D&D 4E Sales Figures Debate

[CaptPike]

60% or so is not good enough for me personally.

Does anything more really need to be said? CaptPike went from funny to really funny and has plowed straight into tedious. The joke has gotten old. Time to use this awesome ignore function.

is it normal for people to be happy with 51% confidence? to be ok with something that is so close to even it might as well be a coin flip?

[CaptPike]

I want to know why this guy is so hung up on the DDI data? What possible numbers are large enough for DDI to put forth that would demonstrate that [whine] 4e was totally a big success, guys, [/whine] but that are still small enough that the behavior of WotC is still rational or, at least, understandable?

I'm not convinced that those numbers are even possible, which makes the presence or absence of DDI data irrelevant.

Besides, what would DDI data even reasonably show? Beyond that a bunch of disappointed fanboys forgot to cancel their overpriced monthly subscription?

It doesn't matter. nothing about DDI and he money it brought in was actually tied to 4e. They could do DDI for 5e, or whip one up for 3e. DDI just happened to coincide with 4e.

what? are you honestly saying DDI income had nothing to do with 4e?

[Leress]

Stop pulling stats out your ass.

[CaptPike]

Stop pulling stats out your ass.

what? I am the one who is NOT just making up numbers, I in fact require good data, your the ones who seam to be ok with coin flips. with even 60% confidence would be good enough.

[CaptPike]

you are a liar if you claim to have information you do not have by saying something like "4e failed" because you DO NOT AND CAN NOT have enough information to know that.

If you say "I think 4e failed" that means you have limited information, and that information points to 4e failed. That would not be a lie and I can see the reasons you would say that.

If you say "I feel 4e failed" that is just your personal feelings, and really means nothing and needs no support.

you are a liar if you claim to have information you do not have by saying something like "4e succeeded" because you DO NOT AND CAN NOT have enough information to know that.

If you say "I think 4e succeeded" that means you have limited information, and that information points to 4e succeeded. That would not be a lie and I can see the reasons you would say that.

If you say "I feel 4e succeeded" that is just your personal feelings, and really means nothing and needs no support.

I never said I knew it did, I said I THINK it did. One would be a lie, one is not.

[Echoes]

Just because you are incapable of processing data that is not spoon-fed to you doesn't mean other people can't put two and two together and get fucking four. Get your head out of Mike Mearl's ass and think about what you are saying. Your argument is seriously that it is more likely that WotC covered 4E's resounding success by firing the Line Director every fucking year and canning the entire edition (printing nothing for years over printing more shovelware) than it is that 4E tanked so hard that someone's bullshit 3.5 houserules could become the best-selling RPG on the market?

I think its much more likly that 4e did very well, just not so well as to completely dominate the market like the higher ups wanted because they were looking at the past, and failed to see that completely dominated the market was not possible anymore. so rather then admit that they flailed around by firing people and making essentials, cutting years off the 4e line in an attempt to get people to play it who like 2e and 3e.

but of course I could be wrong, neither of us has enough data to know if we are right.

we are both seeing 2+?, I am saying that we can not know the answer, you are saying it must be 4, because your friend's roommate totally saw a 2 there, and we should take your word that his word is good.

That makes no fucking sense. You don't fire the head of your product line every year for the entirety of it's existence because it is doing well. Unceremoniously firing department heads once makes people nervous about the health of your product, doing it year after year is a giant neon sign blazing "WE'RE FUCKING FUCKED, HOLY FUCK!" in the night sky. When you release a revamped version of the product you just put out a couple years before, and then turn around and shitcan the entire fucking shebang with absolutely nothing to follow it up for years, that is you carving your failure into the surface of the moon with a laser.

This isn't rocket science. Even with absolutely zero numbers whatsoever, WotC's behavior screams panic from almost the beginning. Their actions are not those of a company whose product is slightly under-performing compared to expectations; they are the actions of a company desperately trying to bail out the Titanic while it is also on fire.

