| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 18:00:45
Interesting interview here.
quote:
Jones: First, I have to ask whether, as an experienced player of RPGs, you like the fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons?
Goodman: Yes, it’s a fun game, but I personally prefer earlier editions of D&D. I’m not really the target market for 4E. I also recognize that my personal preferences are not the way to run a business. Goodman Games will always publish old-school products because that’s the most fun for me, but it’s 4E that pays the bills. Take the market for 1E and add a couple zeroes to get to the people who still play 3E, then add several more zeroes and you’re up to the 4E market.
|
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 04:59:47
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Less than that, Ashe. It refers to the way rankings reflect positions during the previous week or so, to prevent 40 fans ordering something new in 10 minutes causing repeated wild "spikes" for items. And working the servers hard just to continually recalculate rankings.
I repeat: about a week.
Those spikes would upset those publishers paying co-op funds to Amazon (yes, folks, the rankings are also swayed by publishers PAYING for high visibility and rankings, just as they pay in the brick-and-mortar chains for prominent display positions, "dumps" [those stand-up cardboard temporary "racks" of titles that get planted in aisles], and so on).
I'm not taking any positions on these sales figures arguments. I'm simply pointing out that by their very nature, Amazon rankings can't be trusted for use in the sort of arguments being advanced in this thread.
We've come a long way from Gary sending individual boxes of hobby store orders out of Lake Geneva in the cab of Pete's Freight . . . (Yes, I AM that old. I DO remember hearing all about that. Yes, from Gary Gygax himself.)
love to all,
THO
I hold thee in the highest regard, milady. And I do know about spending money for the books to appear higher on lists (same that you can buy ad space on Google, which will help you appear higher on search results).
But I believe the link I posted before goes back 5-6 monts since you can also filter the list (on the left menus) to last 30 days, last 90 days or soon-to-be released. And the PHB 3.5 doesn't show up on those lists.
I hope I haven't offended. If I have, I'll be at GenCon ready for penance.  |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 03:51:33
Less than that, Ashe. It refers to the way rankings reflect positions during the previous week or so, to prevent 40 fans ordering something new in 10 minutes causing repeated wild "spikes" for items. And working the servers hard just to continually recalculate rankings.
I repeat: about a week.
Those spikes would upset those publishers paying co-op funds to Amazon (yes, folks, the rankings are also swayed by publishers PAYING for high visibility and rankings, just as they pay in the brick-and-mortar chains for prominent display positions, "dumps" [those stand-up cardboard temporary "racks" of titles that get planted in aisles], and so on).
I'm not taking any positions on these sales figures arguments. I'm simply pointing out that by their very nature, Amazon rankings can't be trusted for use in the sort of arguments being advanced in this thread.
We've come a long way from Gary sending individual boxes of hobby store orders out of Lake Geneva in the cab of Pete's Freight . . . (Yes, I AM that old. I DO remember hearing all about that. Yes, from Gary Gygax himself.)
love to all,
THO
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 00:51:56
I agree. I think the 'historical' probably only goes back 6 months or a year tops when figuring the Bestsellers lists. |
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 00:41:15
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So unless you're saying that Amazon is not comparing Forgotten Realms campaign books to each other, or D&D Player's Handbooks to each other, then the numbers I refer to still indicate that at least on Amazon, 3.5 stuff is doing better than 4.0 stuff.
Although, granted, it includes historical sales as well, which means the "3.0 Boom" that Mr. Goodman discusses is included in the totals.
Hmmm.. but that kinda contradicts his argument as well since seven of the top ten items are 4th Edition. Either that or the 'historical' sales don't go back that long.
"Historical sales" is not raw sales numbers. It's certainly not a simple comparison of the number of sales through Amazon since a book was released.
If it were, then Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (#10 in books) would have sold more copies, ever, than either the hardback (#135) or paperback (#13) American releases of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
So I'd say that items tend to fall off from the 'best seller' list over time, with recent sales bearing more weight on an item's place on the list than older sales. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 23:40:53
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
One of the issues with using Amazon is that it has such a great catalog and prices. It's only one store, and the ability to buy 3.5 material that's not available in, say, bookstores beyond the FLGS is somewhat unusual (on a whole across the D&D line.) Amazon and the FLGS are different indicators of success than the Barnes and Noble or Indigo that Wizards has been highly focusing on for about 10 years now. Amazon gains sales on 3.5 products due to supply issues, and it loses sales on 4e products due to increased supply. Just keep that in mind.
