from alphastream.org: "As we stated previously, BookScan tracks the sales of all books sold in the US to big box stores. It excludes direct sales, digital sales, gaming stores, and comic book stores. It includes Amazon, though Amazon in some years (especially during the pandemic) provided either no data or partial data out of worries that it disclosed too much about Amazon sales."
basically, for something like the phb, it's useless in terms of absolute numbers.
Bumping for awareness since a lot seem to be disregarding this post. There's a large thread covering this on EN World and the TL;DR is that Bookscan data is voluntary and the 4k number was reported by a single distributor, so it obviously doesn't include any of the FGLS which WotC actually made the effort of promoting sales through them.
Among other things, WotC are no longer distributing through any of the major book distributors, but direct through Hasbro, so pure bookstores are probably no longer carrying it, which is gonna affect the bookscan data. They also have a brand-new distribution channel, and also the alt-art covers and early access to game stores thing, which I believe postdates Tasha's.
The comparison to Tasha's isn't useful, even without questions about on-sale dates, reporting periods, whether or not Amazon reports, etc.
BookScan accounts for print book sales on Amazon. How many times does this need to be repeated?
Barnes & Noble are selling the new PHB. So where are you getting this idea that "no major book distributors" are selling the thing?
The figures reflect print book sales for the first week of release.
In its first week of release Tasha's sole 130,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
In its first week of release the new PHB sold less than 4,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
That isn't nothing. No matter how much you conjure up all manner of variables that might have impacted these numbers.
Howweirdisweird, please read the quote above yours. Your information is incomplete.
Is there a source for that claim other than someone posted it on EnWorld?
Page 21, there's a scan of the Bookscan entry and it specifically lists Diamond Comics Distributors as the only entry. Funny thing, it was posted by Glicker himself LOL
"Lists"? There is no list.
I am not so sure I would trust that a correct reading of that image is that it is only showing the figures for one vender. It appears to be showing the sales figures for the product. The way Diamond Comic Distributors Inc is displayed above the title of the book and its ISBN and in the same greyed out text as is the ISBN makes it look as if it is in the field where the imprint would go. DCD is no publisher. It is a distributor. But for all we know it is the major licensed distributor Wizards are using who provide their physical books to all other vendors. And where does it say only a single source has reported numbers? I worked with bibliographic metadata for fifteen years and it makes no sense that a vendor's name would be there and not provided below where the sales are tabulated. In a list. Like you suggested. It looks to me—to use the expression of the person in the thread claiming it is only showing the numbers of a single vendor—that that is the item's entry. Not that DCD have their own entry on BookScan for every single book in existence they might distribute. Why would it be displayed where it is a if it were a part of the bibliographic description of the book?
Explain this to me.
We shall we have to wait and see what the numbers are like when others are reported in the event those are truly only the numbers for one vender.
I still predict the book is going to underperform. 5th. has been a smash hit. Unprecedented in the game's history. I cannot see them reproducing that success.
Howweirdisweird: I have an honest question. The numbers for Tasha's... When were they reported? I know they are the numbers for the first week of sales when Tasha's was released, but were all the numbers REPORTED in the first week? Because it could be that there's a lag-time between when a book is sold and when it is reported to Bookscan. So numbers regarding first week sales could lag by maybe up to 30 days? Is this possible?
It is very possible. The numbers are not at all 100 percent accurate. But even were such a lag to occur it still doesn't explain the difference in magnitude between those two sales figures.
It depends on when people are looking at the data. If people were looking at the Tasha's figures 3 years after release (like now) then all the data would have been entered (probably within the first two months), versus looking at the 2024 PHB so close to release.
As an analogy, let's say you're comparing voting data for a presidential election. You know the voting totals from 4 years ago, with 100% of precinct having reported results, but you might be comparing them to Nov. 5. at 7pm with only 3% of districts reporting in.
Among other things, WotC are no longer distributing through any of the major book distributors, but direct through Hasbro, so pure bookstores are probably no longer carrying it, which is gonna affect the bookscan data. They also have a brand-new distribution channel, and also the alt-art covers and early access to game stores thing, which I believe postdates Tasha's.
The comparison to Tasha's isn't useful, even without questions about on-sale dates, reporting periods, whether or not Amazon reports, etc.
BookScan accounts for print book sales on Amazon. How many times does this need to be repeated?
Barnes & Noble are selling the new PHB. So where are you getting this idea that "no major book distributors" are selling the thing?
The figures reflect print book sales for the first week of release.
In its first week of release Tasha's sole 130,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
In its first week of release the new PHB sold less than 4,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
That isn't nothing. No matter how much you conjure up all manner of variables that might have impacted these numbers.
And that data provider is most certainly NOT Amazon or Barnes & Noble, but Diamond Comic Distributors. No one else is currently reporting numbers from big retailers, and I wouldn't expect any for at least a few more weeks. Bookscan also doesn't include FLGS sales, which make the majority of the physical sales.