Anything Wotc or anyone who works for them says that has not been verified by a trusted third party is propaganda. Same with any other company unless they are admitting to something so heinous that nothing could be worse for them then what they said.

So your argument is that all of WotC's statements in court attesting to the tiny amounts of 4E product they sold, the fact that they fired the Line Director of 4E every year, and the fact that WotC doesn't mention 4E ever when talking about past successes is propaganda. What the flying monkey fuck? Do you not understand the purpose of propaganda? You don't make propaganda to make yourself look like total fuckups. That doesn't even make fucking sense.

Newsflash moron: mismanaging the single largest name in an entire industry so badly that someone's bullshit knock-off of your last product overtakes your shiny new product in market share is a fucking travesty. There's your "heinous thing that nothing could be worse for them to do". WotC is a company that makes games. They own the most recognizable, most brandable, most sellable name in the entire fucking tabletop games industry, and they drove it into the fucking ground so badly that they fired the dude in charge every fucking year for the entire duration of the edition, whereupon they cancelled everything in the pipeline and opted to print nothing for two fucking years over printing any of the shit that they had planned.

For fuck's sake, if you want to tell someone that you play TTRPGs, you don't say that, you say you play D&D because people know what D&D is: people sitting around a table, rolling dice and being nerdy. They may have never played D&D. They may have never even seen a D&D rulebook, character sheet, or literally anything that was actually D&D at all, but if you tell them that you play D&D they will picture a bunch of people (ok, guys) sitting around a table rolling dice without you having to describe or explain anything else at all. D&D is pop culture, and it is literally the only fucking TTRPG that is. And sure, while D&D is a drop in the bucket compared to M:tG (which is obviously where the people with actual game design chops at WotC work), money is money and the TTRPG community is so bullshit small and D&D was (at that point) so fucking huge that to fail to capitalize on what was essentially a monopoly is a business catastrophe.

I do not have enough data to know, for the fifth time. My point is that no one here has enough so saying that "4e failed" is at best an outright lie. It MIGHT be right, but you do not know that and can not know that (well if you worked for Wotc and had access to their info you could, but that seams doubtful).

Just because you are incapable of processing data that is not spoon-fed to you doesn't mean other people can't put two and two together and get fucking four. Get your head out of Mike Mearl's ass and think about what you are saying. Your argument is seriously that it is more likely that WotC covered 4E's resounding success by firing the Line Director every fucking year and canning the entire edition (printing nothing for years over printing more shovelware) than it is that 4E tanked so hard that someone's bullshit 3.5 houserules could become the best-selling RPG on the market?

Them firing someone is a fact, them saying why is propaganda because we have no way of knowing if it is true or not.

They don't have to say anything, and as far as I know actually haven't said a goddamn word regarding 4E since. Their actions speak very loudly.

[Leress]

Stop pulling stats out your ass.

what? I am the one who is NOT just making up numbers, I in fact require good data, your the ones who seam to be ok with coin flips. with even 60% confidence would be good enough.

You were the first to pull up coin flips, which was a bad analogy. You were the first to say 60%. Again stop that shit.

[Kaelik]

Stop pulling stats out your ass.

what? I am the one who is NOT just making up numbers, I in fact require good data, your the ones who seam to be ok with coin flips. with even 60% confidence would be good enough.

51 and 60 are made up numbers. They are also made up numbers that are wrong. So you are in fact, pulling stats out of your ass.

[CaptPike]

Just because you are incapable of processing data that is not spoon-fed to you doesn't mean other people can't put two and two together and get fucking four. Get your head out of Mike Mearl's ass and think about what you are saying. Your argument is seriously that it is more likely that WotC covered 4E's resounding success by firing the Line Director every fucking year and canning the entire edition (printing nothing for years over printing more shovelware) than it is that 4E tanked so hard that someone's bullshit 3.5 houserules could become the best-selling RPG on the market?

