|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:02AM
#1
|
|
|
Late last year there was an ICv2 article showing Pathfinder outselling DnD. Up to this point, DnD seemed to be pretty set on their DnD Essentials reflavoring of 4e. I can't help but feel the decision to ditch 4e and rebrand the game as DnD Next was driven in part due to 4e's inability to compete with Pathfinder. 1. Do you think that there is a correlation between the ICv2 article/sales figures and the decision to scrap 4e and move to DnD Next? I could be wrong, WotC may have been planning on moving to DnD Next for a long time and this may have had nothing to do with the article. 2. If so, do you think that a forced edition upgrade will create a rushed development?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:13AM
#2
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I think that's fairly obvious. According to icv2, Pathfinder outsold D&D for the three quarters preceding D&D Next's announcement. Until then, D&D has never been less than number one in the RPG market. For all of 4e's merits (and I love 4e most of any edition), the OGL made it essentially impossible to not fracture the market if any D&D edition strays too far from the OGL.
D&D Next will be Wizards' second attempt to draw people away from the d20 market it created. If it fails, D&D will forever be shackled to the OGL.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:16AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
1. No.
Firstly because based on the average life-cycle of a D&D game (5 years) 4e was due to be replaced soon.
Secondly because 5e was already in very early development at that point.
Thirdly because the ICv2 poll isn't based upon any hard data but collections of annecdotes, and big companies like Hasbro generally do lots of market research before making a decision, WotC are unlikely to have been influenced by it.
2. See #1.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:20AM
#4
|
|
|
Well duh! Not because of the iCv2 articles, but because internal numbers showed that 4e was under performing quite early.
Design of 5e started in 2010, so they must of known back then (when D&D was still #1 in sells in iCv2) that the market was fractured and sells didn't meet expectations.
République du Plateau, Montréal, Québec
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:32AM
#5
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Firstly because based on the average life-cycle of a D&D game (5 years) 4e was due to be replaced soon.
I don't think that's true.
First edition, 1978, was not "replaced" until Second Edition, in 1987. Nine years.
Second edition, 1987, was not "replaced" until Third Edition, in 2000. Thirteen years.
Third edition, 2000, was not "replaced" until 3.5, in 2003. Three years.
3.5, 2003, was not "replaced" until 4e, in 2008. Five years.
4e, 2008, will be replaced when Next is released, likely in 2014. Six years.
I define "replace" as when the initial rulebooks plus errata alone are not compatible with current releases. That's five editions in 36 years, or an average of 7.2 years. If you count 3e and 3.5 as one edition (dubious, but plausible), then it's 4 editions in 36 years, or an average of 9 years.
Either way, the announcement of 4e in 2012, and, essentially, the cesssation of books containing 4e mechanics after Dungeon Survival Guide this month, 4e barely outlived 3.0.
Secondly because 5e was already in very early development at that point.
Doubtful. Next got kickstarted when Monte Cook was brought on in September 2011. That's the third quarter of 2011. According to icv2, Pathfinder beat D&D in he second quarter of 2011. It had been tied or close to tied with D&D (also unheard of in the industry) for the three quarters preceding that.
The timing does not work with 5e having been planned before Pathfinder's rise. Rather, it makes more sense that 5e was a reaction to Pathfinder's success.
Thirdly because the ICv2 poll isn't based upon any hard data but collections of annecdotes
Anecdotes are merely one aspect of icv2's mehodology and it is the accepted source of information on sales data in the marketplace. Wizards likely has superior data on its own sales, but it has no way of knowing its competitors' sales (and vice versa). Both Paizo and Wizards employees have stated they have found icv2's figures to be an accurate rough representation of brand success.
We may not want it to be true, but, as far as anybody who would know the industry eems to behave, icv2 is accurate. D&D has been toppled. Frankly, given the diminished release schedule, I'd be surprised if Paizo doesn't continue to dominate sales until at least the release of Next. After that it will depend entirely on the strength of the new game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:36AM
#6
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Design of 5e started in 2010, so they must of known back then (when D&D was still #1 in sells in iCv2) that the market was fractured and sells didn't meet expectations.
On what basis do you believe design of 5e began in 2010... only two years after 4e was released. In September 2010, they began the release of Essentials, which means 2010 would have been the time when Essentials was being designed and released.
Next was probably started with the basic glimmer of an idea when Mearls was promoted to Group Manager in the beginning of 2011, but didn't get really moving until September when Cook was hired on.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:59AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
|
On what basis do you believe design of 5e began in 2010... only two years after 4e was released. In September 2010, they began the release of Essentials, which means 2010 would have been the time when Essentials was being designed and released.
Next was probably started with the basic glimmer of an idea when Mearls was promoted to Group Manager in the beginning of 2011, but didn't get really moving until September when Cook was hired on.
I'll go with Mearls when he said it started in late 2010. geek-news.mtv.com/2012/01/20/lead-develo...
It might not have been full blown developpement, but that is when it started.
My theory, I'll stress that, is that in house numbers showed that Essentials didn't catch on like they wanted (it was ment as an olive branch to those who left, because more in house numbers showed that 4e wasn't meeting expectations), so it was decided to explore a new editon.
Remember that iCv2 showed that D&D and Pathfinder tied in sells that years (well in one quarter). WotC must have had better numbers on there sell and new things weren't that good.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:04AM
#8
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I'll go with Mearls when he said it started in late 2010. geek-news.mtv.com/2012/01/20/lead-develo...
Fair enough. Mearls said late 2010, and I guessed early 2011. I guess I was off by a few months.
Remember that iCv2 showed that D&D and Pathfinder tied in sells that years (well in one quarter). WotC must have had better numbers on there sell and new things weren't that good.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:06AM
#9
|
|
|
So is DnD Next a natural evolution driven by creativity and the desire to improve the game based on lessons learned from 4e, or is it a forced evolution used simply as a business tactic to regain market share lost to games such as Pathfinder?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:10AM
#10
|
|
|
Both.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
