WOTC is angry!

[Malcadon]

I personally dont give a damn about 3.x, 4e or WotC. I see Wizbro becoming the same money-whores that doomed T$R back in the day. As far I'm concern, they can choke on their own cheap gumball-machine miniatures, push out 4e books until their asses bleed - the only thing I give a dame about are all the old-school book! I like the old stuff, and I like being able to access them for free - after all, it not like they support any of it. Because of their crackdown, I cant find any of it on RPGnow, DriveThruRPG, or on Scribd.

Wizards can go %$#& themselves with the horse they rode in on!

 

[Demetrio]

Yes, it's so annoying when companies do as they please with product they own. Anyone would think they had that right or something.

 

[flatscan]

I was in fact point out that if Obsidian Portal is worth quoting as an accurate source of what's popular in RPGs, then 3.X games are active around 50% of what DD4 games are. That's less "popular", but it also could be a factor od a younger, more net savvy DD4 crowd posting more DD4 requests. I don't even know what Obsidian Portal is (lol) so I likewise don't know if it's a good yardstick by which to measure an RPGs sales successes, but I'm going to guess that it isn't, and so it doesn't.

Yeah, most of those D&D 3.5 games on OP have been there since 2007 when 3.5 was king RPG, before 4e was released. Whereas every single one of the 4e games came out in 2008 or later. So the fact that there's 50% as many 3.5 games as the 4e games doesn't mean anything in regards to how 3.5 is selling compared to 4e games (since 4es release).

On the other hand, for how 4e has sold since its 2008 release, they've got over 2000+ 4e games which we know came out last year or sooner. That's 2000+ games (that people are having fun playing btw, otherwise they wouldn't spend the considerable time making a wiki for it) that average 4-6 players. On the low end that's 8000+ PHBs, 2000+ DMGs, & 2000+ MMs for 4e sold.

I know, these numbers don't mean anything to you. They're evidence contrary to what you want to believe after all. But as other posters on this board can see with these numbers, Amazon's numbers, and the Wall Street Journals numbers, 4e isn't the slumdog in sales you claim it to be. Continue with your conspiracy theories however. In three years when 4e is still the majority of the RPG market we'll see what gut-based theory you have to promote then. :roll:

 

[Bygoneyrs]

Hey 'flatscan' the saying is "hair-brain" not "hat-brain"<VBG>!!! :roll:


As I have stated multiple times on multiple borads, after 32+yrs of D&D I have had enough of 4ed D&D and WOTC. I will remain supporting v3.5 ed d20 D&D, Conan d20, or anything else that I can use as a resource to support my choice. Now when there is no more support at all, I will just continue on myself then. Besides at age 45 myself, I only really see if I am lucky another 20 years of gaming left for myself. Time will truely tell, but for me and my money...none will go to support 4ed D&D.

Penn

 

[flatscan]

Hey 'flatscan' the saying is "hair-brain" not "hat-brain"<VBG>!!!

I was still editing when you posted. Changed it to "gut-based" since that's what informs Sutek.

Time will truely tell, but for me and my money...none will go to support 4ed D&D.

As Herve pointed out, you're not in their target market...at all. Hell, beyond the PHB I bought last year, none of my money will go to support 4e either. I doubt WotC will miss either one of us. Heh, I'm too young to appreciate the Erol Otus cover for HackMaster Basic and too old to buy into D&D 4e.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Hey 'flatscan' the saying is "hair-brain" not "hat-brain"<VBG>!!! :roll:

I think actually it is "hare-brained".

 

[Demetrio]

the Erol Otus cover for HackMaster Basic

That cover burnss our eyess, precious! Yess it doesss.

I agree, 4th ed D&D target audience does not include everyone who played previous editions of D&D. Instead, and I think wisely from a commercial pov, they've chosen to pursue a 'growth market'. This is pretty typical of large companies that take over successful niche prioduct. they seek to enlarge its customer base. It annoys folk who liked 'the old stuff' but almost always brings in more bucks. And that, after all, is why people sell things. to make money. And big companies will always want to make more money.

So by all means hate WotC or Hasbro, but don't kid yourselves that the product is 'failing' based on scant and largely hearsay evidence.