I think its much more likly that 4e did very well, just not so well as to completely dominate the market like the higher ups wanted because they were looking at the past, and failed to see that completely dominated the market was not possible anymore. so rather then admit that they flailed around by firing people and making essentials, cutting years off the 4e line in an attempt to get people to play it who like 2e and 3e.

but of course I could be wrong, neither of us has enough data to know if we are right.

we are both seeing 2+?, I am saying that we can not know the answer, you are saying it must be 4, because your friend's roommate totally saw a 2 there, and we should take your word that his word is good.

That makes no fucking sense. You don't fire the head of your product line every year for the entirety of it's existence because it is doing well. Unceremoniously firing department heads once makes people nervous about the health of your product, doing it year after year is a giant neon sign blazing "WE'RE FUCKING FUCKED, HOLY FUCK!" in the night sky. When you release a revamped version of the product you just put out a couple years before, and then turn around and shitcan the entire fucking shebang with absolutely nothing to follow it up for years, that is you carving your failure into the surface of the moon with a laser.

This isn't rocket science. Even with absolutely zero numbers whatsoever, WotC's behavior screams panic from almost the beginning. Their actions are not those of a company whose product is slightly under-performing compared to expectations; they are the actions of a company desperately trying to bail out the Titanic while it is also on fire.

So your argument is that all of WotC's statements in court attesting to the tiny amounts of 4E product they sold, the fact that they fired the Line Director of 4E every year, and the fact that WotC doesn't mention 4E ever when talking about past successes is propaganda. What the flying monkey fuck? Do you not understand the purpose of propaganda? You don't make propaganda to make yourself look like total fuckups. That doesn't even make fucking sense.

Newsflash moron: mismanaging the single largest name in an entire industry so badly that someone's bullshit knock-off of your last product overtakes your shiny new product in market share is a fucking travesty. There's your "heinous thing that nothing could be worse for them to do". WotC is a company that makes games. They own the most recognizable, most brandable, most sellable name in the entire fucking tabletop games industry, and they drove it into the fucking ground so badly that they fired the dude in charge every fucking year for the entire duration of the edition, whereupon they cancelled everything in the pipeline and opted to print nothing for two fucking years over printing any of the shit that they had planned.

For fuck's sake, if you want to tell someone that you play TTRPGs, you don't say that, you say you play D&D because people know what D&D is: people sitting around a table, rolling dice and being nerdy. They may have never played D&D. They may have never even seen a D&D rulebook, character sheet, or literally anything that was actually D&D at all, but if you tell them that you play D&D they will picture a bunch of people (ok, guys) sitting around a table rolling dice without you having to describe or explain anything else at all. D&D is pop culture, and it is literally the only fucking TTRPG that is. And sure, while D&D is a drop in the bucket compared to M:tG (which is obviously where the people with actual game design chops at WotC work), money is money and the TTRPG community is so bullshit small and D&D was (at that point) so fucking huge that to fail to capitalize on what was essentially a monopoly is a business catastrophe.



Just because you are incapable of processing data that is not spoon-fed to you doesn't mean other people can't put two and two together and get fucking four. Get your head out of Mike Mearl's ass and think about what you are saying. Your argument is seriously that it is more likely that WotC covered 4E's resounding success by firing the Line Director every fucking year and canning the entire edition (printing nothing for years over printing more shovelware) than it is that 4E tanked so hard that someone's bullshit 3.5 houserules could become the best-selling RPG on the market?

Them firing someone is a fact, them saying why is propaganda because we have no way of knowing if it is true or not.

They don't have to say anything, and as far as I know actually haven't said a goddamn word regarding 4E since. Their actions speak very loudly.

your assuming Wotc would only make good decisions, this is not true, as they are human. also what is good for the exec's is not always what is good for Wotc.

At best their actions tell us at least one person THOUGHT 4e was failing. That is IT nothing more. It is possible that 4e was failing, it is possible that 4e was doing well, but not as well as they wanted. Its even possible it was nothing more then political shit that had nothing to do with how good or bad 4e was doing.

