Quote from: WarthurAh, but the "Ultimates" have the handicap that they run in parallel with the original series. There won't be two different games called "Dungeons & Dragons" around at the same time - there'll be "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition" and TERRA (Third Edition Rules for Roleplaying Adventure), or whatever the 3.X version of OSRIC/C&C ends up being called.

EDIT TO ADD: Woo!!! 666th post! :emot-rock:

Wait, it's a handicap?

That makes...no..sense...

If we take this analogy along the road, don't we end up being able to speculate that if they did still print (I assume Marvel is printing both) older edtions that it could be possible earlier editions sell better?

Would it make more business sense to split the product line somehow - one for the grognards and people who tend toward the older systems, and one for competing with MMORPG's?

Just a thought...

Quote from: James J SkachWait, it's a handicap?

That makes...no..sense...

It's a handicap in the sense that not everyone's going to want to buy two titles a month where there was only one.

QuoteWould it make more business sense to split the product line somehow - one for the grognards and people who tend toward the older systems, and one for competing with MMORPG's?

Just a thought...

It probably doesn't make sense for the RPG market. If you have two product lines for different audiences, then you're printing twice as many products but they're only selling half as much - precisely because they're intended for different audiences.

It makes more sense to keep one D&D product line, which will have access to the D&D name and product identity, as well as the successful official campaign settings.

I think Wizards have noticed that they have lost some oldschoolers to the likes of C&C and OSRIC. I also think they reckon they can afford to: they probably calculate that the people who like the innovations in 3.X, the people who will keep buying products for their favourite Wizards-owned campaign settings even if the system isn't necessarily optimised for their favoured playstyle, and the people who simply can't be bothered with playing a niche system which they struggle to find players for will outweigh the folks who are willing to go and play C&C or stick to their old TSR products. The remaining, loyal audience will be more than big enough to fill Wizards' coffers by buying 4th edition core rulebooks, supplements, campaign settings, DNDInsider subscriptions...

Quote from: StuartForm the July 2007 Comics Sales Charts & Market Share Report:

#10  AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #542
#16  UNCANNY X-MEN #488
#17  X-MEN #201
#25  ULTIMATE SPIDERMAN #111
#38  ULTIMATE X-MEN #84

Could you please explain how comic book sales are relevant to this discussion?

I mean beyond the anlogy Mike Mearls made in his blog.

Quote from: James J SkachWould it make more business sense to split the product line somehow - one for the grognards and people who tend toward the older systems, and one for competing with MMORPG's?

Probably not. It would increase total sales but would increase expenses by have to create two sets of products. A larger market could bear the increased expense and still be profitable. I'm not sure if WOTC is big enough. Guardians of Order definitely wasn't big enough.
 
It partly depends on how much 2 lines gets you compared to 1.  If it gives you 70% more, then it is a good idea, if it gives you 10% more, then not so good.  It's hard to gauge how many people that are buying B would still buy B if A were still available.

Quote from: DrewCould you please explain how comic book sales are relevant to this discussion?

I mean beyond the anlogy Mike Mearls made in his blog.

It's about the analogy Mike made on his blog (and why I quoted it).  It's pretty straightforward:

Mike Mearls said D&D 4e will be like the Marvel Ultimate line.

Unfortunately, the Marvel Ultimate line is not at popular as the non-Ultimate line.

This is either a bad analogy (on Mike's part), or a questionable strategy (on WotC's part).

That's it.

Quote from: StuartIt's about the analogy Mike made on his blog (and why I quoted it).  It's pretty straightforward:

Mike Mearls said D&D 4e will be like the Marvel Ultimate line.

Unfortunately, the Marvel Ultimate line is not at popular as the non-Ultimate line.

This is either a bad analogy (on Mike's part), or a questionable strategy (on WotC's part).

That's it.

Or he's talking from a design perspective, and therefore not speculating on sales.

Now whether the analogy is good or not (in a qualitative sense) is for the reader to decide. But it being a "questionable strategy (on WotC's) part" can only be considered if you're asserting that Marvel's sales figures have some bearing on WotC's.

Otherwise you might as well say that a reimagining/reboot/rebuilding from fundamentals approach is bad for everything because of the same data. I really don't get it.

My point is, you don't want to say "it's like Marvel's Ultimate line".  Better to say "it's like the new Battlestar Galactica" or something.

You're making more out of this than I am. It was more of an interesting (to me) aside on an off-hand analogy, rather than something worth debating at length.

Quote from: StuartIt's about the analogy Mike made on his blog (and why I quoted it).  It's pretty straightforward:

Mike Mearls said D&D 4e will be like the Marvel Ultimate line.

Unfortunately, the Marvel Ultimate line is not at popular as the non-Ultimate line.

This is either a bad analogy (on Mike's part), or a questionable strategy (on WotC's part).

That's it.

I say it's a bad analogy. The Marvel Ultimate line essentially has to compete with the non-Ultimate versions of its titles - it has to convince both current comic book fans and complete neophytes that it is worth reading the Ultimate version of a title as well as - or instead of - the non-Ultimate version.

