D&D 4E Sales Figures Debate

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

DSMatticus wrote: Yes, Pathfinder did better than 4e
not to derail the threat or anything but why do people think this? during the time when both games were putting out new material (excluding essentials, which went against the basic tenets of 4e) the 4e books were outselling the pathfinder ones and were higher on the amazon best seller lists.

4e was a wildly successful game that sold at least as much as 3.5e did in dead tree form (4e did much better when you consider ddi), and did so for as long as they published material fitting the original paradigm of the game.

I just found this forum and slogged through this thread (I have issues with finishing things I start...) I have found it to be nice and logical place, except that everyone has the bog standard idea about 4e, that it not only failed but did so fast and that it has no merit.
Last edited by CaptPike on Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

CaptPike wrote:
DSMatticus wrote: Yes, Pathfinder did better than 4e
not to derail the threat or anything but why do people think this? during the time when both games were putting out new material (excluding essentials, which went against the basic tenets of 4e) the 4e books were outselling the pathfinder ones and were higher on the amazon best seller lists.

4e was a wildly successful game that sold at least as much as 3.5e did in dead tree form (4e did much better when you consider ddi), and did so for as long as they published material fitting the original paradigm of the game.

I just found this forum and slogged through this thread (I have issues with finishing things I start...) I have found it to be nice and logical place, except that everyone has the bog standard idea about 4e, that it not only failed but did so fast and that it has no merit.
Check out the 5E thread. For the past two quarters, roll20 has been releasing raw data for their system, and when you look at it 4E is as dead as AD&D while 3.5 and PF are both probably going to be solid competitors to 5E throughout its lifespan (and possibly even outright kick its ass). Amazon best seller lists are basically worthless (small market, lots of fluctuation) and all of the DDI stats I've seen are wildly unreliable - but the fact is that even before 5E had finished its release more people were playing a discontinued edition AND someone's houserules for that discontinued edition (that's separately, not together) than they were 4E.

4E was undoubtably a commercial success, because commercial success is a low bar to make it over in this industry. But considering how quickly it died, it's difficult to take claims that it was a solid competitor seriously.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Uhhh... the reason everyone believes that 4e failed is because every single product line of 4e got canceled, the head of D&D got fired every single year that 4e was on the market, and even when the company talks about great selling editions today, they talk about 3rd edition and not 4th. Everyone believes that 4e was a failure because the company that produces it believes it to be a failure and has sent perfectly clear signals that it was failing at every milestone along the way.

If 4e wasn't a costly fiasco, Heinsoo wouldn't have been out of a job in the first year, nor would the inheritor of his desk have been fired within a year every single time it got passed on until the chair got handed on for the entire run of the edition and its associated half edition. And then the expanded power sources wouldn't have scrapped (remember Elemental and Ki power sources?). And then the entire line wouldn't have been canned before the DMG 3 came out. And when Essentials did happen (presumably in an actual hole in the schedule rather than canceling everything for the rest of the year and rushing it to print), it would have gotten the expansions it was promised or even gotten its entire promised set of "essential products" rather than having all solicitations canceled after three months.

The fact that they never completed the Races of Renown series is indicative that things weren't going well. But the fact that they also didn't finish the [Blank] Power series or even the fucking core rulebooks just seals the deal. And all the collateral evidence points the same way: look how hard it is to find those "second printing" books that WotC was crowing about at launch, showing that those extra print runs they were yammering about were incredibly tiny. Or look at their court filings, where they state in a court of law that shortly after the launch of the PHB2 that all 4th edition books to date had collectively sold "hundreds of thousands" of books. Or the given justification for canceling pdf sales that they estimated that there were "more than 10" pirated copies of pdfs for every 1 copy sold... after proving that the PHB2 pdf had been pirated at least 1,238 times. There just isn't an argument that 4th edition didn't fail according to the standards of the company that made it.

WotC doesn't release its sales figures. But from what they say, what they don't say, and what they do, you can see in broad strokes how well things are doing. Like how we can tell that 5th edition isn't selling as well as 3rd edition did because the most boosterish claim they can bring themselves to make is that they believe it will do better than 3e in the future. With 4th edition we could see that they were in fact doing very badly. So badly that they sacked the head of the department every single year and canceled the line early twice.

