Quote from: Christopher Brady;1049062This.  That's it.  The numbers don't lie.

D&D isn't a fad. We just forgot how popular D&D was when 4E almost killed the hobby.

Quote from: Lurtch;1050029D&D isn't a fad. We just forgot how popular D&D was when 4E almost killed the hobby.

I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1050037I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

   That's what I remember hearing from WotC staff--the entire first print run sold out in pre-orders, for example. It did well on release, it just didn't have legs for a variety of reasons. I still think people underestimate the combination of the prestige format and emphasis on accessories with the economic crash of Fall 2008.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1050037I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

WoTC says the same things each time and we get no hard numbers. But third party publishers have talked about the hobby after 4E almost being killed. And not people that just relied on the OGL.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1050037I disliked 4e in the extreme.  I thought outside of some variants of Basic D&D that it was the worst edition of D&D.  However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on its sales, etc.  Quite the contrary, I've heard that it outsold 3e at its release compared to 3e's release.  

Does anyone have any insight on that?

I can believe that it sold well on release. A lot of people (like me) bought it sight unseen because it was the new edition of D&D. The WTF? reactions came after the money was already spent.

4e sold well at release but quickly fell off a cliff. There are bunch of data points out there; Amazon rankings, ICV2 reports, Pathfinder matching their sales then surpassing for awhile, the fact that the 5e PHB outsold the 4e one years ago (and 3e), etc.

Quote from: happyhermit;10500714e sold well at release but quickly fell off a cliff. There are bunch of data points out there; Amazon rankings, ICV2 reports, Pathfinder matching their sales then surpassing for awhile, the fact that the 5e PHB outsold the 4e one years ago (and 3e), etc.

  Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

  Or perhaps it was simply because the game's authors and fans didn't swear themselves to either demons (like the OSR) or devils (like Paizo and present WotC) and thus wound up getting slaughtered when the Blood War flared up again.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1050078Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

  Or perhaps it was simply because the game's authors and fans didn't swear themselves to either demons (like the OSR) or devils (like Paizo and present WotC) and thus wound up getting slaughtered when the Blood War flared up again.

Like I said, it didn't start out that way, it sold well at release. AFAIR from looking at the numbers it was not extraordinarily well (even at release) perhaps better than 3e, but it fell off very quickly. I just don't have the energy to look it up right now.

On second thought, here is some stuff I read recently;
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?651747-4-years-of-5E-on-Amazon-same-old-same-old

QuoteIn honor of the anniversary and all, I thought I would bring back some comparative numbers.

From here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...=1#post6526238

I use to use the wayback machine to get numbers like this, but then amazon put bots on it to stop that. Oh well.

Here is what I got:

4E PHB

Started at 33

Fell to 54

After six months its at 2,390

After one year: 6,435

That’s a big drop off. One issue could be other ways of getting it—there was a three book box set, a deluxe version, the pdf, and of course the character builder—but still, that’s a big drop.

We can also look at 3.5 PHB

After about 1 month its at 122

After 6 months 274

At the one year point it has dropped to 4844

But then rebounds, hanging around 1000, and reaching 969 two years after launch

In comparison the lowest 5e has ever fallen is like 675 and it has been trending higher over time.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1050060I can believe that it sold well on release. A lot of people (like me) bought it sight unseen because it was the new edition of D&D. The WTF? reactions came after the money was already spent.

Yeah, that happened to a lot of us. I bought 4E thinking "well, it's got to be an improvement over 3E" and to my surprise I was wrong.

The thing is, 4E might be a great RPG in its own right. It's just not D&D. My biggest stumbling block was putting 4E and D&D in the same thought. I bought a crapload of 4E stuff thinking that 4E was the future and I would eventually grow to love it, too. Still waiting.

4E achieves a significant amount of its excellence by being focused and relatively narrow, compared to other editions.  Which is great if you want to go with that focus, not so hot if you don't.  I would play 4E again before I'd play 3E again, on the grounds that 4E at least does a few more things better than 3E does.  But I don't particularly care to do what 4E or 3E does well, making the comparison moot for my practical purposes.  I can make either one of them do something I want, but it takes work.