[CaptPike]

Stop pulling stats out your ass.

what? I am the one who is NOT just making up numbers, I in fact require good data, your the ones who seam to be ok with coin flips. with even 60% confidence would be good enough.

You were the first to pull up coin flips, which was a bad analogy. You were the first to say 60%. Again stop that shit.

I am not allowed to say that I personally think there was only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed? am I also not allowed to say how I feel about other things too?

And when someone says that 60% should be more then enough I am not allowed to say that its stupid and ridiculous to firmly believe something is beyond doubt with only a 51% chance of being true?

[Leress]

If you say "I think [ only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed]" that means you have limited information, and that information points to [ only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed]. That would not be a lie and I can see the reasons you would say that.

By your own metric you are a liar since you have no information that it is 60%

And when someone says that 60% should be more then enough I am not allowed to say that its stupid and ridiculous to firmly believe something is beyond doubt with only a 51% chance of being true?

You were the first to say 60% you have no information to support that claim. Again stop with the shitty stats as analogies.

[Shiritai]

Guys. Guys. Why do you keep attacking CaptPike? I think he's really on to something. I mean, he said that we don't know and will never know whether 4e was a success, but isn't he right? I mean, how do we really know anything? Every sense we have is fallible, and there's no outside observer we can ask to verify anything. Sure, we have "tools" and "instruments" to measure things, but we're the ones who read them and interpret them. And how do we know that our own thoughts are even an approximate reflection of reality? But what of the management of WotC and Hasbro? For all we know, they could be even more delusional than we are! Try to wrap your mind around that, if you think that trying to understand anything is more than a futile exercise in egoism.

[CaptPike]

If you say "I think [ only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed]" that means you have limited information, and that information points to [ only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed]. That would not be a lie and I can see the reasons you would say that.

By your own metric you are a liar since you have no information that it is 60%

And when someone says that 60% should be more then enough I am not allowed to say that its stupid and ridiculous to firmly believe something is beyond doubt with only a 51% chance of being true?

You were the first to say 60% you have no information to support that claim. Again stop with the shitty stats as analogies.

nor do I say I have any evidence, notice I said it was a FEELING something that by definition I have no need to support.

were I have said "I KNOW there is a 60% chance it failed" then yes you would be right, but please read what I wrote and note how a feeling is different from a fact.

[tenngu]

your assuming Wotc would only make good decisions, this is not true, as they are human. also what is good for the exec's is not always what is good for Wotc.

So maybe....one of their not good decisions .....was 4e? Maybe its a little fucked up? Just a little?

At best their actions tell us at least one person THOUGHT 4e was failing. That is IT nothing more. It is possible that 4e was failing, it is possible that 4e was doing well, but not as well as they wanted. Its even possible it was nothing more then political shit that had nothing to do with how good or bad 4e was doing.

Man you keep saying its at least one person, like you're trying to insist that one person there is just making decisions and everyone else is a bobblehead in a suit. Don't you think they have fucking marketing dudes that provide them information, higher ups that set mandates, etc etc. Like its not a one person decision.

[Shady314]

Guys. Guys. Why do you keep attacking CaptPike? I think he's really on to something. I mean, he said that we don't know and will never know whether 4e was a success, but isn't he right? I mean, how do we really know anything? Every sense we have is fallible, and there's no outside observer we can ask to verify anything. Sure, we have "tools" and "instruments" to measure things, but we're the ones who read them and interpret them. And how do we know that our own thoughts are even an approximate reflection of reality? But what of the management of WotC and Hasbro? For all we know, they could be even more delusional than we are! Try to wrap your mind around that, if you think that trying to understand anything is more than a futile exercise in egoism.