Now comparing it to Pathfinder is more difficult. Obviously Paizo isn't a subsidiary of Hasbro and doesn't make Magic the Fucking Gathering or have any genre-defining trademarks to their name. They used to make some fucking gaming magazines on a licensed contract. So Pathfinder doing "spectacularly well" wouldn't have to beat 4th edition D&D. Paizo would feel pretty good about itself being the 4th largest seller in the industry, while Wizards of the Coast starts sacking people if they come in any worse than #2. The fact that Paizo has been rocking out with their cock out since 2009 doesn't by itself prove that Pathfinder has been doing better than 4e D&D. It just shows that Pathfinder has been doing well for a Paizo product even as 4e D&D was doing disastrously terrible for a WotC product with the D&D trademark on it.

Nevertheless, what information we have does show that Pathfinder not only was doing relatively better than 4e, but absolutely better. ICv2 only tracks distributor to hobby store to customer sales, and it's a survey not a census. But by the time 4e was finally canceled, Pathfinder had been in the #1 spot several quarters running.

4th edition fans seem almost religiously dedicated to the claim that 4th edition was a financial success. It very definitely was not.

-Username17
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

DSMatticus wrote: EDIT: New dude, we don't have hard numbers, but we do have some signs of general shakiness; the speed of Essentials getting released, the speed of 5e getting announced, PF beating the sum total of D&D material sold on ICv2 sales data around 2010, the reprinting of 3e material during 4e's run, and the old "hundreds of thousands and millions" chestnut. Most damningly, it failed to beat its predecessor's numbers (which we had) and ended up losing to a bastard cousin of said predecessor.
When started printing essentials it does NOT mean that 4e was tanking, it does not mean it was losing customers. it just means that at least one person in Wotc thought it was a good idea, no more no less.

it is a mistake of the highest order to think that because a company did something it has a good reason to do it, and that the reason was both logical and well thought out. Essentials was a horrendously bad idea, it took a good product that was making bank and turning it into something that those who were loyal to the game would not touch, and those who were not would not know or care about anyway.

4e DID easily beat its predecessor it you count DDI, but even if it just broke even that does not mean that it tanked. The conditions were different. 4e was still the most popular (judging by the amazon top 100 list) TTRPG, the internet allowed for things that were not possible when 3e came out. D&D had real competition.

FrankTrollman wrote:Uhhh... the reason everyone believes that 4e failed is because every single product line of 4e got canceled, the head of D&D got fired every single year that 4e was on the market, and even when the company talks about great selling editions today, they talk about 3rd edition and not 4th. Everyone believes that 4e was a failure because the company that produces it believes it to be a failure and has sent perfectly clear signals that it was failing at every milestone along the way.

If 4e wasn't a costly fiasco, Heinsoo wouldn't have been out of a job in the first year, nor would the inheritor of his desk have been fired within a year every single time it got passed on until the chair got handed on for the entire run of the edition and its associated half edition. And then the expanded power sources wouldn't have scrapped (remember Elemental and Ki power sources?). And then the entire line wouldn't have been canned before the DMG 3 came out. And when Essentials did happen (presumably in an actual hole in the schedule rather than canceling everything for the rest of the year and rushing it to print), it would have gotten the expansions it was promised or even gotten its entire promised set of "essential products" rather than having all solicitations canceled after three months.

The fact that they never completed the Races of Renown series is indicative that things weren't going well. But the fact that they also didn't finish the [Blank] Power series or even the fucking core rulebooks just seals the deal. And all the collateral evidence points the same way: look how hard it is to find those "second printing" books that WotC was crowing about at launch, showing that those extra print runs they were yammering about were incredibly tiny. Or look at their court filings, where they state in a court of law that shortly after the launch of the PHB2 that all 4th edition books to date had collectively sold "hundreds of thousands" of books. Or the given justification for canceling pdf sales that they estimated that there were "more than 10" pirated copies of pdfs for every 1 copy sold... after proving that the PHB2 pdf had been pirated at least 1,238 times. There just isn't an argument that 4th edition didn't fail according to the standards of the company that made it.