Many people on this thread at EN World pointed this out to Glicker (including FLGS owners) and he still doubled down the next day with another video swearing by Bookscan numbers.
BL: Bookscan is only reporting numbers for one account and do not reflect the full scope of how many 2024 PHB books have actually been sold. At this time, I am more inclined to believe WotC's Press Release based on statistical probability until real numbers come out. However, I do think the book is selling much better than what the naysayers say.
You keep repeating the same thing: It doesn't account for friendly local game store sales. Neither did it do that for Tasha's.How can you not understand what is such a basic concept and just go on to repeat what is an utterly useless observation to make in this discussion?
The claim being made in that thread is that BookScan was at the time only showing numbers for a single source. It's possible. But in that post we get This sounds to me and If I were a betting man and I find this about as convincing as anything Glicker might say.
That 4,000 figure is too low and nowhere near the number of copies that have actually sold. No question. More copies have sold than that. Over 130,000? It's likely. But that's a core rule book compared to a needless supplement.
Like I said. I think Wizards misjudged this release. Too many are satisfied with the game as is. Or have hacked it to produce what they want. I know more people saying they won't bother buying the new books than I do those who have. Is that a reflection of the broader community? Maybe not. But only time will tell.
And your claim is anecdotal, so it also doesn't have any relevance. Just because you know people that are not buying the book doesn't mean that is a majority opinion, so leave the conjectures out and bring facts before making a case.
Fact: Bookscan was reporting ONE single account for the week of 15-21 Sep (See post here)
Fact: A few youtube creators used that to generate ragebait videos about how the book was not selling well
Fact: Bookscan doesn't include FLGS numbers in their reports, as you've so graciously pointed out.
Fact: WotC claims the 2024 PHB has sold 3 times as much as the 2014 PHB did at launch, and has already surpassed Tasha's sales.
Fact: We know Tasha's sold approx. 130k at release based on Bookscan numbers for the period, and WotC considered it the fastest selling book released prior to the 2024 PHB. We also know that this was just what was reported to Bookscan and doesn't include FLGS data.
Conjecture: Based on this data, it's likely the 2024 PHB has sold more than 130k physical books since 3 September when FLGS started the early sales, and has probably surpassed Tasha's combined number for the period.
Your first "fact" is unsubstantiated. That screenshot shows no such thing. It does not say anywhere on that page that only a single vender has reported figures. That is people reading into the display of DCD whatever they want. Short of having a subscription and knowing how it presents its data it is pure speculation from people who can't cope with the idea the book might be underperforming.
Your third fact is irrelevant to the discussion. As Tasha's did not enjoy friendly local game store numbers in its performance on the site either. As has been pointed out to you more than once but you still don't get it. BookScan doesn't take data from most small book retailers. It is still the most reliable data provider in the industry. it doesn't lose that credibility just because you also can't cope with the idea the book might be underperforming.
Your fourth "fact" is a claim made by Wizards. A claim they could easily support if they just released those numbers. They won't.
That thread on EnWorld?
You have someone with a BookScan account who knows how data is presented on the site provided he himself is a publisher providing a screenshot showing reported sales for a week for a given product.
You then have people speculating a few things:
The fact it says DCD Inc above the title must mean those figures are only for copies reported by a single source among other sources from whom we are awaiting numbers without giving the slightest thought to the possibility that because DCD is not a single vendor or anything but a major distributor the reason its name is where it is on that page is because it is giving us the sales figures from a single source but it is the only one through which BookScan will obtain all numbers for that item. That makes far more sense than their being a whole other entry for every single item listed for every single possible data source. How many books are published? For every book on that site you believe there must be a different entry for every source of numbers? The seems highly unlikely. We only have one source of data so far? I am yet to see any proof for that claim beyond the placement of DCD on that page indicating we only have its numbers. We may do so. But not in the way you think.
Howweirdisweird: I have an honest question. The numbers for Tasha's... When were they reported? I know they are the numbers for the first week of sales when Tasha's was released, but were all the numbers REPORTED in the first week? Because it could be that there's a lag-time between when a book is sold and when it is reported to Bookscan. So numbers regarding first week sales could lag by maybe up to 30 days? Is this possible?
People have already pointed out that stores like Amazon usually provide updates at the end of the monthly sales period, so I would expect an update sometime next week. Also, this might also not happen since the 2024 PHB is classified as a toy on the backend rather than as a book.
On what date was Tasha's released? Would Amazon have not delayed reporting its numbers?
A toy? Dude you just shared a screenshot showing the book listed on BookScan. On Amazon it is categorized as a book. It overlaps with other categories like toys or hobbies. But you can go to Amazon right now and search for and find it in the book category. "On the backend"? Do you work for Amazon? Can you provide proof of this claim that Amazon don't report numbers for game products? How desperately are you running away from the possibility of underperformance?when you just have to make up things up?
