Folk, please avoid hyperbole and edition/generation warring by going from comparing Gygax and later developers to claiming no one can share their opinions on Gygax or that doing so is somehow the same as denying Gygax's influence or existence in the game entirely.
In fact, better to just stay on topic and avoid all such comparisons lest we derail.
As DNDShorts pointed out in a recent video, it is likely that Perkins and J-craw had been planning to leave for a bit now, and had been talkied into staying for the 5.24 update since all 3 core books are released now, they feel their duty is done and are now moving on like they intended. If we are gonna Occam's Razor things, that is the most plausible explanation at this time. No i am not discounting Corpo motivated retirement incentives or anything else, those are all very possible, but i think what is most probable, is they are just done with this chapter in their lives.
We will see what they say for themselves when the dust settles and their seats are filled with new cheeks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
As DNDShorts pointed out in a recent video, it is likely that Perkins and J-craw had been planning to leave for a bit now, and had been talkied into staying for the 5.24 update since all 3 core books are released now, they feel their duty is done and are now moving on like they intended. If we are gonna Occam's Razor things, that is the most plausible explanation at this time. No i am not discounting Corpo motivated retirement incentives or anything else, those are all very possible, but i think what is most probable, is they are just done with this chapter in their lives.
We will see what they say for themselves when the dust settles and their seats are filled with new cheeks.
It should be noted, DnDShorts is a known liar - he made up “insider info” during the OGL issue to take advantage of the situation and get views… and was wrong on every single piece of information he shared. I would take this information with a grain of salt also - it can be read as “these top designers wanted out and had to be begged to stay on a sinking product” - which is a narrative that fits very much with the anti-Wizards misinformation he spread during the OGL. He is exactly the kind of person who is going to try and milk this situation for page views… and we know he does not care about accuracy as long as it brings him the numbers. Legitimately do not know why anyone would watch someone who repeatedly proved their lack of scruples.
I also think it is just a dead wrong prediction. Neither Crawford nor Perkins are particularly great actors - Crawford in particular has gotten in some trouble for speaking his mind and saying quotes that were pretty harmless, but sounded bad out of context. These are not folks who are particularly adept at feigning excitement - and you just have to watch their videos during the 5.24 playtesting to see (a) they are genuinely excited about the product and (b) having fun working on it. Not exactly the kind of behavior one typically sees from individuals who had to be begged to stay on for a while longer to finish a job.
Additionally, these are large designers with long pedigrees - it is far more likely they always intended to go out with a bang than to casually retire where their last product was some random sourcebook. The idea they considered retiring before they could leave their stamp on the next decade of play is almost fanciful.
The Occam’s Razor answer is not what the hack DNDShorts proposed - it is exactly what both Crawford and Perkins said: that they always intended to go out with one last big product, and now that it is done, want to retire on a high note.
Whatever their reasons, one thing is certain: It could be very bad for D&D. Any franchise, especially one as old as D&D requires someone in the pilot seat that has been around long enough to understand it on a fundamental level. This doesn't necessarily need to come from long experience, but if the actors in charge are "anti-D&D" in the traditional sense and don't have a love for its history and legacy, then the inevitable next phase of the game is likely to be unrecognizable. We have seen even when experienced, long-time designers attempt to stray from the foundations of the game what happens (aka 4e).
What's important now is, who will be in charge of the franchise and what do they think about D&D and its long history. I would love for them to pull someone from the fan base who love the games legacy and bring them into a leadership role. Someone like Colvile or Mercer, but if we get another suit in charge or worse yet someone who hates D&D and wants to change everything about it, the game is going to be in real trouble.
Whatever their reasons, one thing is certain: It could be very bad for D&D. Any franchise, especially one as old as D&D requires someone in the pilot seat that has been around long enough to understand it on a fundamental level. This doesn't necessarily need to come from long experience, but if the actors in charge are "anti-D&D" in the traditional sense and don't have a love for its history and legacy, then the inevitable next phase of the game is likely to be unrecognizable. We have seen even when experienced, long-time designers attempt to stray from the foundations of the game what happens (aka 4e).
