Google Statistics on the Edition Wars

jeff37923 · July 01, 2012, 03:23:42 PM

This blog post was recommended to me by one of the local gamers and has got some pretty interesting data on Google searches for D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · July 01, 2012, 07:45:53 PM

I got an email from Kobold Courier (thanks to drivethru) that reported this and linked to the blog post, as well.

thedungeondelver · July 01, 2012, 09:59:52 PM

That's very neat! Thanks for the link.

Benoist · July 01, 2012, 10:00:23 PM

Very cool indeed.

Marleycat · July 02, 2012, 01:46:32 AM

Not sure about the numbers but it does show that that the OGL is working and 4e was and is a failure.

Why am I the only person not using a Magnificent Seven or The Good, Bad, and The Ugly avatar? Is there a female actress in either movie I could use?

Stainless · July 02, 2012, 02:47:36 AM

Marleycat, just use wonderwoman.

On the Google statistics; Was it 4e that introduced DDI? (I don't follow WotC D&D crap, so I'm not sure). If so, having an in-house character generator, etc. may be a reason for less need to search Google and hence the trends seen.

Marleycat · July 02, 2012, 03:12:07 AM

Quote from: Stainless;555536Marleycat, just use wonderwoman.

On the Google statistics; Was it 4e that introduced DDI? (I don't follow WotC D&D crap, so I'm not sure). If so, having an in-house character generator, etc. may be a reason for less need to search Google and hence the trends seen.

Yes, 4e introduced DDI and I think it's a big factor. Just wait until they stop DDI support for 4e. It won't be pretty.

Wonderwoman would never fit me maybe Selena whatever from the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie would be a good avatar to fit in? Though I love my current black cat avatar.

Teazia · July 02, 2012, 04:42:41 AM

This data proves absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt that 1e was the least popular edition by far, far, far:

How about that?!? What, crickets?

Stainless · July 02, 2012, 04:56:50 AM

Could the statistics be equally correlated to bloat? Not knowing anything about D&D editions other than 1e, was 3.5 more bloated than 3? With more product, and/or complex rules, one might expect more Google traffic. i.e., this analysis assumes Google traffic correlates with popularity, but of course it could simply correlate with confusion. After all, that's what Google queries are about; you go there when you have a question, don't know something, don't understand something.

Thus, I conclude that 1e was the most logically coherent and understandable edition. So I'm looking forward to getting the reprints and OSRIC.

danskmacabre · July 02, 2012, 05:08:45 AM

I've never played or run DnD 3, or 3.5.
Up until recently I ran Pathfinder regularly for about 2 years.
Sometimes when looking for information, I'd do 3.5 searches as PF and 3.5 are pretty compatible and there's a lot of material in 3.5 that doesn't exist in PF, but is easily usable.

So I wonder if the 3.5 / PF stats are skewed somewhat as some 3.5 searches are really PF searches and possibly the other way as well.

Marleycat · July 02, 2012, 05:26:14 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre;555568I've never played or run DnD 3, or 3.5.
Up until recently I ran Pathfinder regularly for about 2 years.
Sometimes when looking for information, I'd do 3.5 searches as PF and 3.5 are pretty compatible and there's a lot of material in 3.5 that doesn't exist in PF, but is easily usable.

So I wonder if the 3.5 / PF stats are skewed somewhat as some 3.5 searches are really PF searches and possibly the other way as well.

That's my opinion. But then again I'm taking Stainless's tack somewhat.

(un)reason · July 02, 2012, 07:49:44 AM

Quote from: Stainless;555564Could the statistics be equally correlated to bloat? Not knowing anything about D&D editions other than 1e, was 3.5 more bloated than 3? With more product, and/or complex rules, one might expect more Google traffic. i.e., this analysis assumes Google traffic correlates with popularity, but of course it could simply correlate with confusion. After all, that's what Google queries are about; you go there when you have a question, don't know something, don't understand something.

Thus, I conclude that 1e was the most logically coherent and understandable edition. So I'm looking forward to getting the reprints and OSRIC.

Not really. WotC were releasing products faster in the 3.0 days, but the average length of them was shorter, so overall, that kinda balances out. I think it's simply that when 3.5 came out, the majority of groups judged it an overall improvement and switched to it.

harpy · July 02, 2012, 08:48:01 AM

Data! Yum!

That is an interesting read. That rather flat line for 4e is what I find the most interesting. The google activity seems to chug along and likely at a volume that any smaller RPG publisher would be overjoyed to have. There are so many different ways to unpack that flat line though.

From my own perspective it speaks to me at how 4e's system itself is fine tuned and effective at what it does, but there is something about the overall package that doesn't capture the imagination the way the more open-ended yet muddied 3.5/Pathfinder mishmash of simulation and gamism grabs people's attention.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · July 02, 2012, 09:19:05 AM

On the line chart, I'm trying to figure out/remember what was happening mid-2009; both Pathfinder and 3.5 activity seem to simultaneous step up a notch about halfway through the year there (June or July at a guess).

Kaldric · July 02, 2012, 10:33:59 AM

Anybody who likes 1E, and has been playing it for decades, probably found their web resources for 1E content before 2004, and bookmarked them. I currently play 1E, but I don't do web-searches for it. Why would I?