And I can see that you are hoping it fails just by your demeanor, and at no point have I been rude or being mean unlike you, so let's stop here. As for the toy thing, just look at the top left corner where the book is bundled: in the Toy and Games category of Amazon. It may be a book, but Amazon is categorizing as a toy for sales purposes.
Your fourth "fact" is a claim made by Wizards. A claim they could easily support if they just released those numbers. They won't.
Guessing you have no intention of changing your mind - pretty clear at this point you are going to ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows your data point is effectively meaningless.
But, for folks who are trying to follow this discussion - the fact this user cavalierly dismissed in an effort to further their agenda is a legally binding statement by Wizards. Wizards is dumb at times; they’re not dumb enough to say something about sales data that can easily be proven false and open them up to a lawsuit. This fact is probably the best piece of evidence we have that the book is selling well - it’s the only one that someone would get in trouble for presenting if it were made up.
Among other things, WotC are no longer distributing through any of the major book distributors, but direct through Hasbro, so pure bookstores are probably no longer carrying it, which is gonna affect the bookscan data. They also have a brand-new distribution channel, and also the alt-art covers and early access to game stores thing, which I believe postdates Tasha's.
The comparison to Tasha's isn't useful, even without questions about on-sale dates, reporting periods, whether or not Amazon reports, etc.
BookScan accounts for print book sales on Amazon. How many times does this need to be repeated?
Barnes & Noble are selling the new PHB. So where are you getting this idea that "no major book distributors" are selling the thing?
The figures reflect print book sales for the first week of release.
In its first week of release Tasha's sole 130,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
In its first week of release the new PHB sold less than 4,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
That isn't nothing. No matter how much you conjure up all manner of variables that might have impacted these numbers.
And that data provider is most certainly NOT Amazon or Barnes & Noble, but Diamond Comic Distributors. No one else is currently reporting numbers from big retailers, and I wouldn't expect any for at least a few more weeks. Bookscan also doesn't include FLGS sales, which make the majority of the physical sales.
Many people on this thread at EN World pointed this out to Glicker (including FLGS owners) and he still doubled down the next day with another video swearing by Bookscan numbers.
BL: Bookscan is only reporting numbers for one account and do not reflect the full scope of how many 2024 PHB books have actually been sold. At this time, I am more inclined to believe WotC's Press Release based on statistical probability until real numbers come out. However, I do think the book is selling much better than what the naysayers say.
You keep repeating the same thing: It doesn't account for friendly local game store sales. Neither did it do that for Tasha's.How can you not understand what is such a basic concept and just go on to repeat what is an utterly useless observation to make in this discussion?
The claim being made in that thread is that BookScan was at the time only showing numbers for a single source. It's possible. But in that post we get This sounds to me and If I were a betting man and I find this about as convincing as anything Glicker might say.
That 4,000 figure is too low and nowhere near the number of copies that have actually sold. No question. More copies have sold than that. Over 130,000? It's likely. But that's a core rule book compared to a needless supplement.
Like I said. I think Wizards misjudged this release. Too many are satisfied with the game as is. Or have hacked it to produce what they want. I know more people saying they won't bother buying the new books than I do those who have. Is that a reflection of the broader community? Maybe not. But only time will tell.
And your claim is anecdotal, so it also doesn't have any relevance. Just because you know people that are not buying the book doesn't mean that is a majority opinion, so leave the conjectures out and bring facts before making a case.
Fact: Bookscan was reporting ONE single account for the week of 15-21 Sep (See post here)
Fact: A few youtube creators used that to generate ragebait videos about how the book was not selling well
Fact: Bookscan doesn't include FLGS numbers in their reports, as you've so graciously pointed out.
Fact: WotC claims the 2024 PHB has sold 3 times as much as the 2014 PHB did at launch, and has already surpassed Tasha's sales.
Fact: We know Tasha's sold approx. 130k at release based on Bookscan numbers for the period, and WotC considered it the fastest selling book released prior to the 2024 PHB. We also know that this was just what was reported to Bookscan and doesn't include FLGS data.
Conjecture: Based on this data, it's likely the 2024 PHB has sold more than 130k physical books since 3 September when FLGS started the early sales, and has probably surpassed Tasha's combined number for the period.
Your first "fact" is unsubstantiated. That screenshot shows no such thing. It does not say anywhere on that page that only a single vender has reported figures. That is people reading into the display of DCD whatever they want. Short of having a subscription and knowing how it presents its data it is pure speculation from people who can't cope with the idea the book might be underperforming.
Your third fact is irrelevant to the discussion. As Tasha's did not enjoy friendly local game store numbers in its performance on the site either. As has been pointed out to you more than once but you still don't get it. BookScan doesn't take data from most small book retailers. It is still the most reliable data provider in the industry. it doesn't lose that credibility just because you also can't cope with the idea the book might be underperforming.
Your fourth "fact" is a claim made by Wizards. A claim they could easily support if they just released those numbers. They won't.