What's important now is, who will be in charge of the franchise and what do they think about D&D and its long history. I would love for them to pull someone from the fan base who love the games legacy and bring them into a leadership role. Someone like Colvile or Mercer, but if we get another suit in charge or worse yet someone who hates D&D and wants to change everything about it, the game is going to be in real trouble.
Another thing that’s for certain is it could be very good for D&D. Someone with fresh eyes and fresh energy who doesn’t feel tied to doing things a certain way because that’s always the way D&D has done it. (And before anyone starts with history lessons, I’ve been playing since 1e. I’m well aware of the history.) Things that don’t evolve die out.
Whatever their reasons, one thing is certain: It could be very bad for D&D. Any franchise, especially one as old as D&D requires someone in the pilot seat that has been around long enough to understand it on a fundamental level.
Given that we still have James Wyatt (been playing since Basic and designing for the game since TSR) and Wes Schneider (designing since 3e) then this dubious criterion is met, no?
We have seen even when experienced, long-time designers attempt to stray from the foundations of the game what happens (aka 4e).
This seems to contradict your own premise. If even long-term designers like Perkins himself are capable of making something that you see as a failure, then the leads' tenure with D&D specifically is not an ironclad predictor of success regardless. What matters is their game design chops more generally, and how well their skillset translates to TTRPGs, not whether they've played with THAC0 before or know what nonweapon proficiencies are etc.
As DNDShorts pointed out in a recent video, it is likely that Perkins and J-craw had been planning to leave for a bit now, and had been talkied into staying for the 5.24 update since all 3 core books are released now, they feel their duty is done and are now moving on like they intended. If we are gonna Occam's Razor things, that is the most plausible explanation at this time. No i am not discounting Corpo motivated retirement incentives or anything else, those are all very possible, but i think what is most probable, is they are just done with this chapter in their lives.
We will see what they say for themselves when the dust settles and their seats are filled with new cheeks.
It should be noted, DnDShorts is a known liar - he made up “insider info” during the OGL issue to take advantage of the situation and get views… and was wrong on every single piece of information he shared. I would take this information with a grain of salt also - it can be read as “these top designers wanted out and had to be begged to stay on a sinking product” - which is a narrative that fits very much with the anti-Wizards misinformation he spread during the OGL. He is exactly the kind of person who is going to try and milk this situation for page views… and we know he does not care about accuracy as long as it brings him the numbers. Legitimately do not know why anyone would watch someone who repeatedly proved their lack of scruples.
I also think it is just a dead wrong prediction. Neither Crawford nor Perkins are particularly great actors - Crawford in particular has gotten in some trouble for speaking his mind and saying quotes that were pretty harmless, but sounded bad out of context. These are not folks who are particularly adept at feigning excitement - and you just have to watch their videos during the 5.24 playtesting to see (a) they are genuinely excited about the product and (b) having fun working on it. Not exactly the kind of behavior one typically sees from individuals who had to be begged to stay on for a while longer to finish a job.
Additionally, these are large designers with long pedigrees - it is far more likely they always intended to go out with a bang than to casually retire where their last product was some random sourcebook. The idea they considered retiring before they could leave their stamp on the next decade of play is almost fanciful.
The Occam’s Razor answer is not what the hack DNDShorts proposed - it is exactly what both Crawford and Perkins said: that they always intended to go out with one last big product, and now that it is done, want to retire on a high note.
Also worth noting that in his video about them leaving he repeats the statement that Hasbro’s Q4 2024 financial reports make no mention of D&D and cites that as proof they aren’t selling as well as stated. This is demonstrably false as those statements contain an entire paragraph stating they’re the best selling D&D books ever. It’s not even hidden, it’s right in the middle of the second page, so either he’s deliberately lying or he’s repeating other people’s lies without double checking. I like the guy’s videos but his integrity when it comes to news reporting is not always great
As DNDShorts pointed out in a recent video, it is likely that Perkins and J-craw had been planning to leave for a bit now, and had been talkied into staying for the 5.24 update since all 3 core books are released now, they feel their duty is done and are now moving on like they intended. If we are gonna Occam's Razor things, that is the most plausible explanation at this time. No i am not discounting Corpo motivated retirement incentives or anything else, those are all very possible, but i think what is most probable, is they are just done with this chapter in their lives.
