you get to hung over on Friday, but that doesn't mean that there are legit grievances to be found.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> This thread is a good example of why some publishers take long hiatuses from publishing and/or give it up altogether.




Honestly the show is put up by the publisher's side in this case.

If there is a demand there will be some offer at least. Of course too much offer will create a crash : enter OGL bloat. After the crash things need some time to settle, of course. Orcus said that 4e failed to create the initial explosive take off that 3e did. And he blames this to the seemingly "crash protection" regulation (enter GSL).

Then Joe Goodman enters aggressive: no actual data, just a round of highly explosive special effects to create some impression. But I believe he has been working so far to build some muscle to flex. And rightly so he is flexing it when he can. Now what did you expect the fans on a thread like this to do? I am asking seriously here because I fail (totally) to see your point.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 20, 2009)

carmachu said:


> yeah this. Amazon, ebay and discount places hurt the FLGS more than Paizo subscription model....




I can see this. Except for used books, I haven't purchased any RPG book from an FLGS in the last four years. Everything has been through Amazon.com (amazon prime shipping is awesome) and to a lesser degree from Paizo's online store and whatever the name is for Catalyst's store for Shadowrun.

Any browsing of physical books tends to happen at GenCon, which is the only time of the year I'll buy books without the sort of discounts I can get online.

Of course, the shift to online sales away from FLGSs also impacts best sellers lists too (since AFAIK sales in FLGSs don't tend to count as much or at all compared to big box stores, amazon, etc). But that's for another discussion entirely.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Asking for evidence of whether or not 4E is doing well is like asking for empirical evidence about whether god exists. No matter how much you blather about it, the evidence is not
> going to arrive.



Even if the evidence arrived, it would still be argued with.

WotC could publish their sales figures, and the response would be either:

1) Oh yeah? What was 3e's sales figures, HUH?
2) They're probably giving fake figures to cover how meager 4e is selling.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Even if the evidence arrived, it would still be argued with.
> 
> WotC could publish their sales figures, and the response would be either:
> 
> ...




You have gone way too far in the other side of the fence right now


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Even if the evidence arrived, it would still be argued with.
> 
> WotC could publish their sales figures, and the response would be either:
> 
> ...




I get that hilarity every month when they publish the sales figures for comic books.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Even if the evidence arrived, it would still be argued with.
> 
> WotC could publish their sales figures, and the response would be either:
> 
> ...




Thats what happens when you hold an opinion so strongly that reality can't change it.


----------



## scourger (Jun 20, 2009)

Well, that was an interesting read.  Makes me want to visit more game stores.  Seriously.  47?  In half a year?  That's impressive.  Like I said, makes me want to visit more stores.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Thats what happens when you hold an opinion so strongly that reality can't change it.




Are you sure it doesn't warp the fabric of the universe?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jun 20, 2009)

*Wow*

I'm glad that Goodman Games is doing well.  The truth is, they have far fewer 3rd party products to compete with this time around, so even if the 4E pie is smaller than the 3E pie was, they're getting a bigger piece of it.  I am glad that the 4E folks are getting support from at least one of the good 3rd party developers.

I think I disagree with his analysis of the importance of FLGS stores, though.  Sure, we all got exposed to RPGS via them, but that was a generation before google, facebook, twitter, and the omnipresent connectivity we all have with each other today.  I think it's a mistake to extrapolate from the past in this case and think that it is predictive.  

To contest one of his example -- if I moved to a new city (and I do this quite a bit, actually) I wouldn't go to the FLGS to get players -- I'd go to EnWorld gamers seeking gamers.  Or to the paizo boards.  Or to the WoTC boards I guess.  Let's say I moved somewhere wierd -- like Buenos Aires, Argentina.  Actually, that isn't hypothetical at all -- I did just this in 2008.  I found gamers there at de Rol :: Comunidad de Roleros .  This site was suggested to me by a poster on the Necromancer Games board, who lived in Argentina!  I imagine that finding gamers here in LA on the web (I moved here 3 weeks ago) won't be too difficult. 

Honestly, with regards to 4E I believe both Joe Goodman and Clark Peterson .  I don't find what they write to be contradictory at all.  They're in different situations.

Ken


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Asking for evidence of whether or not 4E is doing well is like asking for empirical evidence about whether god exists. No matter how much you blather about it, the evidence is not
> going to arrive. Using the "there is no evidence" argument when there never will be evidence is discussing things in bad faith. "There is no evidence" does not disprove anybody's opinions or statements given the circumstances of these discussions. Using this argument shows a lack of a real counter argument.



I have certainly noticed a "god of the gaps" parallel- defining the success or failure of 4e in terms of whether it meets Hasbro's secret, unpublished sales projections basically defines the matter into an unanswerable state.  One might wonder at the motivations of someone who considers that unobtainable information to be the only acceptable evidence, who (presumably) knows he'll never receive that information, and yet continues to revive this debate on a weekly basis.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 20, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I think I disagree with his analysis of the importance of FLGS stores, though. Sure, we all got exposed to RPGS via them, but that was a generation before google, facebook, twitter, and the omnipresent connectivity we all have with each other today. I think it's a mistake to extrapolate from the past in this case and think that it is predictive.



The thing that I think gaming stores do that the internet does not is connect fans of one realm of gaming with fans from others.  You can hang out at ENWorld for years and never even know what a eurogame is, or never hear about Infinity, or never consider whether you might enjoy playing ASL.  The internet can be awfully balkanized.

Gaming stores can be as well, but they don't _have_ to be.  They at least offer the potential for cross polination between gaming communities.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I have certainly noticed a "god of the gaps" parallel- defining the success or failure of 4e in terms of whether it meets Hasbro's secret, unpublished sales projections basically defines the matter into an unanswerable state.  One might wonder at the motivations of someone who considers that unobtainable information to be the only acceptable evidence, who (presumably) knows he'll never receive that information, and yet continues to revive this debate on a weekly basis.




Because it is also impossible to really know if 4e is going strong and yet people say so. Marketing is a reality that comes to fill the gaps of knowledge. But if one does marketing expect some people to question and rightly so. In the end this is how democracy works too.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Because it is also impossible to really know if 4e is going strong and yet people say so. Marketing is a reality that comes to fill the gaps of knowledge. But if one does marketing expect some people to question and rightly so. In the end this is how democracy works too.



This doesn't actually make sense, you know.  Particularly the second sentence.

What I see in this forum is a sort of denialism-lite.  Its the same basic system whether you're denying the sales figures of an RPG you don't like, or denying the efficacy of vaccinations: 

1. Demand absolute, 100% guaranteed, irrefutable proof.
2. When this isn't provided, because you've demanded an unattainable degree of certainty, proclaim that this means that the matter is an open question.
3. Throw out insinuations to get people to believe that if the matter is an open question, they should lean towards assuming that your side is the safest bet.

So on one hand we have best seller lists, print runs being sold out, reordered, and sold out again, we have the statements of people in the industry with direct knowledge, we have the statements of people in the industry with professional experience examining these questions and making business decisions based on them, and so on.

On the other hand we have quibbles about how complete these pieces of evidence really are, and a few people's personal testimony about their friends and neighbors.

Its the tricks and tactics of denialism that serve to turn this into a debate instead of a functionally closed question.  The best seller lists are pointed out as not infallible.  The fact that print runs sell out is used to argue that the print runs must have been too small and somehow therefore indicates a lack of confidence.  The people in the industry are accused of being shills, or insinuations about a lack of candor, without any specific accusation, are used to muddy their reputations.  

The goal is to make everyone believe that anything at all could be true, but that the people saying 4e is doing well are somehow sinister and not to be trusted, and that therefore we should presume that its doing poorly.

Just the same as any other denialism.  There are some interesting scholarly articles about the phenomenon out there, if you care to look around.  I'm not sure I should post them here, some people might read them like a manual.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Because it is also impossible to really know if 4e is going strong and yet people say so.




I find it more people saying 4e is dying than the other way around.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Because it is also impossible to really know if 4e is going strong and yet people say so. Marketing is a reality that comes to fill the gaps of knowledge. But if one does marketing expect some people to question and rightly so. In the end this is how democracy works too.




But the reverse is also true. It is impossible to really know if 4E is doing poorly. Yet, people keep posting the argument that opinions where 4E is doing well are invalid because there is no evidence while implying that the opposite is true.

My point is that the lack of evidence doesn't refute the opinion, and it most certainly does not support the opposite. If you disagree with an opinion, try come up with your own opinion.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I am asking seriously here because I fail (totally) to see your point.




The point is that some people in this thread are acting spectacularly crappy toward Mr. Goodman (and, in another thread, toward Mr. Peterson) without good justification. Publishers have been known to go on long sabbaticals or close up shop completely because they get sick of dealing with throngs of hypercritical 'fans' who never (or rarely) have anything positive to say. Simply put, there is a _ton_ of crap to deal with for relatively little reward. 

There was a day when I didn't 'get' this reaction, either. I recall being utterly perplexed when James Wallis publically told his consumers where to stick it right before parting out Hogshead Publishing near the end of 2002. You can read up on some of that fallout and reasoning here. Having since had the opportunity to work on the business side of this hobby, I _completely_ understand how he felt.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

All we have to go on is how each of our area's are doing. 10 people can say 4e sales poorly, then 10 can say it sales better then 3.5 did, then 10 people can say it's 50/50 sales

And we still know very little. Then count in online and such and you just do not know.

