D&D 4E Sales Figures Debate

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:00 am

CaptPike wrote:
MGuy wrote:
CaptPike wrote: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.

The thing you quoted me on seems pretty clear. I honestly don't know how I would word it so that you'd be better able to understand. You have proven that you're not interested in the idea that 4E failed. Fanboyism has you hard by the nurts or something. You have rejected any data from the company to the current market. The only data you 'did' accept before backpeddling was data you thought pointed to its success. You've given the game away. You're not interested in actually debating the subject. Your entire position now is that you don't "know" and no one else can "know". That's it. I don't 'need' you to agree with me because no matter how strongly you want to believe the very real truth is you're wrong. You don't have to change your mind for you to remain wrong. People have told you not only that you're wrong but demonstrated how and why you're wrong. You deciding to reject every piece of evidence placed before you doesn't make you any less wrong. It just makes you more likely to be wrong AND stupid.

Post by **fbmf** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:03 am

Okay, Capt. Pike, we know that you FEEL 4E was a success, but do you THINK 4E was a success?

Game On,
fbmf

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:08 am

CaptPike wrote:
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?

You did not say "feel" you said "think"

Let me quote you again: Emphasize mine

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?

Now you do say feel in that sentence but since it is in a separate sentence that shows you are having that separate from a thought.

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.

So either think == feel or think != feel you can't have both.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:31 am

Wait, so CaptPike's real position is that it is equally impossible to claim knowledge of when the War of 1812 ended as it is to know whether 4e is a failure?

Wow. Epistemology.

I am forced to imagine CaptPike huddled in a corner demanding of everyone who comes close 'how do I know you're real? And even if you are real why should I believe you are who you appear to be? I just don't know!

There are a kinds of ways to define failure. It's also possible to define success however you like. If success is measured by the ability to create rabid fanboism, 4e is an unqualified success.

Irish · Post by **Irish** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:40 am

"feelings need no data"

Oh good. Here I was thinking that I'd have to prove my feelings about you being an idiotic twit. But now I can just call you an idiotic twit, and there's nothing you can do about it, because my feelings on the matter do not need to be verified by data.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:42 am

It's such a liberating feeling, being freed from the petty tyrannies of logic, reasoning, and the scientific method.

Echoes · Post by **Echoes** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:51 am

CaptPike wrote:
tenngu wrote:
CaptPike wrote: 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?

CaptPike wrote: 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.

Yes, both are possible. They are not equally probable claims and your implicit assertion that they are makes you a disingenuous shitbag on par with creationists. You're pulling the exact same shenanigans they pull with their "teach the controversy" bullshit. You are literally the Ken Ham of 4E D&D, right down to the "you can't believe what they said, you weren't there" stance on evidence.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:56 am

Oh, DDI numbers were ~$400k / month, or ~$5m / year.

https://yourbusinesssucks.wordpress.com ... on-part-1/

Dude doesn't reference his sources, but I've seen those numbers before, so order of magnitude stuff.

The argument for success there is that they don't need to sell books to run the department at all, just keep people subscribed to DDI. That's crazy talk, because they think they have 6 million players, but they only get 80 thousand subscribers, there's no way they can ignore book sales for the 1 in 75 who subscribe. Even at "hundreds of thousands" of book sales they'd easily beat that in profits.

The millions of books shifted in 3e / 3.5 sales would take in tens of millions of dollar profit per year. Their publicly stated goal (going into 4e) was to break $50 million per annum profit and become a fully independent, self-controlled branch of the company.

$5 million per year income from DDI is nice, sure, lets them keep a handful of people on staff to write the next edition in a small section of someone else's office, buy some random stuff off deviantart to fill pages, run a small webserver for their blogs. Assuming all those people actually stayed subscribed during their abandonment of 4a, shifting DDI content to Essentials characters, and then abandoning Essentials. I saw a bunch of people reporting they'd stopped paying, but that's just an anecdote, and I'm sure they kept some number of them.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:57 am

Shit, I'm slipping.

CaptPike is pulling a Balance fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

Echoes · Post by **Echoes** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:05 am

CaptPike wrote:
tenngu wrote:
CaptPike wrote: 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?

