# The market dying?



## JoeGKushner (Sep 2, 2005)

When I see the good reception a $70 boxed set like the Wilderlands gets, or how much I enjoyed Shackled City, or how many people I know have World's Largest Dungoen, and look to the near future and see books like Ptlous and Game of Thones coming out, at their price points, I don't think a dying market could support them.

I do think that the market may be shrinking in terms of people buying everything in sight, but I think part of that was due to the amount of material put out initially and buyers are becoming smarter.

Opinions?


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 2, 2005)

Well I am extremely selective about what I buy these days.  It takes a while for me to actually shell out my cash and buy something.  Because there is so much out there, I take my time and sift through everything to find the gems in the rough so to speak.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 2, 2005)

I am depending more on reviews.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 2, 2005)

i'm still buying.

just shelled out $90 plus shipping for a bunch of stuff.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 2, 2005)

Talking about the D&D/d20 market specifically (I haven't a clue about other systems), 3E has been out for years now.  The market is bound to shrink - everyone has tons of stuff already.  I know I have - piles of it.  I can't use it all (even just the WotC stuff!)  There's nothing now that everybody needs.

It'll be like that until the next big thing, which I imagine will be 4E.  Then every D&D player will buy a new PHB, most will buy a DMG and a MM, most of those will buy the next round of supplements... until 5 years later, everyone will be saying "Oh, the market's shrunk!"


----------



## Frostmarrow (Sep 2, 2005)

I buy stuff that catches my fancy. I don't care if it's any good or if it rhymes with anything I already have. I just buy what makes me curious.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> I do think that the market may be shrinking in terms of people buying everything in sight, but I think part of that was due to the amount of material put out initially and buyers are becoming smarter.
> 
> Opinions?




That certainly describes my buying habits.  Once upon a time, I bought everything I could afford and more than a few things that I couldn't.  Wound up using probably less than half of it overall.  Then 3e came out, and I bought the core books, then a few of the splatbooks and things sort of grinded to a halt.  I realized that I wasn't using very much of what I bought and 
kind of reined in on my buying habits.  When 3.5 hit, I bought the PHB and that was it.  Now, I'm very, very careful about what I buy.  I usually only buy a book if I see a need for it beforehand.  

For example, I was running a campaign in Shelzar City of Sin for Scarred Lands.  I realized that I would like to have a good urban campaign supplement to flesh out my setting.  Searched around, read the reviews and bought MEG's Urban Blight book.  Loved it and used more than half of it.  When the campaign started to move outside of Shelzar and into the desert, I picked up Sandstorm and again, loved it to pieces.  I've begun letting my needs dictate my buying, rather than just picking up books because they happen to be in print.

I find it works much better for me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 2, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The market dying?





Naw, not really.  There are more companies trying to serve the market so it can appear to some as if the market is less motivated but, as always, offer something people want or need and they will take notice.


----------



## francisca (Sep 2, 2005)

The most expensive single item I have purchased was the Conan book.  After getting my hands on the Pocket Version, I regret the purchase of the hardback.

I won't spend more that $50 on any single item.  Period.  (Not even for the Wilderlands boxed set.  Sorry Diaglo!)  

Matter of fact, I won't buy most $40 items either.  DMG II?  Not enough there for me.  

Now if I see this stuff used, or makred down, sure.  But I'm not paying that kind of money.  And please, spare me the speech about page count, production values, and cost per hour vs. movies, etc..  It really isn't worth it to me.


----------



## Bront (Sep 2, 2005)

I think that merchants have recognized better what gamers want, and are moving towards utilizing it better.  So, as a result, products that are being made are generaly moving better.  The market may eventualy shrink, but I don't see it happening any time soon, as companies are still taping the potential of the D20 system (like M&M 2, several other OGL game systems using D20, and even WotC is making products that are a bit more interesting than they were earlier in D20 days.)  As for other systems, with the pluthera of D20, their market is expanding as people look for alternitives or for simply different ideas.


----------



## Archade (Sep 2, 2005)

Morrus, that's a very insightful view.

So what about this conundrum?  If the market is shrinking because there are so many supplements out there (I know I have two bookshelves full too!), won't that precipitate a new edition from the viewpoint of the game companies?

But on the other hand, the existing edition is just fine, thanks.  

Won't there be a public backlash to revitalize something that's healthy from a consumer's perspective, but tired and expended from a corporate perspective?


----------



## Numion (Sep 2, 2005)

Actually, these kind of products are bringing me back into spending money on D&D. I hadn't bought much, except Dungeon magazines, for a while, but I bought Shackled City. And I'll get Ptolus too - complete campaigns. I'm not that interested in more rules, but the big things are just plain more interesting buys.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 2, 2005)

The only thing I'm spending beaucoup cash on right now is Warmachine.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 2, 2005)

Archade said:
			
		

> So what about this conundrum?  If the market is shrinking because there are so many supplements out there (I know I have two bookshelves full too!), won't that precipitate a new edition from the viewpoint of the game companies?




Of course it will.  That's how it's always worked.  It's just a matter of when.



> Won't there be a public backlash to revitalize something that's healthy from a consumer's perspective, but tired and expended from a corporate perspective?




There never has been before - I don't foresee it being any different this time round.  A few vocal minorities, as always (mainly people like us at EN World - but we're hardly representative).


----------



## Grimstaff (Sep 2, 2005)

*Buy Smart*

Personally, I've quit buying almost anything that features PRCs, feats, or skills as a buying motivator. Not only have I quit buying them, I've quit allowing them into my game, there's almost always some broken rule that ends up bogging down play at some point. 
Currently, I allow players to use only PHB and the "Complete" line of player books, and the new Eldritch Sorcery from Necromancer for spells. This has saved us all a lot of problems and players can concentrate on having fun with their characters rather than worrying about meeting their Feat requirements to take the "Kobold INfiltration Shadow Cup Thrower" PRC.
Consequently, we all buy a lot less.
These days most of my $$$ goes towards adventures (Cungeon Crawl Classics being our favorites lately) and game accessories like miniatures and such.
As far as campaign settings go, I'm happy with WotC's little Greyhawk Folio ($10) with its attendent and beautiful maps from Paizo, Forgotten Realms CS ($40) again with free maps from Paizo along with their Ancient Ruins (is that right?) book which has been useful. I was also happy with Necro's CSIO and ordered their WHF setting. THe point here being that I'm most likely done buying any campaign setting stuff for the near future.
More money for Dice!!!!


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 2, 2005)

As others have mentioned, there was time when I bought all kinds of stuff, and devoured it. Then I realized I was buying supplements and never getting around to really reading them, much less acually using them in a game. 

I went to only buying used (from the EN World forum mostly, and some Ebay), and extremely discounted stuff on Amazon. That didn't work, I was still buying supplements I did not need or use. 

Now I am finding if I don't buy anything a for a few months and then make a purchase of something that I have read reviews on and researched to the point where I know I will like and may actually be able to use it, I am much happier. Even if it costs $50 plus, it is better than buying 3 or 4 $20 supplements and ending up only liking one of them. 

I've been very happy with World's Largest Dungeon. Now I am adding Wilderlands, Shackled City, and Ptolus to my list. When I get the urge, I'll buy one of these and it should keep me happy for a few months.


----------



## Psion (Sep 2, 2005)

People have more of what they want, and the market is getting more competitive.

That said, there are fewer products, but some of the stuff that is coming out is really high quality stuff.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Sep 2, 2005)

It's the cycle of an rpg edition. 

New edition - mechanical supplements frenzy - mechanics boredom - flavour frenzy - fluff boredom - new edition - and so on. 

I think we'll see cool flavour stuff for a while, and innovative books that explore more niche and off-kilter subjects - because after the expected supplements have been covered a dozen times or more, it's the niche that offers breakout potential. 

From what I've seen, read and heard, the market is down across the board. Which is really too bad, both from the perspective of a freelancer, and the perspective of a fan: I miss the excitement of the early years of 3E, when books came fast and furious. It was a fun time for me. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 2, 2005)

Archade said:
			
		

> Won't there be a public backlash to revitalize something that's healthy from a consumer's perspective, but tired and expended from a corporate perspective?




Maybe, but it will likely be a very mild one. Think about it. What sort of backlash was there for 3.5, which came out *2 years* earlier than planned because of slumping sales.

In other words, this has already happened once, and it worked just fine. WotC has no reason to think that it will not work again.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 2, 2005)

Consider this: people will spend most on the hobbies that they spend the most time on.

Consider also if your miniatures or other accessories purchases have increased as your D&D (or d20 System) purchases have tailed off?

What are you spending your money on?

Has the proportion of time you spend role-playing changed?

Cheers!


----------



## francisca (Sep 2, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider this: people will spend most on the hobbies that they spend the most time on.
> 
> Consider also if your miniatures or other accessories purchases have increased as your D&D (or d20 System) purchases have tailed off?
> 
> ...



My spending in minis has increased a bit over the last year, but not nearly enough to account for the drop in expenditures on books.  I am also playing way more now (meaning last 18 months) than I ever have.  I've probably gamed  more in the past two years than the rest of my life combined.  This has coincided with a big drop in my spending on RPGs and games in general, though I don't know if there is a relationship between the two.  Don't care if there is either.  I'm not spending as much, gaming/creating more, and having more fun.  That's what I care about.


----------



## Frozen DM (Sep 2, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> When I see the good reception a $70 boxed set like the Wilderlands gets, or how much I enjoyed Shackled City, or how many people I know have World's Largest Dungoen, and look to the near future and see books like Ptlous and Game of Thones coming out, at their price points, I don't think a dying market could support them.
> 
> I do think that the market may be shrinking in terms of people buying everything in sight, but I think part of that was due to the amount of material put out initially and buyers are becoming smarter.
> 
> Opinions?




I'd say that's true. When the entire 3rd edition/2d0 thing started I was buying almost everything in sight. Now I focus on products from a few companies I trust, or products that have received good reviews here on EN World. I still buy quite a bit, but am much more selective. 

Every edition of a game sees a rise and fall in what consumers will buy. The edition comes out and everybody jumps at the new books, and over a few years slowly reduces their consumption. However, I think the current market (especially for d20 books) is unique. 

Now we have a large collection of publishers, both online and print, to cater to the market. I also think that this plethora of publishers can keep d20 viable for much longer than would have been possible had only Wizards been putting out material. Everytime a publisher comes out with a big new release (Ptolus, GoT, Wilderlands, Iron Kingdoms and even books like Mutants and Masterminds 2nd) I think the market takes another upswing in some form. 

I think what we're seeing is supplement-specific swings in the market. At the begining we saw an increase in adventures (especially amongst 3rd party publishers). That dies away and we saw the rise in support material (PRC, feats, etc...). Now I think we're in a period where complete campaigns are selling big (WLD, Ptolus, Drow War, Shackled City,...). We are also seeing an upswing in higher priced, prestige books. 

What i do see, however, is a splitting of the market. At the begining people were buying everything. Now I think you see more people focusing on one type of book (campaign settings, adventures, alternate rule-sets, monster books, support material). Personally I've fallen into the campaign setting and adventure group, prefering those types of books over purely mechanical material, or monster books. 

I don't necessarily think splitting the market is bad, though. Instead I think publishers are specializing and focusing on the specific needs of their customers, which I, for one, am glad to see.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 2, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider this: people will spend most on the hobbies that they spend the most time on.
> 
> Consider also if your miniatures or other accessories purchases have increased as your D&D (or d20 System) purchases have tailed off?
> 
> ...




truth be told my purchase of dice has suffered. i started buying more minis and stopped buying dice.  

i don't think i've bought a single set in months.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 2, 2005)

The market may not be dying as such, but if these kinds of price points become the norm, the market will not expand.  I don't see the young kids spending their own $$$ on stuff like this, and at these prices their parents probably would not either, which means that newcomers to the hobby might slow down a lot.  Its fine to have the occasional item at this level, but there needs to be low cost options if they want to attract new people.


----------



## francisca (Sep 2, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> The market may not be dying as such, but if these kinds of price points become the norm, the market will not expand.  I don't see the young kids spending their own $$$ on stuff like this, and at these prices their parents probably would not either, which means that newcomers to the hobby might slow down a lot.  Its fine to have the occasional item at this level, but there needs to be low cost options if they want to attract new people.



Mmm.  Dunno about that.  Lots of 8 and 9 years olds con mom and dad into buying whole boxes of boosters for Poke'mon, Yugi-Oh, etc...  That stuff ain't cheap.


----------



## KenSeg (Sep 2, 2005)

I know our group is not buying much anymore. We bought that core books for 3.5 and have been using those. Nothing else. I have recently purchased two of the C&C books to examine and see if we want to turn to those rules and am putting in a purchase order for the updated Judges Guild items as I always found those great reading and inspiration. 

We have several hundred minis (old lead ones) that are now all painted and we haven't bought much in the last few years. Of course, that is more a function of being over 40 and not being able to focus close enough to do detailed painting and lack of time due to kids, jobs, etc.

-KenSeg
-Gaming since 1978


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 2, 2005)

I'm happy to see the market where it is.

I like the flavor stuff that's coming out now, and less on the rules front.  



And I love the fact that the higher-end products are all (so far) adventures and campaign settings.


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 2, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider this: people will spend most on the hobbies that they spend the most time on.
> 
> Consider also if your miniatures or other accessories purchases have increased as your D&D (or d20 System) purchases have tailed off?
> 
> ...




I am the opposite of this. I find that the less time I actually play D&D the more I buy, to compensate and give me my gaming "fix". When I am playing regularly I am able to resist temptation, and actually buy less.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Sep 2, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I do think that the market may be shrinking in terms of people buying everything in sight, but I think part of that was due to the amount of material put out initially and buyers are becoming smarter.
> 
> Opinions?




That's me. I have only bought one WoTC book so far this year ( LoM ) and certainly less third party stuff, but I am still buying ( Shackled City, Liber Mechankia, Directory of Demiplanes, Temple Quarter are recent purchases ) the stuff that grabs me. 

I do think that WotC's miniatures have replaced some of my third party and WoTC book purchases in the past year though. I buy lots of pewter too- more than in 2000-2002 ( pre-3.5)


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Sep 2, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ... I've begun letting my needs dictate my buying, rather than just picking up books because they happen to be in print.
> 
> I find it works much better for me.




I wish I had the self control to do this


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 2, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Opinions?



Remember, Joe: people will always be able to find something to whine about


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Sep 2, 2005)

Before I comment I want to preface this by saying that I've been in Marketing for a dozen odd years. However this is just my own perception and I do not have any direct experience in the gaming industry. (In fact a large chunk of my knowledge is in the "other" gaming industry).

Now, almost every producer of gaming products has said that modules/adventures are not profitable. This makes sense as only a single person in a group of players is likely to purchase the adventure. However, it has been my experience in the last 25 years I've been gaming, that RPG's which are regularly accompanied by adventures last MUCH longer than their initial release. It has always been my opinion that this was why D&D succeeded so well. Shadowrun did the same thing when it first came out. Regular adventures were produced for it and the product lasted longer, and hence sold more, than a lot of similiar products at the time. Other examples I can think of are Villians & Vigilantes, WEG's Star Wars, Twilight 2000...

Now, take the recent advent (thanks to Paizo and Necromancer in particular I think) of the single book campaign. This give's a GM an entire series of adventures to play out while giving the publisher a profitable product. Especially when you consider that had you sold the adventures seperately you would loose out on sales from people who never finish the entire series.

I hope that these will prove an effective catalyst to keep the market going and widen the product cycle between the market "re-start" effect of new editions. What I'd really like to see is an adventure campaign book done for something other than D&D and see how successful that particlar game becomes.

Jack


----------



## Turjan (Sep 2, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider also if your miniatures or other accessories purchases have increased as your D&D (or d20 System) purchases have tailed off?
> 
> What are you spending your money on?



I noticed that I spend slightly more for books on non-d20 games.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 2, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Remember, Joe: people will always be able to find something to whine about




True but it's an open ended question this time.


----------



## Prince Atom (Sep 2, 2005)

For a while, I was buying a lot of GURPS books -- they were cheap, and fascinating.

Now, I've glutted out on GURPS. I think it's the fact that I have all the G4 stuff I want (the Magic book I've pretty much already got in Magic and Grimoire).

And, in general, I've started spending less as my income has changed and my constant expenses have increased (mostly, gas so I can go to work and earn my income).

My last d20 purchase was the Iron Kingdoms World Guide, although I do have a subscription to Dragon.

Otherwise, I look for discounted and used copies of books.

TWK


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Sep 2, 2005)

It seems that adventure moduals (single adventures) are best suited for second hand market and for the growing PDF market.  The pdf market allows them to be cheaper and it allows for as many or as few to sell.  Frankly, I love going to RPGNow and downloading some moduals from time to time for a variety of reasons (maps, stat blocks, etc.)


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 2, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider this: people will spend most on the hobbies that they spend the most time on.
> 
> Consider also if your miniatures or other accessories purchases have increased as your D&D (or d20 System) purchases have tailed off?
> 
> ...



Interesting. My responses:

- Other accessory purchasing has not increased as my rules-book purchases have tailed off.
- Most of my disposable/"fun" income is spent on things like golfing and video games.
- No, the proportion of time spent role-playing has stayed constant.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 2, 2005)

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> Now, almost every producer of gaming products has said that modules/adventures are not profitable. This makes sense as only a single person in a group of players is likely to purchase the adventure. However, it has been my experience in the last 25 years I've been gaming, that RPG's which are regularly accompanied by adventures last MUCH longer than their initial release. It has always been my opinion that this was why D&D succeeded so well.
> Jack




I agree. The games I DM for the group have to have pre-written adventures, or I won't run them. I ran a game of Grimm because FFG published a free adventure on the site --- thereby selling 4 more copies of Grimm d20. I ran a game of DC Heroes, going as far as to buy 5 copies of DC Heroes 3rd Ed. I sold 2 copies of those books to players.

I bought a copy of Nobilis due to the fantastic reviews. Great book, probably good game, no prewritten adventure --- sorry, no game for me, no additional sales to my players.

Ultimately, I think that's why I'll be playing D&D forever, in whatever edition, over any other RPGs. Having pre-written adventures gives D&D legs that no other RPGs have.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 3, 2005)

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> However, it has been my experience in the last 25 years I've been gaming, that RPG's which are regularly accompanied by adventures last MUCH longer than their initial release. It has always been my opinion that this was why D&D succeeded so well. Shadowrun did the same thing when it first came out. Regular adventures were produced for it and the product lasted longer, and hence sold more, than a lot of similiar products at the time.
> 
> What I'd really like to see is an adventure campaign book done for something other than D&D and see how successful that particlar game becomes.



I agree . This other example might be DSA (The Dark Eye), the most popular RPG in Germany. It has seen more than 100 published adventures since 1984, and this still keeps it on the number one spot ahead of D&D up to this day (Shadowrun might even come second). A game without support often simply dies, or at least it will fall back in popularity.


----------



## caudor (Sep 3, 2005)

My buying habits have changed simply because my situation has changed.  Two years ago, I bought everything I could find.  And I had a budget that could handle it.

During a crisis period last year, I sold off nearly all of my collection.  My passion for gaming has not faded though.

Now, I'm in the process of re-buying some of the books I sold on a reduced budget.  I'm also being more selective (buying only 3.5 stuff that interests me).  In fact, I'm behind on Wotc purchases by many months.  For example, I just recently bought the Complete books which all seem new to me.  To make even this possible, I tend to shop exclusively from vendors that offer a discount on these items.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I don't think a dying market could support them.