WotC doesn't release its sales figures. But from what they say, what they don't say, and what they do, you can see in broad strokes how well things are doing. Like how we can tell that 5th edition isn't selling as well as 3rd edition did because the most boosterish claim they can bring themselves to make is that they believe it will do better than 3e in the future. With 4th edition we could see that they were in fact doing very badly. So badly that they sacked the head of the department every single year and canceled the line early twice.

Now comparing it to Pathfinder is more difficult. Obviously Paizo isn't a subsidiary of Hasbro and doesn't make Magic the Fucking Gathering or have any genre-defining trademarks to their name. They used to make some fucking gaming magazines on a licensed contract. So Pathfinder doing "spectacularly well" wouldn't have to beat 4th edition D&D. Paizo would feel pretty good about itself being the 4th largest seller in the industry, while Wizards of the Coast starts sacking people if they come in any worse than #2. The fact that Paizo has been rocking out with their cock out since 2009 doesn't by itself prove that Pathfinder has been doing better than 4e D&D. It just shows that Pathfinder has been doing well for a Paizo product even as 4e D&D was doing disastrously terrible for a WotC product with the D&D trademark on it.

Nevertheless, what information we have does show that Pathfinder not only was doing relatively better than 4e, but absolutely better. ICv2 only tracks distributor to hobby store to customer sales, and it's a survey not a census. But by the time 4e was finally canceled, Pathfinder had been in the #1 spot several quarters running.

4th edition fans seem almost religiously dedicated to the claim that 4th edition was a financial success. It very definitely was not.

-Username17
saying that "some people at Wotc thought 4e did bad, so they acted like it was doing bad" does not help, it provides me no new information. I do not know those people, I have no context. it could just as easily be that they had unrealistic goals, that were not met, so they were acting like 4e tanked even though by any reasonable measure it was a success.


by the time 4e was officially canceled it was well past life support, if you want to compare apples to apples you have to cut it off when essentials was made, by that measure 4e was dominating. was it doing as well as they wanted? no, was it doing as well could be expected? yes
DSMatticus wrote: Check out the 5E thread. For the past two quarters, roll20 has been releasing raw data for their system, and when you look at it 4E is as dead as AD&D while 3.5 and PF are both probably going to be solid competitors to 5E throughout its lifespan (and possibly even outright kick its ass). Amazon best seller lists are basically worthless (small market, lots of fluctuation) and all of the DDI stats I've seen are wildly unreliable - but the fact is that even before 5E had finished its release more people were playing a discontinued edition AND someone's houserules for that discontinued edition (that's separately, not together) than they were 4E.

4E was undoubtably a commercial success, because commercial success is a low bar to make it over in this industry. But considering how quickly it died, it's difficult to take claims that it was a solid competitor seriously.
while interesting, unless I have some knowledge about how symmetric the relationship between people who play roll20 with a given system is with the number who play it world wide it is useless as a metric.

it was a commercial success that was the highest seller in its market. that really speaks for itself.

how in the world are you getting numbers for people who are playing at home on books bought years ago?

Also keep in mind there was a very long time where 4e was dead, but 5e was not out yet, trying to lump all that time as part of 4e is not reasonable. during all that time pathfinder has been putting out "new" stuff.

the only way I know of to compare pathfinder to 4e that would provide you with useful data is to look at the time when book for putting out new stuff regularly.
Last edited by CaptPike on Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:53 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

CaptPike wrote:even if it just broke even that does not mean that it tanked.
This is one of the big sources of confusion, I think. Nobody here is saying that 4th Edition D&D operated at a loss. They almost certainly did make a profit. We're saying the line "tanked" because it made a very small amount of money compared to the money 3rd made, compared to the kind of money WotC cares about making, and compared to the value people would expect to get from the license of an iconic brand.

EDIT: Similarly, it sounds as though what you mean when you say it was a success is that you and people you know played it and liked it. And yeah, it was a successful game, in the sense that if I published an RPG and within a year it was on shelves in every game store and every rpg player had heard of it, I'd call it a success. But when it comes to editions of D&D, that comes free. The worst possible failure of a D&D version would still be one of the most successful games.
Last edited by Orion on Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

tl;dr "Here's a bunch of independent information that all points to the exact same conclusion." "Yeah but what if I ignore all of it?"

