|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 6:24PM
#81
|
|
|
As far as I understand, the 50-100 million thing is secondhand boardroom babble from 6 years ago.
With inflation the figures are probably 60 - 120 million by now.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 6:53PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I think the D&D name is immensely valuable. I think some percentage of the overall rpg market will buy anything (the core books) with the name D&D on it. 4e capitalized on all of this. Keep in mind that I hate 4e but still bought the core.
That Pathfinder took a ten year old game, and revised it modestly and then went on to beat D&D the 800lb gorilla of gaming is nothing less than miraculous. There is only two possible explanations. The Paizo owners are some of the greatest minds in business or 4e was widely rejected. I go for a bit of both. I do think Paizo is savvy and WOTC could learn from them. Adventure paths for one. On the other hand, I do think that 4e was tried and found wanting by an awefully large group of people. 5e's challenge is that while many of those Pathfinder players probably bought the core D&D books they won't automatically return for 5e. They are going to have to earn their business.
I personally own the core of D&D all the way back to the blue box. I have been a very loyal customer. To be honest I thought 2e wasn't much. I liked 3e but it seems heavy after playing it for a long while. Tried 4e did not like it. The cost of books for me is not that big a deal. I keep telling myself though that if 5e looks too much like 4e then I have to vote. I have to send WOTC a message with my dollars. It will be painful to not buy the core books since it is such a tradition for me but I don't know of any other way to communicate with and/or influence them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 8:44PM
#83
|
|
|
As far as I understand, the 50-100 million thing is secondhand boardroom babble from 6 years ago.
With inflation the figures are probably 60 - 120 million by now.
Or the people who proposed it and agreed to it have been gone for 4 years, it's been entirely forgotten by current management if they ever knew about it, and it's entirely meaningless to bring it up now. Which, with what I know of corporate management, is far more likely.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 2:32AM
#84
|
|
|
As far as I understand, the 50-100 million thing is secondhand boardroom babble from 6 years ago.
I guess since we have so little to go on, we have to assume every rumor is true. Wait. What?
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 5:52AM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
I think the D&D name is immensely valuable. I think some percentage of the overall rpg market will buy anything (the core books) with the name D&D on it. 4e capitalized on all of this. Keep in mind that I hate 4e but still bought the core.
That Pathfinder took a ten year old game, and revised it modestly and then went on to beat D&D the 800lb gorilla of gaming is nothing less than miraculous. There is only two possible explanations. The Paizo owners are some of the greatest minds in business or 4e was widely rejected. I go for a bit of both. I do think Paizo is savvy and WOTC could learn from them. Adventure paths for one. On the other hand, I do think that 4e was tried and found wanting by an awefully large group of people. 5e's challenge is that while many of those Pathfinder players probably bought the core D&D books they won't automatically return for 5e. They are going to have to earn their business.
I personally own the core of D&D all the way back to the blue box. I have been a very loyal customer. To be honest I thought 2e wasn't much. I liked 3e but it seems heavy after playing it for a long while. Tried 4e did not like it. The cost of books for me is not that big a deal. I keep telling myself though that if 5e looks too much like 4e then I have to vote. I have to send WOTC a message with my dollars. It will be painful to not buy the core books since it is such a tradition for me but I don't know of any other way to communicate with and/or influence them.
Im no expert on the topic but this seems a pretty accurate analysis. I still question the wisdom of putting out a new edition IF the previous one is successful or even viable. I mean, I can understand if its "Old" and as a business you have done everything you can with it, sort of exhausting its creative momentum, but I find it hard to believe thats the case for 4th edition. It seems premature. 3rd editions reign (between 3rd, 3.5 and Pathfinder which I consider one and same) started in 2000 and in Pathfinder continues to today, so it could be said that even that was premature in the "lets abandon the mechanic" sense. It seems to me that they really should have stuck to it. Hind sight is always 20/20, but there must have been some indication that there was still a large fan base for the system.
I find myself caring less and less though to be honest. The D&D franchise as it is in 4th edition leaves a lot wanting and I have already moved on to games that Im pretty commited to at this point and love to play/run. Hence Im not sure any game no matter how good could really sway me at this point. I mean I have spent the better part of 300+ dollars this year alone on RPG books for Warhammer Fantasy 3.0, I can't really see myself ..... switching games at this point.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 7:37AM
#86
|
|
|
I agree with Verdegris_Sage.
It doesn't matter as much as people think if 4E was or was not successful. The edition cycle is getting shorter, and that's it. There're just so many books they can release while making steady money. At a certain point the books start competing with themselves (unless you're commited to buy every book). The core stuff has been released twice already, the most popular campign settings are already out there, there are many Player Option/Power books already. As someone said in another thread, during the life cycle of an edition, sales can only go down. They simply decided to be preemptive and cut away the late, slow years (3.5 definitely had them towards the end). I for one was not bothered by the announcement of D&D Next. I feel they released a fair amount of content for 4E to call it complete. I know I'll never get around to buying and reading half of the material, and I expect to play for years to come.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 3:20PM
#87
|
|
|
At this point I pretty much know one thing.I will not decide to buy 5th edition until I have borrowed at least the PHB for the game and read it in its entirety first.Let someone else take the hit first lol.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 7:55PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
I think the D&D name is immensely valuable. I think some percentage of the overall rpg market will buy anything (the core books) with the name D&D on it. 4e capitalized on all of this. Keep in mind that I hate 4e but still bought the core.
That Pathfinder took a ten year old game, and revised it modestly and then went on to beat D&D the 800lb gorilla of gaming is nothing less than miraculous. There is only two possible explanations. The Paizo owners are some of the greatest minds in business or 4e was widely rejected. I go for a bit of both. I do think Paizo is savvy and WOTC could learn from them. Adventure paths for one. On the other hand, I do think that 4e was tried and found wanting by an awefully large group of people. 5e's challenge is that while many of those Pathfinder players probably bought the core D&D books they won't automatically return for 5e. They are going to have to earn their business.
I personally own the core of D&D all the way back to the blue box. I have been a very loyal customer. To be honest I thought 2e wasn't much. I liked 3e but it seems heavy after playing it for a long while. Tried 4e did not like it. The cost of books for me is not that big a deal. I keep telling myself though that if 5e looks too much like 4e then I have to vote. I have to send WOTC a message with my dollars. It will be painful to not buy the core books since it is such a tradition for me but I don't know of any other way to communicate with and/or influence them.
This pretty much sums up my position as well (including red and blue box and playing 4e Cores). I currently play and love Pathfinder. I play it because it is 3.5 and still supported. I play it because it is D&D. To be fair, my perfect game (or the version of the game that is closest to the unachieveable perfect) is 3.5 but only using Core books and the 1st 4 Complete books. I feel that what made 3.5 "heavy" to me were the later books. Classes that used many more conditions, classes and feats that often weren't very balanced with the earlier books. A lot of the things in the latter books including the Book of Nine Swords and Magic Item Compendium (which my group calls the "Book of Broken Items") changed the game. Many of these things that set the tone for 4e I didn't like in 3.5.
I think there is a bit of twisted irony in the fact that 3e was probably replaced due to declining book sales late in its cycle, yet these same books are often what was touted as what was going to be great about 4e which is now getting replaced for poor book sales? Was it the age of the edition or was it that most people didn't like the new direction of late 3.5 into 4e that led to poor sales?
I'm here because I want to give Next a chance. I think there is a better D&D game that can be developed. I'd like that to be Next. If its not to my liking, I will not buy the books.
|
|
|