I don't think the high end of the market is a good indicator of the overall health of the market.  That's like claiming you know the health of tha automotive market by looking solely at sales of Jaguars.  The high end is supported by a specific subset of the market - those with money to burn.  Since they have plenty of free cash, they'll keep buying when the rest of us aren't.

If you want to know how well things are really doing, you need to look at the whole market, or at least the midmarket.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 3, 2005)

In another thread, GMSkarka made the following observation:







			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Are you aware that, according to the latest sales figures (as reported in Comics & Games Retailer's September issue), RPG sales are have dropped from an average total weighted count of 119 units per store in October 2004 to 32 units per store in June 2005? That's a 73% drop over 8 months. 2004 as a whole wasn't too great to start with, either.
> 
> Ask anybody who works in the business....print RPG sales are plummeting.
> 
> However, conversely, PDF sales have been breaking records, month to month, for the past 3 years.



Take from that what you will...


----------



## Greg K (Sep 3, 2005)

I have been selective about what I have bought since the release of 3.0.  I only own 7 DND books (three of which of the core books).  Of the four non-core books, only one is from WOTC and the other three are from Green Ronin.  

There are two WOTC and four  non-WOTC books that I was considering to buy, but I am holding off until ICE releases both "Something Wicked" and the "The Grimoire" upon which I will decide if I am going to make the complete switch to HARP.


----------



## green slime (Sep 3, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i'm still buying.
> 
> just shelled out $90 plus shipping for a bunch of stuff.




Cheapskate.


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 3, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't think the high end of the market is a good indicator of the overall health of the market.  That's like claiming you know the health of tha automotive market by looking solely at sales of Jaguars.  The high end is supported by a specific subset of the market - those with money to burn.  Since they have plenty of free cash, they'll keep buying when the rest of us aren't.
> 
> If you want to know how well things are really doing, you need to look at the whole market, or at least the midmarket.



This is an important point - if its correct that pdf sales are booming then it looks like the midmarket is getting the squeeze and its either occasional big ticket purchases or small scale stuff for most consumers. I'd guess that the price of gas is affecting most or all hobby and leisure markets in the US (lesser extent in Europe as we're less car bound and the high taxes on petrol keep the impact of oil price rises down).


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 3, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Talking about the D&D/d20 market specifically (I haven't a clue about other systems), 3E has been out for years now.  The market is bound to shrink - everyone has tons of stuff already.  I know I have - piles of it.  I can't use it all (even just the WotC stuff!)  There's nothing now that everybody needs.
> 
> It'll be like that until the next big thing, which I imagine will be 4E.  Then every D&D player will buy a new PHB, most will buy a DMG and a MM, most of those will buy the next round of supplements... until 5 years later, everyone will be saying "Oh, the market's shrunk!"




WotC has the PHB 2 coming out next summer. I think its too early for them to even announce 4e. I predict they'll announce 4e in the Fall of 2006 and probably wouldn't release it until Fall of 2007. Just in time for Christmas.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2005)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> WotC has the PHB 2 coming out next summer. I think its too early for them to even announce 4e. I predict they'll announce 4e in the Fall of 2006 and probably wouldn't release it until Fall of 2007. Just in time for Christmas.




Gen con, everything in this industry of note happens around Gen Con


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 3, 2005)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> WotC has the PHB 2 coming out next summer. I think its too early for them to even announce 4e. I predict they'll announce 4e in the Fall of 2006 and probably wouldn't release it until Fall of 2007. Just in time for Christmas.



 Personally, I am expecting the announcement to be done at the GAMA Trade Show of the year in which it is to be released. Followed up by an extensive, intensive marketing ramp-up campaign (co-ordinated with Dragon/Dungeon) for a GenCon release.

This short of a ramp-up would minimize its sales losses (it is pretty much a fact that when a new edition is announced, sales for the edition being replaced tend to die almost completely), and allow WotC to better control the release of information about the new version, while also keeping speculation to a minimum.

When they announced 3.5, it was done in the fall of year prior to its release, and there was a good bit of grumbling. 







			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Gen con, everything in this industry of note happens around Gen Con



Not everything, just a good majority. This is because GenCon does happen to be the largest convention of gamers in the US. Thus, releasing at GenCon allows for a maximum of exposure with a minimal amount of effort.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 3, 2005)

One indicator of the health of the industry is the attendance at Gen Con and other conventions. I  haven't heard any reports about the recent Gen Con, but I know last year or the year before, attendance was very high. 

 Does anyone have any hard numbers on attendance this year Vs last year and the year before?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2005)

Origins the numbers were higher this then last according to what I heard.


----------



## MummyKitty (Sep 4, 2005)

As someone just getting back interested in the hobby after a long time off, I am amazed by the variety and quality of things that are out there.  I haven't really seen anything that I thought was radically overpriced.  I play board wargames that also require investments of $50+, but for the hours of enjoyment you get I think it's a good deal.  WIth used books available, and inexpensive downloads, it seems there is a huge variety of things to buy.  Also, interest seems pretty high in both paper RPGs and board wargames (well, within the niche these occupy).  I think people are getting a little bored with PC RPGs and strategy games.  The paper version are just more playable, and more fun than most.  I still play the computerized versions but not as much as I used to.  Well, I'm just rambling about my opinion, but I find myself getting more excited about this hobby than I have in a long time.  I especially love all the "old school" type modules that are out there (like the World's Largest Dungeon).  Granted the market may be a bit saturated but that's to the consumer's advantage....


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2005)

Just out of curiousity.

If the market were saturated, would that not result in a tail off of the number of new titles being released?  I'm most certainly not all that knowledgeable about marketting, but it would seem to me that companies would be less willing to pump out new material into a market that no one is buying.

But, I don't see a drop off in the number of titles being released every month.  

Or, am I just way off base here?

One thought about the high end of the market.  I think this is a niche that has never really seen much action at all prior to the last couple of years.  RPG books have never been priced over fourty or fifty dollars and a hundred dollar book?  It's the first that I've seen.  I think the industry is starting to worm its way into some new markets with the high end stuff.  I have to admit, the idea of buying one book for a hundred bucks and not having to buy ten supplements afterwards is certainly appealing to me.

I know a lot of people's eyes widen when you say you bought the WLD or Ptolus for the price, but, then again, a new computer game is pretty close to a hundred bucks usually.  What's the difference?  Heck, the Warhammer gamers that I see shell out loads of cash for all those minis.

Maybe it's time that PnP RPG's start to market a little more uptown.  

Sorry, rambling.


----------



## D_Sinclair (Sep 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Origins the numbers were higher this then last according to what I heard.




However, while ticket sales were up for origins, vendor participation was significantly down. Just days before the convention, they were calling manufacturers and trying to sell their empty booths... at the marked up rate including all possible late fees. They even called my boss looking to sell a booth, and ARP is a PDF vendor currently. You'd think that with 1/3 of their booths still available a week before the convention, they would have slashed rates as an enticement, rather than go for the jugular.


----------



## cthulhuhatesyou (Sep 4, 2005)

hmm, guess i might as well stop lurking and throw my two cents in...

IMHO i feel as if the market is leveling off, certainly not dying. we're seeing a number of good companies rising to the top to compete for the second or third tiers after WotC. others will either succumb, struggle on or get out of d20 publishing altogether. i think we can all rattle off a few examples here and there. i think we as players and DMs are becoming more discriminating with our dollars. i for one am pleased to see books like Ptolus coming out because it fills a long-neglected area of ready-to-play modules/campaigns (although Goodman games has been really great about this for quite some time). at the very least it gives people something to mine ideas from for their own campaigns.

store owners might be following similiar buying habits. i know of one store owner that chooses his purchases very carefully because of shelf space. if the book doesn't move then it takes up a valuable spot for something else that does move. you'd never know RPG sales were down if you were in his store since he sells quite a few books. that's why when i see numbers about the market being down, i take it with a grain of salt. not all stores report their figures to the trade papers so it's a hard number to nail down. still, some markets might be more vigorous than others.

i'm generally happy with the way things are at the moment since products of low quality aren't making it onto my overloaded bookshelves like some poor choices i've made in the past have. i'm more careful about what i buy and i support companies that, in my opinion,  do good work. as far as whether or not a slumping market might mean a 4th edition is around the corner, that's something i won't begin to speculate about because it makes my head hurt 

great topic to discuss. i look forward to reading more!

resuming lurker mode now ...


----------



## scourger (Sep 4, 2005)

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> What I'd really like to see is an adventure campaign book done for something other than D&D and see how successful that particlar game becomes.




Great White Games (f/k/a Pinnacle Entertainment Group) has published several for their Savage Worlds game.  I can't say how successful they are, but I sure am enjoying tour of Darkness and am looking forward to Deadlands Reloaded.  It is a nice shift in the way I game in general--much less time-intensive.  The ease of running Savage Worlds has further cooled my desire to run d20 D&D, but I recently bought Unearthed Arcana for some rules variants to save d20 for me.  I don't think it will work the way I would like it to...

So, in answer to the original post, I don't think the market is dying; it's shifting.  

Now, if I could just stop reading & posting on the Internet, I could really cut my gaming time (but what fun is that?).


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 4, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> In another thread, GMSkarka made the following observation:Take from that what you will...




One thing I've seen noted about reports of RPG sales is that WotC and White Wolf were bucking the trend and increasing RPG sales, while the rest of the industry was in trouble.  Admittedly, that was after this year's first quarter results.

Also note that miniatures games are tracked separately from RPG sales, so the D&D minis line doesn't figure into this.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 4, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If the market were saturated, would that not result in a tail off of the number of new titles being released?  I'm most certainly not all that knowledgeable about marketting, but it would seem to me that companies would be less willing to pump out new material into a market that no one is buying.
> 
> But, I don't see a drop off in the number of titles being released every month.



Not necessarily. It might even be the opposite. Lower sales figures per book (i.e., smaller print runs) can be countered by increasing prices, lowering page count and increasing the number of products in order to achieve the same profit margin. Of course, this only works as long as there's still a decent number of buyers.


----------



## TheGM (Sep 4, 2005)

Overall, I think the market will shrink in terms of providers simply because they're all fishing for dollarfish in the same pond, and the number of fishermen is increasing faster than the pond is being stocked.

My overall spending hasn't changed a ton, but I'm more cautious about all game systems that I sink money into.

I spend about the same on D20 stuff, but only from a few trusted publishers. It is not my primary game, so I don't even say "or stuff with good reviews here at ENWorld". just those few companies.

I did just order Wilderlands from my FLGS. Now if only it would come...

My spending on Kenzer and Company stuff has gone through the floor. It could be categorized as "nearly non-existant" at this point.

I've picked up the C&C habit, and am spending a chunk on that.

I've picked up some completely non-D20 stuff recently, offsetting my reduction in Kenzer purchases.

Dice and Minis are about the same - my wife buys the minis though.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Sep 4, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> The market may not be dying as such, but if these kinds of price points become the norm, the market will not expand.




The "Future of the Gaming Industry" panel at Gen Con Indy last year suggested that the opposite was true; price points rise because the market shrinks. The argument that the overall RPG market is shrinking, as the average age of gamers increases and new ones aren't coming in to replace the old, remains controversial; see my summary & discussion of the panel here.

Kenneth Hite said that one of the ways that publishers in other niches survive in shrinking markets is to sell luxury-priced items to fewer people, since there's no longer enough of a mass market to make it profitable to sell things at a price everyone can afford. One could argue that the publishers of the products JoeGKushner mentioned took this idea to heart!

What Behemoth3 is doing with Otherworld Excursions is, at one level, the same thing: trying to stay afloat by offering an expensive thing to a very small number of people. The important difference is that what we're selling is an experience -- and the continuing growth of Gen Con argues that the number of people willing to pay for a sit-down-and-play RPG session is increasing even as the number of people buying do-it-yourself-at-home RPG materials may be shrinking.

Another thing that might be poised to kill the market is unauthorized sharing of RPG materials. I'm the next-to-last person in the world to indulge in piracy hysteria; I was glad to see that people cared enough about Maze of the Minotaur to put it up on file-sharing services (especially since almost half of the people who got a free download of it, or any of our books, through the server drive didn't bother; nothing's worse than feeling like you can't even *give* your creations away!)

But in the music industry, artists can survive not getting paid for some downloads of their work by using this as free advertising for their concerts; in many cases, live performance has always been the mainstay of their income, with the revenue from publishing being relatively small potatoes. 

It might be that as long as the RPG industry is dependent on publishing, and there aren't ways for artists to get paid for live performance, piracy is a much more serious problem than it is for musicians. The Otherworld Excursions tours are an attempt to create the RPG equivalent of a concert: a chance to see the masters of our art form doing their thing live, and to take part in an experience that can't be shared or traded; you have to be there.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 4, 2005)

In other words, what was once an hobby has become a boutique.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Sep 4, 2005)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> In other words, what was once an hobby has become a boutique.




The hobby is & will remain that thing we like do with dice when we get together. Every roleplaying company could go out of business tomorrow, and I reckon we'd all go on playing until they pry the character sheets from our cold, dead hands.

Hite was arguing that the industry that serves the RPG market is going to become more like the wargaming hobby industry, which appeals to a smaller audience than it did in the heyday of SPI and has to charge more for each game as a result.

As others have pointed out, the arrival of electronic publishing has created an explosion of low-cost RPG material. Market diversification is a good thing; a healthy economy has room for both boutiques and thrift shops.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 4, 2005)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> Hite was arguing that the industry that serves the RPG market is going to become more like the wargaming hobby industry, which appeals to a smaller audience than it did in the heyday of SPI and has to charge more for each game as a result.




That's what I thought. Thanks!


----------



## Staffan (Sep 4, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Personally, I am expecting the announcement to be done at the GAMA Trade Show of the year in which it is to be released. Followed up by an extensive, intensive marketing ramp-up campaign (co-ordinated with Dragon/Dungeon) for a GenCon release.



You do know that they've (= Charles Ryan, boss of D&D) repeatedly said that they'll give one to two year's warning before releasing 4e. right?


----------



## Maggan (Sep 4, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Take from that what you will...




Skarka is happy he is selling PDF:s?   

/M


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 4, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> You do know that they've (= Charles Ryan, boss of D&D) repeatedly said that they'll give one to two year's warning before releasing 4e. right?



The way that I read it was that they would give that notice *if possible*. It is quite likely that things could happen that could cause that to change radically, such as with the decision to publish 3.5 two years earlier than it was originally planned. 

Those same sort of circumstances could cause a shift in current plans or desires about announcing 4e.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2005)

I've read something similar to this:



> such as with the decision to publish 3.5 two years earlier than it was originally planned




numerous times whenever a new edition gets talked about.  And it's true.  3.5 was released earlier than expected.  But, to say that the same thing is likely for 4e ignores the reason for the release of 3.5 so early.

Yes, yes, sit down in the back, I know 3.5 was a money grab.  Yes, that's quite likely true.  But, it's not the only truth.

Another truth is that 3.0 had a number of problems.  It did.  Yes, you can house rule to fix the problems, but, that hearkens back to the 2e days when that's all we did all day long was add house rule after house rule to fix the mistakes that were being foisted upon us.  One of the main points of 3.0 was that we weren't supposed to have to do that.  But, 3.0 was a major overhaul of 20+ previous years of gaming.  The code had lots of bugs.  And the fans made it known.  Website after website has 3e threads complaining, questioning and griping about this, that and the other thing in 3e.  There really were many, many problems.  While 3e was extensively playtested, it wasn't until it got into the grubby hands of gamers that it really got put through its paces.  And 3.5 was the result.  Why was it 2 years early?  Sure, money is part of it.  But the other part is that the rules REALLY did need to be fixed.

3.5 OTOH, hasn't seen the huge fanbased questioning that 3.0 did.  Many of the mistakes in 3e got fixed in 3.5 and, as thread after thread will attest, most of the fans are pretty content with the system.  For a 4e to come out early would be a really large surprise.  There's no push for 4e to come out like there was for 3e.  Not that people were demanding a new edition, but, by questioning and creating houserules after houserules, plus the massive amount of crap by 3rd party publishers that got tossed into the ring, at least in part because of the faulty mechanics of 3e, 3.5 really was needed.  

I really don't see the same need for a 4e.  Sure there are rules that could be fixed in 3.5.  I don't deny that.  But, looking at the rules threads and Sage questions and whatnot, the problems that most gamers seem to have aren't with core rules, but with expansions.  If the core rules are reasonably solid, then a switch to 4e will have to be a massive improvement or people simply won't buy.

One thing the plethora of publishers has shown is that just pumping out a book with a particular stamp on it, is no longer a guarantee of sale.


----------



## Psion (Sep 4, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> In another thread, GMSkarka made the following observation:Take from that what you will...




My immediate reaction is that at least in part due ot a shift towards online shopping.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 4, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> My immediate reaction is that at least in part due ot a shift towards online shopping.




Good point.

/M


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 4, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> One indicator of the health of the industry is the attendance at Gen Con and other conventions. I  haven't heard any reports about the recent Gen Con, but I know last year or the year before, attendance was very high.
> 
> Does anyone have any hard numbers on attendance this year Vs last year and the year before?



http://forums.gencon.com/default.aspx?f=3&m=107665

25,106 attended Gen Con this year, a record.  

I'm not going to believe the market is "dying" while the biggest convention in the industry is bigger than ever and having record attendance.  Say it's "dying" to the tens of thousands of people in Indianapolis every summer.  People love to predict Gloom & Doom, it's more dramatic than saying "everything's A-OK".  We are all part of a hobby that thrives on drama, we pretend to be epic heroes, some of us are going to be overdramatic sometimes.

The economy might not be so great, leaving people without huge piles of disposable income, printing and production costs might be driving up prices, and many people may feel some satisfaction with their current D&D books (not a bad thing), but that's not the end.

We're also looking at this largely from a "d20 centric" viewpoint, this is a largely d20 message board.  What were some of the big hits of the Con?  Shadowrun 4th Edition, Mage: The Awakening, Serenity, all non-d20.  What was the big d20 hit of the con, was there even one (Iron Heroes, maybe)?

d20 is no longer The Mandatory Choice in gaming, it's nice for a crossover market, and it's a good option if a game designer doesn't know system design well and wants a proven system he can pull off the shelf and focus on the setting.

I saw way too many little kids at Gen Con happlily gaming away to believe that we aren't attracting the young.  Yes, many were playing minis games or card games, but in a few years they may well migrate to D&D (or other RPG's), and I saw lots and lots of parents with kids in tow.  Gaming, as a hobby and industry, has been around for 30 years now, and that's a generation, and the children of gamers are now growing up and becoming gamers.

You say you aren't seeing kids getting involved with gaming?  How often do you otherwise engage in recreational activities with pre-teens and teenagers who aren't relatives?  If you're a thirtysomething your gaming group is not likely to notice a group of 13 year olds who picked up their first Players Handbook and are stumbling around to learn the rules and play their first games unless one of them is your son.

Some FLGS are closing?  Well, how many are serious stores that are trying to make money and working hard at it, and how many are the result of some gamer going off and opening a store without any knowledge of how to run a business (and partly wanting the wholesale costs for themselves and hiring their friends to work there).  The professionally run, well managed FLGS I know of are all doing excellently, one is even reporting that their sales are at an all-time high (and they've been around for 20 years).


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 4, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I do think that the market may be shrinking in terms of people buying everything in sight, but I think part of that was due to the amount of material put out initially and buyers are becoming smarter.




I think you've hit the nail on the head.  I'm much more selective these days, partly because I'm running out of shelf space, but also because I have a solid core colleciton of material, and now the only things I buy are the truly stellar products.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 4, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> My immediate reaction is that at least in part due ot a shift towards online shopping.