We will see what they say for themselves when the dust settles and their seats are filled with new cheeks.
It should be noted, DnDShorts is a known liar - he made up “insider info” during the OGL issue to take advantage of the situation and get views… and was wrong on every single piece of information he shared. I would take this information with a grain of salt also - it can be read as “these top designers wanted out and had to be begged to stay on a sinking product” - which is a narrative that fits very much with the anti-Wizards misinformation he spread during the OGL. He is exactly the kind of person who is going to try and milk this situation for page views… and we know he does not care about accuracy as long as it brings him the numbers. Legitimately do not know why anyone would watch someone who repeatedly proved their lack of scruples.
I also think it is just a dead wrong prediction. Neither Crawford nor Perkins are particularly great actors - Crawford in particular has gotten in some trouble for speaking his mind and saying quotes that were pretty harmless, but sounded bad out of context. These are not folks who are particularly adept at feigning excitement - and you just have to watch their videos during the 5.24 playtesting to see (a) they are genuinely excited about the product and (b) having fun working on it. Not exactly the kind of behavior one typically sees from individuals who had to be begged to stay on for a while longer to finish a job.
Additionally, these are large designers with long pedigrees - it is far more likely they always intended to go out with a bang than to casually retire where their last product was some random sourcebook. The idea they considered retiring before they could leave their stamp on the next decade of play is almost fanciful.
The Occam’s Razor answer is not what the hack DNDShorts proposed - it is exactly what both Crawford and Perkins said: that they always intended to go out with one last big product, and now that it is done, want to retire on a high note.
Also worth noting that in his video about them leaving he repeats the statement that Hasbro’s Q4 2024 financial reports make no mention of D&D and cites that as proof they aren’t selling as well as stated. This is demonstrably false as those statements contain an entire paragraph stating they’re the best selling D&D books ever. It’s not even hidden, it’s right in the middle of the second page, so either he’s deliberately lying or he’s repeating other people’s lies without double checking. I like the guy’s videos but his integrity when it comes to news reporting is not always great
I'm starting to think the same thing. Even just spending a couple hours and only that messing with Sigil let me know half the problems he had with it was not there. And while it sucks you can't interact with furniture like bump into it or have the one with Tavern Brawler break a chair and leave it as chunks outside of saying youare doing it, I don't think that was the stage it was going for. So watch his vids on lore and ideas, but look at other vids for facts.
As for the two men this thread is about, From what I understand, they are leaving on their terms and are young and creative enough that they can rest on their laurels, or start a new project and at their own pace and be fine. Also they have Mr. Rodgers and Adam Sandler levels of unproblematic, so there will be someone that will work well with them if they pick the latter.
So is my earlier feelings of jumping ship and alot of the other doomsaying just what happens when a new edition comes out and the company enforces change and we gamers don't like change despite how much we say we hate this and that, and yes even that; change that just happens to be very fluid and timy whimy goblily gook as you can still incorporate most of the old stuff into it? The answer is probably yes.
Also worth noting that in his video about them leaving he repeats the statement that Hasbro’s Q4 2024 financial reports make no mention of D&D and cites that as proof they aren’t selling as well as stated. This is demonstrably false as those statements contain an entire paragraph stating they’re the best selling D&D books ever. It’s not even hidden, it’s right in the middle of the second page, so either he’s deliberately lying or he’s repeating other people’s lies without double checking. I like the guy’s videos but his integrity when it comes to news reporting is not always great
You are right that D&D is mentioned. The financial report first lumps it in with 'all gaming.' Which includes Magic. It's only Magic for which we then see isolated numbers in that category.
But we do also see those for 'tabletop gaming' in another category. That specifically for Wizards.
It looks promising that this category performs almost as well as does Magic. But performance is down from the same quarter in the previous year.