And you have no data to prove that the book is underperforming, just a number that is being taken out of context by a group of people on youtube and forums, of which you seem to be part of. At this point in time you're just making wild speculations based on your expectations using skewed data. And please, do not tell me that I am desperate or any of the other trash talk you're saying, because that is what people unable to make arguments do to brownbeat others into submission. So if all you're going to do is that, then I have nothing to discuss with you.
Among other things, WotC are no longer distributing through any of the major book distributors, but direct through Hasbro, so pure bookstores are probably no longer carrying it, which is gonna affect the bookscan data. They also have a brand-new distribution channel, and also the alt-art covers and early access to game stores thing, which I believe postdates Tasha's.
The comparison to Tasha's isn't useful, even without questions about on-sale dates, reporting periods, whether or not Amazon reports, etc.
BookScan accounts for print book sales on Amazon. How many times does this need to be repeated?
I'll believe that. It's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is:
Even accounting for all the other factors I mentioned, the Bookscan PHB vs Tasha's numbers will not be comparable. They are measuring different slices of the sales numbers.
Barnes & Noble are selling the new PHB. So where are you getting this idea that "no major book distributors" are selling the thing?
Seriously, if you don't know the difference between a distributor and a retailer, you're not going to be able to provide cogent analysis of what these numbers mean.
The figures reflect print book sales for the first week of release.
In its first week of release Tasha's sole 130,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
When, in relation to the release, were The Tasha's numbers fully gathered? We are looking at them from several years later. We are looking at the PHB numbers from the lofty distance of like a week and a half. For them to be comparable, all the bookscan reporters have to all have a very short reporting cycle, with no corrections further down the line. You have already been told that not all reporters do that, and also that this number is based on one single reporter.
In its first week of release the new PHB sold less than 4,000 copies that were reported by that data provider.
By Diamond. Who sell it on to comic shops. And, I believe, also game stores who buy from the game distributer they own. (Assuming they report the games distributor sales, since it's mostly not books, whereas a good chunk of Diamond's business is counted as books.)
Now, since Hasbro also do their own distribution, Diamond only sell it on to comics and game shops who don't do business direct with Hasbro. Given the cash cow that is Magic, I'd estimate that a lot of those shops find it worth their while to do business with Hasbro.
2. BookScan reports what accounts for around85 percent of print book sales.
...that go through normal print distribution channels. The new Stephen King, sure. There's no direct sales channel for that, nor is his publisher selling direct to horror book stores.
Has the book even been on sale for a week?? Personally I've only just received my preorder...
Would the preorder bundle sales be counted as single book sales??
If you bought the bundle on here, it would not be included in the bookscan numbers at all. Ever. Neither version. WotC doesn’t report their numbers to bookscan.
Which is what some people are trying to point out is the many large gaps that bookscan has.
Also, as I re-read this I think it might come off as mean, but I’m really just trying to be helpful, not angry or anything.
Howweirdisweird: I have an honest question. The numbers for Tasha's... When were they reported? I know they are the numbers for the first week of sales when Tasha's was released, but were all the numbers REPORTED in the first week? Because it could be that there's a lag-time between when a book is sold and when it is reported to Bookscan. So numbers regarding first week sales could lag by maybe up to 30 days? Is this possible?
People have already pointed out that stores like Amazon usually provide updates at the end of the monthly sales period, so I would expect an update sometime next week. Also, this might also not happen since the 2024 PHB is classified as a toy on the backend rather than as a book.
On what date was Tasha's released? Would Amazon have not delayed reporting its numbers?
A toy? Dude you just shared a screenshot showing the book listed on BookScan. On Amazon it is categorized as a book. It overlaps with other categories like toys or hobbies. But you can go to Amazon right now and search for and find it in the book category. "On the backend"? Do you work for Amazon? Can you provide proof of this claim that Amazon don't report numbers for game products? How desperately are you running away from the possibility of underperformance?when you just have to make up things up?
And I can see that you are hoping it fails just by your demeanor, and at no point have I been rude or being mean unlike you, so let's stop here. As for the toy thing, just look at the top left corner where the book is bundled: in the Toy and Games category of Amazon. It may be a book, but Amazon is categorizing as a toy for sales purposes.
Um .. the very same search can be conducted under Books and you will get the same display but with Books in bold and not Toys and Games. But nice try.
And you have no data to prove that the book is underperforming, just a number that is being taken out of context by a group of people on youtube and forums, of which you seem to be part of. At this point in time you're just making wild speculations based on your expectations using skewed data. And please, do not tell me that I am desperate or any of the other trash talk you're saying, because that is what people unable to make arguments do to brownbeat others into submission. So if all you're going to do is that, then I have nothing to discuss with you.
That thread on EnWorld?
You have someone with a BookScan account who knows how data is presented on the site provided he himself is a publisher providing a screenshot showing reported sales for a week for a given product.