They also have better prices than brick and mortar stores, and are often far more convenient to buy from. And being an internet store, Amazon is in far more places than brick and mortar stores. Those are huge advantages, and it's part of the reason I don't think we can ignore Amazon when looking at 4E sales. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 23:27:25
One of the issues with using Amazon is that it has such a great catalog and prices. It's only one store, and the ability to buy 3.5 material that's not available in, say, bookstores beyond the FLGS is somewhat unusual (on a whole across the D&D line.) Amazon and the FLGS are different indicators of success than the Barnes and Noble or Indigo that Wizards has been highly focusing on for about 10 years now. Amazon gains sales on 3.5 products due to supply issues, and it loses sales on 4e products due to increased supply. Just keep that in mind. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 23:01:03
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So unless you're saying that Amazon is not comparing Forgotten Realms campaign books to each other, or D&D Player's Handbooks to each other, then the numbers I refer to still indicate that at least on Amazon, 3.5 stuff is doing better than 4.0 stuff.
Although, granted, it includes historical sales as well, which means the "3.0 Boom" that Mr. Goodman discusses is included in the totals.
Hmmm.. but that kinda contradicts his argument as well since seven of the top ten items are 4th Edition. Either that or the 'historical' sales don't go back that long.
And either way, it shows that the "neat-new-shiny" element of 4E still has it trailing 3.x stuff. While the historical element does factor in, we're going on more than a year for some of these books being out. All the hype, print runs being sold out, and talk from WotC about how good 4E is doing and how 3.x sucked is not being reflected by these numbers.
There's also the fact that as I said above, this hobby is bigger now than at just about any other point in its history. And yet, Amazon's numbers still show legacy stuff as having moved better.
Edit: I just want to clarify that I'm not arguing from an anti-4E standpoint. I'm just pointing out that Amazon's numbers don't reflect some of the things we're hearing from other sources. And about Mr. Goodman's comments in Ashe's post, I think it quite misleading to look solely at numbers and not at other very relevant factors. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 20:58:27
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So unless you're saying that Amazon is not comparing Forgotten Realms campaign books to each other, or D&D Player's Handbooks to each other, then the numbers I refer to still indicate that at least on Amazon, 3.5 stuff is doing better than 4.0 stuff.
Although, granted, it includes historical sales as well, which means the "3.0 Boom" that Mr. Goodman discusses is included in the totals.
Hmmm.. but that kinda contradicts his argument as well since seven of the top ten items are 4th Edition. Either that or the 'historical' sales don't go back that long. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 20:54:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I disagree with a couple of his points.
[...]
Irrelevant and disingenuous. For most of its history, there were less game stores to sell it, less ways for word of the game to spread, and simply less of a gaming market to sell to.
Neal Hebert has some interesting things to say in the comments of the interview.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 20:50:26
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Oh, and y'all might want to do a little research into which amazon sales ranks mean what.
Okay. From Amazon:
quote:
As an added service for customers, authors, publishers, artists, labels, and studios, we show how items in our catalog are selling. The lower the number, the higher the sales for that particular item. The calculation is based on Amazon.com sales and is updated each hour to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.com.
and
quote:
Our category sales ranks were created to highlight those categories where an item really stands out. We choose a few categories where the item has a high ranking in relation to other items in that category, and showcase them on the product page. Like Amazon.com Sales Rank, these category rankings are based on Amazon.com sales and updated every hour.
So unless you're saying that Amazon is not comparing Forgotten Realms campaign books to each other, or D&D Player's Handbooks to each other, then the numbers I refer to still indicate that at least on Amazon, 3.5 stuff is doing better than 4.0 stuff. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 20:46:31
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
From his original post on the subject:
(snipped for brevity)
I disagree with a couple of his points.