Listen, CaptPike, if you can't be swayed by evidence, then you can't actually be swayed by anything. Every single piece of evidence we actually have points to 4E underperforming relative to 3.5.

For crying out loud, when Nathan Stewart did his Forbes interview a few days ago bragging about the possibility that 5E might end up being the best launch they've ever had, he did it by comparing 5E to 3.5, not 4E. That is the WotC employee in charge of managing the brand. That's someone who has access to the sales numbers, and whose job it is to understand them and ultimately increase them. And having looked at those numbers, his criteria for the best launch ever is beating 3E or 3.5, and he didn't mention 4E at all. Nathan Stewart will never tell you 4E underperformed, because he is a suit and corporate secrecy is a part of his job description. But his choice of benchmarks still gives the game away.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

DSMatticus wrote:tl;dr "Here's a bunch of independent information that all points to the exact same conclusion." "Yeah but what if I ignore all of it?"

Listen, CaptPike, if you can't be swayed by evidence, then you can't actually be swayed by anything. Every single piece of evidence we actually have points to 4E underperforming relative to 3.5.

For crying out loud, when Nathan Stewart did his Forbes interview a few days ago bragging about the possibility that 5E might end up being the best launch they've ever had, he did it by comparing 5E to 3.5, not 4E. That is the WotC employee in charge of managing the brand. That's someone who has access to the sales numbers, and whose job it is to understand them and ultimately increase them. And having looked at those numbers, his criteria for the best launch ever is beating 3E or 3.5, and he didn't mention 4E at all. Nathan Stewart will never tell you 4E underperformed, because he is a suit and corporate secrecy is a part of his job description. But his choice of benchmarks still gives the game away.
sure I can be, show me some with useful data. so far the only useful data I know of to use to compare pathfinder to 4e is looking at the time when they were at the top. After that sales is a useless metric because we have no idea how many people are playing 4e.

if I knew Nathan Stewart that would be helpful but I do not, I do not know if he has a personal agenda, whether he has been told by PR to never mention 4e, FACTS are useful, that is worse then useless because it makes you sound like you have data when you really do not.

and of course even if you are right..that still means nothing. it could as easily mean that it under preformed to what they wanted, but was still a wild success by objective measure as easily as it could mean it did badly and they are acting as such.

Wotc is just a group of people, they can be wrong as easily as you or I, pointing to them and saying "they acting like it failed, it must have failed by objective measure" is not helpful to anyone accept those who wish to know how you think.
FrankTrollman wrote:Captain Pike: you are sounding suspiciously like Titanium Dragon. Check out Hundred of Thousands of reasons for why we are skeptical to the point of open mockery of people who follow that particular line of denialism. If you can't accept the evidence that 4e did not sell well, you are living in a bubble of denial. There is literally no evidence at all that 4e wasn't a colossal failure. It was unpopular and unprofitable to the point that the DMG3 got canceled in favor of restarting the line with Essentials, and the Class Compendium got canceled in favor of bringing out absolutely fucking nothing for three fucking years. If you can look at that and call that an "objective success" with a straight face, you are delusional. The end.


-Username17
why do you keep bring up things Wotc did that provides no useful data? "at least one person at Wotc though that 4e did less then they wanted" is the only thing you said, and that is not helpful.

I do not know the people at Wotc, I have no idea if their data was good. the only data I know of is sales and popularity when they were sold and by that metric it was very successful and was the top of its field for years.
Last edited by CaptPike on Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

CaptPike wrote:the only data I know of is sales and popularity when they were sold and by that metric it was very successful and was the top of its field for years.
False, you do not know any of that. As far as you know, they sold 13 books ever, because you refuse to believe the actual sales numbers that they claimed to have sold in court when seeking damages.

So if you won't believe the actual numbers they actually said they sold as sales data when lying would have resulted in them facing perjury, how can we really know anything at all man.
Last edited by Kaelik on Sun Apr 19, 2015 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

Kaelik wrote:
CaptPike wrote:the only data I know of is sales and popularity when they were sold and by that metric it was very successful and was the top of its field for years.
False, you do not know any of that. As far as you know, they sold 13 books ever, because you refuse to believe the actual sales numbers that they claimed to have sold in court when seeking damages.