That's why Ken Hite's numbers are so far off. WotC stated already years ago that half of their RPG book sales don't go via game and hobby shops. I think this will have shifted even more to big chain stores and internet vendors by now.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 4, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> In another thread, GMSkarka made the following observation:Take from that what you will...




Come to think of it, I didn't know what the levels were before D&D3, or what they were before that. 

The numbers are down, but for all I know, the levels they are coming down from were very high.

More data! I need more data!

/M


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 4, 2005)

Oh, another one of these.

Tell me: Do these threads have any ourpose ither than to let the community cover themselves in blanket denial and reassurances? Because every few months people here get told the score about the games industry and then promptly go into denial. Therefore, I wonder if there's a point when few people here evince honest interest in the state of the RPG industry.

The changes that we've seen aren't around because hobbyists have gotten smarter and they aren'r around because of arcane oddities in distribution or online versus store shopping. They exist -- just as they have over the past decade or so of steady decline (and concommitant denials that are common to threads such as these) -- because there are fewer people gaming, fewer people buying RPGs and that there are more appealing entry hobbies for many people, such as MMO games, cards and miniatures. Based on figures from C&GR, Ken Hite, conversations with other company folks, and my personal connection with an RPG printer (during which I was able to compare order size from companies throughout the marketshare spread of RPG publishers), I think annual shrinkage of around 20% -- *each year*, for the last 4 years -- is not out of the question, with some artificial buoyancy for the market leaders.

Again and again, this thread gets brought up as if the downturn is a new surprise, a shocker, or just and ugly rumor that needs to be confronted by god hearted hobby-folk. Really, isn't this getting a little tired after so many years?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 4, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> They exist -- just as they have over the past decade or so of steady decline (and concommitant denials that are common to threads such as these) -- because there are fewer people gaming, fewer people buying RPGs and that there are more appealing entry hobbies for many people, such as MMO games, cards and miniatures.



You gave your own answer. Statements like yours will keep threads like this going. One year ago, WotC claimed to have RPG book sales (in that year) that exceeded every sales figure in the history of D&D ever. Someone must be telling rubbish here; it doesn't fit.



> Based on figures from C&GR, Ken Hite, conversations with other company folks, and my personal connection with an RPG printer (during which I was able to compare order size from companies throughout the marketshare spread of RPG publishers), I think annual shrinkage of around 20% -- *each year*, for the last 4 years -- is not out of the question, with some artificial buoyancy for the market leaders.



And all those figures are tainted. If C&GR and Ken Hite don't see more than half of the sales and printing is done in China, all these numbers indicate the state of game shops and the US (Canadian?) print industry, but don't have much to do with RPG sales.



> Really, isn't this getting a little tired after so many years?



I don't think so. As long as evidence as the one you brought up is taken face value without putting it into perspective, these discussions will go on.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 4, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Again and again, this thread gets brought up as if the downturn is a new surprise, a shocker, or just and ugly rumor that needs to be confronted by god hearted hobby-folk. Really, isn't this getting a little tired after so many years?




Well, after being told for so many years that the sky is falling, and that the rpg hobby will falter and die, and that no one buys rpg books any more, and just you wait until next year ...

... and when next year comes around, we're basically at the same place we were last year.

Except this year WoD 2.0 launched, WFRPv2 sold 30 000 copies or so (according to rumours at least), D&D has had a very successfull year, and pdf publishing is on the rise.

It is difficult for me to reconcile these "signs" with other "signs" saying the market is in the drains.

And really, does people want to hear "because there are fewer people gaming, fewer people buying RPGs and that there are more appealing entry hobbies for many people, such as MMO games, cards and miniatures" without discussing it, and offering explanations as to why several gamers don't see this downtrend. And really, how could we, we never see any figures, just speculation. And for each insider that says one thing, there's another saying the opposite.

As I said, more hard data would be interesting. Here in Sweden, rpg sales are up from early 90's, btw.

/M


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 4, 2005)

D&D is having the best sales ever, Gen Con has record attendance, White Wolf is doing swimmingly with the success of WoD 2.0.

The C&GR/Ken Hite numbers are widely known to be dubious.  The methodology leaves out many sales venues, foriegn printing is hard to track, and even how it tracks what sales it does cover is not exactly stellar.

If the gaming industry was shrinking by 20% each year for the last 4 years, it would be at 41% of the size it was at in 2001 (do the math), and there is *no way on Earth* that the gaming industry is that much smaller now.  In classic gaming parlance: "I disbelieve."

At most, things may be rough for small gaming companies, without the d20 bubble, higher production costs and less disposable income, but the overall health of the industry appears to be stellar.

Oh, and Games Workshop is reporting problems in their annual report, but they make a point of not being a part of the normal gaming industry, wanting their customers to only play their games, not wanting people playing other games with their miniatures, ect.  They also terminated sales relationships with many retailers over their internet policy, so they don't have a lot of room to complain when they lose sales after intentionally reducing the amount of sales outlets they have.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 4, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> 25,106 attended Gen Con this year, a record.
> 
> I'm not going to believe the market is "dying" while the biggest convention in the industry is bigger than ever and having record attendance.




Part of my question is what is this attendance.  Back in the late 80's, Origins used to have a RPGS as its focus, with wargames and related games as secondary.  Now, roleplaying games seem to be taking a back seat to miniature games.  In the last year he RPG market has been declining in the U.S., the miniatures games have been holding steady and the CCG market has just started to decline.  

Personally, while I play CCGs and miniature's games, my primary interest is in roleplaying games.  I wouldn't have touched them without the connection to RPGS.



> I saw way too many little kids at Gen Con happlily gaming away to believe that we aren't attracting the young.




Honestly, I think the reason they are playing CCGs and miniature games more than RPGs is because the gaming stores tend to focus on them.  Except for children and relatives of roleplayers, most kids see the games at gaming stores.  In my area, seeing roleplaying games at stores is the exception.  It used to be the rule during the early 80's.

Sure, a few may migrate to RPGs.  However, the ones I've dealt with have spent most of their time jumping between RPGs and miniatures games, because there are so many of them (the D&D minis line might have gotten some feeding into the RPG, but it never really took off here for competitive play).

Roleplayers have become more insular.  They don't play in public, they play at home.  Some play on the computer, but most kids are more attractive to computer gaming online rather than tabletop style roleplaying, because it's more exciting.  I think almost all players of tabletop style gaming online played at home and enjoyed it there, and took it to cyberspace when then could or needed to.  It just doesn't seem to be that attractive a style, compared to the other options.


----------



## mearls (Sep 4, 2005)

*Imo*

When we talk about the RPG industry, we're really talking about three industries (D&D, d20, non-d20) that exist under the umbrella of a larger marketplace that includes TCGs, CMGs, metal miniatures, boardgames, and geek culture items (stuffed Cthulhu dolls, t-shirts, etc.)

Part of the problem in getting any broad picture or one sentence summaries of how things are going is that all of these industries can shoot off in different directions at the same time.

D&D is doing fine. I can't even begin to get into details here, since I hear stuff around the office that is confidential. Basically, if we pay a firm to do market research we can't just go around reporting their results. That's money we've invested in acquiring data that we use to form D&D's strategy. But what I can say is that D&D is trucking along fine.

I think the big problems lie in the d20 and non-d20 segments. The current distribution and retail system is poorly suited for RPGs. Since 1993, the hobby game distributors and stores have enjoyed a steady stream of high sales, fad products: Magic, the TCG explosion, Pokemon, Heroclix, D&D 3e and d20, Yu-Gi-Oh. All of these games were cash cows. The distributors simply shifted fad products from publishers to retailers and soaked up the profits. The retailers put the latest fad on the shelf, and gamers bought it in droves.

Those days are over. Yu-Gi-Oh is no longer a fad, and nothing has arisen to take its place. I think this is why RPGs are feeling the pinch: the distributors simply don't want to deal with them anymore. RPGs have lots of different titles, making them hard to track, and they don't move as many raw numbers as a CCG or TCG. Even boardgames have a leg up on RPGs, as most games cost around $50. With money tight, RPGs are the first ones to go.

To really sell RPGs, you have to have some level of expertise in them. If you don't understand the RPG market and keep track of what's hot, it's a mindfield. How many times have you seen a game store with an entire shelf of dead Fast Forward d20 products? A game store owner would have to be a reasonably sophistacted D&D player to understand that FF product was terrible. He'd also have to do a fair amount of work to track his inventory to the level that he can see that FF titles didn't sell.

The typical well-stocked RPG section has maybe a dozen game lines, if not more, with dozens of titles for each. Compared that to the TCG section. A store might carry 6 or 7 different games, each with the current base set, and maybe three or four expansion sets currently in stock. Same thing from CMGs; you have far fewer lines, and each line consists of far fewer products.

(To put it another way, the D&D minis line has generated 7 products over the past three years: Harbinger, Dragoneye, Archfiends, Giants of Legend, Aberrations, Deathknell, and Angelfire. Compare that the number of D&D books released since then - there's about 30 titles. For collectable minis games, there's HeroClix and D&D. For RPGs, a store might carry D&D, WoD, GURPS, Hero, Warhammer FRP, d20 stuff, Conan, AU, IH, BR, TW, BC, and tons of others. For both distributors and retailers, RPGs are *much* harder to track and handle than other types of games.)

RPGs also suffer in that they're much harder to demo than a minis or card game, they lack the cool, compelling "toy" factor you get with minis and boardgames, and they don't lend themselves to tournaments as easily as other games.

We also have seen a big die off in game retailers, probably attributable to the evaporation of an easy money maker a la Pokemon. That puts a huge dent into the number of stores ordering RPGs, and thus cuts down sales.

The hobby game market as a whole has also seen a downturn. Again, I think this is attributable to the shrinking pool of retailers.

I think we're seeing more and more D&D sales pushed into bookstores such as Barnes & Noble and Borders. In the past few years, D&D has made its way on to a lot more B&N shelves. I've also seen several stores with rotating, stand up displays filled with D&D books. If you think about it, D&D makes huge sense for these places. A single D&D book goes for about $30, and you can fit the entire line in one, maybe two shelves. On a shelf inch/dollar basis, that's a lot of cash value stuck in a relatively small area. Best of all for a bookstore, if you establish a good presence, you can generate a lot of return sales as gamers start shopping at a bookstore rather than a game store.

In terms of infrastructure, the book trade is designed to handle RPGs - look at how many new books come out each week. Tracking all those titles is a lot easier for a national chain than for a single, small business.

GenCon sales were also strong this year, and the show's attendance went up. I think this is evidence that we're looking at problems with distributors and retailers, rather than a drop in demand for games.

For RPGs, and D&D in particular, I think a lot of that demand is now being met by chain bookstores. This is why I never paid any attention to Ken Hite's analysis. The data was terrible, and it did nothing to account for book stores. I think access to the book trade is the key line between success and failure in today's RPG market.


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 4, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Oh, and Games Workshop is reporting problems in their annual report, but they make a point of not being a part of the normal gaming industry, wanting their customers to only play their games, not wanting people playing other games with their miniatures, ect.  They also terminated sales relationships with many retailers over their internet policy, so they don't have a lot of room to complain when they lose sales after intentionally reducing the amount of sales outlets they have.



GW have mentioned the effect of reduced sales because of the LotR tie-ins fading and are also hit by the exchange rate of the pound against the dollar.


----------



## pogre (Sep 4, 2005)

At a recent history teachers convention in the midwest I was on a panel with several other teachers. Following our presentation we were discussing many things and someone in the group mentioned the D&D nerds - normal stereotype stuff. 

I took the opportunity to ask if there were still D&D nerds in their schools. The sentiment was universal amongst the 30+ highschool teachers present that D&D has faded from the high schools noticably in the last few years. The "D&D nerds" are still there, they are just playing different stuff (mostly computers).

Not very scientific at all, but matches my observations over the last decade+.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 5, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> If you think about it, D&D makes huge sense for these places. A single D&D book goes for about $30, and you can fit the entire line in one, maybe two shelves. On a shelf inch/dollar basis, that's a lot of cash value stuck in a relatively small area. Best of all for a bookstore, if you establish a good presence, you can generate a lot of return sales as gamers start shopping at a bookstore rather than a game store.
> 
> In terms of infrastructure, the book trade is designed to handle RPGs - look at how many new books come out each week. Tracking all those titles is a lot easier for a national chain than for a single, small business.




You know, that makes a lot of sense. In particular, if I was looking to buy a book in person (as opposed to buying one on-line at Amazon.com), I'd buy it at Borders or Barnes and Noble rather than going to the crummy unlit game store where the guy behind the counter is rude or hasn't bathed in weeks. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the enlightenment.

What it means, though is that unless the d20 RPG publishers wise up and also start selling into the book market rather than trying to make it onto the game retailer store shelf, they are going to be history.


----------



## philreed (Sep 5, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> What it means, though is that unless the d20 RPG publishers wise up and also start selling into the book market rather than trying to make it onto the game retailer store shelf, they are going to be history.




Most publishers operating in the industry would be killed by the mainstream, mass-market channels. Returns are a major problem for companies -- more than one company has been killed by returns.

Hell, this is part of what led to TSR's collapse.



			
				30 Years of Adventure said:
			
		

> And then the roof caved in. Random House informed TSR that almost a third of their TSR products for the year had not sold at the store to a customer and that these products were being returned for a free of several million dollars.




Now a lot of the reason for the returns was the fault of bad publishing decisions during that year. But returns -- maybe not as massive -- can be a serious problem for lots of publishers that go blindly down the path of mass-market distribution.

In recent memory there was Osseum -- well known for lots connections in mass-market distribution -- that died and almost killed several publishers with them. Now there were more problems than just the mass-market channels but returns were definitely a factor.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think annual shrinkage of around 20% -- *each year*, for the last 4 years -- is not out of the question, with some artificial buoyancy for the market leaders.




"I think" is not really good enough.  Either you have supportable numbers, or you've got personal guesses.  As others have pointed out, a shrinkage of 20% a year for four nears would mean teh market would now be 41% of what it used to be.  With WotC claiming better than ever sales last year, you'll need somehting better than "I think" to get folks to accept this claim.

You've one out - the "artificial bouyancy for the market leaders".  Because in this business, for most intents and purposes, the market leaders are almost the entire market.  If a couple of them are bouyant, then the entire market is pretty much bouyant.  And if everyoneis still floatign okay, it's hard to say there's a problem.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 5, 2005)

There was an interesting thread over at RPG.net recently concerning the 'Shadow Community' of people who play OOP RPGs -- i.e. people who still play OD&D, AD&D (pre-3e), Runequest, MERP, etc.   These people play PRGs on a semi-regular basis (maybe 1-2 a month, or less), are happy with the rules that they know, and see no need to 'upgrade' (especially given that they are probably busy 30+ professionals with families, etc.).

The claim was made that this is a _huge_ community (admittedly, most of the evidence cited was anecdotal, but the popularity of sites like Dragonsfoot.org suggests that there _are_ many OOP RPGers out there).  Moreover, for obvious reasons, they tend to buy their stuff on e-bay and in used bookstores -- not from 'current' RPG companies.  

For every new edition of a RPG, it seems reasonable to postulate that a huge chunk of RPG players _leave_ the 'current market' as a consequence.  They see no reason to learn new rules, etc.    The RPG industry is thus very different from, for example, the computer industry.  Once you've purchased a set of rules you don't _need_ to buy anything else.

Granted, if a new edition is likely to attract _more_ new players than it loses, then it makes sense for the company to introduce it.  This has been GW's strategy with WFB and Warhammer 40K for ages, and it appears to be WotC's strategy as well (as seen with 3.5).  It makes perfect economic sense from the companies' perspective, even though it might annoy players.

However, in releasing these new editions, RPG companies are competing against rivals that they didn't have 20 years ago -- viz., computer games, card games, etc.  The 'big guns' (WotC, WW, BI/GW) have access to many distribution resources (big book stores, etc.), and thus can succeed.  In addition, they have alternative, 'synergy-producing' sources of revenue (viz. minis, novels, card games).  Smaller RPG companies don't have these resources. 

*In short*, the RPG market faces several challenges: (1) _many_ players (most not represented at a site like ENworld) refuse to 'upgrade' to new editions (they become members of the OOP RPG 'shadow community', and support e-bay instead of WotC); (2) competition from alternative entertainment sources (viz. computer games, card games, mini games); and (3) distribution challenges (especially acute for smaller companies, as explained by Mearls).


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> "I think" is not really good enough.  Either you have supportable numbers, or you've got personal guesses.  As others have pointed out, a shrinkage of 20% a year for four nears would mean teh market would now be 41% of what it used to be.  With WotC claiming better than ever sales last year, you'll need somehting better than "I think" to get folks to accept this claim.




Do you have a preponderance of contrary evidence? Of course you don't. You have an off the cuff statement by someone whose job it is to tell you that D&D is doing gangbusters and who would be professionally obligated to do so in conditions up to and including his office being on fire while he was typing. And you, like many others, really, really want to believe that your hobby is in super-cool shape.

I don't have to get people to "accept a claim." Clearly that's useless, since the entire thrust of this -- another online backslapping session about how well the "industry" is doing -- is sentimental, not factual. There is no standard of evidence here -- just a standard of denial that gets looser each year.

I suppose I could direct you to C&GC, ICV2, to Ken Hite's annual roundup in Out of the Box, and several years of convention panels, but that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. I'd have to post a link to an .mpeg of the Hasbro board taking a long concrete bellyflop over D&D sales, where each board member shouted 20 year sales arcs for the property as they soared to a messy end at the bottom, for this to get taken seriously. And maybe even not then.

Back in the real world, though, there is a consensus among all informed sectors of the print RPG industry that sales have been more or less continuous decline -- the newsworthy items have been bumps and levels in that decline. New editions of individual games don't change the fact that everybody together is making less money and has been for quite some time.

.pdf is doing better, but to a certain extent the very existence of the .pdf end of the hobby is an effect of its overall decline in popularity.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 5, 2005)

nevermind


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I suppose I could direct you to C&GC, ICV2, to Ken Hite's annual roundup in Out of the Box, and several years of convention panels, but that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.



Well, most people in this thread know those reports. Most people here know that game stores, the providers of those numbers, are suffering greatly and dying a not so slow death. This doesn't change anything with the fundamental flaw in the numbers from those sources, i.e., that they really don't represent a large segment of the RPG market. If all people had a similar buying habit like I have, game stores would probably be gone bust by now and Ken Hite would report a market share of 0% for WotC (I've never bought a single WotC product in a game store), given the source of his numbers. Those numbers are rubbish! That's all what I say. That D&D is not directly a cash cow for a company like Hasbro is a completely different problem.



> Back in the real world, though, there is a consensus among all informed sectors of the print RPG industry that sales have been more or less continuous decline -- the newsworthy items have been bumps and levels in that decline.



This is certainly true for the smaller or even medium-sized publishers. They have serious distribution problems (e.g., Green Ronin; interestingly, not so Black Industries). That's a problem of the general conentration processes in markets.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, most people in this thread know those reports. Most people here know that game stores, the providers of those numbers, are suffering greatly and dying a not so slow death. This doesn't change anything with the fundamental flaw in the numbers from those sources, i.e., that they really don't represent a large segment of the RPG market. If all people had a similar buying habit like I have, game stores would probably be gone bust by now and Ken Hite would report a market share of 0% for WotC (I've never bought a single WotC product in a game store), given the source of his numbers. Those numbers are rubbish! That's all what I say. That D&D is not directly a cash cow for a company like Hasbro is a completely different problem.




The trouble, though, is that these are the best public numbers out there, they all agree and have done so for several years. If they were being pulled out of thin air they would not be nearly so consistent.