"Is 4E doing as well as 3E sales in 2001? Definitely not. That was the high point in a generation." He says you can't do a comparison because that was a high point... But it was also right after 3E came out, so I think it is a very valid comparison.
"D&D is selling more copies, reaching more customers, supporting more game stores, than it has during most of its history."
Irrelevant and disingenuous. For most of its history, there were less game stores to sell it, less ways for word of the game to spread, and simply less of a gaming market to sell to.
|
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 20:43:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
[br...since I don't know how the sales rank numbers are calculated. 
There's the rub. It's a subject of no small amount of controversy in the publishing and bookselling biz. You can be confident that a book in the top 1000 (overall, not in any particular category) is a hot seller, and you can be confident that a book in the top 50000 or so has sold at least a couple of copies in the last 24 hours. Beyond that, it's hard to say.
Anyway, probably a conversation best had elsewhere.
I put something about this in an RPGA forum (because he has some interesting stuff to say about the popularity of the RPGA right now) and totally brainslipped and put "John Goodman on the RPGA" as the thread title. Which would be pretty interesting, now, wouldn't it?
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 20:04:30
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Eh, he's not so much making an argument--or even giving a well informed opinion--as he is sharing the facts that he's encountered as unusually savvy RPG businessman.
I'll fix the link, sorry about that!
Oh, and y'all might want to do a little research into which amazon sales ranks mean what.
Cheers,
Well, I usually base the Amazon records off their Bestselling List (Fantasy -> Gaming categories), since I don't know how the sales rank numbers are calculated. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 19:57:31
Eh, he's not so much making an argument--or even giving a well informed opinion--as he is sharing the facts that he's encountered as unusually savvy RPG businessman.
I'll fix the link, sorry about that!
Oh, and y'all might want to do a little research into which amazon sales ranks mean what.
Cheers,
|
| Teneck |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 19:31:01
Thank you for posting that Ashe. He does have it fairly well reasoned out. I guess my main viewpoint is that I played for all those "decline" years, and I remember the peak years as well. IMHO the "ball out of the park" year in 2001 was because of several reasons.
1. The old guard (myself included) had been waiting decades for a fresh re-vamp of our addiction. So the time was due (or over due)
2. WotC had a new toy to play with so they seemed (to me anyway) to spend a lot more time and effort to get it launched.
I think the reason we don't see as much of a reaction for the new editions is because they are coming (in comparison) so rapid fire (every 2 or 3 years) that most of us with limited funds haven't finished exploring all the possibilities of the previous release. Personally I would probably be more receptive to a new edition if I have more time to anticipate it.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 19:19:27
From his original post on the subject:
quote:
With these myths dispelled, let's discuss the meaning of "doing well." First, some historical context. Before I founded Goodman Games, I wrote a book on the history of this industry. It was something of a research project that turned into a book. I was planning to start a game company, and I wanted to do it right, so I researched the history of the three primary publishing categories. Most of the gaming history that gets published these days is product-focused, with an emphasis on creators, artists, inspirations, and the like. My research was focused on the business strategies of the companies involved. For example, in the early 1980's when Games Workshop got the license to produce official D&D miniatures from TSR, they did absolutely nothing with it and effectively used it to shut down their competitors so they could launch their own fantasy miniatures line. Has anybody else here studied the retail locator lists in White Dwarf magazine over the 1980's? Cross-reference the independent hobby shops listed in the early 1980's against the addresses of the GW company shops listed in the late 1980's. It's fascinating; you can see the pattern of how GW opened shops in close proximity to their hobby accounts. If you ever want to learn actual TSR sales figures, do your homework and find all the lawsuits against them. It's all public record, and I've read it all. Dave Arneson sued TSR three times for unpaid royalties, and each of the court filings lists TSR sales figures for the years where he challenged.
All of this research (which I ultimately decided not to publish) forms the historical context for my opinion of D&D 4E. Dungeons & Dragons has had two, and exactly two, peak years. The first was 1982. The second was 2001. The mid-80's were a declining period, and the 90's were a trough. From a business perspective, the creatively-much-admired 1970's were really a low point for D&D. Fast growth, but very low sales volume compared to the years to come.