So if you won't believe the actual numbers they actually said they sold as sales data when lying would have resulted in them facing perjury, how can we really know anything at all man.
sure where is that data, along with the pathfinder data for the same time frame, with the same standards for quality and truth.

EDIT: we do know they were very high on best seller lists (at least among TTRPG books). that is a fact not just what some random dude at Wotc thinks
Last edited by CaptPike on Sun Apr 19, 2015 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Fuckin hell, CaptPike. That's the kind of stupid that could burn my retina permanently if looked at too long. Contain yourself or I'm going to have to get sunglasses to read your posts.

Best seller lists mean dick compared to actual testimony and shareholder reports that mention numbers. You know why? Because best seller lists don't tell you actual sales numbers unlike the data you refuse to accept.

4e was mentioned in the 6 digit range when they had every incentive to call it as high as they could. 3.5 was mentioned as 7 digits. If you cannot grok this then you need to fuck right off and put all your stones in the other loser of an argument you have running one thread over for power schedules/selections being irrelevant distinctions.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

erik wrote:Fuckin hell, CaptPike. That's the kind of stupid that could burn my retina permanently if looked at too long. Contain yourself or I'm going to have to get sunglasses to read your posts.

Best seller lists mean dick compared to actual testimony and shareholder reports that mention numbers. You know why? Because best seller lists don't tell you actual sales numbers unlike the data you refuse to accept.

4e was mentioned in the 6 digit range when they had every incentive to call it as high as they could. 3.5 was mentioned as 7 digits. If you cannot grok this then you need to fuck right off and put all your stones in the other loser of an argument you have running one thread over for power schedules/selections being irrelevant distinctions.
I am not the one saying "take this data...no I will not say why you should just take it..no I do not care for your reasons for not taking it they are wrong and I said so therefor you must trust me" if you think my reasons are flawed tell me WHY do not just say I am wrong.

So many things were different from when 3e was in its prime to when 4e was that directly comparing the numbers is useless. the best you could do is look at them relative to the RPG market as a whole.

also I would love to see the data you have for "actual testimony" that would account for everyone playing 4e, pathfinder ect I have yet to hear of any such study that could produce data of note.
Last edited by CaptPike on Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

CaptPike wrote:So many things were different from when 3e was in its prime to when 4e was that directly comparing the numbers is useless. the best you could do is look at them relative to the RPG market as a whole.
We have reached stage 2: Okay, 4e definitely sold WAAAAAAYYYYYYY less according to the representations of WotC in a suit where they stood to make more money from claiming larger 4e numbers, but it doesn't matter because . . . reasons. Definitely reasons. The market was different, and 4e totally sold as well to a larger customer base by selling fewer books because . . . the market had less competition after white wolf died?

Shit, everything I say makes 4e sound like a bigger failure. NOOOOO! NUMBERS DON'T MATTER!
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

Kaelik wrote:
CaptPike wrote:So many things were different from when 3e was in its prime to when 4e was that directly comparing the numbers is useless. the best you could do is look at them relative to the RPG market as a whole.
We have reached stage 2: Okay, 4e definitely sold WAAAAAAYYYYYYY less according to the representations of WotC in a suit where they stood to make more money from claiming larger 4e numbers, but it doesn't matter because . . . reasons. Definitely reasons. The market was different, and 4e totally sold as well to a larger customer base by selling fewer books because . . . the market had less competition after white wolf died?

Shit, everything I say makes 4e sound like a bigger failure. NOOOOO! NUMBERS DON'T MATTER!
sure they mater, but only in the correct context, and you are not using them that way.

first you have to add DDI, it was a very large amount of 4e income. not doing this would be like not adding the DMG sales to the 3e figures because its just a DM's book and does not count for reasons.

second, if you really want to know how popular 4e was in relation to pathfinder YOU HAVE TO COMPARE 4E TO PATHFINDER NOT 3E. That means first you look for a time when both were as close to equal (as in both putting out core stuff) THEN you look for a way comparing the numbers in an objective way. The only way I know of to do this is to took at best seller lists. yes this method sucks, but I have yet to hear of another way that does not amount to "I asked around some comic shops and this is what I heard" or "the peoples on the internet are playing X edition mostly, and no I have no idea how that equates to overall games"

yes maybe 3e was more popular then 4e if all your looking at is raw people, but so what? if the market was bigger then OF COURSE it was bigger. THAT Is why market size matters, THAT is why it matters how much competition there was, if your the only one in the market it does not matter how much you such, if you want to play you pay that system.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