> This is certainly true for the smaller or even medium-sized publishers. They have serious distribution problems (e.g., Green Ronin; interestingly, not so Black Industries). That's a problem of the general conentration processes in markets.



[/QUOTE]

I think that a bigger problem is just the sheer lack of consumers. There are a fair number of people who haven't bought RPGs but still play, but more who just don't play any more. I'd link that problem to:

* Incompetent brand management. TSR and WotC have both at various times allowed the D&D brand to get associated with poorly socialized nerds. 

* Incompetent industry representation. A trade organization that peppers its awards show with rappin' hobbits, careened to an alleged felony at the center of its elections and is shunned by market leaders is not in a position to put a good foot forward for the media or for collective marketing of RPGs. Then there's . . .

* Collective squabbling. Nobody wants to work together to provide a sound direction for the industry because everyone is slavering for a top 5 slot or will be damned before they let anybody else up. One manifestation of this is, in my opinion, a general decline in the craft (not novelty which is easy to get) of design. The two largest streams of RPG design ("indie" games and D20) both have vocal minorities who heap scorn upon design outside their rubric. The 90s were choked with wierd crap. The 00s are choked with boring crap.

* High concept is choking the market with more and more games that only appeal to initiated gamers. Does anybody outside of the hobby really give a damn about, say Etherscope? This works better for .pdfs (which usually only sell to the hard core anyway), but nobody seems to have found a new accessible millieu since the mid-90s or so.

* Demographics. Gamers are aging. Many of us come from any explosion of interest in the 80s or remember it. D&D has ahd a pervasive influence on games that are far more popular than it, but the sad flipside is that nothing exists to take people back to that point of origin.

The industry won't "die." But we're past the peak and ought to see where wargaming's gone.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The trouble, though, is that these are the best public numbers out there, they all agree and have done so for several years. If they were being pulled out of thin air they would not be nearly so consistent.



I'm not sure why this point is so hard to understand. Even if these numbers are the only ones available and completely accurate, they are absolutely meaningless for judging the state of RPGs. They are a good indicator for judging the state of specialized game stores (or, concerning your other numbers, the US print industry). These are two (or three) completely different things. There may be some kind of relation between the state of game stores and the state of RPGs, but this relation is not logically conclusive in a way that it allows to make statements about RPG sales. You might (hypothetically) have had a doubling of RPG sales every year for the last decade and still have those same numbers; not that I believe that's in any way true, but this serves for illustrating the point. Your statement is a non sequitur.



> I think that a bigger problem is just the sheer lack of consumers. There are a fair number of people who haven't bought RPGs but still play, but more who just don't play any more.



Which is, in principle, a normal cycle for all hobbies. The point is to draw new consumers into the hobby.



> I'd link that problem to:
> 
> * Incompetent brand management. TSR and WotC have both at various times allowed the D&D brand to get associated with poorly socialized nerds.
> 
> * Incompetent industry representation. A trade organization that peppers its awards show with rappin' hobbits, careened to an alleged felony at the center of its elections and is shunned by market leaders is not in a position to put a good foot forward for the media or for collective marketing of RPGs. Then there's . . .



Well, it's a nerd hobby . The question is, why are CCGs a nerd hobby and, nevertheless, selling well? Ease of use, I'd say. This point seems more important to me. (Better profit margins and more advertising is another one, but nothing you can do much about.)



> * Collective squabbling. Nobody wants to work together to provide a sound direction for the industry because everyone is slavering for a top 5 slot or will be damned before they let anybody else up. One manifestation of this is, in my opinion, a general decline in the craft (not novelty which is easy to get) of design. The two largest streams of RPG design ("indie" games and D20) both have vocal minorities who heap scorn upon design outside their rubric. The 90s were choked with wierd crap. The 00s are choked with boring crap.



Not a problem at all. As RPGs are invisible to the public in general, collective squabbling is meaningless. And that "general decline in the craft of design" is something I'd deny completely. I see very much the opposite. Not because designers are inherently better today, but because there is so much to build upon and communication is much better.



> * High concept is choking the market with more and more games that only appeal to initiated gamers. Does anybody outside of the hobby really give a damn about, say Etherscope? This works better for .pdfs (which usually only sell to the hard core anyway), but nobody seems to have found a new accessible millieu since the mid-90s or so.



That seems to be one of the central points. It connects to the same I mentioned above: ease of use. What's Etherscope, btw ?



> * Demographics. Gamers are aging. Many of us come from any explosion of interest in the 80s or remember it. D&D has ahd a pervasive influence on games that are far more popular than it, but the sad flipside is that nothing exists to take people back to that point of origin.



That's mostly true. Although it's sometimes a two-way street. I got interested in tabletop gaming by CRPGs. I succeeded, despite TSR's or early WotC's best efforts to prevent this (cease and desist orders against messageboards and crap like that) .


----------



## Hussar (Sep 5, 2005)

Heh, FFN has this to say about the state of gaming.


----------



## D_Sinclair (Sep 5, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heh, FFN has this to say about the state of gaming.




Gah! The poked fun at my horribly overpriced and too nifty looking to dare be played with 3-d anniversary edition of Settlers of Catan...

If people have trouble swallowing the $120 price tag for Ptolus, try shelling out $380 for Settlers of Catan's 3-D 10th anniversary edition...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 5, 2005)

Dare I feed the troll? Oh, why not...



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> * Incompetent brand management. TSR and WotC have both at various times allowed the D&D brand to get associated with poorly socialized nerds.




Except by all accounts, the hobby is growing beyond the basement. As these nerds grow up and get jobs and teach their friends, family, and kids, you get a huge diversity of people interested in the hobby. Add that to the fact that nerdishness is growing more acceptable in society and in life (Most of the world isn't stuck permenantly in high school), and that does'nt really impact D&D sales negatively. In fact, the "cultural cliquishness" of D&D is an asset, since it breeds fierce loyalty and a kind of shadowy intrigue. And then you have the "cultural items" as Mearls termed them being powerful market forces beyond D&D. The LotR movies, fer'instance. 

D&D isn't associated with poorly socialized nerds in any greater capacity than professional wrestling is associated with poorly educated hillbilies. Which is to say that there is much broader appeal.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> * Incompetent industry representation. A trade organization that peppers its awards show with rappin' hobbits, careened to an alleged felony at the center of its elections and is shunned by market leaders is not in a position to put a good foot forward for the media or for collective marketing of RPGs. Then there's . . .




The fact that I have no idea what you're babbling about, as a fairly casual gamer, indicates to me that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously this event is hardly a destructive force in the market...



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> * Collective squabbling. Nobody wants to work together to provide a sound direction for the industry because everyone is slavering for a top 5 slot or will be damned before they let anybody else up. One manifestation of this is, in my opinion, a general decline in the craft (not novelty which is easy to get) of design. The two largest streams of RPG design ("indie" games and D20) both have vocal minorities who heap scorn upon design outside their rubric. The 90s were choked with wierd crap. The 00s are choked with boring crap.




With this cliquishness, you have a point. If 3 or 4 mid-sized-to-large publishers could join forces on a valuable product, they'd be able to rival WotC with the forces they could leverage. It is the nature of the marketplace that the big fish swallows the smaller, but there is a swarm of tadpoles out there right now.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> * High concept is choking the market with more and more games that only appeal to initiated gamers. Does anybody outside of the hobby really give a damn about, say Etherscope? This works better for .pdfs (which usually only sell to the hard core anyway), but nobody seems to have found a new accessible millieu since the mid-90s or so.




Nobody outside the hobby gives a damn about anything in the hobby, yos. It's kind of the nature of a hobby...I don't care about the newest model train releases, either. I don't pay attention.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> * Demographics. Gamers are aging. Many of us come from any explosion of interest in the 80s or remember it. D&D has ahd a pervasive influence on games that are far more popular than it, but the sad flipside is that nothing exists to take people back to that point of origin.




Evidence has been cited that indicates D&D's market is growing, and is now larger than it has ever been before. This *is* the point of origin for many, many people -- more people than have ever played the game before. Take people back to the "good old days," and you'll be guilty of that "high concept that only appeals to gamers" problem. A huge part of the audience isn't interested in the good old days. Just in getting fun out of their dice today.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> That's mostly true. Although it's sometimes a two-way street. I got interested in tabletop gaming by CRPGs. I succeeded, despite TSR's or early WotC's best efforts to prevent this (cease and desist orders against messageboards and crap like that) .



Good point, Gaming survived the Dark Times when TSR was on it's inquisition to eliminate gaming fandom, it can survive a market twitch.  

The actual supply of fans and interested people look pretty healthy (again, record Gen Con attendance), any problems in the industry appear to be distribution/organizational problems that make companies perform far less efficiently than they could otherwise.

However, the mainstream bookstore market is killer for small press companies, since effectively everything sold through major bookstores is on consignment.  If it doesn't sell, it's sent back and the company that produced it has to eat the cost.  Compare that to the FLGS, where local stores end up with shelves of unsellable low-grade materials that periodically are cleaned out with a huge sale.  

The foundation of the industry, the fans and gamers themselves, appears healthy.  As long as that is healthy, the industry will survive, because as any company collapses, a new one will arise.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The trouble, though, is that these are the best public numbers out there, they all agree and have done so for several years. If they were being pulled out of thin air they would not be nearly so consistent.




What I think you're not realizing eyebeams is that those numbers ignore about 70%+ of the total market. All the numbers Ken Hite talk about tell you is the state of hobby gaming stores. More RPGs are sold through chain bookstores like Borders, B&N, Waldens and even mass chains like Target and Walmart than are being sold at hobby gaming stores. 

The other thing to consider is that these large chain bookstores and retail outlets only deal with the TOP of the industry, WOTC and a few others. 

In other words, if *all* hobby game stores went under companies like RPGObjects would have lost their only retail outlet for print books. WOTC would simply work to improve visibility in chain bookstores and move on.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 5, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> What I think you're not realizing eyebeams is that those numbers ignore about 70%+ of the total market. All the numbers Ken Hite talk about tell you is the state of hobby gaming stores. More RPGs are sold through chain bookstores like Borders, B&N, Waldens and even mass chains like Target and Walmart than are being sold at hobby gaming stores.
> 
> The other thing to consider is that these large chain bookstores and retail outlets only deal with the TOP of the industry, WOTC and a few others.
> 
> In other words, if *all* hobby game stores went under companies like RPGObjects would have lost their only retail outlet for print books. WOTC would simply work to improve visibility in chain bookstores and move on.




Your information about hobby book sales is mistaken and again, the result of taking off the uff comments at face value instead of actually investigating them broadly. You're fixating on one set of information (G&GR abd Hite's interpretation), when there are several, which I listed in my previous post. But then again, my point is that I suspect that actual facts are irrelevant to the majority of posts here, which mostly exist to make hobbyists feel nice about the commercial end of their hobby. 

Yes, folks here like to talk about WotC having majority marketshare (which they bootstrap into your comment) -- but nobody thinks where that data actually comes from, do they? It comes from comments on threads like this. It comes from Charles Ryan, actually, when he complained that you should all ignore everybody who isn't him when it comes to talking about the hobby.  So one guy pushing his product told you something once and you cleaved to it, probably because it makes y'all feel happy. This would be funny if it wasn't the rationale used by so-called businesses in this hobby.

When it comes down to it, many people are more interested in the pretense of a thriving hobby, because the facts are a bother, eh?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Yes, folks here like to talk about WotC having majority marketshare (which they bootstrap into your comment) -- but nobody thinks where that data actually comes from, do they?




So, is it your arguement that Wizards doesn't have a majority of the market share?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Your information about hobby book sales is mistaken and again, the result of taking off the uff comments at face value instead of actually investigating them broadly. You're fixating on one set of information (G&GR abd Hite's interpretation), when there are several, which I listed in my previous post. But then again, my point is that I suspect that actual facts are irrelevant to the majority of posts here, which mostly exist to make hobbyists feel nice about the commercial end of their hobby.



So, here the direct question: Do any of your data contain the sales figures of RPG books from amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Walmart and Target? Yes or no?


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 5, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Dare I feed the troll? Oh, why not...




I'll remember that your view any form of disagreement is trolling and rate the sincerity of your replies accordingly.



> Except by all accounts, the hobby is growing beyond the basement. As these nerds grow up and get jobs and teach their friends, family, and kids, you get a huge diversity of people interested in the hobby. Add that to the fact that nerdishness is growing more acceptable in society and in life (Most of the world isn't stuck permenantly in high school), and that does'nt really impact D&D sales negatively. In fact, the "cultural cliquishness" of D&D is an asset, since it breeds fierce loyalty and a kind of shadowy intrigue. And then you have the "cultural items" as Mearls termed them being powerful market forces beyond D&D. The LotR movies, fer'instance.




Please to be citing the origins of "all accounts." Back in the real world, "all these nerds" are just getting old and giving up the hobby. This was even true when WotC studied it. This explosive growth must be some strange phenomenon where we get more gamers while the industry loses almost 80% of its sales volume over 10 years -- because in the real world, that's what's actually happened. The size of RPG print runs have declined by a factor of 5-10.



> D&D isn't associated with poorly socialized nerds in any greater capacity than professional wrestling is associated with poorly educated hillbilies. Which is to say that there is much broader appeal.




Really? The concepts behind RPGs do have plenty of appeal, as video games have shown -- just as they've shown that RPGs themselves are utterly unnecessary to express them.



> The fact that I have no idea what you're babbling about, as a fairly casual gamer, indicates to me that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously this event is hardly a destructive force in the market...




That fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about is rather my point.



> With this cliquishness, you have a point. If 3 or 4 mid-sized-to-large publishers could join forces on a valuable product, they'd be able to rival WotC with the forces they could leverage. It is the nature of the marketplace that the big fish swallows the smaller, but there is a swarm of tadpoles out there right now.




I'm not talking about "rivalling," anyone. I'm talking about a clear collective definition of segments of the RPG industry and promoting a collective public face.



> Nobody outside the hobby gives a damn about anything in the hobby, yos. It's kind of the nature of a hobby...I don't care about the newest model train releases, either. I don't pay attention.




Actually, not, it's not inherent to the nature of the hobby. It's a part of the mismanagement and decline of the hobby.



> Evidence has been cited that indicates D&D's market is growing, and is now larger than it has ever been before. This *is* the point of origin for many, many people -- more people than have ever played the game before. Take people back to the "good old days," and you'll be guilty of that "high concept that only appeals to gamers" problem. A huge part of the audience isn't interested in the good old days. Just in getting fun out of their dice today.




No evidence hasn't been cited. One guy from WotC has been cited. Though it magically becomes "evidence" when people want to believe it, while a decade of observation and analysis from many sources magically becomes "hearsay" because people don't want to hear it.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 5, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, is it your argument that Wizards doesn't have a majority of the market share?




WotC has floated around 45% according to numbers I trust -- not the 70% or 90% bandied about here.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> WotC has floated around 45% according to numbers I trust -- not the 70% or 90% bandied about here.




The problem is you can't trust any numbers, as no one has the full picture.  There are just too many gabs in the infoamriton.  People make their best guesses, but I see no reason to trust the facts you do over the facts other people use.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> WotC has floated around 45% according to numbers I trust -- not the 70% or 90% bandied about here.




Where do those numbers come from?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Where do those numbers come from?



Game and hobby stores.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Game and hobby stores.




How many of them??


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Game and hobby stores.




OK, but doesn't that make them just as anecdotal as anything else "bandied about" in this thread?


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> So, here the direct question: Do any of your data contain the sales figures of RPG books from amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Walmart and Target? Yes or no?




Actually, yes. New releases from the top 5 regularly approach or exceed D&D in online sales rankings. As of this post, for instance, I queue up Amazon and:

Mage: The Awakening: #683
Players Handbook: #1041


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> How many of them??



Don't know. Those that care to fill out questionnaires and send them back.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Game and hobby stores.




Not entirely, no.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, yes. New releases from the top 5 regularly approach or exceed D&D in online sales rankings. As of this post, for instance, I queue up Amazon and:
> 
> Mage: The Awakening: #683
> Players Handbook: #1041




Yes, the hot new game from a big company will outsell the game from another big company that was released 3 years ago.  For a real coomparison you should be using Vampire, World of Darkness, or even Werewolf.  Those numbers I think will be more accurate in the long run.  MAge is spiking in sales, as the Playershandbook did 3 years ago.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Don't know. Those that care to fill out questionnaires and send them back.




Right, which really questions how accurate that is.  Its only game stores, and just the ones that fill out the questionaire.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Not entirely, no.




The thing is, such answers seem very cryptic. If there is any hard data, why not post it? Amazon sales rankings aren't that great at telling the whole story - for example, which company sells more titles, WotC or White Wolf? Wouldn't that figure into this?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, yes. New releases from the top 5 regularly approach or exceed D&D in online sales rankings. As of this post, for instance, I queue up Amazon and:
> 
> Mage: The Awakening: #683
> Players Handbook: #1041



Another logical flaw in your argumentation. New releases often top titles that have a shelf life of 3 years. To put it in perspective, here two other numbers:

Werewolf: The Forsaken: #31,502
Vampire: The Requiem: #50,773

Those are short term sales rankings. Updated hourly.

Edit: To be fair and use the same category of booK:

The World of Darkness: #8,916


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 5, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> However, the mainstream bookstore market is killer for small press companies, since effectively everything sold through major bookstores is on consignment.  If it doesn't sell, it's sent back and the company that produced it has to eat the cost.  Compare that to the FLGS, where local stores end up with shelves of unsellable low-grade materials that periodically are cleaned out with a huge sale.



Not quite. Main stream book stores rarely purchase directly from the publisher. They use a distributor like Ingrams. Ingrams purchases (and pays for) books from the publishers. However, their contracts, unlike the contracts with the hobby distributors, allow for returns. A nasty little habit that these main stream distributors have is to return almost everything that they have not sold shortly before christmas, to make their year end inventories look better. However, when they do this, they expect to have their money returned (much more promptly than they normally pay publishers, at that). This can cause major cash flow problems, and even kill some businesses. These distributors will then turn right back around and re-order everything they returned a few months later.

At this point, the only two companies that can really afford to use these main stream distributors are WotC (aka Hasbro) and perhaps White Wolf. Osseum used to also deal with them (which is why you got to see Green Ronin products at Barnes & Noble for a while).



			
				wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The foundation of the industry, the fans and gamers themselves, appears healthy.  As long as that is healthy, the industry will survive, because as any company collapses, a new one will arise.



 Again, not quite. Is the hobby getting new gamers? Yes. Is the hobby losing gamers? Again, yes. Is the hobby gaining new gamers at a rate greater than it is losing gamers? Unfortunately, not.

Personally, I would not say that the hobby is dying, but I would say that it is shrinking.


			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> The other thing to consider is that these large chain bookstores and retail outlets only deal with the TOP of the industry, WOTC and a few others.



Not true. As I said above, the book stores deal with THEIR distributors. Their distributors will deal with just about anybody, anybody who is willing to take THEIR terms, including on the issue of returns. Also as I said above, there are only a few companies who can AFFORD to deal on those terms. Osseum tried to do it for smaller companies and look at how well that turned out....


			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> So, is it your arguement that Wizards doesn't have a majority of the market share?



 Don't be silly. Of course WotC has the largest market share. They have the most famous brand to build on, and they have the capital and resources to do things other companies cannot. However, having said that, I would not fully trust anything that they say about the size of their market share. For example, if they quote how many PHBs sold last year, you can bet that the number quoted most likely does not take into account returns from the main stream distributors, but does take into account sales to them.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Evidence has been cited that indicates D&D's market is growing, and is now larger than it has ever been before.