Conversely, after the transition to 4th edition, the official D&D rulebooks being printed will all be 4th edition, if you want to get new official material for, say, Forgotten Realms or Eberron you'll have to buy supplements with 4th edition rules, and so on.

If anything, the analogy demonstrates why it would be a terrible idea to have two parallel D&D product lines. An extra comic book a month isn't a financial dealbreaker for many people. Two separate RPG product lines are a greater expense.

Actually, Stuart's point actually hints at exactly what I've been saying since the initial press release.

To hear the internet tell it, the Ultimate line is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in reality the sales numbers don't hold up.

It's the forum trap.  And here he is using it as an analogy for 4e's development?  

It's like he's handing me supporting statements on a silver platter.

Quote from: StuartMy point is, you don't want to say "it's like Marvel's Ultimate line".  Better to say "it's like the new Battlestar Galactica" or something.

Why? Marvel's Ultimate line isn't renowned for being a spectacular flop - it's in the charts, after all - and I'd argue that a geek audience is just as likely to understand a comparison with the Ultimate line as they would a comparison with Battlestar Galactica

Quote from: J ArcaneActually, Stuart's point actually hints at exactly what I've been saying since the initial press release.

To hear the internet tell it, the Ultimate line is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in reality the sales numbers don't hold up.

It's the forum trap.  And here he is using it as an analogy for 4e's development?  

It's like he's handing me supporting statements on a silver platter.

You know, I remember when 3.0 came out and people were saying it would spell curtains for Wizards' sales - and let's face it, 3E was such a different beast from 2E it trod on a hell of a lot of toes.

And yet, the mass exodus to other games simply hasn't happened. Even when there's alternatives available, D&D on a good month sells twenty to thirty times as many books as, say, the Castles and Crusades product line (see the charts in the stickied Comics and Games Retailer thread at the top of this here forum if you don't believe me).

Given that it's been made very clear that the transition from 3E to 4E is not going to be as revolutionary as that from 2E to 3E, I see no reason to expect a mass exodus from D&D.

Except that in my experience, there actually were people genuinely dissatisfied with 2e, especially after crap like Skills and Powers.  Most of the gamers I knew abandoned the system around that time.  

Whereas, with the exception of a minority voice in Internet forum whiners, I don't see that with 3e.  I see a lot of satisfied gamers who're being ignored, while the dev team simply takes it as some sort of fact that the game is broken.

Which is my whole point.  Mearls has spent too much time online, and let the True20 and C&C fans get to him, and started confusing their minority voice for the reality of the mainstream audience, and simply taking as read that the game in it's current form is "broken", when in fact it's anything but.

It's about the same feeling I get when I go back and read RPGnet threads and see Forge terminology just dropped into the conversation like it's nothing.

Quote from: J ArcaneExcept that in my experience, there actually were people genuinely dissatisfied with 2e, especially after crap like Skills and Powers.  Most of the gamers I knew abandoned the system around that time.  

Whereas, with the exception of a minority voice in Internet forum whiners, I don't see that with 3e.  I see a lot of satisfied gamers who're being ignored, while the dev team simply takes it as some sort of fact that the game is broken.

Except the dev team seem to be promising that the new features people love in 3E will still be there, by and large.

I have my own anecdotal evidence: in my area, people were broadly satisfied with 2e (although they pretty much ignored Skills and Powers). Then they were broadly satisfied with switching to 3e.

Can you really say, with a straight face, that your own personal subjective experience of your local roleplaying scene is any more legitimate than a minority faction of forum whiners?

And do you seriously believe that 4E is coming out to appease the whiners? If it is, why now, since they've been whining since 4E came out?

QuoteWhich is my whole point.  Mearls has spent too much time online, and let the True20 and C&C fans get to him, and started confusing their minority voice for the reality of the mainstream audience, and simply taking as read that the game in it's current form is "broken", when in fact it's anything but.

Point me to where Mearls is saying it's broken. He's saying some things can be improved, but that's not a controversial opinion.

I've always thought WotC has done a top-notch job with their marketing and business strategy -- it's only recently that I've been a bit puzzled by what they've been announcing.

WotC has done an excellent job building up their customer loyalty over the years.  They probably figure that even though some people wouldn't like the timing of the 4e announcement, the direction they're going with the Digital Initiative, or even the (suggested) changes in direction for the new edition -- they have enough customer good will to make this work.

Not only that, their customers are so loyal they become evangelists, and become part of the marketing effort.  That's awesome, and something any business aspires to.

Let me put it another way:

If the Forge or Ron Edwards makes a public statement saying that the way mainstream gamers play is broken and wrong, we rightly get up and arms and attack them.

However, when it's Wizards and Mike Mearls essentially saying that the most popular game in the world is broken, we just accept it as fact?

Why?  Is it just 'cause it's D&D?  Is it just 'cause "Mike Mearls and Wizards say so"?  I'd like to think the community here has more critical thinking skills than that, but apparently it's just a matter of the groupthink being on the "right" side this time.