We see the performance of all franchise brands (including D&D) is down from the same quarter in the previous year.. We get to see that the performance of Magic specifically is down from the same quarter in the previous year.. We see that all gaming (including D&D) is down from the same quarter in the previous year..
And tabletop gaming is also down.
The only increase we see with regard to D&D is in digital and licensed gaming.
If people are doubting D&D's performance it is probably because we are being told the new PHB is the fastest selling D&D product in history when sales outside of the digital marketplace are in fact down and at no point is its boasted performance backed up with any real numbers.
You really should find more reliable sources of information, just for your own sake
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If people are doubting D&D's performance it is probably because we are being told the new PHB is the fastest selling D&D product in history when sales outside of the digital marketplace are in fact down and at no point is its boasted performance backed up with any real numbers.
The statement that this is the bast selling core set of books in history is backed up with real numbers, audited by a big four accounting firm. Wizards might not tell you what those numbers are, but they certainly told their auditors who wrote the report. If Wizards lied, there would be massive legal consequences. If their auditor lied, there would be massive legal consequences and their entire business would collapse.
The statement is backed up by law, common sense, and necessity of best interest by two major companies. [Redacted] Your post simply does not match the reality of financial reporting.
If people are doubting D&D's performance it is probably because we are being told the new PHB is the fastest selling D&D product in history when sales outside of the digital marketplace are in fact down and at no point is its boasted performance backed up with any real numbers.
1) The investor call specifically says "best-selling," not just "fastest-selling."
2) Auditors have to tie out non-numerical financial results too. If the company uses superlatives like "best-selling", "most" or "highest," there's always a schedule underneath those words that has been ticked and tied out, even if the numbers in that schedule are not shared with the public directly. This is why a regulated financial system is so important to protect investors. It's not perfect by any means, but it's not the wild west where Hasbro can say anything they want that you're implying it to be either.
There is no 'verified evidence' that the physical books are outselling those for any previous edition. To claim they are is random speculation. It could just be with digital sales that are then in total seeing the edition outperform others. And if any dual physical and digital purchase is counted as two and there is no reason it wouldn't be it is fairly meaningless to say it is the bestselling when some past editions did not have the luxury of having a digital version available.
There is no 'verified evidence' that the physical books are outselling those for any previous edition. To claim they are is random speculation. It could just be with digital sales that are then in total seeing the edition outperform others. And if any dual physical and digital purchase is counted as two and there is no reason it wouldn't be it is fairly meaningless to say it is the bestselling when some past editions did not have the luxury of having a digital version available.
....So what if it counts digital sales? Revenue is revenue, products are products. It's 2025, it'd be quite odd if they only counted dead tree editions.
“The English language version of the 2024 Player’s Handbook alone achieved in just one month what took nearly two years for the 2014 edition across all language versions available in that timeframe,” she said in a recent video interview. Suffice it to say, therefore, that the new rules are plenty popular, so much so that Wizards has already ordered a second printing.
“This is a huge, kind of unprecedented print run for us,” she added. “I felt that we had aggressively planned for player demand, and the player demand has exceeded it.”
1) Is doing so because they either see value in having multiple versions of the game, such as buying multiple versions to give some to more people, or buying multiple versions so they can play in multiple kinds of game (e.g. online and in-person). That means more D&D being played, more comprehensive absorption of the rules, more players making the jump to becoming DMs, and so on.
2) It also means more money for WotC to keep making more of the game for all of us. You know, profit? The reason they exist? It might surprise you to learn that this isn't a charity.
1) Is doing so because they either see value in having multiple versions of the game, such as buying multiple versions to give some to more people, or buying multiple versions so they can play in multiple kinds of game (e.g. online and in-person). That means more D&D being played, more comprehensive absorption of the rules, more players making the jump to becoming DMs, and so on.
2) It also means more money for WotC to keep making more of the game for all of us. You know, profit? The reason they exist? It might surprise you to learn that this isn't a charity.
Neither of your bullet points engage with the actual point I was making. Sales do not equate to actual playing. A DM with a copy of the rules could be running the game for multiple groups. That's more games being played than one in which every player has his or her own copy.