CaptPike wrote: 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.

Yes, both are possible. They are not equally probable claims and your implicit assertion that they are makes you a disingenuous shitbag on par with creationists. You're pulling the exact same shenanigans they pull with their "teach the controversy" bullshit. You are literally the Ken Ham of 4E D&D, right down to the "you can't believe what they said, you weren't there" stance on evidence.

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:06 am

Leress wrote:Shit, I'm slipping.

CaptPike is pulling a Balance fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

Relevant serious journalism.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:16 am

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

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.
Yes, both are possible. They are not equally probable claims and your implicit assertion that they are makes you a disingenuous shitbag on par with creationists. You're pulling the exact same shenanigans they pull with their "teach the controversy" bullshit. You are literally the Ken Ham of 4E D&D, right down to the "you can't believe what they said, you weren't there" stance on evidence.

so....you would trust what anyone at Wotc said about anything no matter who it was? they must love you in advertising.

you might have a point if we could put numbers to the likelihood, if we KNEW there was a 95% that 4e was a failure then sure you would have a point. but we do not. We lack the data needed even to say that.

EDIT: in short, what numbers do you have that let you KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that 4e failed? what percentage do you ascribe to it and what is your logic for doing so when you know we lack the DDI data.

how if you had some DDI data, that was confirmed to be true but was vague that would be something and we can then work the odds out.

deaddmwalking wrote:Wait, so CaptPike's real position is that it is equally impossible to claim knowledge of when the War of 1812 ended as it is to know whether 4e is a failure?

Wow. Epistemology.

I am forced to imagine CaptPike huddled in a corner demanding of everyone who comes close 'how do I know you're real? And even if you are real why should I believe you are who you appear to be? I just don't know!

There are a kinds of ways to define failure. It's also possible to define success however you like. If success is measured by the ability to create rabid fanboism, 4e is an unqualified success.

does anyone here read??

at the time I wrote that I could not have said I knew it ended in 1814 becuase I was not sure. I could have looked it up yes but I did not so I only thought it, I did not know it.

Leress wrote:
CaptPike wrote:
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?
You did not say "feel" you said "think"

Let me quote you again: Emphasize mine

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?
Now you do say feel in that sentence but since it is in a separate sentence that shows you are having that separate from a thought.

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.
So either think == feel or think != feel you can't have both.

ummm. I defined them separately with different definitions how is it confusing?

fbmf wrote:Okay, Capt. Pike, we know that you FEEL 4E was a success, but do you THINK 4E was a success?

Game On,
fbmf

yes I do, but like I said several times I do not have enough evidence to know, so it really does not matter what I think in this context to anyone but me.

tussock wrote:Oh, DDI numbers were ~$400k / month, or ~$5m / year.

https://yourbusinesssucks.wordpress.com ... on-part-1/

Dude doesn't reference his sources, but I've seen those numbers before, so order of magnitude stuff.

The argument for success there is that they don't need to sell books to run the department at all, just keep people subscribed to DDI. That's crazy talk, because they think they have 6 million players, but they only get 80 thousand subscribers, there's no way they can ignore book sales for the 1 in 75 who subscribe. Even at "hundreds of thousands" of book sales they'd easily beat that in profits.

The millions of books shifted in 3e / 3.5 sales would take in tens of millions of dollar profit per year. Their publicly stated goal (going into 4e) was to break $50 million per annum profit and become a fully independent, self-controlled branch of the company.

$5 million per year income from DDI is nice, sure, lets them keep a handful of people on staff to write the next edition in a small section of someone else's office, buy some random stuff off deviantart to fill pages, run a small webserver for their blogs. Assuming all those people actually stayed subscribed during their abandonment of 4a, shifting DDI content to Essentials characters, and then abandoning Essentials. I saw a bunch of people reporting they'd stopped paying, but that's just an anecdote, and I'm sure they kept some number of them.

I stopped reader after "doesn't reference his sources" that means nothing else you put matters ("these are some random numbers, but they look sorta similar so I trust them with no reservations"). if I linked a source that said that 4e sold 100x what you think they did would you believe me without any questioning? why are you trusting this random guy?