<mind blown>

[Stubbazubba]

Guys. Guys. Why do you keep attacking CaptPike? I think he's really on to something. I mean, he said that we don't know and will never know whether 4e was a success, but isn't he right? I mean, how do we really know anything? Every sense we have is fallible, and there's no outside observer we can ask to verify anything. Sure, we have "tools" and "instruments" to measure things, but we're the ones who read them and interpret them. And how do we know that our own thoughts are even an approximate reflection of reality? But what of the management of WotC and Hasbro? For all we know, they could be even more delusional than we are! Try to wrap your mind around that, if you think that trying to understand anything is more than a futile exercise in egoism.

This is so true.

I mean, when I drive down the road and see a car coming to a stop sign on a street that crosses, I often find myself thinking, "Yeah, there's a stop sign there, and yeah, they're slowing down a little, and yeah, they're blinker is on, but I can't know he's going to stop! After all, drivers of cars are human, they make mistakes, maybe he'll just spaz out and step on the gas right as I'm passing in front of him? I'd better stop, get out of my car, walk over, and remove the keys from his car just to be sure. Ah, but what if he can hot-wire his car without the keys? What if he's Electro? I CAN'T KNOW!."

Sure, nothing ever happened, but I was just getting lucky. The day I realized that was the day I stopped driving.

Related, but how do I know the internet's not sentient and isn't just making all of you up?

[CaptPike]

your assuming Wotc would only make good decisions, this is not true, as they are human. also what is good for the exec's is not always what is good for Wotc.

So maybe....one of their not good decisions .....was 4e? Maybe its a little fucked up? Just a little?

At best their actions tell us at least one person THOUGHT 4e was failing. That is IT nothing more. It is possible that 4e was failing, it is possible that 4e was doing well, but not as well as they wanted. Its even possible it was nothing more then political shit that had nothing to do with how good or bad 4e was doing.

Man you keep saying its at least one person, like you're trying to insist that one person there is just making decisions and everyone else is a bobblehead in a suit. Don't you think they have fucking marketing dudes that provide them information, higher ups that set mandates, etc etc. Like its not a one person decision.

it is possible that 4e was a mistake that failed and make them very little money past the first year, it is also possbile that it was a wild success that was cut off in his prime by mistakes of the exec's both are possbile and for now we have no way of telling which one is true (if either are)

why do people never read what I wrote? I said "at least one person" I agree that it would very odd it was just one person, but we do not know that. all we KNOW is that at least one person did.
I try and not to pretend to know things I do not know.

[Leress]

nor do I say I have any evidence, notice I said it was a FEELING something that by definition I have no need to support.

were I have said "I KNOW there is a 60% chance it failed" then yes you would be right, but please read what I wrote and note how a feeling is different from a fact.

I am not allowed to say that I personally think there was only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed? am I also not allowed to say how I feel about other things too?

You Are Lying.

[MGuy]

your assuming Wotc would only make good decisions, this is not true, as they are human. also what is good for the exec's is not always what is good for Wotc.

So maybe....one of their not good decisions .....was 4e? Maybe its a little fucked up? Just a little?

At best their actions tell us at least one person THOUGHT 4e was failing. That is IT nothing more. It is possible that 4e was failing, it is possible that 4e was doing well, but not as well as they wanted. Its even possible it was nothing more then political shit that had nothing to do with how good or bad 4e was doing.

Man you keep saying its at least one person, like you're trying to insist that one person there is just making decisions and everyone else is a bobblehead in a suit. Don't you think they have fucking marketing dudes that provide them information, higher ups that set mandates, etc etc. Like its not a one person decision.

You speak as if he is trying to be coherent. Pike here gave the game away toward the beginning. He is unwilling to accept any data that isn't explicitly data he approves of. The data he approved of (before back peddling on it) was only any data that pointed to 4E being a success. Now he's backed into a corner where basically he's claiming he 'feels/thinks/wishes' 4E was a success and no actions or data that is turned out from the company or even the current market will convince him of anything different.