I think it is saleing ok, I do not think it outsold 3.0 and really don't think it is outselling 3.5 however 3.5 was in a slump( mostly do to bad splat books if ya ask me) and so it prob is selling better then it did the last year or so of 3.5

but really we know nothing. And really Mr. Goodmen knows nothing . He sees but one small part and nothing of Wotc's numbers

I am glad both for him and 4e players that enjoy his stuff that his sales are good. But I think it has more to do with Goodmens name, the fact he jumped into 4e as soon as he could and the company's soild fanbase then much else really

Other companys without the fanbase, and the name will just not get much headway


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> This doesn't actually make sense, you know.  Particularly the second sentence.
> 
> What I see in this forum is a sort of denialism-lite.  Its the same basic system whether you're denying the sales figures of an RPG you don't like, or denying the efficacy of vaccinations:
> 
> ...




There is also an interesting addendum:

People who benefit from 4E's success have less of a need to deny or believe anything. They have 4E, and life is good. At the very least its better than the uncertain future for 3E/OGL.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> This doesn't actually make sense, you know.  Particularly the second sentence.



Ok, let me retry by quoting your own words.



Cadfan said:


> Throw out insinuations to get people to believe that if the matter is an open question, they should lean towards assuming that your side is the safest bet.



When people communicate this the tactic of every one side. Communication is open. This is why marketing works and this is why true democracy is considered the political ideal.



Cadfan said:


> statements of people in the industry with direct knowledge, we have the statements of people in the industry with professional experience examining these questions and making business decisions based on them, and so on.



There is no such thing as direct knowledge in today's business-industry. It is mostly about hype. On every level of it. What you need is a competitive product and hype. Not a good product but a competitive product.


Cadfan said:


> On the other hand we have quibbles about how complete these pieces of evidence really are, and a few people's personal testimony about their friends and neighbors.
> 
> Its the tricks and tactics of denialism that serve to turn this into a debate instead of a functionally closed question.  The best seller lists are pointed out as not infallible.  The fact that print runs sell out is used to argue that the print runs must have been too small and somehow therefore indicates a lack of confidence.  The people in the industry are accused of being shills, or insinuations about a lack of candor, without any specific accusation, are used to muddy their reputations.
> 
> ...




I think you are totally missing the point. Wotc could have fantastic sales. Yet Hasbro could close it down for some irrelevant reason. Hasbro is the true authority behind this and all the rest of the discussions we are having serve nothing but hype. This is what Joe is trying to say/communicate/make clear and he has a point.

EDIT:  Obviously I am referring here in the last sentence to the one Joe that goes by the lawyer profession


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> but really we know nothing



Then act like it, Socrates.

_Apparently, you didn't read my warning on page 4 closely enough. _


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Really smart stuff



F---ing A.


----------



## Drunken Master (Jun 20, 2009)

Right now, at my FLGS, the tables are full. I'm actually not there because those tables are full. And it's NOT because of Free RPG Day or anything, because for whatever reason, this store's not participating. But dudes are showing up to play, and they're playing 4E. 

A week ago I tried to sign up to play in a RPGA Living Forgotten Realms session scheduled for today, but the tables available were already full. My local RPGA folks run two game days a month, and they had to add a third one next week so that people like myself could have a chance to play, too! People who tout the failure of 4E are... "mistaken", I guess would be the most polite way I could put it. 

We're at the FLGS, we're buying stuff, we're playing 4E, and we're having fun. I've played every edition of this game, and not only have I had a blast with each one, each iteration has been better than the last, in my opinion. 

I don't know about sales figures or any of that business - all I know is that I have a really good time getting together with people, rolling some dice, and pretending to kill monsters - whether it be at the store or in my home, and I think 4E is killer. There are a LOT of people just like me out there.

Thanks, Wizards! And thanks, Goodman!


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Then act like it, Socrates.




Never read him so ya lost me there


----------



## BryonD (Jun 20, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> On the other hand we have quibbles about how complete these pieces of evidence really are, and a few people's personal testimony about their friends and neighbors.



You mean things like Goodman saying that the first year of 4E wasn't as good as the first year of 3E and it isn't fair to even compare to that generational high point?

Or do you mean things like Clark saying the whole distribution chain is down on 4E?

I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between WotC's D&D sales and what is happening in the 3PP market.  

4E is selling well.  Well enough for WotC.  I think that is a clear and simple fact.  

It may be blowing the doors off their expectations or someone may be getting taken to task every week for why it doesn't bring in buckets of gold by the truck every week.  Comparing to projections is unknown and subjective.  But profitable is (by and large) clear.

Does 4E have the sustained selling power of 3E?  Now we are in to pure opinion.  My opinion is no.  I might be wrong.  We may find out, we may never really know.

More on the topic at hand: How is the 3PP market?  
It sucks.  That, again, is my opinion.  
If you are Goodman, it is doing well.  That is technically opinion, but it seems unreasonable to me to not call it fact.

There is a lot of fact blowing around and there is a lot of opinion blowing around and they both cut both ways.

One could just as easily say that D&D's days as the king of games is starting to waiver and disputing that is nothing more than denialism.
I don't think that is right.  But it is no more wrong than your spin.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Never read him so ya lost me there




I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. 
Socrates


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> The point is that some people in this thread are acting spectacularly crappy toward Mr. Goodman (and, in another thread, toward Mr. Peterson) without good justification. Publishers have been known to go on long sabbaticals or close up shop completely because they get sick of dealing with throngs of hypercritical 'fans' who never (or rarely) have anything positive to say. Simply put, there is a _ton_ of crap to deal with for relatively little reward.




I see. I could think this behavior exists because today the customer does not see nor understands the labor behind publishing a product the same way as he understands the labor behind some good marketing or developing a good product. Having said that I am curious about the potential of POD and when it will really take off. Today still, Lulu seems to be a monopoly running things half as good as it could.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Yes, and a downturn for FLGS has nothing to do with M:tG cooling off or being a slow time for Games Workshop.
> 
> Amazon and discount places never hurt FLGS in terms of M:tG, though eBay might have. None of those three affected Games Workshop sales that much.





I have to slightly disagree. I know online dsicounters can and do hurt GLGS in regard to Games WOrkshop items. Gods know I never play full price of anything from tehm and know I'm not alone.

I'll assume there are similar places for M:tG.....Anyone who plays the game know?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 20, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You mean things like Goodman saying that the first year of 4E wasn't as good as the first year of 3E and it isn't fair to even compare to that generational high point?




3E was released after a lengthy dry spell, with people aching for something new and fresh. The OGL was brand new and the sky was the limit. 4E was launched when 3E was just beginning to slow down, so the anticipation was less. The 3pp market crashed, stabilized, and then began to tail off a bit before 4E was launched. The environment at launch was a big cause of 3E's initial success, and 4E's just doesn't match those circumstances.



BryonD said:


> Or do you mean things like Clark saying the whole distribution chain is down on 4E?




I have to say he's talking about his world here, the 3pp world. Goodman Games worked hard to stay relevant, and others who haven't done so now face an uphill battle with distributors. 



BryonD said:


> I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between WotC's D&D sales and what is happening in the 3PP market.
> 
> 4E is selling well.  Well enough for WotC.  I think that is a clear and simple fact.
> 
> ...




I think your opinion implies a strong correlation between sustained selling power and 3pp support, or at the very least the customizability and flexibility of 3.5E. I happen to believe that 4E will have more than enough sustained selling power to live out its natural life of 8-10 years, and I don't think 3pp will or would have had that much of an impact either way.



BryonD said:


> More on the topic at hand: How is the 3PP market?
> It sucks.  That, again, is my opinion.
> If you are Goodman, it is doing well.  That is technically opinion, but it seems unreasonable to me to not call it fact.
> 
> ...




Again, this implies that D&D's being the king of games includes strong 3pp support to be true. Even during the darkest days of TSR, D&D never really lost that title(though White Wolf might have gotten close), and prior to that had almost zero support from 3pp for most of the 20 years prior to 3E, in which D&D was the king of RPGs. 

I understand that things look bleak for those who value the OGL movement and D&D's participation in it, but it isn't a universally held opinion. I'm perfectly happy playing core D&D, and I have been since the early 90's. The game serves me better by being the best core D&D it can be(as 4E strives to be) as opposed to a flexible one-size-fits-all game(that 3E partnered with the OGL strove to be).


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I could think this behavior exists because today the customer does not see nor understands the labor behind publishing a product the same way as he understands the labor behind some good marketing or developing a good product.




In my experience the problem arises when a consumer doesn't understand _any_ of that, likes to think they understand _all_ of it, and subsequently floods a publisher's inbox(es) with 'friendly' or 'helpful' criticism.  



> Having said that I am curious about the potential of POD and when it will really take off. Today still, Lulu seems to be a monopoly running things half as good as it could.