Also I was talking about pathfinder vs 4e not 3e because that does not matter. markets shift, tastes change. 10 years is too long to directly compare them unless you also have data on the change of market and apply that first.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:21 am

ummm. I defined them separately with different definitions how is it confusing?

Okay so when you say:

I am not allowed to say that I personally think there was only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed?

You are saying you thought something, but you have no information to back this up.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:26 am

Stubbazubba wrote:
Leress wrote:Shit, I'm slipping.

CaptPike is pulling a Balance fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy
Relevant serious journalism.

this will earn me no favors here but...

I found it funny how the same guys said that the poll was without merit, but the number of papers published on it mattered.

and of course the whole "we only have 50 years at most of truly global climate data but we are sure this is not normal, after all the earth climate never changed before humans came along right?"

The earth's climate changes ALL THE TIME, this is normal. Ever hear of the little ice age? do you also think we caused that?

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:28 am

(and there goes 30 minutes of sloppy work on a shitty free mac editor)

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:28 am

Leress wrote:
ummm. I defined them separately with different definitions how is it confusing?
Okay so when you say:

I am not allowed to say that I personally think there was only a 60% (at most) chance that 4e failed?
You are saying you thought something, but you have no information to back this up.

no I am saying I have SOME but it is not enough to KNOW it for sure.

limited data would include how wotc acted, amazon seller list and things like that.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:28 am

CaptPike wrote:
Stubbazubba wrote:
Leress wrote:Shit, I'm slipping.

CaptPike is pulling a Balance fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy
Relevant serious journalism.
this will earn me no favors here but...

I found it funny how the same guys said that the poll was without merit, but the number of papers published on it mattered.

and of course the whole "we only have 50 years at most of truly global climate data but we are sure this is not normal, after all the earth climate never changed before humans came along right?"

The earth's climate changes ALL THE TIME, this is normal. Ever hear of the little ice age? do you also think we caused that?

Nope. Just nope. Fuck you, we're done here. Climate change denial absolutely destroys whatever pitiful shreds of credibility you had left. You have just confirmed your existence as a troll.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:32 am

Gnorman wrote:
CaptPike wrote:
Stubbazubba wrote:
Relevant serious journalism.
this will earn me no favors here but...

I found it funny how the same guys said that the poll was without merit, but the number of papers published on it mattered.

and of course the whole "we only have 50 years at most of truly global climate data but we are sure this is not normal, after all the earth climate never changed before humans came along right?"

The earth's climate changes ALL THE TIME, this is normal. Ever hear of the little ice age? do you also think we caused that?
Nope. Just nope. Fuck you, we're done here. Climate change denial absolutely destroys whatever pitiful shreds of credibility you had left. You have just confirmed your existence as a troll.

do you judge everyone you know by the popularity of the ideas they hold? or by the logic they use? I would rather have a friend that used good logic to believe odd but logical things then someone who never put any time into thinking or research and believes things everyone believes.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:33 am

Gnorman wrote:
CaptPike wrote:
Stubbazubba wrote:
Relevant serious journalism.
this will earn me no favors here but...

I found it funny how the same guys said that the poll was without merit, but the number of papers published on it mattered.

and of course the whole "we only have 50 years at most of truly global climate data but we are sure this is not normal, after all the earth climate never changed before humans came along right?"

The earth's climate changes ALL THE TIME, this is normal. Ever hear of the little ice age? do you also think we caused that?
Nope. Just nope. Fuck you, we're done here. Climate change denial absolutely destroys whatever pitiful shreds of credibility you had left. You have just confirmed your existence as a troll.

That's what it took?

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:35 am

MGuy wrote:That's what it took?

Well, I was 95% sure that he was a blithering idiot, but apparently 95% certainty isn't enough to form a valid conclusion.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:36 am

Pike, have you read the studies?

Echoes · Post by **Echoes** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:52 am

CaptPike wrote:so....you would trust what anyone at Wotc said about anything no matter who it was? they must love you in advertising.

you might have a point if we could put numbers to the likelihood, if we KNEW there was a 95% that 4e was a failure then sure you would have a point. but we do not. We lack the data needed even to say that.

