Joseph Goodman's analysis of the state of 4e

jeff37923 · June 20, 2009, 08:24:33 PM

Quote from: obryn;309548Yes, conspiracy theories about ENWorld's moderators' ulterior motives will certainly elevate this thread!

-O

Could you tell me what conspiracy theory I'm advocating then, please?

Otherwise, just shut the fuck up.

jrients · June 20, 2009, 10:04:50 PM

QuoteFrom 1974 to 2009 is 35 years. Or, roughly two generations. D&D has roughly one peak every generation. 35 years total, 2 of which were great, and the other 33 of which were "okay."

How did Mr. Goodman decide that 35 years is roughly two generations? Two generations of what? And the assertion "D&D has roughly one peak every generation" seems like an awful big conclusion to draw from the available data pool of only 2 generations, whatever his definition of a generation is.

I don't doubt that Mr. Goodman has done his research or that he knows a helluva lot more about the game business than I do. But his argument as presented looks a little like he's offering a special pleading on behalf of 4e. Maybe if he had offered this argument well in advance of 4e apparently not selling as well as 3e it would look more credible. I dunno.

Narf the Mouse · June 20, 2009, 10:10:41 PM

Twenty years is the accepted scientific count for a human biological generation - Enough time for the average human to grow to biological adulthood.

Given that there's no other data pool, I fail to see how he could have gathered a larger sample - Although I do agree the data support is tenuous.

...I may not be reading this right, but are you asking him to offer reasons why 4e is selling well, in advance of any need to do so?

jrients · June 20, 2009, 10:17:59 PM

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;309556...I may not be reading this right, but are you asking him to offer reasons why 4e is selling well, in advance of any need to do so?

My thought is that with his generational theory he should have been able to predict prior to 4e's publication that it would not sell as well as 3e did in 2001.

Narf the Mouse · June 20, 2009, 10:27:32 PM

In which case, people would say "Obviously 4e isn't selling well - They're already making excuses".

No matter what you do, there will be yelling, screaming and accusations. (Not talking about you, just people in general)

Spike · June 20, 2009, 10:36:57 PM

My version of what he said:

4e is doing very well and any attempts to claim its not are based on an analomous data point from the 3E launch, based on real numbers that the rest of us are too lazy to actually look up.

Narf the Mouse · June 20, 2009, 10:43:53 PM

...Well, I'm certainly too lazy to look them up.

jrients · June 20, 2009, 10:44:17 PM

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;309558In which case, people would say "Obviously 4e isn't selling well - They're already making excuses".

Fair enough. That of course brings us around to the entire problem here. Wizards controls the most relevant data and seems to be in no mood to share. And Joseph Goodman's book remains unpublished.

Also, while we're discussing Mr. Goodman's argument, isn't he giving 4e a pass considering the level of changes made to the system? Perhaps I'm being unfair here, but I feel like anything less than a 1982/2001 home run is a fail for WotC, considering all the changes they made, all the sacred cows they killed in the name of progress.

Narf the Mouse · June 20, 2009, 10:46:53 PM

Everyone, give a big hello to my own personal spammer I seemed to have picked up in the last ten minutes.

Fire optional.

Hairfoot · June 20, 2009, 11:20:29 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;309550Could you tell me what conspiracy theory I'm advocating then, please?

The one that makes long-term ENworld members wonder if it's become the Gamespot of the RPG world?

Quote from: Joe GoodmanBack to myth #3: "retailers do not support 4E." Simply not true. Why not? Because Joe Goodman says so, and I know more about game stores than you do. Show me someone with the same list of credentials regarding direct retailer feedback, and I'll back down. Until then, the statement stands.

EDIT: a bit hasty in condemnation. I'll read it again.

Caesar Slaad · June 20, 2009, 11:23:05 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;309519Did anyone actually save the guy's parody before it got deleted by the mods? I would have liked reading it.

Really? Crap. And I had half a mind to copy and paste it.

It was pretty snarky, I guess I should have seen it coming.

obryn · June 21, 2009, 12:25:41 AM

Quote from: jeff37923;309550Could you tell me what conspiracy theory I'm advocating then, please?

Otherwise, just shut the fuck up.

I dunno, why don't you share why it's "significant"? Or are you happy with vague innuendoes? I mean, few things work better to shield you from your own asshattery!

Otherwise, just ... well, you know how that one ends!

-O

aramis · June 21, 2009, 12:58:28 AM

Quote from: Settembrini;3095304e moves a lot of product, especially through FLGS

4e launch shall never be compared to 3e launch in 2001, because it was a one-of-kind situation, that can´t be reasonably expected to happen again before 20 years have elapsed.

you missed a couple:

* I know the details of 4E sales because I'm a 3rd party publisher
* the PDF market is meaningless.

Koltar · June 21, 2009, 01:05:51 AM

Quote from: FASERIP;309540Why does he refer to himself in third person all the time?

FASERIP wants to know.

Koltar says thats not so strange.

- That guy Ed C.

Settembrini · June 21, 2009, 01:55:20 AM

Quote from: jrients;309561Fair enough. That of course brings us around to the entire problem here. Wizards controls the most relevant data and seems to be in no mood to share. And Joseph Goodman's book remains unpublished.

Also, while we're discussing Mr. Goodman's argument, isn't he giving 4e a pass considering the level of changes made to the system? Perhaps I'm being unfair here, but I feel like anything less than a 1982/2001 home run is a fail for WotC, considering all the changes they made, all the sacred cows they killed in the name of progress.

I concur to the fullest.