In contrast, part of what is sustaining the interest in 5E is not that it is particularly great at anything, but that it does the core experience of playing D&D fairly well, and smoothly.  From there, you can tweak it to make it more like what you want, without having to fight the system in the process.  In effect, it is a lot like Basic/Expert and AD&D 1E in that respect--probably much more variety in how it is played at the various tables, as people have steered it into the game that they want.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;10501534E achieves a significant amount of its excellence by being focused and relatively narrow, compared to other editions.  Which is great if you want to go with that focus, not so hot if you don't.  I would play 4E again before I'd play 3E again, on the grounds that 4E at least does a few more things better than 3E does.  But I don't particularly care to do what 4E or 3E does well, making the comparison moot for my practical purposes.  I can make either one of them do something I want, but it takes work.

It definitely was a fun skirmisher. Especially on epic tier (or however it was called). And the two essentials books were cool.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1050078Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

  Or perhaps it was simply because the game's authors and fans didn't swear themselves to either demons (like the OSR) or devils (like Paizo and present WotC) and thus wound up getting slaughtered when the Blood War flared up again.

It failed as a result of its presentation. It was initially presented as fantasy superheroes 24/7 with a focus on combat encounters over roleplaying. Eventually players got bored like most do with any type of wargame aside from a few classics. The new options on were variations on the same theme of fantasy superheroics.

The exception based design could have been utilized a lot better for follow on products. One reason Magic the Gathering developed legs is that Wizards was able to refresh how the game was played over successive releases without having to make a completely new game each time. D&D 4e could have done this with say a Dark Sun release, a Eberron release, or a swords & sorcery release. Each release would still use the same core mechanics as the initial release of D&D 4e but with a different set of classes and abilities to make that release a new experience.

But that not what happened. So very quickly (relative to other RPG editions and systems, people got bored. In addition the exception based design is more labor intensive to modify in a substantive manner. Coupled with the combat heavy focus, the fact that is was D&D in name only, marketing issues, etc meant it quickly faded to the point that the market leader changed hands for the first time.

This is a link I wrote about D&D 4e back in 2008

https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2008/10/tale-of-two-4th-editions.html

From the mist of Alternate Earths

Fighting Giants is where AD&D went all wrong
Encouraged by the surprise success sales of G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl and G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King along with the blockbuster movie Clash of the Gaints, Gygax calls the staff of TSR into his office.

QuoteFrom now on AD&D is going to be about fighting Giants.

For the next two years a flurry of adventures was released. All of them about fighting giants including the classic Under The Storm Giant's Castle. Greyhawk was shelved in favor of a new setting which had as it's centerpiece a war against the giants. Unearthed Giants was quickly written and released giving new classes and new races revolving around fighting Giants.

However what seemed like a surefire way to capitalize on D&D's popularity and the excitement over the new Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, it became its death knell. Within two years of it's release, sales plummeted as gamers tired of fighting giants all the time and flocked to other games like Chaosium's Runequest and SPI's newly released Dragonquest.

There is growing excitement over Palladium Fantasy as many say it restores the wide ranging fantasy enjoyed by fans of original Dungeon & Dragons.  Now a 2nd Edition of AD&D is has been announced that promises to be a toolkit to allow referees to create any fantasy setting they desire. TSR is quick to note that fans of the Giant Wars will still find support in the 2nd Edition.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1050078Yes, yes, everyone (even those of us who like the game) admits that it wound up comparatively tanking. The question was if it started out that way, along with some discussion of the why.

One of the reasons why I gave up on 4e was because of Essentials.

My perception of Essentials was that it was a concession to the persistent naysayers who didn't play and didn't want to.  It was attempting to cater to an audience that was never going to be a customer anyway.  Whether that perception was firmly based in reality or not, it was the perception I had.

There were more reasons, but as soon as Essentials hit shelves and effectively created an edition split, I was done.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1050383One of the reasons why I gave up on 4e was because of Essentials.

My perception of Essentials was that it was a concession to the persistent naysayers who didn't play and didn't want to.  It was attempting to cater to an audience that was never going to be a customer anyway.  Whether that perception was firmly based in reality or not, it was the perception I had.

There were more reasons, but as soon as Essentials hit shelves and effectively created an edition split, I was done.

That makes no sense they are the same game. Just a different package of options with D&D 4e Core having more.