Well, Lulu's perceived shortcomings are actually hundreds of times better than things like the previously proposed _Amazon_ monopoly which would have forced many people currently using Lulu completely out of the POD market, due to _insane_ per unit price increases and draconian contracts.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 20, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> I can see this. Except for used books, I haven't purchased any RPG book from an FLGS in the last four years. Everything has been through Amazon.com (amazon prime shipping is awesome) and to a lesser degree from Paizo's online store and whatever the name is for Catalyst's store for Shadowrun.
> 
> Any browsing of physical books tends to happen at GenCon, which is the only time of the year I'll buy books without the sort of discounts I can get online.
> 
> Of course, the shift to online sales away from FLGSs also impacts best sellers lists too (since AFAIK sales in FLGSs don't tend to count as much or at all compared to big box stores, amazon, etc). But that's for another discussion entirely.





I have to be honest: FLGS havent been useful or relevant for me in....5 years? 10 years? While it may just be my area, they arent any help or use. Whether its for my GW wargaming or looking for a RPG group or needs, they have ben utterly unhelpful in that regard. I dont spend one dime in one and dont plan on doing so in the future.

Ages ago I use to be an advocate for them, but experience has shown me its literally a one way street. I'd support them, but their support of me, so to speak, wasnt there.

*shrug* The internet takes care of all my needs. I can browse in my fuzzy slippers instead of trekking 45 minutes to see a bare shelf for wargaming models or only the latest hottest for RPG's or such. Or terrible times for actual playing....I can go on.

I can browse at my lesiure on the internet. Converse with my wargaming group and set a time and day. Found my current RPG group on a games/people finder, track down that book I was looking for....and so on.

Gmes shops vital to the industry? Maybe, but maybe not....its welcome to the 21st century.....


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jun 20, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Either way though, it's irrelevant how well they are doing as compared to back i n the day.  What matters is how well they are doing as compared to how well Hasbro wants them to do.  How well are they meeting their revenue goals for the year?



Forgive me, I don't usually participate in these industry threads, and I feel like I am missing an important premise.  Why does it matter how well WotC is performing compared to Hasbro's goals?

Are people worried that WotC will declare bankruptcy and, being "too big to fail", will bring down the entire hobby with them?  (Presumably, WotC is not in line for any government bailout money.)  Or are so many people in this forum considering publishing 4E material and need to know how risky the market is (whether WotC will continue supporting 4E)?

What's it to you that WotC meets some projected dollar amount set by Hasbro?


----------



## xechnao (Jun 20, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> In my experience the problem arises when a consumer doesn't understand _any_ of that, likes to think they understand _all_ of it, and subsequently floods a publisher's inbox(es) with 'friendly' or 'helpful' criticism.




Well consumers are conditioned to react with their feedback in the ever reaching marketing campaigns-propaganda environment they are carpet bombed with all the time. But I see what you are saying. I really do. I blame it on today's nature of doing business.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Even during the darkest days of TSR, D&D never really lost that title(though White Wolf might have gotten close)



I read somewhere (how's that for an unimpeachable source) that for one month in the early 90s Vampire outsold D&D. That's the only point in the history of rpgs when D&D wasn't the top seller.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I blame it on today's nature of doing business.




Offering feedback is fine. Rocketing off multiple pieces of hatemail or posting personal attacks thinly disguised as 'feedback' on forums is not fine, however. It's pretty screwed up, really. As for blaming others for personal choices. . . I think _that_ is a big part of the problem. 

It often seems that everybody wants to act like a jerk but then blame it on somebody else. Nobody _makes_ somebody else send a hateful email or post a personal attack on a public forum. The _sole_ responsibility for such actions belongs to the person taking them. 

For the record, I'm not saying that you're making this excuse on behalf of yourself (you've been nothing but cordial), but please don't make it for anybody else, either (they're doing just fine pushing my buttons without any help). 

Having said that, we seem to be drifting waaaaaaaaaaay off thread topic. If you'd like to continue this discussion, let's do it by PM.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> If you'd like to continue this discussion, let's do it by PM.




No need so I think. The way you put it got me pretty convinced I agree with your feelings here.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 21, 2009)

I found Joe Goodman's posting extremely valuable. 

While I don't know why Goodman felt it necessary to dedicate the latter part of his post to the fate of 4E in general, I think the first bit, about Goodman Games' fate within 4E, is undoubtedly valuable.

It shows that Goodman picked a really healthy business model. One which works for him, and one which he only decided upon after careful deliberation. 

I wish he had said a bit more on why the specific partnership with 4E worked out so well, meaning his success as a license taker of the GSL.

Personally, I can only collect two tid bits of info from the past months.

First, when 4E designers first announced their "Points of light" setting ideas, and the idea of the new core races, Joe Goodman and the rest of the "World of Aereth" design team were jumping up and down with joy on their boards. Basically, Aereth already IS "points of light" and Dragonborn already ARE key players in their world. For them, 4E was moving in a direction they were supporting ALREADY in their product. This sets Goodman Games apart from companies like Paizo or Necromancer Games who felt 4E was moving in a direction not in line with their own product expectations for D&D. (Something Paizo and Necromance Games have said time and again.)

Second, the Dungeon Crawl Classics line hasn't always been too keen on rules precision. As someone who isn't keen on rules precision when writing modules myself (not that I'd ever publish mine), the product line has my sympathies. However, it also caught considerable criticism for that. (You can read up about this on a mega-review of the ENTRIRE 3.5 DCC product line on RPGnet.) So the advent of 4E, with its generosity to DMs and designers to play fast and loose with rules - say, when designing monsters, when designing traps, basically when statting out something not already covered by the rules, because the core rules (contra 3E) don't stat out everything already - was a godsent for Goodman Games' DCC line. 

In the latter vein, I'd recommend you to read a wonderful interview with Harley Stroh here:

Interview: Harley Stroh « Kobold Quarterly

In short, I wish Joe Goodman would be more liberal about _his _experiences with 4E online and even less mind the general question of 4E's doing well or not. Let's hope he keeps posting, do I'm sure he's got better things to do.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 21, 2009)

Zil said:


> Heck, here's one rival theory.  In tough economic times, people turn to games for a release from the pressures of life, and to find relatively inexpensive entertainment,  The peaks in D&D (and/or hobby gaming) coincide with recessions.  There was a bad recession in the early 80s.  There was another after the dot com bubble (2001 peak).  There was one in the early 90s (but CCGs arose and stole potential D&D customers so parts of the hobby were still doing very well).  And there is a particularly deep one now so the gaming hobby should be doing relatively well.  If 4E and other games fail to take advantage of the fact that people need an avenue of "escape" from the somewhat depressing economic realities, then perhaps they are doing something wrong this time around.




It would be interesting to see how much MMORPGs suck up the gaming dollars during the recession this time around, that CCGs and pen and paper RPGs did during past recessions.

If was a kid or a teenager today, I certainly would be attracted to MMORPG games like WoW than older style CCG card games or pen and paper rpgs.  Arguably if I was 20 years older than I am today, I probably would have been more into wargames than pen and paper rpgs.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Forgive me, I don't usually participate in these industry threads, and I feel like I am missing an important premise.  Why does it matter how well WotC is performing compared to Hasbro's goals?
> 
> Are people worried that WotC will declare bankruptcy and, being "too big to fail", will bring down the entire hobby with them?  (Presumably, WotC is not in line for any government bailout money.)  Or are so many people in this forum considering publishing 4E material and need to know how risky the market is (whether WotC will continue supporting 4E)?
> 
> What's it to you that WotC meets some projected dollar amount set by Hasbro?




Some people seem to fear Hasbro as "the evil corporation that could ruin everything on a whim". Other people can't distinguish between D&D and the OGL/3pp community, feel that on a personal level at least they are one and the same, and that damage to OGL/3pp is damage to D&D. Few people disagree that some harm has come to the OGL/3pp and many OGL/3pp fans might be blaming Hasbro for this and are waiting for the other shoe to drop.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 21, 2009)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Forgive me, I don't usually participate in these industry threads, and I feel like I am missing an important premise.  Why does it matter how well WotC is performing compared to Hasbro's goals?
> 
> Are people worried that WotC will declare bankruptcy and, being "too big to fail", will bring down the entire hobby with them?  (Presumably, WotC is not in line for any government bailout money.)  Or are so many people in this forum considering publishing 4E material and need to know how risky the market is (whether WotC will continue supporting 4E)?
> 
> What's it to you that WotC meets some projected dollar amount set by Hasbro?




Honestly this makes no sense....

Isn't M:TG STILL eclipsing D&D sales by an order of magnitude?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 21, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I haven't laughed so hard in months    Enable your XP so I can give some to you, man.
> 
> "...created the month of May."   LOL




Joe, I checked my XP settings, and they should be enabled.

That said, I'm glad you were amused by what I posted. However, I've since come to understand that several other people were not - to anyone who was offended by what I wrote, I sincerely apologize. I was trying to evoke satire, not insult Joseph Goodman or anyone who agreed with his post.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 21, 2009)

In terms of distributors and Goodman/Clark...

Necromancer Games has never been on it's own. White Wofl>Kenzer (with what many consider less than stellar results in the printing of the products)>Paizo(and the partnership with Paizo has yielded nothing in print from Necromancer yet... shame that there's not going to be a Pathfinder Tome of Horrors at launch).