You then have people speculating a few things:
The fact it says DCD Inc above the title must mean those figures are only for copies reported by a single source among other sources from whom we are awaiting numbers without giving the slightest thought to the possibility that because DCD is not a single vendor or anything but a major distributor the reason its name is where it is on that page is because it is giving us the sales figures from a single source but it is the only one through which BookScan will obtain all numbers for that item. That makes far more sense than their being a whole other entry for every single item listed for every single possible data source. How many books are published? For every book on that site you believe there must be a different entry for every source of numbers? The seems highly unlikely. We only have one source of data so far? I am yet to see any proof for that claim beyond the placement of DCD on that page indicating we only have its numbers. We may do so. But not in the way you think.
Since WotC is a part of the publicly traded Hasbro corporation, their financial reports do become available for review at periodic intervals, and are independently audited with some major penalties if someone has been cooking the books. Falsifying their sales records on actual physical products that need to be manufactured, inventoried, distributed, receipted, and sometimes resold would be pretty dang close to impossible to hide from any serious investigation. There's a reason most of the big financial scandals you've heard of involve intangibles like stocks, money accounts, or property values- it's much easier to obfuscate the disposition of something no one can lay hands on.
TLDR: Yes, it is theoretically possible they issued a false statement, and even more theoretically possible they faked up evidence to support it, but in the real world doing the first will get the pants sued off them by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty when the audit report comes in and doing the second will add the SEC raining fire and brimstone on them and lead to jail time and additional fines on top of those breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits.
Ok, let’s just say we take the bookscan numbers at face value. Here are other problems. 1. Tasha’s came out prior to WotC selling books directly, and prior to their physical/digital bundles. They certainly took an unknown but non-0 number of sales from the companies which report to bookscan.
2. Tasha’s just came out on one day. There was no 2 week period of pre-orders. Followed by a second release date. So there was a large, but unknown number of sales made in the 2 weeks prior to the bookscan data. How much of that would have been reported to them is an open question. But it’s not nothing.
Tasha’s sales compared to this PHB sales is not going to be apples-to-apples by any stretch.
I would love to buy into the new ruleset, however until the character generation tools have a functional way to use either ruleset completely separate from each other, and the 24 ruleset is complete I will not buy anything from wizbro. My player groups are abandoning D&D due to how screwed up this roll out has been, I would love to continue to play, but I only play in person games with friends and friends of friends, it looks like I will be switching platforms to continue to play with my groups. Way to go wizbro! not everyone plays online games or AL games!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm not familiar with "BookScan" but the Q3 earnings call is right around the corner, and the stuff they say on those is independently audited. So I'll be waiting for that.
Tasha's BookScan numbers and PHB2024 BookScan numbers are not in any way comparable. Both use similar metrics - essentially, they measure how many physical sales via major retailers (B&M, Amazon physical marketplace, places like that). If the circumstances were the same, then it would be useful. But they're not:
When Tasha's was released, the main form of access was physical, either through major retailers (recorded by BookScan) or through LGS (not recorded by BookScan).
Now, WotC has been driving for sales through three main sources - LGS, incentivising it with early access, exclusive alternative art covers and advertising through DDB; DDB itself through early access and lower prices; and WotC directly through low prices, advertising and early access. None of those three report sales to BookScan.
Major retailers are seemingly being actively deemphasized - only "select" B&N stores are stocking them, for example.
People are, more and more, going digital. When I started in 2021, my entire table of 7 people was using physical copies. Now, we've all gone digital. One person has bought the physical 2024PHB out of the entire store (not just our table), and I was surprised that he got it at all.
Production issues are also limiting stock.
You just can't compare BookScan Tasha's numbers and 2024PHB numbers. As I've discussed before in this thread, the number being at all representative is absurd. Even if it were majorly flopping, they'd sell more than 3% of the numbers of Tasha's.
As mentioned in the video I shared earlier, there are multiple individual LGSs reporting sales of approximately 10% of the reported figures. I don't know how many LGSs there are, but extrapolating from a list of reported ones in Arizona on a website, that's over 550. If each one sold half of those numbers on average (I'm not going to adjust for the fact that I'm sure there are more than 12 in Arizona), then it only takes a small proportion to have been converted from major retailers for them to be smashing Tasha's numbers - that's before we look at DDB, which was (and probably still is) the fastest growing segment of the market, and WotC direct sales, which were practically non-existent when Tasha's came out.
Ultimately, the only people who know the real numbers are at WotC, and they say that it's smashing it, going three times faster than 2014PHB did (if anyone has numbers for 2014PHB's first week, I'd appreciate it - I can't seem to find them). Other data points, apart from the flawed BookScan numbers, all point roughly that way.
Now, I get that you don't necessarily want to trust WotC on that. I get it. I don't take what they say as Gospel either. However, there is only one data point suggesting that it's doing poorly, and it's both really obviously bad and doesn't pass the sniff test as well as having some obvious and serious flaws. So right now, the best thing to do is to wait for the earnings report.