Umm? What evidence? Sorry, but Charles Ryan saying that sales are better than ever does not qualify as evidence. Besides, citing "evidence" is worthless unless one is willing to share that evidence with others.

Now one thing that I would like to point out. The source from which Mr. Hite gets his numbers is not very accurate (which he does state in his reports) becuase it is volunteer information only. One thing that does not get mentioned is that the source of his numbers is affiliated with the largest distributor in the hobby, and that the information comes from their customers. This means that it totally ignores anything not carried by that distributor (unless the volunteer store deals with more than one distributor, and relatively few do). This means that anything not carried by that distributor will be highly unlikely to make it onto that list.

Finally, I want to reiterate what I said above:

Personally, I would not say that the hobby is dying, but I would say that it is shrinking.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 5, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Umm? What evidence? Sorry, but Charles Ryan saying that sales are better than ever does not qualify as evidence. Besides, citing "evidence" is worthless unless one is willing to share that evidence with others.




I agree with you about it not being "evidence", but I disagree with the implication that I read into several posts here and on other forums, that just because Ryan or Mearls is saying it, it is not to be trusted at all. 

They are saying it. What they say, who they work for and why they are saying it should be taken into consideration, sure. But should it be summarily dismissed?

Are they lying?

For their own sake, I hope not, and I don't believe that to be the case. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but to me it reads as if we're stopping just short of calling them liars just because they work for WotC, which evidently makes everything they say mightily suspect.

To me their info is one clue, Hite's number another, the numbers I get from my publisher another, the numbers I get from my FLGS another, the number of people attending conventions another, and so on.

Here in Sweden the hobby seems to be stable, looking over the last 5 years. Before that it was in serious decline, and it will never ever reach the levels it was at 1985 to 1990. So today we have a smaller group of roleplaying gamers (maybe around 40 000, ie "gamers", not "consumers"). A popular game (there are two big native, and about three smaller native, as well as strong sales for D&D and WoD), will sell around five thousand to ten thousand copies of a new edition, which has been stable for the last five years (and yes, we cycle through editions like they were underwear here in Sweden, which is not really a good thing, but it keeps the wheels turning).

The gaming magazine I'm involved with (www.speltidningen.se) is a colour printed magazine, distributed in magazine stores and FLGS, and has print run of 4000 copies every second month, and a readership of around 2 000 gamers, most of them roleplayers. The support we're finding among gamers is the highest level we've had here in Sweden in years. 

These are not anecdotal observations. They are hard numbers.

Still, we get fewer FLGS, and game store chains are pulling RPGs from their shelves, to make room for stuff that generates more money.

That being the situation here does not mean anything when looking at the state of the hobby anywhere else, but there are places in the world where real world observations support the notion that the hobby is not shrinking at a dramatic pace.

Take that as you will.

Cheers!

/Maggan


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 5, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I agree with you about it not being "evidence", but I disagree with the implication that I read into several posts here and on other forums, that just because Ryan or Mearls is saying it, it is not to be trusted at all.



Implication? I don't think I was making an implication. I was just saying that you cannot really trust anything that anybody quotes as "evidence", unless it is backed up with the verifiable evidence itself.


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> They are saying it. What they say, who they work for and why they are saying it should be taken into consideration, sure. But should it be summarily dismissed?



No, it should not be summarily dismissed, but folks should also realize that what they say may not be wholly accurate either. It is quite likely that it is colored by their experiences. And unless what they say is backed up by the verifiable evidence, it should not be given any more weight than what I say, or Crothian, or DaveMage, or anybody else says, period, end of story.



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Are they lying?
> 
> For their own sake, I hope not, and I don't believe that to be the case.



 I hope not as well. But then again what they say is very likely colored by their own spin on things. For example, in a recent post Mearls divided rpgs into D&D, d20, & everybody else and then dismissed the latter two as inconsequential or nearly so. That right there goes to show where his priorities are, and that also colors his perceptions of the whole market, and thus what he goes on to say does not really reflect the market as a whole, but only the portion that HE considers important.



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but to me it reads as if we're stopping just short of calling them liars just because they work for WotC, which evidently makes everything they say mightily suspect.



Liars? No. Spinning data to their betterment, more than likely.  And yes, it is quite possible to spin data without lying. This is done by ignoring other data.

For example, back up where I was talking about main stream distributors. It is quite possible that, yes, WotC did sell a record number. It is also possible that 3/4 of them were returned from the distributor as well, but we are not told if this is the case or not, we are not even told if this had been factored into the number reported. Would this be a lie? Nope. Would it be a case of spin-doctoring? Yup. But please note that I am NOT saying that it was either!!

Each person has to make that judgement for themselves.



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> To me their info is one clue, Hite's number another, the numbers I get from my publisher another, the numbers I get from my FLGS another, the number of people attending conventions another, and so on.



 Everything is a clue. However, one must not take anything at face value either. Always be skeptical, and question what you are told. You tend to end up getting even more information that way, and can make better informed judgements.

The rest of your post is another piece of data that goes along with my statement that I blieve the market/hobby is shrinking (but not dying).


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Another logical flaw in your argumentation. New releases often top titles that have a shelf life of 3 years. To put it in perspective, here two other numbers:
> 
> Werewolf: The Forsaken: #31,502
> Vampire: The Requiem: #50,773
> ...




No, that's a strawman. Obviously, I was not arguing that other games consistently outsell D&D. The fact is, though that if there was *as* massive a difference as some claim, this situation would be impossible. It would never happen. As a matter of fact, though, these spikes are regular things. In other words: It's what you get when one company has about 45% of the market.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, that's a strawman. Obviously, I was not arguing that other games consistently outsell D&D. The fact is, though that if there was *as* massive a difference as some claim, this situation would be impossible. It would never happen. As a matter of fact, though, these spikes are regular things. In other words: It's what you get when one company has about 45% of the market.




What's that based off of?  Now where in my business classes did anything like that get covered.  It would also matter how much % the other companies have.  If one has 45% and the others only have 5% then again, this would never happen I image according to you.  But I digress, because even if D&D is 80% of the market, it can still get out selled compairing a single hot book to a book printed three years ago.  

But that does bring up a good question, you say Wizards has 45%, who makes up the other 55% and what market share do they have?


----------



## Psion (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, that's a strawman. Obviously, I was not arguing that other games consistently outsell D&D. The fact is, though that if there was *as* massive a difference as some claim, this situation would be impossible. It would never happen. As a matter of fact, though, these spikes are regular things. In other words: It's what you get when one company has about 45% of the market.




I'm not sure what this meaningfully demonstrates either way.

Yeah, it shows that White Wolf is the number two player on the block that gets in its licks. but I thought that was common knowledge.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, that's a strawman. Obviously, I was not arguing that other games consistently outsell D&D. The fact is, though that if there was *as* massive a difference as some claim, this situation would be impossible. It would never happen. As a matter of fact, though, these spikes are regular things. In other words: It's what you get when one company has about 45% of the market.



Your statement is inconclusive, as are most of the others before. Your conclusions can be only as good as the samples those conclusions are taken from are. The sources for your 45% are completely inadequate for drawing the conclusions you draw, and the amazon sales ranks are also inadequate for deciding that a 70% number is out of the question. Without any further information (frex: what is the time basis for sales ranks; what is the actual number of sales behind the ranks) you cannot even say that the numbers are inconsistent with a 99% market share.

Edit: Those numbers are even less meaningful than I personally thought. It's only a few hours later, and now it reads:

Mage: The Awakening  #1,120
Player's Handbook 3.5: #814


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 6, 2005)

Lest I be accused of "trolling" (which, evidently, means "saying things that the hardcore gamer doesn't want to accept"), I will only sum up as follows:


eyebeams is right.



It's not pretty, but it's true.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Lest I be accused of "trolling" (which, evidently, means "saying things that the hardcore gamer doesn't want to accept"), I will only sum up as follows:
> 
> 
> eyebeams is right.
> ...



Says your crystal ball ?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Lest I be accused of "trolling" (which, evidently, means "saying things that the hardcore gamer doesn't want to accept"), I will only sum up as follows:
> 
> 
> eyebeams is right.
> ...




 I don't think anyone has a problem with the numbers he's throwing around, but I see no reasons to beleive his (and now yours) are any more accurate then anything else.  But if you have proof, that is what the thread needs.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone has a problem with the numbers he's throwing around, but I see no reasons to beleive his (and now yours) are any more accurate then anything else.  But if you have proof, that is what the thread needs.



I have a problem with those numbers. I have a problem with drawing statistcal results from obviously lopsided data.

Maybe, I'm not clear enough in what I'm saying. I don't deny the possibility that the market is shrinking. I don't deny that this is even likely. However, I have massive problems if someone comes with a set of meaningless numbers, draws meaningless conclusions from these numbers and declares all people who point to this logical flaw as delusional. That's what I find very irritating.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I have a problem with those numbers. I have a problem with drawing statistcal results from obviously lopsided data.
> 
> Maybe, I'm not clear enough in what I'm saying. I don't deny the possibility that the market is shrinking. I don't deny that this is even likely. However, I have massive problems if someone comes with a set of meaningless numbers, draws meaningless conclusions from these numbers and declares all people who point to this logical flaw as delusional. That's what I find very irritating.




I agree with you.  What I meant by those numbers is that if someone posted actual proof and it turned out the 45% was right, that that would be fine.  It was the final numbers assuming they were proiven to be accurate that I was referring to.  But that's not going to happen since no one tracks the information.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What I meant by those numbers is that if someone posted actual proof and it turned out the 45% was right, that that would be fine.



That's right. Unfortunately, up to now, all direct questions were dodged.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone has a problem with the numbers he's throwing around, but I see no reasons to beleive his (and now yours) are any more accurate then anything else.  But if you have proof, that is what the thread needs.




Apparently the fact that Gareth, Rasyr and I all have a fair amount of experience working in the print RPG industry is, I know, irrelevant compared to what Charles Ryan might say off the cuff, right? Because Ryan sounds happier.

(And FWIW, I don't think Charles Ryan is a liar. I think he's doing his job, which is to represent he interests of the D&D brand, and that he'll use the tools at his disposal to create a strong image for the brand.)

One thing I will tell you is that all of us have sources above and beyond what we're mentioning here, but to be honest, that information comes from professional circles that I doubt any of us are inclined to damage by directly relaying what was shared in confidence.

In any event, as it stands, this discussion is based on the fallacy that claiming the industry is declining is the extraordinary claim, rather than it is improving. None of you have any proof that things are getting better, are you?

But weighing things on both sides seems to be beyond the extent to which people are willing to take the topic.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> One thing I will tell you is that all of us have sources above and beyond what we're mentioning here, but to be honest, that information comes from professional circles that I doubt any of us are inclined to damage by directly relaying what was shared in confidence.



Okay, you've decided to stay nebulous, so let's leave it at that .



> In any event, as it stands, this discussion is based on the fallacy that claiming the industry is declining is the extraordinary claim, rather than it is improving. None of you have any proof that things are getting better, are you?



None of us claimed as much, so there's no proof necessary .



> But weighing things on both sides seems to be beyond the extent to which people are willing to take the topic.



I'm weighing the arguments all the time. That's why I came to the conclusion that your specific claims are rubbish. Your qualitative one may be fine .


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> One thing I will tell you is that all of us have sources above and beyond what we're mentioning here, but to be honest, that information comes from professional circles that I doubt any of us are inclined to damage by directly relaying what was shared in confidence.



So, you are making controversial claims, and backing them up with nebulous evidence that you refuse to substantiate when asked for.  Claiming you have secret evidence that you can't provide is absolutely no different than just making something up in terms of supporting an argument.

Do the people who don't believe the hobby is dying have any hard evidence?  Yes.  As I've said, Gen Con attendance is at an all time high (25,000+ this year), when an industry/hobby is dying, you don't typically get more people than ever in the three decades of the history of that field coming from across the country and world to a convention.  You don't get more people driving across the country with high gas prices when supposedly the industry is dwindling.


----------



## William Ronald (Sep 6, 2005)

While I cannot determine if the hobby is shrinking or maintaining its current level of players, I think that one question that should be addressed is "How does the industry and current players attract new people to role playing games?"

I think there are opportunities to reach out to potential new players, but I am uncertain how to do it.  However, I think what motivates much of the debate in this thread is a love for our hobby.  Perhaps it might be a good idea to also discuss how to bring more people to the gaming table -- which would be a win-win proposition.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 6, 2005)

> Ask anybody who works in the business....print RPG sales are plummeting.
> 
> However, conversely, PDF sales have been breaking records, month to month, for the past 3 years.




PDF sales are a new market. The PDF segment could still be adversly affected by the RPG downturn and set records anyhow.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

On a completely different note, and being aware of the fact that it's only a small sample size and a snapshot of this very moment, a look at the amazon sales ranks shows quite nicely which D&D book series sell and which don't. I guess we won't see more environmental books, if those numbers have any worth at all .


----------



## Hussar (Sep 6, 2005)

*warning, warning, warning - purely personal annecdote ahead - take it for what it's worth - warning, warning, warning*

I've been gaming using OpenRPG for about three years now.  I live in a small town in Japan and there aren't any gamers here whose language I can speak.  (Still working on it  )  So, all of my gaming has been done online.  In those three years, I've run 3 campaigns for about 25 different gamers from all over the world.  Mostly American and Canadian, but a smattering of gamers from elsewhere.  Out of those 25 gamers, 7 have been teenagers in high school.  Even in my current World's Largest Dungeon campaign, I have had 9 players, 3 of which are in high school.  In fact, one of them had to quit because of high school leaving me with two.  So, for the past three years, my gaming group has been pretty solidly 1/4 teenagers.  These are all people I don't know and have never met.  

I suppose its possible they were lying about their age, but, then again, my roleplay isn't really geared in THAT direction.  

In my own experience, there has been no shortage of new gamers.  When a quarter of the people who sit down to my game weren't even born when 2e DnD came out, I would say that the hobby seems to be drawing new blood.  I know the other two DM's in my World's Largest Dungeon project seem to be drawing similar numbers with about 1/4 of prospective players being in high school.

Again, this is 100% annecdotal, so take from it what you will.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 6, 2005)

> Personally, I would not say that the hobby is dying, but I would say that it is shrinking.
> Not true. As I said above, the book stores deal with THEIR distributors. Their distributors will deal with just about anybody, anybody who is willing to take THEIR terms, including on the issue of returns. Also as I said above, there are only a few companies who can AFFORD to deal on those terms. Osseum tried to do it for smaller companies and look at how well that turned out....




I want to point out that Ingram didn't kill Osseum. As a person that has dealt with Ingram and other booktrade firms for some time, I know that Osseum's payment terms to its clients on booktrade sales should have made that about impossible. The appearance of such a careful system (later proven to be just that, only an appearance of such) was one of the things that led us to work with those guys to begin with.

I can't go into the data I have on Osseum, so I won't throw any numbers around that I cannot provide support for, but there are hundreds of small publishers that deal with Ingram, Waldens/Borders, and B&N. Many of which are smaller than my own company.


----------



## Psion (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Edit: Those numbers are even less meaningful than I personally thought. It's only a few hours later, and now it reads:
> 
> Mage: The Awakening  #1,120
> Player's Handbook 3.5: #814




Ow.

Okay, I was giving WotC too little credit, I guess.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> So, you are making controversial claims, and backing them up with nebulous evidence that you refuse to substantiate when asked for.  Claiming you have secret evidence that you can't provide is absolutely no different than just making something up in terms of supporting an argument.




I'm doing no such thing. I've cited information that is there for the taking, should you be so inclined. I'm saying that my opinions are personally shaped by information that's above and beyond that.



> Do the people who don't believe the hobby is dying have any hard evidence?  Yes.  As I've said, Gen Con attendance is at an all time high (25,000+ this year), when an industry/hobby is dying, you don't typically get more people than ever in the three decades of the history of that field coming from across the country and world to a convention.  You don't get more people driving across the country with high gas prices when supposedly the industry is dwindling.




Gen Con isn't just about RPGs. In fact, I doubt the RPG industry by itself could even afford a convention of Gen Con's scale. There are segments of the larger games industry (aside from RPGs) that are certainly doing quite well, though everyone's been affected by a general economic malaise. But to meausre how RPGs are doing based on a convention that hosts the vastly more popular pursuits of M:tG, Warhammer, L5R, Yu-Gi-Oh, and collectible minis games is an indication of how self-absorbed the culture of the hobby has become.


----------



## mearls (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Apparently the fact that Gareth, Rasyr and I all have a fair amount of experience working in the print RPG industry is, I know, irrelevant compared to what Charles Ryan might say off the cuff, right? Because Ryan sounds happier.




The fundamental error here is the assumption that what happens with the non-WotC segment of the industry has anything to do with WotC.

One of the things I've learned while working at WotC is that there's a massive gulf between what people outside the company see and say, and what's actually going on in here. None of the stories, or warnings, or impressions that outsiders gave me have matched my experiences in the least.

Here's one thing to chew on: if D&D was dying, what do you think WotC would do? Think on that for a moment. What strategies would you see? Do you really think that we'd sit back, tell you everything was going great, and just keep doing the same old thing? People, we are not stupid. Sure, we make mistakes. Just look at The Three Faces of Evil in Dungeon to see a bunch of mine. But we are not dumb. You can bet that if D&D was doing poorly, we would know about it and would take action to reverse that trend.

I would not be surprised at all if other people in RPG publishing saw poor sales and rough times. I see it myself. But they haven't hit D&D. As I mentioned before, it's a mistake to assume that the RPG business and the D&D business are the same thing. The scales are so radically different that any comparison is pointless.

It is completely possible for someone who works in RPGs and someone who works at WotC to have radically different views of the market. Gaming stores are taking a beating, yet the FLGS in Boston (Pandamonium Books and Games) is doing better than ever in RPGs. What's true for one segment or company is not necessarily true for everyone. Saying that because non-D&D and d20 sales are down means that D&D sales *must* be down is like saying that, since WW solds tons of copies of Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage in the early 1990s, TSR must have also had a massive surge in sales at the same time.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> I can't go into the data I have on Osseum, so I won't throw any numbers around that I cannot provide support for, but there are hundreds of small publishers that deal with Ingram, Waldens/Borders, and B&N. Many of which are smaller than my own company.



Right. Even Wraeththu made it to amazon and to B&N .


----------



## mearls (Sep 6, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> PDF sales are a new market. The PDF segment could still be adversly affected by the RPG downturn and set records anyhow.




Excellent point, one that bears emphasis.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Right. Even Wraeththu made it to amazon and to B&N .




I was thinking more along the line of some vanity press gardening book, but OK.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> > Do the people who don't believe the hobby is dying have any hard evidence? Yes. As I've said, Gen Con attendance is at an all time high (25,000+ this year), when an industry/hobby is dying, you don't typically get more people than ever in the three decades of the history of that field coming from across the country and world to a convention. You don't get more people driving across the country with high gas prices when supposedly the industry is dwindling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Possibly part of the problem is defining terms.  _wingsandsword_ refers to the "industry/hobby" dying.  What is he referring to?  Is he referring to RPGs or is he referring to the overall hobby game market?

If he's referring to the hobby game market, then GenCon would be a good indication.  If he's referring to roleplaying, then you'd have to look at how many people are at GenCon _for roleplaying_ and compare it to how many people were at GenCon for roleplaying in past years.  I certainly don't have access to that information.

Another thought about increasing GenCon attendance.  In my experience, the hobby gamers are getting older.  Yes, we are getting new players.  However, we aren't getting them at the rate we used to.  The current ones are getting older and have more disposable income.  They are somewhat fixed in their habits, so don't purchase a lot of new products (and are very selective).  However, they do increasingly have the time and money to travel to a gaming convention.