Basically he is not interested in the possibility that 4E failed. He is, at this point, trying to assure anyone who will listen (IE nobody) that others are equally in the dark about what the situation is as he is. That way he can claim no info therefore god and continue to legitimately believe that 4E succeeded (despite all available evidence not supporting that narrative). At this point I can only imagine people are trying to show him how insane his position is or just have a laugh at his expense.

[CaptPike]

nor do I say I have any evidence, notice I said it was a FEELING something that by definition I have no need to support.

were I have said "I KNOW there is a 60% chance it failed" then yes you would be right, but please read what I wrote and note how a feeling is different from a fact.

I am not allowed to say that I personally think there was only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed? am I also not allowed to say how I feel about other things too?

You Are Lying.

I am lying about how I am feeling? or what I am thinking? how could you possibly know that?

when someone says they KNOW something that means they are either lying or they have evidence to that effect. when they say they think something that means they "think" its true but they do not know. like when I say I think the war of 1812 ended in 1814, I think that is true but I am not sure.

would you call me a liar if I had said I hated the hulk? or would you require I prove that I have him? if so how would I go about that? get notarized testimonials from friends that I am not faking it?

[CaptPike]

your assuming Wotc would only make good decisions, this is not true, as they are human. also what is good for the exec's is not always what is good for Wotc.

So maybe....one of their not good decisions .....was 4e? Maybe its a little fucked up? Just a little?

At best their actions tell us at least one person THOUGHT 4e was failing. That is IT nothing more. It is possible that 4e was failing, it is possible that 4e was doing well, but not as well as they wanted. Its even possible it was nothing more then political shit that had nothing to do with how good or bad 4e was doing.

Man you keep saying its at least one person, like you're trying to insist that one person there is just making decisions and everyone else is a bobblehead in a suit. Don't you think they have fucking marketing dudes that provide them information, higher ups that set mandates, etc etc. Like its not a one person decision.

You speak as if he is trying to be coherent. Pike here gave the game away toward the beginning. He is unwilling to accept any data that isn't explicitly data he approves of. The data he approved of (before back peddling on it) was only any data that pointed to 4E being a success. Now he's backed into a corner where basically he's claiming he 'feels/thinks/wishes' 4E was a success and no actions or data that is turned out from the company or even the current market will convince him of anything different.

Basically he is not interested in the possibility that 4E failed. He is, at this point, trying to assure anyone who will listen (IE nobody) that others are equally in the dark about what the situation is as he is. That way he can claim no info therefore god and continue to legitimately believe that 4E succeeded (despite all available evidence not supporting that narrative). At this point I can only imagine people are trying to show him how insane his position is or just have a laugh at his expense.

why would anyone accept any data he does not approve of? do you often look at data, see that it is not enough or that it is too bias, but then accept it anyway?

so...when shown I am wrong I am not allowed to admit it (I said that the amazon list was enough, it was pointed out this does not make sense, so I admitted I was wrong)? god only knows what would happen if I said that you were right, you might accuse me of just panddering to you and really thinking something different.

[MGuy]

stuff

Way to miss the point.

[CaptPike]

stuff

Way to miss the point.

so...rather then pointing out what I missed you say I missed it.

I think you missed the point of communication.

[Dean]

I am lying about how I am feeling? or what I am thinking? how could you possibly know that?

Prove you know you're thinking, if you don't you're a liar. Prove you know it, provide the data.

[CaptPike]

I am lying about how I am feeling? or what I am thinking? how could you possibly know that?

Prove you know you're thinking, if you don't you're a liar. Prove you know it, provide the data.

I think you missed my point about how feelings need no data, or about where I never said I KNEW that 4e succeeded. I said I THOUGHT, it and I do.

Am I the only one here who knows the difference between feelings and facts? and that values truth?

EDIT: you all are the ones who are claiming to KNOW beyond any reasonable doubt that 4e failed and was surpassed by pathfinder during its entire run.