Goodman Games has distributed other companies.

I'm going to go with Joe on this one.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> In terms of distributors and Goodman/Clark...
> 
> Necromancer Games has never been on it's own. White Wofl>Kenzer (with what many consider less than stellar results in the printing of the products)>Paizo(and the partnership with Paizo has yielded nothing in print from Necromancer yet... shame that there's not going to be a Pathfinder Tome of Horrors at launch).
> 
> ...




You forget one other publisher Necromancer used for Lost City of Barakus, Taverns, and several other of their products, Troll Lord Games.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Jun 21, 2009)

While he was very respectful, and I don't refute what he had to say  (and in fact, none of it really surprised me nor sounded "off"), I have to say that I wasn't particularly thrilled that he did seem to boost his own credentials by undercutting Necromancer and, it sounded to me, Paizo, by essentially saying that their business models don't allow them to understand the big picture.

While it makes sense, to a degree, to discuss the Necromancer stance, the reference to Paizo perplexes me.  Paizo didn't have anything to do with Clark's post, and they have been pretty careful to not say anything about 4E sales or anything of that nature at all.  In fact, most recently, Paizo has simply been saying that they like controlling their own destiny instead of trying to work within a licensing agreement as they have done in the past.

While it bothers me that posters on message boards  (primarily WOTC's) try to divide Paizo into the "other" camp since they don't produce 4E products, I'm a bit disappointed that Joseph Goodman, someone that I actually have heard nothing but good things about, seems to have done the same thing, if only by association.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 3E was released after a lengthy dry spell, with people aching for something new and fresh. The OGL was brand new and the sky was the limit. 4E was launched when 3E was just beginning to slow down, so the anticipation was less. The 3pp market crashed, stabilized, and then began to tail off a bit before 4E was launched. The environment at launch was a big cause of 3E's initial success, and 4E's just doesn't match those circumstances.



As has been stated numerous times, 3E had done much more than begin to slow down.  And it didn't tail off with the 4E announcement, it dove.  3E had a great run, but nearly a decade is a lot, and change just goes faster now then it did before.

(But, as a 3E fan, it is reassuring to have 4E fans justifying why 4E can't be compared to 3E)



> I have to say he's talking about his world here, the 3pp world. Goodman Games worked hard to stay relevant, and others who haven't done so now face an uphill battle with distributors.



Correct.  And it is an uphill battle because the market sucks so bad.

And if Goodman stops going with the flow of 4E  (quick and easy modules as core product base) things will not go as well there either.  Product fitting demand is more important than hand-waved concepts of who "worked hard to stay relevant".  




> I think your opinion implies a strong correlation between sustained selling power and 3pp support, or at the very least the customizability and flexibility of 3.5E.



Nope.  Two separate points.



> I happen to believe that 4E will have more than enough sustained selling power to live out its natural life of 8-10 years, and I don't think 3pp will or would have had that much of an impact either way.



I agree that 3pp will have minimal impact.  However, I think you are dreaming to suspect that it will exceed 8-10 years.  I'd be shocked if even WotC expects that.
Again, IMO, it won't last as long.  I think the redundancy in the math working will start to show through for far to many players for great profits to persist for year on year.  

I also think the more casual players it appeals to are more likely to move on to the next thing.  If you are posting here, you are not casual.  You will continue to play.  But it takes the whole iceberg to be successful.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Time will tell.


----------



## Barcode (Jun 21, 2009)

ggroy said:


> It would be interesting to see how much MMORPGs suck up the gaming dollars during the recession this time around, that CCGs and pen and paper RPGs did during past recessions.
> 
> If was a kid or a teenager today, I certainly would be attracted to MMORPG games like WoW than older style CCG card games or pen and paper rpgs.  Arguably if I was 20 years older than I am today, I probably would have been more into wargames than pen and paper rpgs.




QFT.  If I found myself laid off for 20 months like I was in 2001-2002, spending my 12 hours of free time a day on WoW or LotR Online would be veeery tempting, whereas back then I threw myself into movies and a couple of 3e campaigns.


----------



## Ulairi (Jun 21, 2009)

I really didn't like his post. Mr. Goodman starts out by laying out his credentials in a vague way, then he moves into his conclusions and it ends with "I am a businessmen, I know more, here is what I know". Without actually giving the information out that allowed him to derive his conclusions. I think that D&D 4E is doing well. It's not doing as well as 3E, but Wizards has a monthly stream of revenue with D&DI and has done a good thing by releasing a book a month, instead of trying to crowd the market. One thing people forget about 3E and the great boom to the industry that it became a glut on the market and helped the market shrink.


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Jun 21, 2009)

guivre said:


> Though I am sad to see the "game stores bring in more new players" nonsense. No amount of retail experience validates that opinion. He's welcome to hold it but I still maintain that it's simply not true.




I agree and disagree.  How's that for clarity?

I disagree - speaking as someone who spent nearly a decade working with a comics and games store, and who got his first introduction to RPGs in that same store many years earlier.  For the most part, my thoughts on the importance of game stores are similar to Joe Goodman's.  (In fact, I said much the same things in a video interview at when Jolly and I guested at MidSouthCon this year - not sure if that ever got used anywhere.)

However... that store didn't bring me into the fold.  I do agree from that point of view.  It took gamers - not the store itself - to do that.  But the game store provided us with a meeting place, a shared point of contact where the shelves were lined with intrigue and adventure - a place where I could browse, soak up the atmosphere, hang out at the gaming tables, get advice from the owner (and even friendly strangers).

And I wouldn't want to lose that.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 21, 2009)

Barcode said:


> QFT.  If I found myself laid off for 20 months like I was in 2001-2002, spending my 12 hours of free time a day on WoW or LotR Online would be veeery tempting, whereas back then I threw myself into movies and a couple of 3e campaigns.




When I was laid off awhile ago, I literally forced myself to not play any MMORPGs.  I just knew that it would be very easy for me to fall into the pattern of playing all day or all night nonstop, instead of looking for another job.

I ended up finding a group of other laid off schmucks like myself who just happened to also be gamers, where we ended up playing 4E on the weekends and sometimes during the weekday evenings.  (I generally try to avoid playing D&D during the day on weekdays).


----------



## Goblinoid Games (Jun 21, 2009)

Mark Plemmons said:


> I agree and disagree.  How's that for clarity?




Me too. When I was a kid I could walk into a game store and ask the guys behind the counter about any product they carried, and they could tell me about it. They knew their products and they wanted to sell them. The store changed hands later, and after that time when I walked in there or in any other game store in the last few cities across the country I've lived in the people there don't know a damn thing about at least half the products they carry. They seem to expect them to sell themselves if the books just sit out on a shelf. It seems to me that retailers should be working hard to know the games they stock and make an effort to sell them, and promote the sorts of community building activities that keep people coming back like having demos,  game tournaments, etc.

Otherwise, why would anyone walk into a store these days when they can buy books online cheaper? The game store experience has to be worth something too.


----------



## Noumenon (Jun 21, 2009)

> acting spectacularly crappy toward Mr. Goodman (and, in another thread, toward Mr. Peterson)




I searched for a while and found the thread by Orcus that people were talking about but I'm getting lazy now.  Could anyone link to this "Mr Peterson" guy if his comments are something I need to read?


----------



## rounser (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> People who benefit from 4E's success have less of a need to deny or believe anything.



Based on my recent experience in the minis thread, I couldn't disagree more.  Your "side" is desperate for legitimacy and proof of success, and prepared to hem and haw in the face of evidence to the contrary that you don't like, just as any other will.  It's called the human condition, and you can't pretend you're exempt from it, or that the problem only lies with the other team.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 21, 2009)

Goblinoid Games said:


> Me too. When I was a kid I could walk into a game store and ask the guys behind the counter about any product they carried, and they could tell me about it. They knew their products and they wanted to sell them. The store changed hands later, and after that time when I walked in there or in any other game store in the last few cities across the country I've lived in the people there don't know a damn thing about at least half the products they carry. They seem to expect them to sell themselves if the books just sit out on a shelf. It seems to me that retailers should be working hard to know the games they stock and make an effort to sell them, and promote the sorts of community building activities that keep people coming back like having demos,  game tournaments, etc.
> 
> Otherwise, why would anyone walk into a store these days when they can buy books online cheaper? The game store experience has to be worth something too.




It's pathetic.  I called up what is the only gaming store in CT, as far as I can tell, today to ask them if they were doing anything for Free RPG Day.  The girl o the phone had no idea what I was talking about, but did say there was a guy who was a DM that came in last night looking to start a game, but no one was there.  I guess they do mostly MtG there.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

Noumenon said:


> I searched for a while and found the thread by Orcus that people were talking about but I'm getting lazy now.  Could anyone link to this "Mr Peterson" guy if his comments are something I need to read?




Orcus _is_ Clarke Peterson.


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Jun 21, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> It's pathetic.  I called up what is the only gaming store in CT, as far as I can tell, today to ask them if they were doing anything for Free RPG Day.  The girl o the phone had no idea what I was talking about, but did say there was a guy who was a DM that came in last night looking to start a game, but no one was there.  I guess they do mostly MtG there.