What that spells for Wizards' coffers isn't my point.
Neither of your bullet points engage with the actual point I was making. Sales do not equate to actual playing.
While there certainly isn't a 1:1 relationship between sales and players, it's still a pretty strong indicator. More to the point, it's inconsistent with any narrative about mass firings or rats fleeing a sinking ship. People don't get fired or leave under a pressure for producing a product that exceeded expectations, they get fired for a product that is significantly below expectations (see Chris Cox).
People making bold claims left & right, not citing sources. Perhaps show proof, & not just evidence, of any claim you make.
Not showing proof of DND Shorts lying about insider info, claiming that digital sales don't count towards "real" player sales(While also coming off as quite dismissive of people who play & buy online), & so many others.
Remember:Be skeptical of ANY "hot" take or claim. Disinfo doesn't just come from your diametric opposites.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
One book can be used by a whole group. However well or unwell the game is selling doesn't change that.
You keep repeating this... it has no relevance on the thread. As Pantagruel666 already pointed out, the important data point to this thread and the conversation as to why Crawford and Perkins left is financial success or failure. We know 5.24 is a financial success because the financial documents - verified by a major auditing firm and required by law to be accurate - say so.
Let us look at the relevant facts:
1. 5.24 is a financial success. The idea that it is a commercial failure is a myth. You can try to say the data is manipulated, but, bottom line, it is a profitable system, regardless of how it reached profitability.
2. While we do not have play figures, we do know the 5.24 polls were extremely well received, with 50,000+ voters and 80%+ approval for any content that made it into the final book. We know Perkins and Crawford were both extremely proud of those numbers and saw them as a marker of their success. They clearly believed they were on a ship that was doing quite well. From their interviews, it is clear these figures mattered more to them than sales alone - and they hit it out of the park in terms of both player engagement and popularity.
The idea that Crawford and Perkins are fleeing a sinking ship is contradicted by reality. The data those two would base their decision on is nothing but positive--and support their statements that they feel this is their chance to leave on a high note.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorFolk, please avoid hyperbole and edition/generation warring by going from comparing Gygax and later developers to claiming no one can share their opinions on Gygax or that doing so is somehow the same as denying Gygax's influence or existence in the game entirely.
In fact, better to just stay on topic and avoid all such comparisons lest we derail.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
As DNDShorts pointed out in a recent video, it is likely that Perkins and J-craw had been planning to leave for a bit now, and had been talkied into staying for the 5.24 update since all 3 core books are released now, they feel their duty is done and are now moving on like they intended.
If we are gonna Occam's Razor things, that is the most plausible explanation at this time.
No i am not discounting Corpo motivated retirement incentives or anything else, those are all very possible, but i think what is most probable, is they are just done with this chapter in their lives.
We will see what they say for themselves when the dust settles and their seats are filled with new cheeks.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
It should be noted, DnDShorts is a known liar - he made up “insider info” during the OGL issue to take advantage of the situation and get views… and was wrong on every single piece of information he shared. I would take this information with a grain of salt also - it can be read as “these top designers wanted out and had to be begged to stay on a sinking product” - which is a narrative that fits very much with the anti-Wizards misinformation he spread during the OGL. He is exactly the kind of person who is going to try and milk this situation for page views… and we know he does not care about accuracy as long as it brings him the numbers. Legitimately do not know why anyone would watch someone who repeatedly proved their lack of scruples.
I also think it is just a dead wrong prediction. Neither Crawford nor Perkins are particularly great actors - Crawford in particular has gotten in some trouble for speaking his mind and saying quotes that were pretty harmless, but sounded bad out of context. These are not folks who are particularly adept at feigning excitement - and you just have to watch their videos during the 5.24 playtesting to see (a) they are genuinely excited about the product and (b) having fun working on it. Not exactly the kind of behavior one typically sees from individuals who had to be begged to stay on for a while longer to finish a job.