CaptPike wrote:first you have to add DDI, it was a very large amount of 4e income. not doing this would be like not adding the DMG sales to the 3e figures because its just a DM's book and does not count for reasons.
Actually we were. We were comparing sales of the 3e PHB to literally all 4e books ever printed. So we were not counting the DMG, or the MM, or all the splats. That is how massively 3e outsold 4e, that 3e PHBs sold more during the same time period than all 4e books combined.
CaptPike wrote:yes maybe 3e was more popular then 4e if all your looking at is raw people, but so what? if the market was bigger then OF COURSE it was bigger. THAT Is why market size matters, THAT is why it matters how much competition there was, if your the only one in the market it does not matter how much you such, if you want to play you pay that system.
You misunderstand, the market was much bigger during 4e's release. They just sold fewer books to a larger market. 3e had to compete with and crush White Wolf, 4e only lost out to what amounts to 3e books with better art. The fact that 3e books with better art were apparently a bigger competition than the company that bankrupted TSR, says a lot more about how good 3e was and how bad 4e was than it does about D&D was in a "contested market" competing with a former subsidiary with none of the IP.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

Kaelik wrote:
CaptPike wrote:first you have to add DDI, it was a very large amount of 4e income. not doing this would be like not adding the DMG sales to the 3e figures because its just a DM's book and does not count for reasons.
Actually we were. We were comparing sales of the 3e PHB to literally all 4e books ever printed. So we were not counting the DMG, or the MM, or all the splats. That is how massively 3e outsold 4e, that 3e PHBs sold more during the same time period than all 4e books combined.
CaptPike wrote:yes maybe 3e was more popular then 4e if all your looking at is raw people, but so what? if the market was bigger then OF COURSE it was bigger. THAT Is why market size matters, THAT is why it matters how much competition there was, if your the only one in the market it does not matter how much you such, if you want to play you pay that system.
You misunderstand, the market was much bigger during 4e's release. They just sold fewer books to a larger market. 3e had to compete with and crush White Wolf, 4e only lost out to what amounts to 3e books with better art. The fact that 3e books with better art were apparently a bigger competition than the company that bankrupted TSR, says a lot more about how good 3e was and how bad 4e was than it does about D&D was in a "contested market" competing with a former subsidiary with none of the IP.


Have you heard of the internet? I hear it effects things. also pathfinder. and like I said I was comparing 4e to pathfinder, and in that metric 4e won because when they were both selling core books 4e was selling more. now please either A) show I am wrong in that or B) show that comparing how many books sold from each during the only time they were directly competing on an equal basis is NOT a good way to compare them.
Kaelik wrote:how good 3e was and how bad 4e was
never confuse money or popularity with being good. many good things are not popular, and many popular things are not good.

4e was objectionably a better then 3e or pathfinder. there are a great many people that did not move to 4e not because they looked at the system and thought "4e can not do what I want, and I have thought this through and done the math" but "meh, I like the old one, and I do not really need to think this out" they simply are so blinded to the flaws of 3e they do not see them anymore. THAT is why pathfinder sold, not because it was a good or even ok system but because so many people do not want to think or move on, even though 4e IS better in any measurable way.
Last edited by CaptPike on Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

It amuses me that CaptPike said "objectionably" instead of "objectively." I like my bullshit with a tiny little dash of hilariously accidental truth.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

DSMatticus wrote:It amuses me that CaptPike said "objectionably" instead of "objectively." I like my bullshit with a tiny little dash of hilariously accidental truth.
Personally I too like to make fun of people for how long their beard is and use that claim they are stupid, after all everyone knows you can not be both intelligent and have a beard.

for the thick: the point of writing is to be understood, if you understand the person you are talking to you have no right to complain about what they are saying, doing so is simply a sign you have no real way to respond to them.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

CaptPike wrote:for the thick: the point of writing is to be understood, if you understand the person you are talking to you have no right to complain about what they are saying, doing so is simply a sign you have no real way to respond to them.
Yes, yes, I'm very mean for finding amusement in a typo that completely flips the meaning of your sentence. Shame on me.