Yes, sadly, a bad game store experience can sometimes be worse than no game store at all.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

rounser said:


> Based on my recent experience in the minis thread, I couldn't disagree more.  Your "side" is desperate for legitimacy and proof of success, and prepared to hem and haw in the face of evidence to the contrary that you don't like, just as any other will.  It's called the human condition, and you can't pretend you're exempt from it, or that the problem only lies with the other team.




I think the problem is that the "proof" in question is just more of the same anecdotal or 'soft' variety that 4e haters say is _not_ enough to justify calling 4e a success. It's an impressive double-standard.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 21, 2009)

carmachu said:


> I have to slightly disagree. I know online dsicounters can and do hurt GLGS in regard to Games WOrkshop items. Gods know I never play full price of anything from tehm and know I'm not alone.
> 
> I'll assume there are similar places for M:tG.....Anyone who plays the game know?





I'm pretty sure gamers trying to get reasonable prices on GW stuff 15 years ago _invented _the online discount store model in the first place.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 21, 2009)

Oh for the love of god, let's not degenerate into being on "sides."


----------



## rounser (Jun 21, 2009)

> It's an impressive double-standard.



People tend to take information they want to believe at face value, and turn their inner skeptic/critic on information they don't want to believe.  We filter and process incoming information in a manner appropriate to our worldviews and egos.  Of course this is the case, it's obvious.  I was just taking exception at a claim of exemption or being more rational, when it's obvious both sides have vested interests in believing what they want to believe.


> Oh for the love of god, let's not degenerate into being on "sides."



You're worried about semantics?  Maintaining a facade that we're all impartial agents?  That you can accuse a group you don't agree with of being something, which was all that I was responding to when I used that word, and that there's no division when that's what's happening?


----------



## ggroy (Jun 21, 2009)

rounser said:


> People tend to take information they want to believe at face value, and turn their inner skeptic/critic on information they don't want to believe.  We filter and process incoming information in a way based on our worldview.  Of course.




Better known as the "confirmation bias".

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

rounser said:


> . . . it's obvious both sides have vested interests in believing what they want to believe.




Normally I can't disagree with you more but you do, I believe, have a point when it comes to the self-proclaimed members of sides. OTOH, as somebody else just pointed out, everything isn't so black and white. I, for example, own no 4e books, have no interest in playing 4e, and don't have plans to buy into it — yet I am _also_ sick to death of all the hyperbolic accusations that WotC raped childhoods, destroyed D&D, etc. 

I have no vested interest in seeing 4e succeed, nor do I have a vested interest in proving the doomsayers right. I can be passionate, yes, but it has nothing to do with a love of 4e or hatred of other games — it is about liking or disliking individual arguments. I suspect that more consumers actually fall into _this_ category than one of the two "sides" that are often talked about on Internet message boards.


----------



## rounser (Jun 21, 2009)

> yet I am also sick to death of all the hyperbolic accusations that WotC raped childhoods, destroyed D&D, etc.



I don't think you have to be that to be in the group of "denialists" that was deemed to exist a couple of pages before.

In other words guys, I didn't start this particular fire just because I used that word.  Go talk to the guys calling people who don't agree with them "denialists".  That was what I was responding to, and you let that go without comment.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 21, 2009)

I thought of a lot of really long and awesome posts I could try to write, but they all boil down to this:

*Let it go, Rounser.*


----------



## rounser (Jun 21, 2009)

> Let it go, Rounser.



Take your own advice, Cirno. You're the one who's jumped in with the accusation here based on semantics and something you think is implied that may or may not actually be there. I was just responding to an accusation based on calling anyone some other poster disagreed with "denialists".

If you're not going to engage in discussion, don't offer me unsolicited advice that you clearly need to take yourself.  And kindly don't be patronising in that way towards me again.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

rounser said:


> That was what I was responding to, and you let that go without comment.




What? I responded _directly_ to your assertions regarding objective evidence and the acceptance or denial thereof by the "sides" of your proposed all-encompassing conflict. Right here. I think something else that I said may bear repeating, too: "I can be passionate, yes, but it has nothing to do with a love of 4e or hatred of other games — it is about liking or disliking individual arguments."

[Edit: In case it's not clear, in this instance, I dislike the argument that the hobby is divided into those who like D&D 4e and those who don't and that one of these sides is right and the other wrong.]


----------



## rounser (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> What? I responded _directly_ to your assertions regarding objective evidence and the acceptance or denial thereof by the "sides" of your proposed all-encompassing conflict. Right here. That said, I can clearly see where this is going with your suggestion that I deliberately ignored something in favor of boosting 4e, so I think it best that you and I just end our discussion on the subject.



I'm saying that you didn't respond to _their_ claims, not mine.  I'm completely aware you're jumping down _my_ throat, and letting their claims of denialism and the way the anti-4E group acts completely off the hook.  

The fact that I pointed out they were doing this is apparently objectionable. Implying that there are opposing groups engaged in "denialism" is seemingly A-OK in your book, but calling them out for it isn't?

You're both attacking me, when I didn't start this, I'm just responding to it, and pointing out the hypocrisy.  I'm not suggesting you're boosting 4E, nor that you're part of some sort of team you don't consider yourself to be part of.  Heck, I don't.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

rounser said:


> I'm saying that you didn't respond to _their_ claims, not mine.  I'm completely aware you're jumping down _my_ throat, and letting their claims of denialism and the way the anti-4E group acts completely off the hook.
> 
> You're both attacking me, when I didn't start this, I'm just responding to it.




First, I didn't attack _you_ at all, I commented on perceived "sides" of your proposed conflict, but not on you. Second, I didn't ascribe motives to you, where you have now all but called me a liar and suggested that I have some kind of hidden agenda as a secret 4e booster. Let me clarify things for you. I don't like 4e. If you think I'm lying, _then say so_, but please — grow a spine, quit hiding behind abiguities and misdirection, quit playing the victim card, and speak your convictions or _shut up_.


----------



## rounser (Jun 21, 2009)

> First, I didn't attack you at all, I commented on perceived "sides" of your proposed conflict, but not on you.



I'm telling you I'm responding to people who set that ball rolling through implying it rather overtly, I didn't do it myself.


> Second, I didn't ascribe motives to you, where you have now all but called me a liar and suggested that I have some kind of hidden agenda as a secret 4e booster.



No, I haven't called you a liar, nor do I consider you a 4E booster.  I'm just trying to tell you that I'm a respondent to the "sides" issue, not an instigator, and I'm saying "hey, you let that part pass without comment, so since I'm just responding to them why don't you go pick a fight with them?" 


> Let me clarify things for you. I don't like 4e. If you think I'm lying, then say so, but please — grow a spine, quit hiding behind abiguities and misdirection, quit playing the victim card, and speak your convictions or shut up.



You've really misread things between us here, none of that applies.  I'm responding to this post and more directly, this post.  I've been trying to say that if you find the sides thing objectionable, go pick a fight with those guys, because they started it.

And you're being really rude.  There was no need for any of that snark, you're reading things into my words that weren't there.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Orcus _is_ Clarke Peterson.




Clark.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

rounser said:
			
		

> BS




You specifically accused me of victimizing you and deliberately giving 4e supporters leeway where I gave you none. When I told you to either stand behind those accusations or stop making them, you instead went back and edited your post substantially to downplay your previous position, but not before playing the victim even more. I see that you edited your post again to add a bit about my being unnecessarily rude. _Nice_. I guess growing a spine wasn't an option. Now _that_ was an attack on you. See the difference?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Clark.




Thanks for the spelling correction, Jack.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I'm curious about hard data, too. I'm just reiterrating what Mr. Goodman _said_, a great portion of which S'mon ignored in his attempts to get on with the doomsaying.




No I didn't.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> You seem to be taking his post entirely out of context on purpose, going so far as to ignore very specific parts of it. Mr. Goodman very specifically says that 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. Or, in other words, D&D 4e is doing as well as D&D ever has, with the exception of two. . . er. . .  _exceptional_ years.




Why is 4e a year after launch not comparable to 3e a year after launch?


----------



## rounser (Jun 21, 2009)

> You specifically accused me of victimizing you and deliberately giving 4e supporters leeway where I gave you none. When I told you to either stand behind those accusations or stop making them, you instead went back and edited your post substantially to downplay your previous position. Nice.



Oh what _bollocks_.  Look, now you're trying to claim victim status, when you were the one who went off half-cocked, accusing me of all sorts of things whilst not reading the context of my post, and then being so paranoid when I try to defend myself that you accuse me of calling you a liar and a 4E proponent!  *I'm not!* And I haven't edited my post in some sneakyduck fashion, I added a bit to the end to make my meaning clearer, as you do!

You'll know when I'm out to get you and that's around about _now_, because you're doing your darndest to draw blood, and appear to have _no idea_ what my stance is, even when I spell it out to you!  I'm not trying to fight you, I'm saying stop and read the context of what I was responding to.  You keep accusing me of having ulterior motives, and I'm telling you exactly what I mean and that I wasn't out to get you, and you keep ignoring me.  It's ridiculous!


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

S'mon said:


> No I didn't.