 

[Sutek]

On the other hand, for how 4e has sold since its 2008 release, they've got over 2000+ 4e games which we know came out last year or sooner. That's 2000+ games (that people are having fun playing btw, otherwise they wouldn't spend the considerable time making a wiki for it) that average 4-6 players. On the low end that's 8000+ PHBs, 2000+ DMGs, & 2000+ MMs for 4e sold.

I know, these numbers don't mean anything to you. They're evidence contrary to what you want to believe after all. But as other posters on this board can see with these numbers, Amazon's numbers, and the Wall Street Journals numbers, 4e isn't the slumdog in sales you claim it to be. Continue with your conspiracy theories however. In three years when 4e is still the majority of the RPG market we'll see what gut-based theory you have to promote then. :roll:

Those numbers totally mean something to me, Flatscan. They mean to me this very simple thing: Without marketing or original publisher support, the 3.X gaming has held it's own against millions of dollars, a complete system revamp and the WOTC juggernaut and still quite possibly claims a 1:2 ratio to it's supposed "dominator" (DD4) even two years on.

I don't claim DD4 to be a "slumdog" in sales. I claim that 3.X is continuing to sell well and maintain system support from many different publishers even after the DD4 axe supposedly dropped on its neck.

As to your "In three years" challenge, I call. Because, you see, that all depends on whether DD4 is even still around in three years time, or if WOTC announces DD4.5 for 2012! :shock:

 

[flatscan]

Those numbers totally mean something to me, Flatscan. They mean to me this very simple thing: Without marketing or original publisher support, the 3.X gaming has held it's own against millions of dollars, a complete system revamp and the WOTC juggernaut and still quite possibly claims a 1:2 ratio to it's supposed "dominator" (DD4) even two years on.

Are you from the future? It's been less than a year since 4e came out (June 2008). As I said, most of those wikis for 3.5 were in existence when I first started paying attention to OP in 2007. You can't compare them to 4e because they were created before 4e hit the market. I'm sure there are more 3.5 wikis getting added today, but it's nothing compared to the growth of 4e wikis in less than a year.

Regardless, yes, we'll wait and see.

 

[Demetrio]

Well D&D editions have become a good deal shorter lived since 3rd edition appeared.

AD&D lasted about 12 years before going into 2nd edition, which lasted nearly as long. 3rd edition lasted about 4 years and the mighty 3.5 - beloved of all I'm sure - less than 5 years. So, yes, I'd expect 4.5 to be released around 2012. That won't mean 4 has been a failure, any more than 3 or 3.5 were...

Sometimes new editions are needed. 3.5 had become a grotesque bloated monster, a many-headed hydra of prestige classes, core classes, extra feats etc etc. It was beloved of munchkins everywhere (and by many who were not munchkins of course). It was a nerds dream come true. it needed pruning, if not the axe being taken to it.

Of course the new edition is rather different and lacks some of the subtleties of 3.5. And, in due course, it will become the same sort of hydra as more and more crunch supplements are added to the system. But that's why 3.5 was a success - and why 4 will almost certainly be. Crunch sells. In bulk. And D&D has always grossly outstripped every other rpg (probably every other rpg combined) in terms of sales.

Whether or not 3.5 still continues to be strong is pretty irrelevant to teh success of 4. People were still playing AD&D long after 3 and 3.5 came along. And 'the old one was better' is not a unique complaint for 4 vs 3.5. Many Runequest devotees rued the appearance of the Avalon Hill edition (myself included).

But times change.

 

[Krushnak]

WIth the basic set for Hackmaster 5th ed coming out later this year i really couldnt give a toss about wotc or hasbro. honestly i hope they do crash because atleast then it would give a real gaming company a chance to pick up the d&d and star wars licenses.

 

[Strom]

WIth the basic set for Hackmaster 5th ed coming out later this year i really couldnt give a toss about wotc or hasbro. honestly i hope they do crash because atleast then it would give a real gaming company a chance to pick up the d&d and star wars licenses.

What is a "real gaming comapny?" :shock:

Jolly is the first one to support a healthy D&D for the good of the industry.

I am looking forward to Hackmaster 5e.

 

[Dark Mistress]

WIth the basic set for Hackmaster 5th ed coming out later this year i really couldnt give a toss about wotc or hasbro. honestly i hope they do crash because atleast then it would give a real gaming company a chance to pick up the d&d and star wars licenses.