For those at GenCon & Origins, what was the roleplaying demographic?  Were they mostly younger gamers?  Were the younger gamers part of families or there on their own? I know in the late 80's, a majority of roleplayers at my tables at Origins were early 20's and younger - does that still hold true?

As for "nebulous, unsubstantiated evidence," you have to look at the sources.  Personally, I take mearls as one of the sources here I trust.  I might not agree with his opinions at times, but I certainly will trust his word as far as evidence.

Everything I've heard (from various sources, including from a company that is one of the few gaming companies growing) says the gaming industry is down.  Collectible Card games are down, miniature games are steady, roleplaying games are going down except for WotC and White Wolf which are bucking the trend by growing.

The reasons why aren't as clear.  I know it is believed that online roleplaying is a cause.  I've seen Ryan Dancey comment that he believes the Iraq situation is causing a decline (since the people over there are a key demographic).  I've heard that the economy is a major issue (the average wage hasn't increased in several years, the growth in the economy is all at the top end and that demographic isn't typically into hobby games).  However, that's opinion and speculation.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> I was thinking more along the line of some vanity press gardening book, but OK.



At least it has to do with flower... erm, appendices. Seems to fit .


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> The fundamental error here is the assumption that what happens with the non-WotC segment of the industry has anything to do with WotC.




Actually, I was talking specifically about the size of WotC's market segment, not how WotC is doing, but let's get at it.



> One of the things I've learned while working at WotC is that there's a massive gulf between what people outside the company see and say, and what's actually going on in here. None of the stories, or warnings, or impressions that outsiders gave me have matched my experiences in the least.




I have no idea what it's like to work there. I do know that a corporate/clique line is a powerful force to compel people to interpret things a certain way.



> Here's one thing to chew on: if D&D was dying, what do you think WotC would do? Think on that for a moment. What strategies would you see? Do you really think that we'd sit back, tell you everything was going great, and just keep doing the same old thing? People, we are not stupid. Sure, we make mistakes. Just look at The Three Faces of Evil in Dungeon to see a bunch of mine. But we are not dumb. You can bet that if D&D was doing poorly, we would know about it and would take action to reverse that trend.




No, I think you'd say everything was great and then do something different to deal with the problem. You would never *not* say things were doing great. The fact is that you and Charles Rayn saying D&D is doing great is a constant, regardless of how D&D is doing. It's part of the job. 

This sort of thing has already happened. WotC has significantly changed their strategy since the release of 3e and are no longer the "corebook company" they were. We never heard any rumbling about how things needed to be changed then, did we?

I can definitely see a surge in FY 2004, even discounting miniatures sales, because of 3.5. It's not as if everybody adopted 3.5 in 2003, and anecdotally I can say that many folks who bought 3e waited for it to be the standard rules set in their area.

Still, it's not for nothing that WotC now advertises D&D as an alternative to MMORPG games -- games that 5 years ago Ryan Dancey claimed were irrelevant as a source of competition.



> I would not be surprised at all if other people in RPG publishing saw poor sales and rough times. I see it myself. But they haven't hit D&D. As I mentioned before, it's a mistake to assume that the RPG business and the D&D business are the same thing. The scales are so radically different that any comparison is pointless.




Not so different as I think many here assume, but I certainly don't disagree.



> It is completely possible for someone who works in RPGs and someone who works at WotC to have radically different views of the market. Gaming stores are taking a beating, yet the FLGS in Boston (Pandamonium Books and Games) is doing better than ever in RPGs. What's true for one segment or company is not necessarily true for everyone. Saying that because non-D&D and d20 sales are down means that D&D sales *must* be down is like saying that, since WW solds tons of copies of Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage in the early 1990s, TSR must have also had a massive surge in sales at the same time.




You would agree, though (since you've said it before) that the D&D business and the rest of the industry are necessarily related. WW's sales started going south like everyone else's in the mid-late 90s.

Does it work the other way around? Probably not to as great an extent, but the core of the problem for other companies -- the aging gamer population that refreshes at adolescence and winnows away in late teens/early 20s -- is a problem I think WotC is going to face as well.

The reason I think it's so important to talk about this is because slowing that decline in the number of gamers -- especially gamers who are active consumers -- is in everybody's best interest.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 6, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Another thought about increasing GenCon attendance.  In my experience, the hobby gamers are getting older.  Yes, we are getting new players.  However, we aren't getting them at the rate we used to.  The current ones are getting older and have more disposable income.  They are somewhat fixed in their habits, so don't purchase a lot of new products (and are very selective).  However, they do increasingly have the time and money to travel to a gaming convention..




That's not a very good guess. As people get older they don't have time to travel. And if they have kids, they don't have money, either!


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> That's not a very good guess. As people get older they don't have time to travel. And if they have kids, they don't have money, either!




I see 2nd generation gamers now. I think that there might be an upward trend in the making. A portion of the current crop of 12-20 year olds has 35-45 year old gamer parents.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Sep 6, 2005)

As a parent, I can vouch that it's easier to scratch my gaming itch by cramming as much play as I can into a four-day vacation than it is to run a regular campaign; the latter often involves paying a sitter, trying to find time when my group (many of whom are also parents) can get together, etc.

(Thankfully, I manage to do both; it'll get easier when my son's old enough to play!)


----------



## mearls (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Does it work the other way around? Probably not to as great an extent, but the core of the problem for other companies -- the aging gamer population that refreshes at adolescence and winnows away in late teens/early 20s -- is a problem I think WotC is going to face as well.




I don't think so. I've been thinking about this alot, and I think the emergence of WoW will only help D&D while harming other RPGs. MMORPGs generally stick quite close to the D&D mode of RPGs: fight monsters, grab treasure, power up, go on quests. An entire generation of games has learned that that is what you do in an RPG, whether it be Final Fantasy, WoW, KOTOR, or whatever. Whether consciously or not, back in 2000 D&D 3e captured that basic mode better than any RPG before or since. 3e empowers players. It gives them tons of options. It gives rules that force the DM to "play fair" (CRs, treasure by level, etc).

(As an aside, I still can't believe that RPG designers as a whole haven't grasped the importance and value of a CR-style system.)

There's also the factor that, back in the day, all you needed to design a game as mechanically sound as D&D was a basic understanding of RPGs. I think the number of gamers who leave D&D for other games is falling, both because D&D does a good job of meeting its goals and because the play style of D&D is so player-friendly. As a game player, why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you?

Those two factors, I believe, are behind the trends we're seeing.

(Aside number two: I think that of all the games out there, poker is a far bigger threat to D&D than WoW. Poker, like D&D, is a social game that you play while sitting around a table with your friends. I would argue that WoW helps D&D by keeping gamers who might otherwise give up RPGs (no local group, no time to game) involved in them in at least some form.)


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 6, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Possibly part of the problem is defining terms.  _wingsandsword_ refers to the "industry/hobby" dying.  What is he referring to?  Is he referring to RPGs or is he referring to the overall hobby game market?



Well, that may be part of the confusion.  I see it all as one market.  I am referring to the overall market, with RPG's being a major and integral component of that market.  Almost all the RPG players I know (especially ones who are more active in the hobby) at least dabble in CCG's, some play CMG's, a few are into wargames, some are more of a larper than anything else.  Myself, I consider myself mostly a tabletop RPG person, but I larp regularly, I've played CCG's before (but got out a few years ago), I buy CMG's (as add-ons for tabletop games).  Today's young Yu-Gi-Oh kid can easily grow up to be tomorrow's D&D player, and today's D&D player can be tomorrows CMG or CCG player, pigeonholing the entire market into tiny subcategories ignores the crossover and cross-pollination the market has.  



> Collectible Card games are down, miniature games are steady, roleplaying games are going down except for WotC and White Wolf which are bucking the trend by growing.



This is also part of the issue.  If WotC and White Wolf are growing, the entire RPG aspect of the industry is likely to be growing.  I'd be seriously surprised if together they don't form at least 51%, and thus the majority, of the RPG aspect of the industry.  If they are growing, that alone is likely to offset a general drop in the rest of the RPG aspect of the industry.  If things are rough for 3rd parties, maybe it's partly because the "d20 bubble" has burst and just producing any dang-fool thing d20 doesn't mean it will sell (it has to be good, and marketed well, it's anecdotal but my FLGS has to reorder Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes pretty regularly, and they look to be the biggest non-WotC d20 items in the store). Maybe in slightly tougher financial times gamers turn towards recognized and trusted brand names in RPG's (D&D and World of Darkness being the two biggest RPG brands).  If your small press RPG company is doing poorly, the industry impact of that is negligable compared to the overall industry.  When a minor book (Frostburn Weapons of Incarnum Legacy of the Sandstorm) from WotC outsells your entire product line, it's pretty clear who the Big Dog is.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You would agree, though (since you've said it before) that the D&D business and the rest of the industry are necessarily related. WW's sales started going south like everyone else's in the mid-late 90s..




Yes, but when D&D 3e launched (which was a great success), did WW's sales go up in its non-d20 segments? I'd guess not. Similarly, I suspect that the 3.5e launch did nothing for WW's sales outside of their d20 lines.

It wouldn't surprise me if WoTC's been taking market share away from d20 and non-d20 publishers (which would account for Eyebeams, Rasy's and Gareth's moaning and groaning about how the industry is about to fail soon). Of all the publishers out there, WoTC's been most consistent in its philosphy that RPGs are games first and foremost, and provided the means to PLAY it as a game, rather than treat it as some sort of cross-over to the improv theatre crowd. The "excessively complicated" feat-trees and prestige classes and combat system that Akrasia and other  C&C players complain about could very well be the very features that are drawing in new players and growing the RPG market (kids nowadays are smarter than ever --- in part due to their exposure to video games where RPGs are beginning to approach the complexity and richness that D&D offers). As long as WoTC keeps the fresh blood interested (D&D as the gateway to the hobby being the key observation here), publishers of other games have less ability to siphon off the disinterested D&D players and see their sales shrink.

A few observations: the D&D miniatures game is by all accounts successful, and probably serving as an acquisition vehicle for D&D the RPG. (Is it that inconceivable? Remember that OD&D first evolved from skirmish wargame roots)

Adventures are an amazingly good way to keep players playing D&D. In fact, it is the major strength of D&D that almost no other RPGs can match. (CoC is the only other obvious game with rich pre-made adventures) That the World's Largest Dungeon sold well indicates that a large number of GMs want to avoid prep-work, and players don't demand homebrewed stuff. Keeping DMs happy and able to keep running the game is the most important part of keeping D&D players playing D&D, so when WoTC observed that the 3rd party market has moved almost entirely away from adventures, they publicly announced their shift in strategy to fix that gap. That tells me that WoTC realizes how important adventures are. No other publisher has followed suit and they will have the field to themselves. I predict that Shackled City will do well as well, given the dearth of 3rd party adventures and super-dungeons.

If my guesses are right, I suspect that RPG publishers that do well in the future will have to build a game that:

1. realizes that it's a game, first and foremost
2. provide lots of GM support, in the form of published adventures and other material
3. have a gateway entry to the game that is low-commitment in terms of time, but suitably rich in features and similar enough to the RPG that it will appeal to the young gamer that's been brought up on (relatively complex) video games


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> (As an aside, I still can't believe that RPG designers as a whole haven't grasped the importance and value of a CR-style system.)




That's because most current RPG designers are not system designers. All you have to do is hop over to RPG.net (or visit any of the threads that claim that C&C is superior because it's got most of the player-friendly features of D&D stripped) to realize that the majority of RPG designers today come from the "RPG as improv theatre" crowd as opposed to the system design "RPG as a balanced game" crowd. In fact, the number of folks who sneer at the need for game balance as an important part of the system design is astonishingly high. (Note that the game that most broke the "PCs must be balanced" rule was Ars Magica, and the designer Jonathan Tweet now works at WoTC)

My suspicion is that most RPG designers that are not at WoTC or Green Ronin have no idea what the difference between EL and CR is, and why the distinction is important.


----------



## A'koss (Sep 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I don't think so. I've been thinking about this alot, and I think the emergence of WoW will only help D&D while harming other RPGs.



I'm afraid I don't quite buy that, certainly not in the long term. 

Really, we're only seeing the _infancy_ of MMORPGs. As the graphics and interactivity continue to improve, I truly believe PnP games are going to find themselves increasingly falling to the wayside, even D&D. At some point they will become so engrossing and such a feast for the senses that you will almost be able to hear the coffin nails being hammered for the PnP games. The final nail will come when you can don a pair of VR glasses and completely immerse yourself in a virtual world (this actually scares me on a societal level). 


> (Aside number two: I think that of all the games out there, poker is a far bigger threat to D&D than WoW. Poker, like D&D, is a social game that you play while sitting around a table with your friends. I would argue that WoW helps D&D by keeping gamers who might otherwise give up RPGs (no local group, no time to game) involved in them in at least some form.)



I don't see poker as an _increasing_ threat to D&D as I do D&D's ability to recruit young new players who will stick with it for the long term over flashier, electronic hobbies.

Just my 2 bits...


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> That's because most current RPG designers are not system designers. All you have to do is hop over to RPG.net (or visit any of the threads that claim that C&C is superior because it's got most of the player-friendly features of D&D stripped) to realize that the majority of RPG designers today come from the "RPG as improv theatre" crowd as opposed to the system design "RPG as a balanced game" crowd. In fact, the number of folks who sneer at the need for game balance as an important part of the system design is astonishingly high.



You think so? I'm not sure whether all games need good game balance. In CoC you expect to be outclassed. Paranoia is built on the PC's short life span. Then there are games where it's hard to die, anyway (7th Sea). They all cater to different playstyles. Copying D&D doesn't really make sense; otherwise people can play the original .



> (Note that the game that most broke the "PCs must be balanced" rule was Ars Magica, and the designer Jonathan Tweet now works at WoTC)



Why "was"? It still is. It's sold as a feature. A mage is supposed to be more powerful than a normal mortal, and Ars Magica wants to evoke this feeling. Here the balance between PC's is consecutive, as the members of the troupe are supposed to take turns.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> That's because most current RPG designers are not system designers. All you have to do is hop over to RPG.net (or visit any of the threads that claim that C&C is superior because it's got most of the player-friendly features of D&D stripped) to realize that the majority of RPG designers today come from the "RPG as improv theatre" crowd as opposed to the system design "RPG as a balanced game" crowd.



I have to disagree. Most of the posters at RPGNet are soundly _against_ the idea of rpgs as "improv theatre".

And game balance is highly over-rated.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I don't think so. I've been thinking about this alot, and I think the emergence of WoW will only help D&D while harming other RPGs. MMORPGs generally stick quite close to the D&D mode of RPGs: fight monsters, grab treasure, power up, go on quests. An entire generation of games has learned that that is what you do in an RPG, whether it be Final Fantasy, WoW, KOTOR, or whatever. Whether consciously or not, back in 2000 D&D 3e captured that basic mode better than any RPG before or since. 3e empowers players. It gives them tons of options. It gives rules that force the DM to "play fair" (CRs, treasure by level, etc).




Unfortunately, MMO games are better at the "fair play" aspect than D&D is. MMO games are the ultimate in gamist fulfillment. If MMORPGs are better at the core mode of play than D&D is, then why play D&D? The answers are in the non-core aspects of D&D.



> (As an aside, I still can't believe that RPG designers as a whole haven't grasped the importance and value of a CR-style system.)




Honestly? Because CR is a clunky, clunky DM's tool. CRs can be wildly off for some creatures and it's annoying to turn the CR into XP yourself. Again, MMORPGs do this all better, and can do more, from hardwiring quests to character power to zoning, camping and farming. CR is a non-automated process that does less than that and whose values are only widely corrected every several years.

One thing I'd love to see in 4e is a less awkward, more modular CR system.



> There's also the factor that, back in the day, all you needed to design a game as mechanically sound as D&D was a basic understanding of RPGs. I think the number of gamers who leave D&D for other games is falling, both because D&D does a good job of meeting its goals and because the play style of D&D is so player-friendly. As a game player, why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you?




I think you've become a little too enchanted with the gears behind D&D (and obviously, I can't blame you for that). I don't think adoption of other RPGs has changed, but D&D isn't abandoned any more, at least from a consumer's standpoint. In the past, there were folks who would give up on the game and get into GURPS, for instance. D&D has rebuilt itself to be good at its niche instead of being complacent, so gamers who play other games return to D&D as the best way to enjoy that play experience.

At the same time, though, I think a significant number of sales are now driven by the thing that "story-based" games were oft-accused of: reader interest instead of play interest. D&D's deign logic creates interest in its rules in abstract as well as utilitarian sense. It is pretty much impossible for a play group to utilize all of the options in extant WotC material.



> (Aside number two: I think that of all the games out there, poker is a far bigger threat to D&D than WoW. Poker, like D&D, is a social game that you play while sitting around a table with your friends. I would argue that WoW helps D&D by keeping gamers who might otherwise give up RPGs (no local group, no time to game) involved in them in at least some form.)




In my experience, people have often pointed out their WoW play as a reason why continuing to play D&D was unnecessary, and people introduced to D&D from WoW find the work they have to do to play unappealing.

As an example, my stepson is what you might think is prime material for gaming. He has all the interests and plays CRPGs incessantly. But no -- he has not a bit of interest. CRPGs have an entirely different purpose for him than socializing. He's also an absolute KotoR nut and isn't the least bit interested in the SWRPG, even though he knows that's where KotoR's rules come from. His views are not uncommon and I think that when kids play computer RPGs, they aren't  attaching the same values.

Plus, folks lose money at poker

In any event, this strikes me as a contradictory mission: D&D's popularity supposedly comes from hardwired balance and DM as umpire, but it is supposed to be distinct enough because it is "social." Which is it? If the game isn;t redundant for reasons irrelevant to its design advantages, that says to me that there's a problem with the design or a problem with that thesis.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> I see 2nd generation gamers now. I think that there might be an upward trend in the making. A portion of the current crop of 12-20 year olds has 35-45 year old gamer parents.



I've actually seen at least three generations, personally.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, MMO games are better at the "fair play" aspect than D&D is. MMO games are the ultimate in gamist fulfillment.



Indeed.







> One thing I'd love to see in 4e is a less awkward, more modular CR system.



Absolutely. That'd be a great thing.







> I don't think adoption of other RPGs has changed, but D&D isn't abandoned any more, at least from a consumer's standpoint. In the past, there were folks who would give up on the game and get into GURPS, for instance. D&D has rebuilt itself to be good at its niche instead of being complacent, so gamers who play other games return to D&D as the best way to enjoy that play experience.



Yep. I'm certainly in a "back to D&D" phase. Spent the last several years playing 7th Sea and GURPS, and it's nice to return to my roots.







> In my experience, people have often pointed out their WoW play as a reason why continuing to play D&D was unnecessary, and people introduced to D&D from WoW find the work they have to do to play unappealing.



Whereas MMORPGs disinterested me because of their lack of beer and comradery 


> In any event, this strikes me as a contradictory mission: D&D's popularity supposedly comes from hardwired balance and DM as umpire, but it is supposed to be distinct enough because it is "social." Which is it? If the game isn;t redundant for reasons irrelevant to its design advantages, that says to me that there's a problem with the design or a problem with that thesis.



Social.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Yes, but when D&D 3e launched (which was a great success), did WW's sales go up in its non-d20 segments? I'd guess not. Similarly, I suspect that the 3.5e launch did nothing for WW's sales outside of their d20 lines.




Actually, 2000 was a pretty good year for White Wolf. D&D is the first game of most gamers. You'd guess wrong.