You failed to mention several decades worth of sales that Mr. Goodman _specifically_ addressed in his post, as well as his summations thereof, instead immediately claiming that 4e was selling poorly based only on a small portion of the information provided by Mr. Goodman. 

You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. 

You ignored all of that, focused on Mr. Goodman saying that 4e's launch wasn't as successful as 3e was at its highpoint or as successful as AD&D was in 1982, and immediately posted that, according to Mr. Goodman, D&D 4e is failing. Explain how that is not misrepresentation, please. 

Now, that said, I could care less how successful 4e is, but I do care a little about the misrepresentation of others commentary for the apparent purpose of bashing _any_ edition of D&D (granted, that may not have been your intent, but it sure seems that way).


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Why is 4e a year after launch not comparable to 3e a year after launch?




Because 2009 isn't 2001? 

[Edit: I should be more clear and apologize for not being so when I initially posted this. 

The market of 2009 isn't the same as the market of 2001 — America (where most RPGs are sold) is dealing with a nationwide economic crisis that _far_ exceeds that of 2001, consumer confidence reached an all-time low last fall, continued to fall early this year, and probably won't get better any time soon. 

Comparing sales of a luxury item during _horrible_ economic times to sales of a similar item during much better economic times is like comparing apples and oranges.]


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> You failed to mention several decades worth of sales that Mr. Goodman _specifically_ addressed in his post, as well as his summations thereof, instead immediately claiming that 4e was selling poorly based only on a small portion of the information provided by Mr. Goodman.
> 
> You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.
> 
> ...




I never said 4e was failing.  As it happens I posted yesterday on Grognardia saying that it wasn't 'tanking'.  

However, it's clear from what JG said that 4e is not doing as well as 3e.  And given the nature of publicly quoted companies, Hasbro are unlikely to be happy about that.

You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success.  It's clearly selling much more than any other RPG.  Retailers are ordering it, people are buying & playing it.  It's not doing nearly as well as 3e did, though.  Call that failure or success; it depends on perspective.

From the perspective of a games store, it may be a success - it sells more than all other RPGs combined, it's selling much more than the last year of 3e.  From the POV of a Hasbro stockholder or exec it may not be giving anticipated RoI though.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Because 2009 isn't 2001?




I don't see any significant differences that would lower the expectations of a Hasbro investor. 

Look, I like 4e, I'm about to start a 4e campaign.  I have no interest in doing down 4e.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 21, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I never said 4e was failing.  As it happens I posted yesterday on Grognardia saying that it wasn't 'tanking'.
> 
> However, it's clear from what JG said that 4e is not doing as well as 3e.  And given the nature of publicly quoted companies, Hasbro are unlikely to be happy about that.
> 
> ...




The business model has changed compared to 3e in 2001, what impact it will have, who knows. But it might trade upfront success for a steadier revenue stream via DDI and the once a month book release.

As to Hasbro's interest, well they barely mention DND in their investor podcasts-conference call thing, so I doubt it is on the radar. It is probably lumped in with WotC as a whole. As long as DND continues to make profit I doubt Greg Leeds is going to knock it on the head - and drag it's body into an alley.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2009)

S'mon said:


> You seem to have some kind of emotional investment in 4e's success.




I _really_ don't. As I previously indicated to rounser, I am simply sick to death of all the hyperbolic accusations that WotC raped childhoods, destroyed D&D, and so forth. I'm also sick of the manipulation of other people's words that goes along with it. In your first post, you initially took Goodman's post out of context* and then later edited to add the following comment: 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> In fact, his generational analogy indicates that we should be comparing 4e in 2009 to D&D sales 8-9 years after the 1982 peak... or the 1e to 2e transition. *eek* - that's a pretty low benchmark of success for a company like Hasbro.




That is _exactly_ the kind of passive/aggressive crap I'm tired of. Frankly, right now, I'm of the opinion that _all_ of the people playing passive/agrressive word games when bashing D&D 4e in an attempt to avoid moderation need to grow a spine. And if they _can't_ man up and talk straight? Then they need to _shut up_. 

And now that all of my card are on the table, I'm going to take a week off from posting here and let the chips fall where they may. 

*By ignoring his overall point that D&D 4e is as successful as D&D ever has been, with the exception of two years.

**Or any other edition of D&D, for that matter. It just so happens that most of the passive/aggressive crap going on _here_ is focused on bashing D&D 4e.


----------



## jbear (Jun 21, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I don't doubt his industry expertise, nor his business acumen. But he seemed to state his credentials and then his conclusions, with nothing objective to back it up in between.
> 
> It reminded me of all the court cases I've seen. I worked for a few years as a Judge's clerk, sitting next to him in Court, and watched about 100 or so cases played out in court, both jury and non-jury. Plus, I've been to court to argue cases for my clients.
> 
> ...



sigh.

Maybe we need to take into account/examine your own personal motivations as well. They are bound to have some hidden vested interest which slants your interpretation towards the conclusion you put forth: 'Joe twists the facts to suit his personal version of the reality to convince us (the Jury) that everything is peachy, because that will make us buy his goodman game's 4e products.' 

Untruthful? Lacking objectivity? Looking at several other peoples following posts, this is what people seem to be suggesting. Pretty harsh conclusions.

I guess we can/should doubt everything anyone says, all the time. Especially if it contradicts our own personal opinions. 

However, maybe it's more constructive to listen to both sides of the issue with an open mind. Is anyone trying to win a court case here? or just offering their valid insight into the gaming industry at present...

Besides, if the guy runs a billion dollar business, and Goodman games is something he does out of passion for gaming... why would he have the need to fool us into whatever you seem to suggest he is fooling us into believing? I guess the defence would base some of their rerbuttle on that.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 21, 2009)

BryonD said:


> (But, as a 3E fan, it is reassuring to have 4E fans justifying why 4E can't be compared to 3E)



 Why would anyone need to? Unless WoTC is lying, 4e has sold better than 3.0 (and 3.5 sold better than 3.0) 3rd party products on the other hand...



BryonD said:


> (
> And if Goodman stops going with the flow of 4E  (quick and easy modules as core product base) things will not go as well there either.  Product fitting demand is more important than hand-waved concepts of who "worked hard to stay relevant".



 Please educate yourself on numerous products that Goodman does that are either 







> 'edition neutral'



or sourcebooks. Seriously. If you're trying to make a point, and your information is wrong, it looks like you're not bother to go to the ole Goodman site and see that he has sourcebooks for 4e (class sourcebooks, race sourcebooks, monster sourcebooks, monster manual style sourcebooks), as well as two seperate adventure lines as well as [URL="http://www.goodman-games.com/4704preview.html"]licensing [/URL]for several other parties including Death Dealer. "Going with the flow?" If the flow is everything under the sun, sure, otherwise you just don't know what you're saying here.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 21, 2009)

Each side and everyone on it is more justified and virtuous than the other side.

There. 

Now can we get past the urination contests?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> And if they _can't_ man up and talk straight? Then they need to _shut up_.




I can't "man up and talk straight" to you, sir, because that would get me a suspension, and you're not worth it.


----------



## Xath (Jun 21, 2009)

Clearly many of you have not bothered to read the previous moderator warnings in this thread.   Those of you who have been unable to maintain civil conversation will now be subject to a vacation.  

Xath
Moderator


----------



## JeffB (Jun 21, 2009)

Just a few more posts and my prophecy will have come TRUE!!! 


MEWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Xath (Jun 21, 2009)

JeffB said:


> Just a few more posts and my prophecy will have come TRUE!!!
> 
> 
> MEWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha




Enjoy a week off for threadcrapping after you were specifically warned not to by Piratecat on Page 1.  What possibly could have made you think that was a good idea after I just posted a general thread warning?

Xath
Moderator


----------



## carmachu (Jun 21, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> I'm pretty sure gamers trying to get reasonable prices on GW stuff 15 years ago _invented _the online discount store model in the first place.





Actually  having played 15 years ago the models were much more reasonably priced. Trust me on that.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 21, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> You can say that you didn't make this misrepresentation all that you like but, unless you go back and edit your posts, it's pretty clear that you did, in fact, misrepresent what Mr. Goodman posted. Specifically, as I posted later, you ignored that Mr. Goodman says 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008.




The problem comes in, that, while interesting as Mr Goodman's post was, there really is no hard information there, from an objective standpoint. He states his credentials(which I dont doubt), says a bunch of stuff(from which he says he pulled from a variety of sources) on a point by point basis, then comes down to his conculsion-that 4e is doing well(again, I have no doubts its selling).

Then most everyone went, ok where's there data? And that seems to be the sticking point and arguing- folks that dont care about 4e are going to run with one way, while 4e fans run the other.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

carmachu said:


> The problem comes in, that, while interesting as Mr Goodman's post was, there really is no hard information there, from an objective standpoint. He states his credentials(which I dont doubt), says a bunch of stuff(from which he says he pulled from a variety of sources) on a point by point basis, then comes down to his conculsion-that 4e is doing well(again, I have no doubts its selling).
> 
> Then most everyone went, ok where's there data? And that seems to be the sticking point and arguing- folks that dont care about 4e are going to run with one way, while 4e fans run the other.