What is a "real gaming comapny?" :shock:

Not to speak for someone else but in my experience and my personal view is when someone says something like this. What they mean is a company run by gamers, designed by gamers for gamers. Not a company that cares about the bottomline first and formost. Nothing wrong with a company making money as they have to. It is when a company loses site of the fans and community it caters to that people get upset. Lets face it ours is a niche hobby and always will be and is best severed by niche companies.

 

[Strom]

WIth the basic set for Hackmaster 5th ed coming out later this year i really couldnt give a toss about wotc or hasbro. honestly i hope they do crash because atleast then it would give a real gaming company a chance to pick up the d&d and star wars licenses.

What is a "real gaming comapny?" :shock:

Not to speak for someone else but in my experience and my personal view is when someone says something like this. What they mean is a company run by gamers, designed by gamers for gamers. Not a company that cares about the bottomline first and formost. Nothing wrong with a company making money as they have to. It is when a company loses site of the fans and community it caters to that people get upset. Lets face it ours is a niche hobby and always will be and is best severed by niche companies.

I think if you produce something that will not make you money - then you are not putting the bottom line first. Few game companies find that alternative attractive or even an option. When you realize that, then the only difference are the zeros on that bottom line. Plus, I would argue most every "niche" gaming company would love to have the resources WOTC has to offer. Would love it.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I think if you produce something that will not make you money - then you are not putting the bottom line first. Few game companies find that alternative attractive or even an option.

At least it takes some idealism. Look at any rpg publisher in non-english speaking countries. Any english-publishing company has the advantage of a huge potential customer base with about 500 million native speakers and and probably as many who have it as a second language (like myself). [of course only a very small fraction of these are gamers, but I just want to compare the relative numbers]

Opposed to that, a german publisher for instance can supply the gamers of Germany, Austria, Switzerland (partly) and that's it - about 100 million people altogether, so the relevant number is 1/10 (assuming that the gamer quota is similar). So a German game company can hope to sell only one tenth as many units of anything as an english-publishing company. Actually even less because most German gamers also speak English and often will rather buy the original because they don't have to wait for the translation and it's often cheaper.

So publishing an RPG in a non-english language is always a venture and rarely very profitable. The publishers also cut the corners wherever possible. Authors and translators receive very measly payment - less than a _third_ of what any cheapass pocket novel translator gets. That means that only enthusiasts will even take those jobs because you certainly can't live off them. The companies make just enough margin to make ends meet, keep their shop running and feed a handful of core employees. It happens rather often that a company has to abandon a product or license since the local customer base just isn't big enough.

You can't get rich with RPGs, at least not with non-english publications, and probably not even with these.

(edited for grammar)

 

[rabindranath72]

WIth the basic set for Hackmaster 5th ed coming out later this year i really couldnt give a toss about wotc or hasbro. honestly i hope they do crash because atleast then it would give a real gaming company a chance to pick up the d&d and star wars licenses.

Look forward to that baby! 8)

 

[Hervé]

I agree with Clovenhoof last post.

It seems there's a huge paradox in most gamers'minds. They want more products, they want better quality of both contents and printing, but are often not ready to pay good money for it and generally won't accept that a company is making money from their games.

If you don't make money with RPG books, you simply stop publishing them, or else your company will crash.

 

[Dark Mistress]

No one said anything about not making money. I said their is a difference between caring about the money first and caring about the customers first. You can make money and still cater to your customers.

 

[Demetrio]

If you are small, yes. Because actually you're not making much money. Big companies struggle with that for many reasons. And companies that are owned by a behemoth much more so.

In the main it's because big companies very seldom deal with their customers on a personal level. But even so, I suspect 4th edition D&D has brought plenty of enjoyment to many, many folk (not me, mind you). That's catering for your customers in a way - and perhaps in the most important way.

 

[Strom]

No one said anything about not making money. I said their is a difference between caring about the money first and caring about the customers first. You can make money and still cater to your customers.

I understood you Mistress - I'm saying that all real gaming companies care about their bottom line first - that is the best way to care about your customers. If you go the route you suggest - then you will have no customers. It's naive to think otherwise, IMHO.