> It wouldn't surprise me if WoTC's been taking market share away from d20 and non-d20 publishers (which would account for Eyebeams, Rasy's and Gareth's moaning and groaning about how the industry is about to fail soon).




I dunno. I've just been a coauthor on two of the top 10 selling games for about 5 years now, so I haven't personally felt a pinch. But I understand that because you like D&D you wish to punish me for my alleged unkindness, just like the guy who called me a f*gg*t for running something that wasn't D&D at a recent convention appearance.



> Of all the publishers out there, WoTC's been most consistent in its philosphy that RPGs are games first and foremost, and provided the means to PLAY it as a game, rather than treat it as some sort of cross-over to the improv theatre crowd. The "excessively complicated" feat-trees and prestige classes and combat system that Akrasia and other  C&C players complain about could very well be the very features that are drawing in new players and growing the RPG market (kids nowadays are smarter than ever --- in part due to their exposure to video games where RPGs are beginning to approach the complexity and richness that D&D offers). As long as WoTC keeps the fresh blood interested (D&D as the gateway to the hobby being the key observation here), publishers of other games have less ability to siphon off the disinterested D&D players and see their sales shrink.




Did a Vampire player beat you as a child? Nobody's talking about whether or not it is right and virtuous to play Dungeons and Dragons. Aparently you think that since I pointed out something that might be bad for the game you like, my intent is obviously to slander the game itself -- y'know, the one with the system I design stuff for and am playing tomorrow.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

> This is also part of the issue.  If WotC and White Wolf are growing, the entire RPG aspect of the industry is likely to be growing.  I'd be seriously surprised if together they don't form at least 51%, and thus the majority, of the RPG aspect of the industry.  If they are growing, that alone is likely to offset a general drop in the rest of the RPG aspect of the industry.




I'd say the together, they were something like 60-65%. Add Palladium, and maybe 70-75%.

Maybe. White Wolf has a significantly different business plan than many companies that is more focused on general exploitation of their IPs (and relatively ruthless about dumping product that doesn;t turn a profit, since unlike most companies, they have no "signature" profit). White Wolf could be making more money even if their RPG sales were the same or more modest. Something like *Vampire: Bloodlines* is a big deal. WotC, on the other hand, doesn't retain much of its most lucrative media licensing.

I do know White Wolf's print runs for "niche" supplements were about double those for a corebook from a company that was, at the time of my investigation of the printer, among the top 10.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Social.




Possibly, but D&D's only social design element is niche preservation and the basic play setup, which plenty of other games do. 

Really, I think the legacy of the brand is a big deal. Compared to other games, D&D has always been popular, and AFAIK the only core to outsell AD&D for any length of time was Vampire Revised. I do think that  new White Wolf books get surprisingly close to WotC' sales numbers, but not when WotC releases something new.

So D&D is well designed, but it's also Dungeons and Dragons. I think influence of the brand itself is important, is something of a taboo subject here, given how much people like the design. As Ray Winniger pointed out in these parts a few months back AD&D 2nd also sold like gangbusters and was hailed as a substantial improvement over its predecessor.

Nowadays, though, the tropes of D&D no longer rely on the D&D brand, so potential games don't need to come to D&D to get them when they have computer games. I'd even dispute the social element, since online socializing is something that younger people are far more comfortable with far sooner.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'd say the together, they were something like 60-65%. Add Palladium, and maybe 70-75%.



You are still on this number trip? Unbelievable !


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> You are still on this number trip? Unbelievable !




The number happen to be both relevant and capable of existing regardless of your particular faith in them.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 6, 2005)

> At the same time, though, I think a significant number of sales are now driven by the thing that "story-based" games were oft-accused of: reader interest instead of play interest. D&D's deign logic creates interest in its rules in abstract as well as utilitarian sense. It is pretty much impossible for a play group to utilize all of the options in extant WotC material.




Just a thought, but, that's pretty much always been true.  Or, at least true since the release of 2e.  There has always been far more material out there than one individual, or even one group could ever utilize.  Whether it's 2e's umpteen campaign settings or 3e's bazillion feats and PrC's, "reader interest" has always been a fairly large drive in DnD books.  I'm not so sure if that's really a new trend.  

Just as an example, how many people actually used even a fraction of the magical items in the Encyclopedia Magica books TSR released?  But, IIRC, the books sold fairly well (although its been a while, so I could be wrong there).  IMHO, "reader interest" has driven DnD sales for a couple of decades and is hardly a new trend.  I would almost argue, given some of the opinions I've seen here on Enworld, that "reader interest" is starting to tail off a bit as consumers no longer buy everything D20 just because its new.  A number of the people who've chimed in on this thread, myself included, have indicated that they now buy rules that they are specifically going to use or need, rather than just because it happens to be the newest thing.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just a thought, but, that's pretty much always been true.  Or, at least true since the release of 2e.  There has always been far more material out there than one individual, or even one group could ever utilize.  Whether it's 2e's umpteen campaign settings or 3e's bazillion feats and PrC's, "reader interest" has always been a fairly large drive in DnD books.  I'm not so sure if that's really a new trend.




I agree, and agree that there's a limit to how far this can extend. 3.5 is starting to enter into this territory now -- it's pretty much inevitable, given time. The novelty value of the comment comes from pointing out that as one of the common accuations made against non-D20 games, it's kind of a pot/kettle situation.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> You are still on this number trip? Unbelievable !



Yeah, claiming Palladium is the #3 company in the industry is the most implausible and outrageous claim made in the entire thread. 

Since Amazon sales ranks are something of a quantifiable rating of sales we can compare with other books (and has already been mentioned in this thread), I just checked how well they were:
The newly released Ultimate Rifts: #192,162 
The normal Rifts Core Book: #986,850

As opposed to say, the also newly released Shadowrun Fourth Edition: #4,053 
The also newly released Serenity RPG (a big hit at Gen Con): #1,765
At this moment, the new Mage: The Awakening is at: #636

The been-out-for-two-years Players Handbook 3.5: #881

At least on Amazon, it doesn't look like Palladium is even a legitimate contender in the RPG market anymore.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The number happen to be both relevant and capable of existing regardless of your particular faith in them.



I believe more in statistical science than in your particular and somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of relevance . I'm thinking of taking your examples in this thread and show the students how not to do statistics .


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> At least on Amazon, it doesn't look like Palladium is even a legitimate contender in the RPG market anymore.



I may be wrong, but I think they sell most of their stuff via comic stores. As they cater to a relatively young clientele, those are not the typical customer who takes his credit card and buys on amazon.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Yeah, claiming Palladium is the #3 company in the industry is the most implausible and outrageous claim made in the entire thread.




This bespeaks a real unfamiliarity with the industry and with Palladium's practices in particular. Palladium is an extremely cost-effective operation that sells its back catalogue far more effectively than many other publishers. It has a handful of lines in active development at any given time and keeps its operating costs extremely low.

I'm hardly arguing for the quality of its offerings, but Palladium has been successful for a long time. I will grant that you might at this point replace Palladium with SJG or mix them both up.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I believe more in statistical science than in your particular and somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of relevance . I'm thinking of taking your examples in this thread and show the students how not to do statistics .




Given that your chief complaint is that I won't tell you every source, you have no basis to critique what I'm saying beyond pointing out my reticence.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Compared to other games, D&D has never been popular ...




Hmmm ... but isn't D&D sort of considered the most popular rpg out there? I'm not following you here.

Interestingly, here in Sweden the first widely available RPG was a derivate of BRP, and D&D has never been able to touch that in terms of popularity, so first to corner a market is a big thing.

But I thought D&D was the most popular in the US? Or are there distinctions between editions (such as D&D compared to AD&D?).

/M


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Given that your chief complaint is that I won't tell you every source, you have no basis to critique what I'm saying beyond pointing out my reticence.



No, I was pointing to your obviously wrong interpretation of the amazon sales ranks and to your obviously wrong interpretation of the sources you listed. Those are two objective statements. Your alleged insider knowledge can be safely disregarded as this is balanced with other alleged insider knowledge that claims the opposite .


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> No, I was pointing to your obviously wrong interpretation of the amazon sales ranks and to your obviously wrong interpretation of the sources you listed. Those are two objective statements. Your alleged insider knowledge can be safely disregarded as this is balanced with other alleged insider knowledge that claims the opposite .




As I mentioned earlier, you have an issue with an interpretation of Amazon rankings that has pretty much nothing to do with anything I actually said.

Also, Mike actually agreed with me, with the proviso that D&D could still grow while the rest of the industry shrank. And of course, two other people who worked in thsi industry chimed in to agree with me as well.

So, Turjan, when everyone agrees on a particular statement, what's the precentage involved? You'll have to help my poor, slow self figure that out.

Perhaps your reading comprehension doesn't equal your alleged statistical acumen.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Hmmm ... but isn't D&D sort of considered the most popular rpg out there? I'm not following you here.
> 
> 
> /M




Typo. Just fixed it.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> As I mentioned earlier, you have an issue with an interpretation of Amazon rankings that has pretty much nothing to do with anything I actually said.
> 
> Also, Mike actually agreed with me, with the proviso that D&D could still grow while the rest of the industry shrank. And of course, two other people who worked in thsi industry chimed in to agree with me as well.
> 
> ...




Then let me help your "poor, slow self" ! Your interpretation of the amazon sales ranks was as follows:



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Obviously, I was not arguing that other games consistently outsell D&D. The fact is, though that if there was *as* massive a difference as some claim, this situation would be impossible. It would never happen. As a matter of fact, though, these spikes are regular things. In other words: It's what you get when one company has about 45% of the market.



That's a non sequitur. The comparison of hourly calculated sales ranks of a freshly released title with a different one with simlar rank that has been out for several years doesn't tell you much, except that the one that has been out for years sells remarkably better. If you generally look at the more relevant long term titles, then you will see the nWoD core book at roughly 8 times lower sales rank than the Player's Handbook for amazon, somewhere in the range of the D&D Monster Manuals, but decidedly behind titles like the Complete series.

The specific statement that you agreed on with Mike, Tim and Gareth was that the non-D&D RPG market seems to shrink. If, in turn, you train your reading skill a bit, you will see that I never challenged this statement but said



			
				me said:
			
		

> I don't deny the possibility that the market is shrinking. I don't deny that this is even likely.



It seems that that shot went into the void .


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> which would account for Eyebeams, Rasy's and Gareth's moaning and groaning about how the industry is about to fail soon



Just a point of correction. I have never said (nor moaned and groaned) that I thought that the industry was dying or "going to fail soon". I did, however, say that I thought that is IS shrinking. IMO, we are not getting enough new gamers to replace those that are leaving the hobby for various reasons.

I am not talking about any specific companies, but just overall trends, so yes, there can be companies that are growing and companies that are having problems within the over trend.

IIRC, eyebeamz never said it was dying either. He said it was shrinking as well. And GMS agreed with him.

There is a difference between failing and shrinking. Perhaps you should go back and reread the posts made.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 6, 2005)

Please play nice everybody. We particularly don't want to see anybody belittling other people for their views - that isn't on. Debate the issues as much as you like but avoid making snide comments about other posters intellectual abilities.

Regards,


----------



## Maggan (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Just a point of correction. I have never said (nor moaned and groaned) that I thought that the industry was dying or "going to fail soon". I did, however, say that I thought that is IS shrinking. IMO, we are not getting enough new gamers to replace those that are leaving the hobby for various reasons.
> 
> I am not talking about any specific companies, but just overall trends, so yes, there can be companies that are growing and companies that are having problems within the over trend.
> 
> ...




Well, I for one is arguing that it isn't dying, and being told by eyebeams (he painted with a very broad brush and I feel particularilu vulnerable today  ) that I'm in denial kinda makes me ... I don't know ... want to argue a little about it. 

 

I believe (without any statistical fact) that there are several others posting in this thread who don't think the market is dying, who do believe that the market probably is shrinking, but who hasn't seen the spectacular drops that eyebeams referred to, and who does not like to be characterised as being in denial over the state of their hobby.

Meanwhile, I believe eyebeams, GMSskarka, and maybe even you, feel a bit frustrated that everyone else is so adamant in claiming good health for the market, or at least not as bad as you are seeing it, and are hoping that if you repeat your statements over the state of the market, somehow everyone else will come to their senses, and realise that the market is not doing well at all.

Add to that the fact that we all have different definitions of the market, and we're really not likely to get far.

I appreciate all input, and put equal faith in everything said here, ie, very little. It'll be interesting in a year to see what has happened, and then I can remember this thread, and think "hey those guys really were right, and knew what they were talking about"!

Who it'll be, I don't know. But as I said in another thread related to the "Phantom 4e", in a couple of years, we're gonna have a lot of peopla saying "I told you so". Probably from both sides of the argument, if I know how gamers react.   

Cheers!

/Maggan


----------



## Psion (Sep 6, 2005)

Goodness gracious.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the comic shop numbers aren't irrelvant, but don't tell the whole story, thus the true state of the market is best arrived at by examining other figures (where available) and considering them in their totality?

Don't get stuck in black-and-white thinking.



			
				wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Yeah, claiming Palladium is the #3 company in the industry is the most implausible and outrageous claim made in the entire thread.




Yeah, well, I don't think you'll find any recent numbers to back that one up. Anecdotally, I have seen palladium on the decline for a long time; I beleive that the comic shop numbers that show a decline of that line are on target.


----------



## philreed (Sep 6, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> PDF sales are a new market. The PDF segment could still be adversly affected by the RPG downturn and set records anyhow.




Absolutely. And while overall sales are growing sales of a lot of individual PDFs are decreasing. A combination of how easy it is to create a PDF with a lack of serious quality control at the major sales sites has led to an increase in garbage. Unlike the print distribution network, where each product is work for the retailers and distributors, each PDF release is practically no work for the PDF sales sites to offer.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> .... 3e empowers players. It gives them tons of options. It gives rules that force the DM to "play fair" (CRs, treasure by level, etc) ...




My comment is somewhat tangential to the main topic of this thread, but I think that your comment here touches on one of the main reasons why I will not DM 3e anymore (having run two successful, year-long campaigns in the past).

While a plethora of options for players is a good thing for _players_, it places a great burden on the DM -- or at least those DMs who prefer to _use_ all the options and rules available, as well as design their own adventures (as opposed to those DMs who wish to simply 'hand-wave' things during play, or are willing to rely exclusively on published adventures).  Being a DM should not feel like a 'job', yet for myself (and many other DMs and ex-DMs that I know) prepping for 3e feels that way.

Designing a way to both: *(a.)* provide an adequate variety of options and variants for players; and *(b.)* accomplish (a.), while providing the DM with tools to minimize prep time (plus stat blocks, etc.) is important (IMO).  WotC has focused on (a.), and done very little about (b.).  Since DMs are essential to the success of table-top RPGs (no DMs = no games), more attention to (b.) would make sense.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be fair to say that the comic shop numbers aren't irrelvant, but don't tell the whole story, thus the true state of the market is best arrived at by examining other figures (where available) and considering them in their totality?



Exactly . The game and comic shop numbers are only irrelevant for calculating a market share based on these numbers alone. If you take them for what they are (a self-polled sample from one group of outlets for RPGs that accounts for roughly between 50% of sales for some companies and nearly 100% for others) and integrate the other relevant numbers, where WotC shares alone can make up to 100%, you're fine.


----------



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> My comment is somewhat tangential to the main topic of this thread, but I think that your comment here touches on one of the main reasons why I will not DM 3e anymore (having run two successful, year-long campaigns in the past).
> 
> While a plethora of options for players is a good thing for _players_, it places a great burden on the DM -- or at least those DMs who prefer to _use_ all the options and rules available, as well as design their own adventures (as opposed to those DMs who wish to simply 'hand-wave' things during play, or are willing to rely exclusively on published adventures).  Being a DM should not feel like a 'job', yet for myself (and many other DMs and ex-DMs that I know) prepping for 3e feels that way.
> 
> Designing a way to both: *(a.)* provide an adequate variety of options and variants for players; and *(b.)* accomplish (a.), while providing the DM with tools to minimize prep time (plus stat blocks, etc.) is important (IMO).  WotC has focused on (a.), and done very little about (b.).  Since DMs are essential to the success of table-top RPGs (no DMs = no games), more attention to (b.) would make sense.





It is all about the amount of work you are willing to put into the game.  I used to feel the same way that you feel.  I had a very hard time running a 3e game.  I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.  

A player that intends to get the most bang out of the options will place great strain on the DM.  This requires a DM to understand the rules and how the rules interact to a far greater degree than is required to actually run or play the game.  

The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set.  The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no.  Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core.  This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.

This is not the case.  The DM can specify the defaults.  A simple "You may use the core options found in the Player's Handbook.  Anything out side the PHB will require permission on a case by case basis" will solve a majority of the "DM empowerment" or lack thereof issues found in 3e.

The real problem with the rules lies in the plethora of temporary or conditional modifications and the inconsistency within the advanced combat options found in the game.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Well, I for one is arguing that it isn't dying, and being told by eyebeams (he painted with a very broad brush and I feel particularilu vulnerable today  ) that I'm in denial kinda makes me ... I don't know ... want to argue a little about it.



Well, I don't htink that anybody is really arguing that it is "dying", I think it coming down to is it healthy and growing, or is it shrinking.

And it is quite possible for companies to grow as the overall market shrinks. Heck, ICE is growing. It is a slow growth, but relatively steady overall.


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> I believe (without any statistical fact) that there are several others posting in this thread who don't think the market is dying, who do believe that the market probably is shrinking, but who hasn't seen the spectacular drops that eyebeams referred to, and who does not like to be characterised as being in denial over the state of their hobby.



Eyebeamz is referring to drops over several years time, I think.


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, I believe eyebeams, GMSskarka, and maybe even you, feel a bit frustrated that everyone else is so adamant in claiming good health for the market, or at least not as bad as you are seeing it, and are hoping that if you repeat your statements over the state of the market, somehow everyone else will come to their senses, and realise that the market is not doing well at all.



Who knows? That may be part of it. Perhaps we do see disaster in the future and are trying to warn folks. Not to be raining on anybody's parade, but just out some misguided impulse to help (i.e. you cannot fix what may be wrong if nobody will acknowledge that there is something wrong). Please take that into consideration as well.


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Add to that the fact that we all have different definitions of the market, and we're really not likely to get far.



Nail on the head! In order to have any sort of meaningful discussion, you have to have common definitions for certain words and terms.

For example, when I refer to the rpg market, I am talking only about rpgs, not minis, not CCGs, not CRPGs, just table-top roleplaying games, all table-top roleplaying games. Mearls on the other hand has pretty much made it clear that when he says "market" he is referring to D&D only, as he sees everything else as inconsequential (which seems to be a common viewpoint for those working at WotC). To him, this is his definition and it is a valid one, but it is not the one that others are currently using. 


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> I appreciate all input, and put equal faith in everything said here, ie, very little. It'll be interesting in a year to see what has happened, and then I can remember this thread, and think "hey those guys really were right, and knew what they were talking about"!



Well, if you go back a couple of pages, that is pretty much all I asked folks to do, to be skeptical of everything, including what the folks at WotC are saying. Everybody has a tendency to spin things their own way (yes, even me, though I do try to avoid that when possible but it is somewhat of an ingrained thing). What Mearls or Charles Ryan says about the "industry" should be given just as much weight as what GMS, Eyebeamz, Psion, Crothian, Joe Kushner, or anybody else has to say about it. Not more, not less.

A year? That would be too soon. Now it is possible that something within that time frame may result in a resurgence of rpgs, but it is doubtful. The trend that I am seeing is more of a slow trend, something that will continue on for several years, perhaps a decade at least. 