And we get the tired old "there is no evidence" thing again. To this I answer(now and for the forseeable future) that "there is no evidence" that 4E is dooing poorly, and replying that "there is no evidence" in response to any quote or opinion is saying absolutely nothing and should be ignored. 

*"There is no evidence" does absolutely nothing to support the alternative viewpoint, and people should stop using the comment as if it did.*

Joe Goodman gave an opinion and speculation(which is the best any of us can do), and gave support for his opinion and why we should believe him. If you disagree or think he's wrong, feel free to post your own opinion, give support for this opinion, and why we should believe you. Instead of lazy discussion where you discount the original quote without offering anything substantive in return.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 21, 2009)

But isn't this questioning that he does have the data? That he might be lying about it? Or do you think the data could be interpreted differently, if he just would? 

But he is telling us where the data is from - mostly public court data. Apparantly that is accessible, so if someone was interested in making his own conclusion based from the data, he could do so. Seems either no one really wants to, or no one had the time yet.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 21, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Why would anyone need to? Unless WoTC is lying, 4e has sold better than 3.0 (and 3.5 sold better than 3.0) 3rd party products on the other hand...




WotC hasn't lied at any point as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe that anyone with them has ever come out and stated that 4e has sold better than 3.0. They've stated that the initial print run for some of the core 4e books was larger, and since it sold out quickly there's a lot that people can read into that. It's marketing speak of pushing out the numbers that look awesome for you, and phrasing them in such a way that good numbers appear all that much better. But it says nothing about continued success in subsequent books, or net sales of the 4e core books versus those of any other edition. We don't have numbers to honestly answer that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 21, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> WotC hasn't lied at any point as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe that anyone with them has ever come out and stated that 4e has sold better than 3.0. They've stated that the initial print run for some of the core 4e books was larger, and since it sold out quickly there's a lot that people can read into that. It's marketing speak of pushing out the numbers that look awesome for you, and phrasing them in such a way that good numbers appear all that much better. But it says nothing about continued success in subsequent books, or net sales of the 4e core books versus those of any other edition. We don't have numbers to honestly answer that.



On CM, Truth Seeker is constantly feeding news, and news from Sony and how about the PS3 is doing well despite claims to the contrary, or how other consoles will last only 5 years while the PS3 will last 10 years till the next model, and all such talk just makes be believe more and more that the PS3 is in trouble. 

I don't think it would be any good for WotC to say anything definitive about this. The only way they _might_ achieve anything would be if they would release all sales data over the past 15 years or so, plus their original expectations. But even that would be problematic - if Goodmans observation on the "generational peak" is correct, then it would be obvious that 4E is selling less than 3E in 2001, then anyone could consider this a failure. (Aside fromt he fact that they could dispute the validity of the numbers or the validity of the expectations)
To refute that, they would have not just to release numbers, but some kind of statistical model that explains how this can happen and how it is totally not their fault and what not. And... I don't think such a model exists. Maybe it could be created, if you send a few business analysists and mathematicians and psychologists on the job and let them research a few years or so. That would certainly be fascinating to do, but Wizards of the Cost is not a research facility, even if they have an R&D department.  And they still can't make any money with it. Oh, and it might give competitors insights into WotC business that they could use against them, too.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 21, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> To refute that, they would have not just to release numbers, but some kind of statistical model that explains how this can happen and how it is totally not their fault and what not. And... I don't think such a model exists. Maybe it could be created, if you send a few business analysists and mathematicians and psychologists on the job and let them research a few years or so. That would certainly be fascinating to do, but Wizards of the Cost is not a research facility, even if they have an R&D department.  And they still can't make any money with it. Oh, and it might give competitors insights into WotC business that they could use against them, too.




 I love it!


----------



## carmachu (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> And we get the tired old "there is no evidence" thing again. To this I answer(now and for the forseeable future) that "there is no evidence" that 4E is dooing poorly, and replying that "there is no evidence" in response to any quote or opinion is saying absolutely nothing and should be ignored.
> 
> *"There is no evidence" does absolutely nothing to support the alternative viewpoint, and people should stop using the comment as if it did.*
> 
> Joe Goodman gave an opinion and speculation(which is the best any of us can do), and gave support for his opinion and why we should believe him. If you disagree or think he's wrong, feel free to post your own opinion, give support for this opinion, and why we should believe you. Instead of lazy discussion where you discount the original quote without offering anything substantive in return.





YOU may get tired of it, but thats the fact.There is also nothing there to support the 4e sells well, nor does it support the its not selling well.

Goodman's opinion is just that, opinion. He did NOT give support to his opinion. He gave conculusions based on data that is not present, but says he has.

I gave my reasons. Lack of support data IS a valid reason. YOU just dont like it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

carmachu said:


> YOU may get tired of it, but thats the fact.There is also nothing there to support the 4e sells well, nor does it support the its not selling well.
> 
> Goodman's opinion is just that, opinion. He did NOT give support to his opinion. He gave conculusions based on data that is not present, but says he has.
> 
> I gave my reasons. Lack of support data IS a valid reason. YOU just dont like it.




It is not a rebuttal because it does not support the opposite conclusion. People throw it out there to disparage one opinion without supporting their own.

Goodman gave soft data, not hard evidence. He made that perfectly clear.

Lack of support is a valid reason, but it is not a valid rebuttal. YOU may not like that, or you may not have one.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 21, 2009)

Gently, guys. Gently. This can be discussed without getting up in one another's face.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> It is not a rebuttal because it does not support the opposite conclusion. People throw it out there to disparage one opinion without supporting their own.
> 
> Goodman gave soft data, not hard evidence. He made that perfectly clear.




Uhm no, he did not giev soft data. There is NO data there at all. There is his credetials. There is opinion, there is his reference to data, there's a conculusion based on unspecified data, but there is no facts there.

It doesnt support HIS conculsion either. It is simple his opinion unsuported with the unpresent data.

For the record, I dont play 4e, but I do think its sell pretty decently. How well? *shrug* well enough.

But when folks say "thats pretty interesting, but where's the facts/data to back it up" thats a valid point. People would like to see for themselves and see if they can draw their own conculusion.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Uhm no, he did not giev soft data. There is NO data there at all. There is his credetials. There is opinion, there is his reference to data, there's a conculusion based on unspecified data, but there is no facts there.
> 
> It doesnt support HIS conculsion either. It is simple his opinion unsuported with the unpresent data.
> 
> ...




We are all making conclusions based on unspecified data based on your definition. If having that unspecified data is a requirement for making any sort of conclusions, then none of us should be saying anything about anything.

He gave the data that he personally visited 47 FLGS, spoke to over 100 others over the phone, and further had gaming events he drew business feedback from from over 100 others. The "soft" data he gathered from this feedback told him that 4E was on the whole selling very well at FLGSs, and he shared that in his post. 

That isn't hard sales numbers, but it isn't nothing. 

Where are the facts/data is not a valid point when that data is not, and in almost certainly never will be available.


----------



## Mark (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> He gave the data (. . .)





That isn't data (and Joseph isn't making the claim).  The questions and answers during that contact might be data, depending on a number of factors, but none of that has been shared and probably will not be (and likely wasn't documented to much of a degree).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

Mark said:


> That isn't data (and Joseph isn't making the claim).  The questions and answers during that contact might be data, depending on a number of factors, but none of that has been shared and probably will not be (and likely wasn't documented to much of a degree).




Its called anecdotal evidence, where after having talked to 200+ stores you get enough information to draw a conclusion. Again, if that isn't good enough for you you're looking for a higher standard that isn't available to us for these purposes.

You don't have to buy it, but you aren't offering anything substantive in response by saying "its not hard sales numbers".


----------



## MadMaligor (Jun 21, 2009)

Its been mentioned before, but I also would like to see the model comparison between the economic upswing that was the early 2000's, and the horrendous downturn we have had the last year and a half.

Just an old mans opinion here, but if the sales numbers support positive growth in this kind of economic environment, the comparison regarding which is more successful is near impossible to determine.  There are some factors which might contribute to success that are hard to gauge, for example the idea that RPG's can be affordable entertainment inside the home, like board games.

Joe doesn't say it directly, but if 4E were in 3E's time-slot, there is a good argument that it would have been as successful, if not more so.

The debate that sales do not necessarily compute to "good" is an interesting one too.  3E did extremely well in an environment that was consumer giddy.  I'm not saying that 3E is bad, just that in a target rich environment the whole idea of quantifying its value is incredibly difficult at best.

AFAIAC it would seem to me that alot of people here on both sides have very valid points.  You would think at this stage we would all agree to disagree, and that both sides have disputable positions.

  <3


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 21, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But he is telling us where the data is from - mostly public court data. Apparantly that is accessible, so if someone was interested in making his own conclusion based from the data, he could do so. Seems either no one really wants to, or no one had the time yet.




I am interested as well in the documents. I did a public records search in WI and did not find the lawsuits spoken of. According to Wiki they were settled out of court confidentially. My knowledge of the court system kinda ends there, so I don't know where to look for court documents for things that settled out of court.

joe b.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 21, 2009)

Zil said:


> Yes, but it's also sometimes a mistake to simply throw up your hands and accept mediocre sales just because we're at that point in some theoretical cycle and not take a more detailed look as to what is really going on.