Additionally, these are large designers with long pedigrees - it is far more likely they always intended to go out with a bang than to casually retire where their last product was some random sourcebook. The idea they considered retiring before they could leave their stamp on the next decade of play is almost fanciful.
The Occam’s Razor answer is not what the hack DNDShorts proposed - it is exactly what both Crawford and Perkins said: that they always intended to go out with one last big product, and now that it is done, want to retire on a high note.
Whatever their reasons, one thing is certain: It could be very bad for D&D. Any franchise, especially one as old as D&D requires someone in the pilot seat that has been around long enough to understand it on a fundamental level. This doesn't necessarily need to come from long experience, but if the actors in charge are "anti-D&D" in the traditional sense and don't have a love for its history and legacy, then the inevitable next phase of the game is likely to be unrecognizable. We have seen even when experienced, long-time designers attempt to stray from the foundations of the game what happens (aka 4e).
What's important now is, who will be in charge of the franchise and what do they think about D&D and its long history. I would love for them to pull someone from the fan base who love the games legacy and bring them into a leadership role. Someone like Colvile or Mercer, but if we get another suit in charge or worse yet someone who hates D&D and wants to change everything about it, the game is going to be in real trouble.
Another thing that’s for certain is it could be very good for D&D. Someone with fresh eyes and fresh energy who doesn’t feel tied to doing things a certain way because that’s always the way D&D has done it. (And before anyone starts with history lessons, I’ve been playing since 1e. I’m well aware of the history.) Things that don’t evolve die out.
Given that we still have James Wyatt (been playing since Basic and designing for the game since TSR) and Wes Schneider (designing since 3e) then this dubious criterion is met, no?
This seems to contradict your own premise. If even long-term designers like Perkins himself are capable of making something that you see as a failure, then the leads' tenure with D&D specifically is not an ironclad predictor of success regardless. What matters is their game design chops more generally, and how well their skillset translates to TTRPGs, not whether they've played with THAC0 before or know what nonweapon proficiencies are etc.
Also worth noting that in his video about them leaving he repeats the statement that Hasbro’s Q4 2024 financial reports make no mention of D&D and cites that as proof they aren’t selling as well as stated. This is demonstrably false as those statements contain an entire paragraph stating they’re the best selling D&D books ever. It’s not even hidden, it’s right in the middle of the second page, so either he’s deliberately lying or he’s repeating other people’s lies without double checking. I like the guy’s videos but his integrity when it comes to news reporting is not always great
I'm starting to think the same thing. Even just spending a couple hours and only that messing with Sigil let me know half the problems he had with it was not there. And while it sucks you can't interact with furniture like bump into it or have the one with Tavern Brawler break a chair and leave it as chunks outside of saying youare doing it, I don't think that was the stage it was going for. So watch his vids on lore and ideas, but look at other vids for facts.
As for the two men this thread is about, From what I understand, they are leaving on their terms and are young and creative enough that they can rest on their laurels, or start a new project and at their own pace and be fine. Also they have Mr. Rodgers and Adam Sandler levels of unproblematic, so there will be someone that will work well with them if they pick the latter.
So is my earlier feelings of jumping ship and alot of the other doomsaying just what happens when a new edition comes out and the company enforces change and we gamers don't like change despite how much we say we hate this and that, and yes even that; change that just happens to be very fluid and timy whimy goblily gook as you can still incorporate most of the old stuff into it? The answer is probably yes.
You are right that D&D is mentioned. The financial report first lumps it in with 'all gaming.' Which includes Magic. It's only Magic for which we then see isolated numbers in that category.
But we do also see those for 'tabletop gaming' in another category. That specifically for Wizards.
It looks promising that this category performs almost as well as does Magic. But performance is down from the same quarter in the previous year.
We see the performance of all franchise brands (including D&D) is down from the same quarter in the previous year.. We get to see that the performance of Magic specifically is down from the same quarter in the previous year.. We see that all gaming (including D&D) is down from the same quarter in the previous year..
And tabletop gaming is also down.
The only increase we see with regard to D&D is in digital and licensed gaming.