EDIT: in short, what numbers do you have that let you KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that 4e failed? what percentage do you ascribe to it and what is your logic for doing so when you know we lack the DDI data.

how if you had some DDI data, that was confirmed to be true but was vague that would be something and we can then work the odds out.

You realize at no point have I ever talked about anything that anybody has fucking said anywhere, right? I understand literally everyone is telling you that you are full of shit, but come on.

We can tell 4E was a cataclysmic failure because the guy in charge of it got fired every single year it was in print, and they cancelled the entire line a year and a half after printing Essentials to "add more options for first-time players". After coming out with an updated set of classes and options, less than two years later 4E was dead as a post with nothing D&D on the horizon for two years except for reprintings of core AD&D 2E and 3.5 books. They pushed Essentials out the door to try to attract new players when the shiny new edition was barely over two years old, and the entire thing was dead a year and a half later.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:57 am

Leress wrote:Pike, have you read the studies?

On average the temperature is rising slightly, that is not what I dispute.

Some yes, the problem is that we lack enough data to plot really term trends. it would be like if you only had the weather data for Texas for November and nothing else about the earth's data and were concerned because you plotted that you would be dead by May from the temperature dropping.

We do not know what is causing it, nor do we know if it is really dangerous to us.

And honestly even if you accept that we are at fault, that it is very harmful to human life its not like we could or should do what would be needed to fix it. Were you to accept the previous the only way to really fix it would be to have carbon taxes for the entire planet, and given this could cause very bad economical conditions I find it hard to believe everyone would do so willingly. This would mean you would have to enforce it, while non-force could work for many countries some it would not. That means you would need a global goverment with the power to use force to enforce laws to stop global warming. And that cost is too high, if global warming is true I would much rather find a way to fix it then go to war over carbon in the air.

CaptPike · Post by **CaptPike** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:01 am

Echoes wrote:
CaptPike wrote:so....you would trust what anyone at Wotc said about anything no matter who it was? they must love you in advertising.

you might have a point if we could put numbers to the likelihood, if we KNEW there was a 95% that 4e was a failure then sure you would have a point. but we do not. We lack the data needed even to say that.

EDIT: in short, what numbers do you have that let you KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that 4e failed? what percentage do you ascribe to it and what is your logic for doing so when you know we lack the DDI data.

how if you had some DDI data, that was confirmed to be true but was vague that would be something and we can then work the odds out.
You realize at no point have I ever talked about anything that anybody has fucking said anywhere, right? I understand literally everyone is telling you that you are full of shit, but come on.

We can tell 4E was a cataclysmic failure because the guy in charge of it got fired every single year it was in print, and they cancelled the entire line a year and a half after printing Essentials to "add more options for first-time players". After coming out with an updated set of classes and options, less than two years later 4E was dead as a post with nothing D&D on the horizon for two years except for reprintings of core AD&D 2E and 3.5 books. They pushed Essentials out the door to try to attract new players when the shiny new edition was barely over two years old, and the entire thing was dead a year and a half later.

And again I do not trust their actions to be perfect. Those things would have happened just as you outlined them if 4e was doing well, but not well enough for the higher ups (who could have wanted nothing less then total dominance).

Come up with a test that would separate the two and I will listen.

tenngu · Post by **tenngu** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:02 am

CaptPike wrote:
Leress wrote:Pike, have you read the studies?
On average the temperature is rising slightly, that is not what I dispute.

Some yes, the problem is that we lack enough data to plot really term trends. it would be like if you only had the weather data for Texas for November and nothing else about the earth's data and were concerned because you plotted that you would be dead by May from the temperature dropping.

We do not know what is causing it, nor do we know if it is really dangerous to us.

And honestly even if you accept that we are at fault, that it is very harmful to human life its not like we could or should do what would be needed to fix it. Were you to accept the previous the only way to really fix it would be to have carbon taxes for the entire planet, and given this could cause very bad economical conditions I find it hard to believe everyone would do so willingly. This would mean you would have to enforce it, while non-force could work for many countries some it would not. That means you would need a global goverment with the power to use force to enforce laws to stop global warming. And that cost is too high, if global warming is true I would much rather find a way to fix it then go to war over carbon in the air.

I'm speechless.