But you basically are right that I have no real way to respond to you. How do you respond to someone who categorically rejects the notion that evidence is meaningful? I suppose you do it by putting them on ignore. I've been through this song and dance millions - no, hundreds of thousands - of times, and I can't see the appeal of doing it again.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

DSMatticus wrote:
CaptPike wrote:for the thick: the point of writing is to be understood, if you understand the person you are talking to you have no right to complain about what they are saying, doing so is simply a sign you have no real way to respond to them.
Yes, yes, I'm very mean for finding amusement in a typo that completely flips the meaning of your sentence. Shame on me.

But you basically are right that I have no real way to respond to you. How do you respond to someone who categorically rejects the notion that evidence is meaningful? I suppose you do it by putting them on ignore. I've been through this song and dance millions - no, hundreds of thousands - of times, and I can't see the appeal of doing it again.
not mean just well, you come off as petty and kind of stupid when you say stuff like that.

I know how you say you feel, after all I have pointed to evidence, and you have refused to say why it does not apply, you simply pointed to 3e sales, ignored the fact that time changes things, and said things that have no basis in reality.

when I point to the ONLY DATA POINT IN EXISTENCE that can directly compare pathfinder to 4e, you ignore it.
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

OK, lets look at Data that exists that is comparable. 4E and PF came out at about the same time. Which are people still playing?
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
CaptPike
Apprentice
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:23 am

Post by CaptPike »

MGuy wrote:OK, lets look at Data that exists that is comparable. 4E and PF came out at about the same time. Which are people still playing?
no idea, neither you or I have any way of getting useful information on this, at least from the 4e side.

there IS NO WAY of knowing how many people play 4e now, none. the closest would be DDI or something like maptools. but there is no way to translating that into something we can use.
good luck finding out how many people playing 4e one DDI account equals, or how common an online game of 4e is compared to sit down ones. and that is if you can find a way to get that kind of data out of a site like maptools.
User avatar
rasmuswagner
Knight-Baron
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
Location: Danmark

Post by rasmuswagner »

CaptPike wrote: After that sales is a useless metric because we have no idea how many people are playing 4e.
Congratulations, you just went full fucking retard.
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
Orca
Knight-Baron
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:31 am

Post by Orca »

My experience has been that people who claim that there is no data, therefore we should believe their prejudices - are not useful people to debate. This is not limited to the subject of RPG sales.

On this subject there are many little pieces of data from the court case mentioned to the number of tables of various games at conventions to the amount of 4e vs. PF on the shelves at your local game store. If someone chooses to ignore them all you can't make them see the light.
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

CaptPike wrote:
MGuy wrote:OK, lets look at Data that exists that is comparable. 4E and PF came out at about the same time. Which are people still playing?
no idea, neither you or I have any way of getting useful information on this, at least from the 4e side.

there IS NO WAY of knowing how many people play 4e now, none. the closest would be DDI or something like maptools. but there is no way to translating that into something we can use.
good luck finding out how many people playing 4e one DDI account equals, or how common an online game of 4e is compared to sit down ones. and that is if you can find a way to get that kind of data out of a site like maptools.
You are right. There is no way I can possibly know each and every game of 4E going on right now. Thing is though, I don't need to know the exact number. Here's what I do know. 4E is dead as far as the company who made it goes. 4E isn't even talked about by the company when they make comparisons on how well they are selling 5E. 4E isn't even talked about as a contender in articles talking about 5E's current success. 4E was so unsuccessful in making fans that PF, a bunch of house rules based on 3E, was able to become the number one rpg. Like seriously the rivalry is between 3E and pals vs 5E. 4E isn't even a consideration. 4E is dead, defeated, it turns out that all the fanboy denial made no difference.
Last edited by MGuy on Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:42 pm, edited 5 times in total.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

But we don't know that 4e was canceled for performing like a barrel of limp dicks. Maybe they were cancelled and the heads were routinely fired for doing too well. Yesssss. It all makes perfect sense.

It cannot be that objectively and objectionably, 4e literally decimated their sales.
Post Reply