Quote from: AosI don't think D&D insider has anything to do with 4e's success or lack thereof. Or rather, I think DDI can only help.  Every other edition of D&D has managed to be successful without an online component. D&D insider is extra revenue if it works out, if not it just a failed support service, which is a vastly difference from having a failed game.

You think it will become the E-Tools or whatever it was called, the CD that came with the 3.5 books and was soon kicked to the curb?

1. I don't know what will happen to it. My 4e predictions (like that I would have no interest at all in the game, frex) are worthless, really.
2. What I am saying is that if it takes off, they make some money, maybe lots of money from it- if it doesn't they make their money on game books as per the usual. Either way win or lose, they get the money for the books. If I were to suspect the RPJerkoff of having an ulterior motive, i would say he wants to tie 4e's success to D&DI because it IS the most likely thing to fail. the game is likely to sell like crazy (already is actually) and lots of people will likely like it, regardless of quality (it's D&D after all and we are in a fanboi hobby).  If D&DI fails he can come and crow and call 4e a failure. He wants it to fail in the same way I wanted Phantom Menace to suck, so i get it. My wish came true, though, his has already died, so it must be recast into something new.
3. After reading statement 2, please reread the parenthetical section of statement 1

It's called 'moving the goalposts'.

According to Mearls, 3.5 outsold 3e: link.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiAccording to Mearls, 3.5 outsold 3e: link.

QuotePrint run size:

3.0 < 3.5 < 4e

Emph. mine.

Print run size is not the same as total sales. I suspect 3.0 had many more print runs and more total books sold than 3.5, but by then, marketing had a better idea of how much of a print run would sale how fast.

And of course, 4e has had one print run, going on two, but outselling the entire life of 3.0 in one print run? Unlikely.

Still nothing to sneeze at, though.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadPrint run size is not the same as total sales.

You're right.

Seanchai

I haven't shifted any goalposts; I've been saying since pretty much day one that initial sales of 4e would obviously be good; and since day 1 I've been arguing that the success or failure of the edition will end up being judged on two things:
1. the staying power of the book sales.
2. The success or failure of their whole online initiative.

RPGPundit

Judged by whom?
I bet WoTC will call it a success if they make a lot of money with it, regardless of whether the money comes from the online stuff or the books and minis.

Quote from: AosJudged by whom?
I bet WoTC will callit a success if they make a lot of money with, regardless of whether the money comes from the online stuff or the books and minis.

Yep. Ultimately it's profitability that will keep the game in print.

Quote from: AosJudged by whom?
I bet WoTC will call it a success if they make a lot of money with it, regardless of whether the money comes from the online stuff or the books and minis.

It will be precisely that definition of "a lot" of money.  Its pretty obvious that 3.x as it stood was making money for Hasbro, but not enough to satisfy them as "a lot".  They're expecting 4e to jump to a whole new level of popularity/profit; if it just stays about equal to 3e's level of profit, that will have to be considered a failure, considering the level of investment and effort they put into 4e's development.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt will be precisely that definition of "a lot" of money.  Its pretty obvious that 3.x as it stood was making money for Hasbro, but not enough to satisfy them as "a lot".  They're expecting 4e to jump to a whole new level of popularity/profit; if it just stays about equal to 3e's level of profit, that will have to be considered a failure, considering the level of investment and effort they put into 4e's development.

RPGPundit

I'd say that could very well depend on what direction 3.5 sales were heading and how fast.

If 3.5 was circling the drain compared with fgures at the height of 3E, and 4E comes in even moderately above that level with promises of restored revenue for a number of years through additional sales of suppiments (i.e. resetting the D&D clock) then it might still be considered a success.

TO be honest, demanding sales figures an order of magnitude greater than the previous game is a little harsh. D&DI might well do just that given the change in business model, but that level of revenue is a measure of the success of D&DI, not 4E.

Although its only very indirectly related to whatever measure of success you want to come up with, its still fun to look at Google trends on D&D, which show declining numbers of searches over the past several years:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=D%26D%2C+dungeons+and+dragons&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Here's the same, but with "Gygax" as a search term which dwarfs the searches for D&D right around his death:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=D%26D%2C+dungeons+and+dragons%2C+gygax&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

And finally, showing WoW:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=D%26D%2C+dungeons+and+dragons%2C+gygax%2C+world+of+warcraft&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

-Paul

WoW is clearly tapering off and heading down towards the up and coming D&D.  I bet Blizzard is in a panic!

While I suspect sarcasm in your post, walkerp, I think this is more of a pressing concern for Blizzard:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=+world+of+warcraft%2C+age+of+conan&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Quote from: jormungand1While I suspect sarcasm in your post, walkerp, I think this is more of a pressing concern for Blizzard:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=+world+of+warcraft%2C+age+of+conan&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

They aren't because Age of Conan requires significantly beefier specs to run than WOW, which is the heart of its strong network of users.