Didn't Rouse say that the original print run of the 4E core rulebooks sold out faster than expected and that everybody in WotC was very happy?

I mean, I can understand that having a corporate overlord like Hasbro puts a lot of pressure on WotC's management to try to maximize profit on each and every single quarter. But that does not necessarily mean that D&D's sales are mediocre or that the brand --and by extension, the hobby, is in danger.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 21, 2009)

MadMaligor said:


> Joe doesn't say it directly, but if 4E were in 3E's time-slot, there is a good argument that it would have been as successful, if not more so.



A transition from 2e to 4e. How could have been received? Interesting to try think about.


----------



## Mark (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its called anecdotal evidence, where after having talked to 200+ stores you get enough information to draw a conclusion.





I was pointing out to you that calling it "data" is not actually correct.  It isn't actually anecdotal evidence, either, because the details are not given.




thecasualoblivion said:


> Again, if that isn't good enough for you you're looking for a higher standard that isn't available to us for these purposes.





"Again?"  We haven't had this discussion and I've limited my previous involvement to -




Mark said:


> I won't refute Joseph's information or conviction but my own personal question has never been if 4E is doing well but rather if, with a different approach toward the market and 3PPs, it could be doing as well as 3E.





- but in regard your statement, I do believe that if Joseph wishes his opinions to have more impact on a general audience, he might want to document his encounters more clearly and share the actual data.  If he and I were just having the discussion, certainly as a sympathetic listener I would take some of what he says at face value and ask questions regarding some of the data as the discussion proceeded, and he would probably give more details as necessary.




thecasualoblivion said:


> You don't have to buy it, but you aren't offering anything substantive in response by saying "its not hard sales numbers".





You need to quit broadbrushing everybody and backing it with claims of data and anecdotal evidence that simply doesn't exist.  I never asked for hard data before and only mention that more details might be useful now because so many others apparently don't wish to take Joseph at his word, which is their right.  But, seriously, no offence but you need to stop accusing people of things that perhaps only a few are doing and misrepresenting what Joseph has said and done in support of your broad accusations.  It degrades the discussion considerably and as a fellow community member I am asking you to please not do so.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 21, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Didn't Rouse say that the original print run of the 4E core rulebooks sold out faster than expected and that everybody in WotC was very happy?
> 
> I mean, I can understand that having a corporate overlord like Hasbro puts a lot of pressure on WotC's management to try to maximize profit on each and every single quarter. But that does not necessarily mean that D&D's sales are mediocre or that the brand --and by extension, the hobby, is in danger.




Actually, it was mearls who said that the initial print run of 4e was bigger than the first print run of 3.5 which again was bigger than the initial print run of 3.0.

Scott merely said that the 4e 1st and 2nd (and 3rd? I can never recall) print run sold out quicker than WotC expected.

Of course, this means nothing. If you ask those who do not like 4e, some claim that WotC either a) are lying or b) on purpose made small 4e print runs just so that they could go out and claim on the interweb that they had sold out really quick. And since the only data we have is from WotC and they are a) lying, we do not know for sure.

Go figure 

edit: changed they to some


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 21, 2009)

I appreciate Joe's statements, and have no reason not to believe what he says, and to accept what he says as truth and not just his perception. 

I think there is an important point in what he said that I haven't seen anyone really touch upon, although I did skim these past 10 pages rather quickly and may have missed it. 

One of the stated goals of 4E (and in fact every new edition) was to grow the hobby and increase the number of players (both new and lapsed). 

If 4e isn't selling as well as the peak at the release of 3E (even if it is selling well, which by most reliable accounts it is), then it hasn't hit one of its most important goals. 

The question WotC needs to ask itself, is what is the reason for that: Economy, the Product itself, or Marketing?

At least we finally have confirmation from reliable sources that 4E is selling well, even if its not selling like gangbusters.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.


----------



## MadMaligor (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.




Its like saying, "For every 'Our gaming group hates 4E!' post you can quote a 'Our gaming group loves 4E or has come back because of 4E' post.  How do you prove that kind of thing?  You can't really.

So it just boils down to what Joe was saying (or at least what I got out of his post).

Sales are doing well, 4E is doing well, and if you can say that in this kind of economy thats pretty much a win situation.  Comparing the editions is apples and oranges.

I could be misunderstanding him, but thats what I got out of it.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I think something that was missed in reading Goodman's original post was that he was responding specifically to people commenting that they believe 4E wasn't doing well because their gaming group and FLGS weren't adopting it. He responded that he gathered feedback from well over one hundred FLGSs on the health of 4E, and after speaking to all of those stores he drew the opposite conclusion.




Speaking for myself, and from the posts of a few others here, again I don't think most people's problem is with the FLGS statement Goodman makes.  I have a much harder time accepting that he has actual sales numbers for D&D from 1974-present.  Again, I could be mistaken, but I remember it being stated that even WotC didn't have accurate sales info for a large chunk of TSR's D&D era.  I'm sorry but this makes me question exactly how Goodman has accurate frigures for this but WotC was unable to attain them.  Now if I'm wrong and WotC does in fact have accurate sales information for D&D from 1974 to present then I wish someone would correct me, but if not then I have to wonder how Goodman was able to get this information but a company whose business is based on, and definitely could be affected by it, was unable to find it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Speaking for myself, and from the posts of a few others here, again I don't think most people's problem is with the FLGS statement Goodman makes.  I have a much harder time accepting that he has actual sales numbers for D&D from 1974-present.  Again, I could be mistaken, but I remember it being stated that even WotC didn't have accurate sales info for a large chunk of TSR's D&D era.  I'm sorry but this makes me question exactly how Goodman has accurate frigures for this but WotC was unable to attain them.  Now if I'm wrong and WotC does in fact have accurate sales information for D&D from 1974 to present then I wish someone would correct me, but if not then I have to wonder how Goodman was able to get this information but a company whose business is based on, and definitely could be affected by it, was unable to find it.




He said that certain years of TSR could be found in court documents. What he didn't say, and I am pulling this out of previous things I have seen discussed on forums is that until recently it wasn't hard to find actual sales numbers gathered from distributors, and before the complete dominance of Amazon those numbers meant much more than they do today. Maybe he is getting his numbers from yesteryear from that.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Of course, this means nothing. If you ask those who do not like 4e, some claim that WotC either a) are lying or b) on purpose made small 4e print runs just so that they could go out and claim on the interweb that they had sold out really quick. And since the only data we have is from WotC and they are a) lying, we do not know for sure.
> 
> Go figure
> 
> edit: changed they to some



You changed "they" to "some".  Care to respond to the others?  Or are you going to ignore the valid positions because the extremes are so easy to blow off?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 21, 2009)

MadMaligor said:


> Its like saying, "For every 'Our gaming group hates 4E!' post you can quote a 'Our gaming group loves 4E or has come back because of 4E' post.  How do you prove that kind of thing?  You can't really.



It certainly sounds like you have described something in the ballpark of a "split".


----------



## Imaro (Jun 21, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> He said that certain years of TSR could be found in court documents. What he didn't say, and I am pulling this out of previous things I have seen discussed on forums is that until recently it wasn't hard to find actual sales numbers gathered from distributors, and before the complete dominance of Amazon those numbers meant much more than they do today. Maybe he is getting his numbers from yesteryear from that.




So he is claiming a comparison over the span of 30+ years, off of "certain" years, found in court documents, and you don't see why people are skeptical of this... ( Regardless of your guesses as to where the rest of his info might come from, as that is not what is stated by Goodman.)

And then, I again find it strange that WotC has claimed that accurate information from many of the TSR years is unavailable.  I guess I don't know which is true, but they both can't be...can they?


----------



## Spatula (Jun 21, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Why is 4e a year after launch not comparable to 3e a year after launch?



Because 3e and 4e were launched in very different environments.  3e came after the D&D "brand" had been essentially fallow for years, when a lot of gamers had left the fold or gone to other games.  4e came hot on the heels of the very successful 3e.  That's without getting into the different economic environments and other factors.


----------



## MadMaligor (Jun 21, 2009)

BryonD said:


> It certainly sounds like you have described something in the ballpark of a "split".




It really becomes one of those impossible to quantify kind of things, so I would be very hesitant to say "split".  But there certainly is enough opinion on both sides to say that arguments about "Which one is better?" or "Is 4E as successful as 3E?" are moot.  Which is what I think Joe was saying.

You can only really look at 4E and ask "Is it profitable?", or "Is it doing well?"

Joe seems to say yes to both and I take him at his word having seen no evidence to the contrary.  He would be what I would consider a good 3rd party verifiable source.  Just my opinion though, I understand why others may differ.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 21, 2009)

BryonD said:


> It certainly sounds like you have described something in the ballpark of a "split".




It also begs the question of whether the "split" is a good or a bad thing. If splitting 20% off of the other 80% builds and grows the 80%, dumping the 20% can be good for it. Certainly that is less good of a thing for the 20% though. It all depends on where you stand.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 21, 2009)

Another thread full of circular, unprovable arguments that we're tired of babysitting. I may reopen this again in a few days.

Klunk.


----------