Honestly, if that number is in any way comparable to Tasha's, it'll be extremely obvious. The kind of obvious that gets the entire team fired and massive restructuring happening, selling of IP and so forth. I'm pretty confident that it's not going to, though. Maybe it's underperforming, but it's not in the "fractions of a percent of expected sales" territory that's being claimed.*
* Let me be clear - I'm not saying that it is underperforming, only that's not outside the realm of possibility. It's just not underperforming that bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't know how well the game is or isn't selling, but I do know one thing. I like it a hell of a lot more than I thought I would. That said I was hesitant to buy the book and I'm a die hard D&D fan. If my "attitude" is representative of the community at large, meaning if people are like me and initially hesitate, that might explain the sales numbers.
For me personally the big check boxes are
Great art and presentation.
Fantastic edit of the rules and organization of the book.
I like the removal of optional rules from the Players Handbook, presumably all will be in the DMG. This feels right.
In every other way its just D&D as it has been for the last decade.
As for drawbacks.
I would have liked to have seen more customization of backgrounds.
I think they should have left Half-Elves and Half-Orcs in the game if nothing else out of tradition. It feels like they are missing.
This was an issue for me in the last game, but way too many species have darkvision, they should have been more selective with it.
All in all I think my first impressions are mostly positive, I went from hesitation to inspired.
That said I was hesitant to buy the book and I'm a die hard D&D fan. If my "attitude" is representative of the community at large, meaning if people are like me and initially hesitate, that might explain the sales numbers.
I'm sorry, but your anecdotal attitude is not a representation of the community at large, at most, of the people you interact with. I was looking extremely forward to the new book as were many others. But i wouldn't claim i'm representative either.
If you go by loud voices, 10 unhappy voices are always louder and more visible then the 1000 happy voices which are quiet as they have nothing to be mad about.
I think Amazon has reclassified D&D -- the 2024 PHB doesn't show up in the Books section (including the best sellers list), but does show up in the Toys and Games section (I cannot figure out which subsection). If people relying on Amazon statistics haven't adjusted, they would get nonsensically low sales numbers.
That said I was hesitant to buy the book and I'm a die hard D&D fan. If my "attitude" is representative of the community at large, meaning if people are like me and initially hesitate, that might explain the sales numbers.
I'm sorry, but your anecdotal attitude is not a representation of the community at large, at most, of the people you interact with. I was looking extremely forward to the new book as were many others. But i wouldn't claim i'm representative either.
If you go by loud voices, 10 unhappy voices are always louder and more visible then the 1000 happy voices which are quiet as they have nothing to be mad about.
Sometimes it's better to read with the intent to listen, rather than skim with the intent to hear what you want.
I neither suggested or implied that I was representing anyone. Read it again and try again. I said "IF" for a reason.
"Lists"? There is no list.
I am not so sure I would trust that a correct reading of that image is that it is only showing the figures for one vender. It appears to be showing the sales figures for the product. The way Diamond Comic Distributors Inc is displayed above the title of the book and its ISBN and in the same greyed out text as is the ISBN makes it look as if it is in the field where the imprint would go. DCD is no publisher. It is a distributor. But for all we know it is the major licensed distributor Wizards are using who provide their physical books to all other vendors. And where does it say only a single source has reported numbers? I worked with bibliographic metadata for fifteen years and it makes no sense that a vendor's name would be there and not provided below where the sales are tabulated. In a list. Like you suggested. It looks to me—to use the expression of the person in the thread claiming it is only showing the numbers of a single vendor—that that is the item's entry. Not that DCD have their own entry on BookScan for every single book in existence they might distribute. Why would it be displayed where it is a if it were a part of the bibliographic description of the book?
Explain this to me.
We shall we have to wait and see what the numbers are like when others are reported in the event those are truly only the numbers for one vender.
I still predict the book is going to underperform. 5th. has been a smash hit. Unprecedented in the game's history. I cannot see them reproducing that success.
It is very possible. The numbers are not at all 100 percent accurate. But even were such a lag to occur it still doesn't explain the difference in magnitude between those two sales figures.
It depends on when people are looking at the data. If people were looking at the Tasha's figures 3 years after release (like now) then all the data would have been entered (probably within the first two months), versus looking at the 2024 PHB so close to release.
As an analogy, let's say you're comparing voting data for a presidential election. You know the voting totals from 4 years ago, with 100% of precinct having reported results, but you might be comparing them to Nov. 5. at 7pm with only 3% of districts reporting in.
Your first "fact" is unsubstantiated. That screenshot shows no such thing. It does not say anywhere on that page that only a single vender has reported figures. That is people reading into the display of DCD whatever they want. Short of having a subscription and knowing how it presents its data it is pure speculation from people who can't cope with the idea the book might be underperforming.
Your third fact is irrelevant to the discussion. As Tasha's did not enjoy friendly local game store numbers in its performance on the site either. As has been pointed out to you more than once but you still don't get it. BookScan doesn't take data from most small book retailers. It is still the most reliable data provider in the industry. it doesn't lose that credibility just because you also can't cope with the idea the book might be underperforming.