If people are doubting D&D's performance it is probably because we are being told the new PHB is the fastest selling D&D product in history when sales outside of the digital marketplace are in fact down and at no point is its boasted performance backed up with any real numbers.
You really should find more reliable sources of information, just for your own sake
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The statement that this is the bast selling core set of books in history is backed up with real numbers, audited by a big four accounting firm. Wizards might not tell you what those numbers are, but they certainly told their auditors who wrote the report. If Wizards lied, there would be massive legal consequences. If their auditor lied, there would be massive legal consequences and their entire business would collapse.
The statement is backed up by law, common sense, and necessity of best interest by two major companies. [Redacted] Your post simply does not match the reality of financial reporting.
1) The investor call specifically says "best-selling," not just "fastest-selling."
2) Auditors have to tie out non-numerical financial results too. If the company uses superlatives like "best-selling", "most" or "highest," there's always a schedule underneath those words that has been ticked and tied out, even if the numbers in that schedule are not shared with the public directly. This is why a regulated financial system is so important to protect investors. It's not perfect by any means, but it's not the wild west where Hasbro can say anything they want that you're implying it to be either.
There is no 'verified evidence' that the physical books are outselling those for any previous edition. To claim they are is random speculation. It could just be with digital sales that are then in total seeing the edition outperform others. And if any dual physical and digital purchase is counted as two and there is no reason it wouldn't be it is fairly meaningless to say it is the bestselling when some past editions did not have the luxury of having a digital version available.
....So what if it counts digital sales? Revenue is revenue, products are products. It's 2025, it'd be quite odd if they only counted dead tree editions.
They don't order print runs of digital books
players-handbook-sold-out
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
1) Is doing so because they either see value in having multiple versions of the game, such as buying multiple versions to give some to more people, or buying multiple versions so they can play in multiple kinds of game (e.g. online and in-person). That means more D&D being played, more comprehensive absorption of the rules, more players making the jump to becoming DMs, and so on.
2) It also means more money for WotC to keep making more of the game for all of us. You know, profit? The reason they exist? It might surprise you to learn that this isn't a charity.
Neither of your bullet points engage with the actual point I was making. Sales do not equate to actual playing. A DM with a copy of the rules could be running the game for multiple groups. That's more games being played than one in which every player has his or her own copy.
What that spells for Wizards' coffers isn't my point.
While there certainly isn't a 1:1 relationship between sales and players, it's still a pretty strong indicator. More to the point, it's inconsistent with any narrative about mass firings or rats fleeing a sinking ship. People don't get fired or leave under a pressure for producing a product that exceeded expectations, they get fired for a product that is significantly below expectations (see Chris Cox).
People making bold claims left & right, not citing sources. Perhaps show proof, & not just evidence, of any claim you make.
Not showing proof of DND Shorts lying about insider info, claiming that digital sales don't count towards "real" player sales(While also coming off as quite dismissive of people who play & buy online), & so many others.
Remember:Be skeptical of ANY "hot" take or claim. Disinfo doesn't just come from your diametric opposites.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
You keep repeating this... it has no relevance on the thread. As Pantagruel666 already pointed out, the important data point to this thread and the conversation as to why Crawford and Perkins left is financial success or failure. We know 5.24 is a financial success because the financial documents - verified by a major auditing firm and required by law to be accurate - say so.
Let us look at the relevant facts:
1. 5.24 is a financial success. The idea that it is a commercial failure is a myth. You can try to say the data is manipulated, but, bottom line, it is a profitable system, regardless of how it reached profitability.
2. While we do not have play figures, we do know the 5.24 polls were extremely well received, with 50,000+ voters and 80%+ approval for any content that made it into the final book. We know Perkins and Crawford were both extremely proud of those numbers and saw them as a marker of their success. They clearly believed they were on a ship that was doing quite well. From their interviews, it is clear these figures mattered more to them than sales alone - and they hit it out of the park in terms of both player engagement and popularity.
The idea that Crawford and Perkins are fleeing a sinking ship is contradicted by reality. The data those two would base their decision on is nothing but positive--and support their statements that they feel this is their chance to leave on a high note.