From 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."
But what do people compare 4E to?
One of the two best sales years in the past 35 years of D&D. Not the other 33 years.
Is 4E doing as well as 3E sales in 2001? Definitely not. That was the high point in a generation.
Is 4E doing as well as D&D sales in the times of 1974-1981? 1983 through 2000? And approximately 2002 through 2008?
Yes.
So, is 4E doing well?
Yes. In the 35 year history of D&D, we stand at a high point. D&D is selling more copies, reaching more customers, supporting more game stores, than it has during most of its history.
Will 4E do as well as 3E?
Maybe. But frankly, who cares? That's like asking if 4E will do as well as AD&D did in 1982. Or as well as 2nd edition did. Or as well as the little white box. Anybody who's ever had a job where they're accountable for sales numbers -- and I've had a lot of these -- knows that there are some marketing events that simply hit the ball out of the park. 3E was one of those, and it will be hard to top for a generation to come. It was a once-in-a-generation feat, just as D&D sales in 1982 were a once-in-a-generation feat. For twenty years following 1982, D&D sales never recovered their peak. Twenty years. From the vantage point of 1983, was D&D dying? In 1983, you could have said that. The twenty-year decline was starting. But D&D went on to have another peak in 2001.
From where we stand now, at the very beginning of 4E, I see a long, strong run ahead of us. Just as in 1982, it may be another twenty years before the generational peak of 3E is reached again. Or it could be next year, when the economy improves. Just as in 1983, who can say?
In the meantime, there are thousands of game stores clamoring for 4E product. And I'll be here publishing it for a long time.
My only complaint with his logic is that he is basically implying that even if WotC had not put out 3rd Edition, 2001 would have been their '2nd Great Year'. His logic confounds me regarding that he's viewing sales figures as if they have nothing to do with the product. |
| Teneck |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 19:09:07
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I listened to that interview as well and it was good, even if I don't agree with Mr. Goodman. And I heartily disagree with that last estimate as well. By Goodman's logic, if 4 million people are playing 4th Edition, then 40,000 are playing 3rd and 400 are playing 1st edition.
I have issues with that assessment as well. One wonders if he is assuming that all current players are making the transition to 4th Ed.
Edit: Dwarves have fat fingers and can't type well |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 19:00:22
Here's the link to the podcast of Mr. Goodman's interview.
EDIT: Oops... My link was to James Wyatt & Chris Perkins' interview on The Tome. It looks like Christopher was discussing THIS interview over at Kobold Quarterly. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 18:58:51
I listened to that interview as well and it was good, even if I don't agree with Mr. Goodman. And I heartily disagree with that last estimate as well. By Goodman's logic, if 4 million people are playing 4th Edition, then 40,000 are playing 3rd and 400 are playing 1st edition. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 18:56:04
Christopher, your link doesn't go anywhere. |
| Teneck |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 18:51:49
One big advantage I have noticed with the release of 4th Ed. The used bookstores now have a much larger selection of used 3.0 and 3.5 books available. I am awaiting more gold coins to drop in my pouch to be able to get them...but at least I know they are there. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jul 2009 : 18:41:44
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Interesting interview here.
quote:
Jones: First, I have to ask whether, as an experienced player of RPGs, you like the fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons?
Goodman: Yes, it’s a fun game, but I personally prefer earlier editions of D&D. I’m not really the target market for 4E. I also recognize that my personal preferences are not the way to run a business. Goodman Games will always publish old-school products because that’s the most fun for me, but it’s 4E that pays the bills. Take the market for 1E and add a couple zeroes to get to the people who still play 3E, then add several more zeroes and you’re up to the 4E market.
I'm wondering how accurate that last estimate is. A game designer whose blog I follow posted Amazon sales numbers the other day, and nothing 4E was doing dramatically better than 3.x stuff. All of the Sales Rank numbers were fairly close to each other, but the 3.5 PHB was higher in rank than the 4E PHB, and the FRCS was higher in rank than the FRCG. I know there's more sellers than just Amazon, but those numbers are still rather telling. |
|
|