Your fourth "fact" is a claim made by Wizards. A claim they could easily support if they just released those numbers. They won't.
That thread on EnWorld?
You have someone with a BookScan account who knows how data is presented on the site provided he himself is a publisher providing a screenshot showing reported sales for a week for a given product.
You then have people speculating a few things:
The fact it says DCD Inc above the title must mean those figures are only for copies reported by a single source among other sources from whom we are awaiting numbers without giving the slightest thought to the possibility that because DCD is not a single vendor or anything but a major distributor the reason its name is where it is on that page is because it is giving us the sales figures from a single source but it is the only one through which BookScan will obtain all numbers for that item. That makes far more sense than their being a whole other entry for every single item listed for every single possible data source. How many books are published? For every book on that site you believe there must be a different entry for every source of numbers? The seems highly unlikely. We only have one source of data so far? I am yet to see any proof for that claim beyond the placement of DCD on that page indicating we only have its numbers. We may do so. But not in the way you think.
And I can see that you are hoping it fails just by your demeanor, and at no point have I been rude or being mean unlike you, so let's stop here. As for the toy thing, just look at the top left corner where the book is bundled: in the Toy and Games category of Amazon. It may be a book, but Amazon is categorizing as a toy for sales purposes.
Guessing you have no intention of changing your mind - pretty clear at this point you are going to ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows your data point is effectively meaningless.
But, for folks who are trying to follow this discussion - the fact this user cavalierly dismissed in an effort to further their agenda is a legally binding statement by Wizards. Wizards is dumb at times; they’re not dumb enough to say something about sales data that can easily be proven false and open them up to a lawsuit. This fact is probably the best piece of evidence we have that the book is selling well - it’s the only one that someone would get in trouble for presenting if it were made up.
And you have no data to prove that the book is underperforming, just a number that is being taken out of context by a group of people on youtube and forums, of which you seem to be part of. At this point in time you're just making wild speculations based on your expectations using skewed data. And please, do not tell me that I am desperate or any of the other trash talk you're saying, because that is what people unable to make arguments do to brownbeat others into submission. So if all you're going to do is that, then I have nothing to discuss with you.
I'll believe that. It's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is:
Even accounting for all the other factors I mentioned, the Bookscan PHB vs Tasha's numbers will not be comparable. They are measuring different slices of the sales numbers.
Seriously, if you don't know the difference between a distributor and a retailer, you're not going to be able to provide cogent analysis of what these numbers mean.
When, in relation to the release, were The Tasha's numbers fully gathered? We are looking at them from several years later. We are looking at the PHB numbers from the lofty distance of like a week and a half. For them to be comparable, all the bookscan reporters have to all have a very short reporting cycle, with no corrections further down the line. You have already been told that not all reporters do that, and also that this number is based on one single reporter.
By Diamond. Who sell it on to comic shops. And, I believe, also game stores who buy from the game distributer they own. (Assuming they report the games distributor sales, since it's mostly not books, whereas a good chunk of Diamond's business is counted as books.)
Now, since Hasbro also do their own distribution, Diamond only sell it on to comics and game shops who don't do business direct with Hasbro. Given the cash cow that is Magic, I'd estimate that a lot of those shops find it worth their while to do business with Hasbro.
...that go through normal print distribution channels. The new Stephen King, sure. There's no direct sales channel for that, nor is his publisher selling direct to horror book stores.
If you bought the bundle on here, it would not be included in the bookscan numbers at all. Ever. Neither version. WotC doesn’t report their numbers to bookscan.
Which is what some people are trying to point out is the many large gaps that bookscan has.
Also, as I re-read this I think it might come off as mean, but I’m really just trying to be helpful, not angry or anything.
Um .. the very same search can be conducted under Books and you will get the same display but with Books in bold and not Toys and Games. But nice try.
That thread on EnWorld?
You have someone with a BookScan account who knows how data is presented on the site provided he himself is a publisher providing a screenshot showing reported sales for a week for a given product.
You then have people speculating a few things:
The fact it says DCD Inc above the title must mean those figures are only for copies reported by a single source among other sources from whom we are awaiting numbers without giving the slightest thought to the possibility that because DCD is not a single vendor or anything but a major distributor the reason its name is where it is on that page is because it is giving us the sales figures from a single source but it is the only one through which BookScan will obtain all numbers for that item. That makes far more sense than their being a whole other entry for every single item listed for every single possible data source. How many books are published? For every book on that site you believe there must be a different entry for every source of numbers? The seems highly unlikely. We only have one source of data so far? I am yet to see any proof for that claim beyond the placement of DCD on that page indicating we only have its numbers. We may do so. But not in the way you think.
Since WotC is a part of the publicly traded Hasbro corporation, their financial reports do become available for review at periodic intervals, and are independently audited with some major penalties if someone has been cooking the books. Falsifying their sales records on actual physical products that need to be manufactured, inventoried, distributed, receipted, and sometimes resold would be pretty dang close to impossible to hide from any serious investigation. There's a reason most of the big financial scandals you've heard of involve intangibles like stocks, money accounts, or property values- it's much easier to obfuscate the disposition of something no one can lay hands on.
TLDR: Yes, it is theoretically possible they issued a false statement, and even more theoretically possible they faked up evidence to support it, but in the real world doing the first will get the pants sued off them by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty when the audit report comes in and doing the second will add the SEC raining fire and brimstone on them and lead to jail time and additional fines on top of those breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits.
Ok, let’s just say we take the bookscan numbers at face value. Here are other problems.
1. Tasha’s came out prior to WotC selling books directly, and prior to their physical/digital bundles. They certainly took an unknown but non-0 number of sales from the companies which report to bookscan.
2. Tasha’s just came out on one day. There was no 2 week period of pre-orders. Followed by a second release date. So there was a large, but unknown number of sales made in the 2 weeks prior to the bookscan data. How much of that would have been reported to them is an open question. But it’s not nothing.
Tasha’s sales compared to this PHB sales is not going to be apples-to-apples by any stretch.
I would love to buy into the new ruleset, however until the character generation tools have a functional way to use either ruleset completely separate from each other, and the 24 ruleset is complete I will not buy anything from wizbro. My player groups are abandoning D&D due to how screwed up this roll out has been, I would love to continue to play, but I only play in person games with friends and friends of friends, it looks like I will be switching platforms to continue to play with my groups. Way to go wizbro! not everyone plays online games or AL games!
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm not familiar with "BookScan" but the Q3 earnings call is right around the corner, and the stuff they say on those is independently audited. So I'll be waiting for that.
Right, one final time.
Tasha's BookScan numbers and PHB2024 BookScan numbers are not in any way comparable. Both use similar metrics - essentially, they measure how many physical sales via major retailers (B&M, Amazon physical marketplace, places like that). If the circumstances were the same, then it would be useful. But they're not:
You just can't compare BookScan Tasha's numbers and 2024PHB numbers. As I've discussed before in this thread, the number being at all representative is absurd. Even if it were majorly flopping, they'd sell more than 3% of the numbers of Tasha's.
As mentioned in the video I shared earlier, there are multiple individual LGSs reporting sales of approximately 10% of the reported figures. I don't know how many LGSs there are, but extrapolating from a list of reported ones in Arizona on a website, that's over 550. If each one sold half of those numbers on average (I'm not going to adjust for the fact that I'm sure there are more than 12 in Arizona), then it only takes a small proportion to have been converted from major retailers for them to be smashing Tasha's numbers - that's before we look at DDB, which was (and probably still is) the fastest growing segment of the market, and WotC direct sales, which were practically non-existent when Tasha's came out.
Ultimately, the only people who know the real numbers are at WotC, and they say that it's smashing it, going three times faster than 2014PHB did (if anyone has numbers for 2014PHB's first week, I'd appreciate it - I can't seem to find them). Other data points, apart from the flawed BookScan numbers, all point roughly that way.
Now, I get that you don't necessarily want to trust WotC on that. I get it. I don't take what they say as Gospel either. However, there is only one data point suggesting that it's doing poorly, and it's both really obviously bad and doesn't pass the sniff test as well as having some obvious and serious flaws. So right now, the best thing to do is to wait for the earnings report.
Honestly, if that number is in any way comparable to Tasha's, it'll be extremely obvious. The kind of obvious that gets the entire team fired and massive restructuring happening, selling of IP and so forth. I'm pretty confident that it's not going to, though. Maybe it's underperforming, but it's not in the "fractions of a percent of expected sales" territory that's being claimed.*
* Let me be clear - I'm not saying that it is underperforming, only that's not outside the realm of possibility. It's just not underperforming that bad.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't know how well the game is or isn't selling, but I do know one thing. I like it a hell of a lot more than I thought I would. That said I was hesitant to buy the book and I'm a die hard D&D fan. If my "attitude" is representative of the community at large, meaning if people are like me and initially hesitate, that might explain the sales numbers.
For me personally the big check boxes are
In every other way its just D&D as it has been for the last decade.
As for drawbacks.
All in all I think my first impressions are mostly positive, I went from hesitation to inspired.
I'm sorry, but your anecdotal attitude is not a representation of the community at large, at most, of the people you interact with. I was looking extremely forward to the new book as were many others. But i wouldn't claim i'm representative either.
If you go by loud voices, 10 unhappy voices are always louder and more visible then the 1000 happy voices which are quiet as they have nothing to be mad about.
I think Amazon has reclassified D&D -- the 2024 PHB doesn't show up in the Books section (including the best sellers list), but does show up in the Toys and Games section (I cannot figure out which subsection). If people relying on Amazon statistics haven't adjusted, they would get nonsensically low sales numbers.
Sometimes it's better to read with the intent to listen, rather than skim with the intent to hear what you want.
I neither suggested or implied that I was representing anyone. Read it again and try again. I said "IF" for a reason.