Again, I do not think that the industry is dying, but I do think that it is shrinking. Certain events may increase or slow this shrinkage rate (the fact that the distribution system is currently a total mess and appears to be falling apart does not help things), but it would take something truly massive to reverse it.


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Who it'll be, I don't know. But as I said in another thread related to the "Phantom 4e", in a couple of years, we're gonna have a lot of peopla saying "I told you so". Probably from both sides of the argument, if I know how gamers react.



Again, quite possible (though I will try to refrain myself heheh).


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria - I think that what you are discussing really deserves its own thread. Would you be so kind as to create such a thread so that we do not derail this discussion (as I would really like to discuss some of what you said, but do not want to derail this discussion too much) thanks.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> ...
> The real problem with the rules lies in the plethora of temporary or conditional modifications and the inconsistency within the advanced combat options found in the game.




Yeah, this is _another_ reason why I won't DM 3e anymore (I didn't mean to suggest that the reason I cited earlier was the only reason).  And for the record, I don't have a problem with saying 'no' to players.  

My general point was that for RPGs to be successful, more needs to be done to assist DMs/GMs.  Not just premade adventures (though those certainly help), but tools that can assist the DM/GM in cutting down on prep time, make running sessions easier, etc.

Getting more people willing to GM/DM games is key to ensuring a healthy RPG community.


----------



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

I hate to say this, but Eyebeams is correct.  The RPG hobby is shrinking at an incredible rate.  This can be found in the large percentage of Hobby Stores that are leaving the business and the small print runs associated with most of the top tier publishers.

Despite what many of you may want to think, the decline of the hobby store is a serious threat to hobby.  Those stores that have managed to survive are doing so on TCGs and Miniatures.  

As a WIzards Delegate, I spend a lot of time in hobby stores.  Personally, my main focus as a delegate is D&D, although I support a number of Wizards product lines.  Those stores that specialize in RPGs are being ruined.  They simplely cannot survive in the market, nor do they have the time to become as knowledgeable about the RPGs as the average ENWorlder.

D&D demos do not attract the kids.  They tend to attract the older gamer who has been away from the hobby or does not have the time to play in a regular group.

Conversely, The D&D Minis demos consistantly attract kids.  I have very few older gamers who attend these demos.  Because I care about D&D, I use the minis the try and recruit new players into the game, but that does not always work.  Especially because an entry pack for DDM costs $20 while the entry for D&D costs $30 and you need a DM plus a few buddies willing to play.

Those of you who want to believe that RPGs are doing fine are kidding yourselves.  There is a serious decline in the number of people entering the hobby.  The result of the decline can be seen the the new "luxury" market and the low cost PDF market.  Neither of these markets support entry into the hobby.

The only way that we can help grow the hobby would be large scale effort to local groups and communities to support the hobby and recruit new players.  Thus, if existing gamers made the time to run even one game a month at a hobby store, library etc, then we may be able to slow or reverse the decline.  

Now, Mearles is also correct with regards to D&D.  It is sheltered from the current trends, but I believe that has a lot to do with the DDM crossover market rather than people choosing to pick up the game for itself.  

Feel free to take my comments with a grain of salt.  I am not going to claim that I know as much as Mearls of Gareth or to have the hard numbers that they have seen, but I do encourage you all to take the time and actively seek out new players or do a little personal promotion for the game.  I think that could make a real difference.


----------



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> BelenUmeria - I think that what you are discussing really deserves its own thread. Would you be so kind as to create such a thread so that we do not derail this discussion (as I would really like to discuss some of what you said, but do not want to derail this discussion too much) thanks.




Done.  Please find the thread here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146835


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I hate to say this, but Eyebeams is correct.  The RPG hobby is shrinking at an incredible rate.  This can be found in the large percentage of Hobby Stores that are leaving the business and the small print runs associated with most of the top tier publishers.



I think that everybody in this thread, including myself, agreed on the point that hobby stores are vanishing or cease selling RPGs because those are not as profitable as other products. I see the point that the hobby store may be an entry point for new RPG gamers (just as an anecdotal point: that's neither true for me nor for any of my players), and the discussion how to replace this function is definitely one of the most important ones the RPG community should have.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

> That's a non sequitur. The comparison of hourly calculated sales ranks of a freshly released title with a different one with simlar rank that has been out for several years doesn't tell you much, except that the one that has been out for years sells remarkably better. If you generally look at the more relevant long term titles, then you will see the nWoD core book at roughly 8 times lower sales rank than the Player's Handbook for amazon, somewhere in the range of the D&D Monster Manuals, but decidedly behind titles like the Complete series.




That would be true if you wanted to believe that I thought a single hour was important, which I don't. Having looked at these for a while, these surges usually last a couple of weeks -- in some cases, a couple of months.



> The specific statement that you agreed on with Mike, Tim and Gareth was that the non-D&D RPG market seems to shrink.




Then Mike hardly "countered," what I was saying.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, I don't think you'll find any recent numbers to back that one up. Anecdotally, I have seen palladium on the decline for a long time; I beleive that the comic shop numbers that show a decline of that line are on target.




That would be odd, given that Palladium did quite well on C&GR rankings in 2004. Looking back, though, I think my estimates are off by about a year and I'd put the RPG segments of Palladium and SJG neck and neck.

Of course, nobody wants to hear Palladium is successful, because they hate their games.


----------



## Psion (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That would be odd, given that Palladium did quite well on C&GR rankings in 2004.




Considering they've declined from previous years where claims of being #3 were actually credible, I think your definition of "quite well" differs from mine.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Of course, nobody wants to hear Palladium is successful, because they hate their games.




How is Palladium successful if everyone hates their games?


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That would be odd, given that Palladium did quite well on C&GR rankings in 2004. Looking back, though, I think my estimates are off by about a year and I'd put the RPG segments of Palladium and SJG neck and neck.
> 
> Of course, nobody wants to hear Palladium is successful, because they hate their games.



They're supposed to be selling at comic shops?  From where I'm sitting, I can look at 3 stores in my town, and see Palladium falling faster than almost any other company.

Store #1: The Rusty Scabbard.  A "classic" FLGS, fully stocked and covering a wide variety of gaming.  Several years ago, Palladium warranted an entire shelf of new items prominently displayed and several shelves of older books.  Now?  A copy of Ultimate Rifts on display and a half-shelf of older books, as it's former display space has been given over things like Blue Rose.

Store #2: Collectables Ect.  A comic book store first and foremost, that has a corner of the store that sells RPG's.  A few years ago they had big displays of Palladium books and shelves containing almost every old Rifts book.  Now?  A copy of Ultimate Rifts on display, and the old Rifts shelf has been moved to the bottom shelf in the corner, gathering dust (literally, I checked, nothing there looks like it's been even touched in months).

Store #3: A+ Comics.  A dedicated comic store that has a small gaming sideline.  There is a bookcase in a neglected corner with RPG materials.  The only stuff there that is current is WoD and WotC materials, and the only Palladium materials are ones the owner bought when he first opened the store by buying a big liquidation lot of RPG materials 5 years ago.

At meetings of my gaming club, we often get new members, and when asking them about their gaming experiences, sometimes they will mention they were Palladium players.  Always in the past tense.  Usually it goes like "Well, I used to play Rifts, then Palladium threatened to sue me for a message board post" or "I used to play Rifts, then I turned 16 and discovered D&D".  Of dozens and dozens of gamers to come through, we haven't gotten an actual Palladium fan since 1999, and he gave up when Palladium threatened to sue him over some online posts talking about Rifts conversions.

When I walk into a "big box" bookstore or chain bookstore in a mall, I *never* see Palladium products.  There is plenty of WotC materials, a good amount of WW/S&S materials, and a few items from Malhavoc, Mongoose and AEG each.  Their Amazon sales ranks are in the toilet.  Are they such hot sellers in comic book stores (which aren't apparently selling other RPG's in quantity, just Rifts) that it outweighs online sales, mainstream bookstore sales, and FLGS sales of every other company in the industry other than WW & WotC?

I could believe that SJG, AEG, Malhavoc or Mongoose is #3 in the industry, because they actually seem to be on the move.  All of those except SJG I see regularly in mainstream channels (not a lot, but their books are at least present at the local B&N and Waldenbooks).  I know Palladium was a major company a decade ago, maybe even five years ago, but every indication I've seen _except_ the CG&R numbers says they've been in sharp decline.

The CG&R numbers are highly suspect.  I'm using anecdotal evidence, yes, but CG&R isn't exactly much better.  Ken Hite's own column says even he has doubts about the validity of the data:

(http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=printpage&artid=133)



			
				Kenneth Hite's Out of the Box Column 3/30/05 said:
			
		

> Because although they're definitely numbers, the C&GR results are barely data, derived as they are from self-selected response card surveys of those game retailers savvy enough to subscribe to Comics & Games Retailer. (It's free if you are a retailer; check out their website for details.) *Therefore, by the cold equations of statistical reality, the C&GR numbers should rightly be simply discarded as unrepresentative of anything*, even of the "core hobby games market," defined as stores that only sell stuff that only us geeks care about. The larger adventure game mass market, in Wal-Marts and Borders and suchlike, is opaque to them, and as a result, mostly, to us.



 Bold added for emphasis.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How is Palladium successful if everyone hates their games?




By "Nobody," I mean, "Nobody who frequents online fora," which is a small proportion of gamers.


----------



## tensen (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How is Palladium successful if everyone hates their games?




Probably more accurate to say "nobody here" likes them.
The target audience they cater to is not as likely to peruse these boards.  And in fact is part of the demographic that is shrinking.  Which will likely make it hard for them to keep their place in the market.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That would be true if you wanted to believe that I thought a single hour was important, which I don't. Having looked at these for a while, these surges usually last a couple of weeks -- in some cases, a couple of months.



The numbers are fluctuating quickly. Just look at the thread, and you see that the PHB and M:tAw exchanged their relative positions twice in a few hours. In the long run, I see that W:tF still sells well, whereas V:tR has seen its heydays.



> Then Mike hardly "countered," what I was saying.



He countered your statistics. He agreed on the point I mentioned in my last post.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

tensen said:
			
		

> Probably more accurate to say "nobody here" likes them.




And even that's not accurate......there are some of us who still like what they are doing.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And even that's not accurate......there are some of us who still like what they are doing.




And there are some on RPG.net and other sites that still don't like what they are doing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> By "Nobody," I mean, "Nobody who frequents online fora," which is a small proportion of gamers.




Is there any evidence that the gamers in the online community are not generally representative by taste? By that I mean, is there evidence that gamers who use the internet are more hostile to a company like Palladium than gamers in general?


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Really, I think the legacy of the brand is a big deal.



Oh, absolutely. There's something kind of homey about it to me.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Is there any evidence that the gamers in the online community are not generally representative by taste? By that I mean, is there evidence that gamers who use the internet are more hostile to a company like Palladium than gamers in general?




well, there are poeple on line who like Palladium, they just hang out on the Palladium boards and not the d20 ones....


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How is Palladium successful if everyone hates their games?



By "everyone" I think eyebeams is talking about on any boards except the Palladium ones.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Is there any evidence that the gamers in the online community are not generally representative by taste?




Compare the "virtual" acclaim to the actual success of games like Unknown Armies and CoC. Lots of love for Unknown Armies, the game that seems to have persuaded John Tynes to give up on the industry, given that its last supplement sold 800 copies. And Call of Cthulhu! A classic, beloved by gamers everywhere, right? Nah, not really. Chaosium's various woes are somewhat involved, but the main point is that the company makes its bread and butter money off of mythos fiction -- the RPG certainly hasn't helped it survive brushes with insolvency on several occasions.


----------



## Pramas (Sep 6, 2005)

The industry has always gone through boom and bust cycles. And make no mistake, this is an industry-wide problem, not specific to RPGs (though they are the segment that seems hit the hardest). Right now we are going through a rough patch and that goes for everyone--WotC included. All indicators point to this. That doesn't mean the game industry is dying but things sure could be more healthy.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Is there any evidence that the gamers in the online community are not generally representative by taste?



Actually, I wouldn't even model my d20 or D&D publishing strategy after what the EN World community likes if I had any responsibility in this regard .


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> ... D&D is doing fine. I can't even begin to get into details here, since I hear stuff around the office that is confidential. .... But what I can say is that D&D is trucking along fine....






			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> ... Right now we are going through a rough patch and that goes for everyone--WotC included. All indicators point to this. ...




Are these two statements compatible?

Possibly, given the vagueness of the claim that  'D&D is doing fine' ('fine' relative to what?), and/or the possibility that D&D's relative health is independent of WotC's _overall_ health.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Are these two statements compatible?
> 
> Possibly, given the vagueness of the claim that  'D&D is doing fine' ('fine' relative to what?), and/or the possibility that D&D's relative health is independent of WotC's _overall_ health.



Yes, it is possible that the two are compatible. Remember what I said earlier about spin-doctoring. What we do not know is what all Mearls includes under "D&D", nor do we know what he considers as "trucking along fine". His statement may include such things as licensing deals (for computer games, or movies, or other things,etc.), his definition of "D&D" may or may not include minis, or even the whole of WotC for that matter, but we have no way of knowing.

One of the nifty things about larger corporations that I learned while working for Hewlett-Packard (was a contract employee at the time) was that they do not like their employees saying bad things about them and/or their business. Something to keep in mind.

Now, if there were ever an opinion that I would trust above all others, Chris Pramas' would be it. He has worked for WotC, so he understands their corporate culture, he has created his own successful business (one built on solid quality), and his company has survived some nasty disasters (such as the Osseum fiasco). Not only is a designer, but a pretty smart business man as well.

Then again, Mearls is not a businessman, and with WotC being a large corporation (or at least part of one), I am pretty sure that he would quite likely not have access to any of their sales numbers, so anything he says in that regards could possibly be considered office gossip.

In the end, it is up to each individual as to how much weight they give the words of another.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> One of the nifty things about larger corporations that I learned while working for Hewlett-Packard (was a contract employee at the time) was that they do not like their employees saying bad things about them and/or their business. Something to keep in mind.




That is very true about a lot of companies.  They never like anyone especially people that work for them, to say the company is doing anything but good; no matter how true the statement might be.


----------



## Henry (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> One of the nifty things about larger corporations that I learned while working for Hewlett-Packard (was a contract employee at the time) was that they do not like their employees saying bad things about them and/or their business. Something to keep in mind.




While true, I also get drawn back to Mike's statement:

_It is completely possible for someone who works in RPGs and someone who works at WotC to have radically different views of the market._

One thing I'm certain of is that the majority of players of other games will eventually get drawn back to D&D at some point, just like they'll diverge yet again after that. Where we are in that cycle, though, I couldn't tell you.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That is very true about a lot of companies.  They never like anyone especially people that work for them, to say the company is doing anything but good; no matter how true the statement might be.




I still remember one of Allen Varney's last columns in Dragon magazine that basically said TSR was doing well...

...only to have TSR go belly up within 2-3 months.

So, yeah, employees sometimes either have no idea what's going on, or paint a picture that's better than reality.

Of course, there is always the possibility that employees are 100% correct, but without seeing the financial statements, all we can do is judge if their word is worth taking.


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 6, 2005)

When TSR was nearly going banckrupt and Dragon stopped being published for about 6 months, the then EiC came onto AOL and loudly and longly said there were "printer problems" and that this was the extent of the issue.  As the months wore on and the obvious became painfully so, the song remained the same - "printer problems."

I take what Charles Ryan or Mike Mearls or any Wotc staffer says about the state of their corporate affairs with a huge grain of salt.  I'm not saying they are lying (just as doubtless a near banckrupt TSR did have problems with its printer) but their "truth" is potentially so shaded that it might be "true" only in that it is not a bald faced lie.

And, of course,  D&D is now owned by Hasbro, not TSR, so the analogy is not exact.  The principle, however, holds.  Corporations routinely have "public positions" that are supportable by some measure but which are also designed to serve the corporation's PR interests before "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."  

As far as I can tell, the hobby is shrinking and looks to be headed the way (but still a good ways off) of wargames and model railroading - a smallish, but dedicated fanbase.  Wotc and D&D may well be the "last to go."  That any number of people do not want to entertain the thought at all or entertaining it briefly then reject it almost out of hand reflects, I think in some measure, their dedication that will see them remain with the hobby as it continues to shrink.  It is the same "saying it often enough might make it so" thinking that sees 4E threads derided with a blase condescention, faux superiority and opinion dressed up as irrefutable "logic."  Either way, its like arguing with religious fanatics - fundamentalist D&D pollyannas.  "The hobby is doing just GREAT and 4e is WRONG before 2020."    "Ray has gone bye-bye; Egon, what have you got left?"


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 6, 2005)

Even with the market undeniably shrinking, that doesn't mean that it will die.

After all, we're currently 94 years after H.G. Welles published _Floor Games_ and invented the historical miniatures wargame, and despite the popularity waning and the market for it shrinking, there are still hardcore players of historicals today.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 6, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Even with the market undeniably shrinking, that doesn't mean that it will die.




Indeed. Every year the first portion of "Year's Best Science Fiction" is spent debunking the "SF is dying" theory that propagates itself despite the fact that more SF books are published every year than the previous.


----------



## mearls (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Indeed. Every year the first portion of "Year's Best Science Fiction" is spent debunking the "SF is dying" theory that propagates itself despite the fact that more SF books are published every year than the previous.




I have a theory that every geek pastime has a sort of apocalyptic death cult attached to it. Just as there's religious cults utterly convinced that the end of the world is just around the corner, in RPGs, SF, TCGs, whatever, there's always going to be a hard core that almost seems like they *need* their hobby to be in dire straits.

I remember threads about this stuff since I was first online, back in 1993. I'm sure you'd find similar threads on Google's Usenet archive back in the '80s.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Then again, Mearls is not a businessman, and with WotC being a large corporation (or at least part of one), I am pretty sure that he would quite likely not have access to any of their sales numbers, so anything he says in that regards could possibly be considered office gossip.




But I on the other hand would surmise that there is a greater chance for Mearls to have access to sales data for D&D than, say, Pramas.

Really, what you are saying is that the fact that Pramas used to work for WotC is a thing which speaks for him as an authority you trust. The fact that Mearls works for WotC makes his input "office gossip". 

So having worked for WotC = good and reliable

Working for WotC = office gossip

As for corporations always saying everything is fine, I've done that as well. Written press releases about the latest awards won, new clients aquired and all that, while basically the company was falling apart around us (web agency during 2000 to 2001). So I've told a few corporate "lies" in my life ...   

Come to think of it, WotC hiring Mearls could be an indicator that D&D is doing ok. Why would they add more expenses to the company if they were doing badly? Wouldn't they instead try to downsize and farm out stuff to freelancers?

Or is it the opposite? The fact that they needed to hire Mearls, means that they are desperate for a new edition, and that he's heading the project for 4e which is the only thing that can save D&D?

And Rasyr, I apologise for picking on you all the time, it seems as if I only reply to your posts. I guess it's something about how you write and what you say that makes my fingers itchy.  

Cheers!

/M


----------



## mearls (Sep 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Come to think of it, WotC hiring Mearls could be an indicator that D&D is doing ok. Why would they add more expenses to the company if they were doing badly? Wouldn't they instead try to downsize and farm out stuff to freelancers?




We also hired three full-timers last year: Matt Sernett, Michelle Lyons, and Stephen Schubert.

EDIT: I expect people to question everything I say because I work for WotC. But I also expect people to extend the same skepticism to employees of other companies. Everyone involved in the production and sale of RPGs has a stake in how gamers perceive the market. If I come out and say, "D&D is doing fine while other games/companies are having trouble," there's obviously an advantage for other companies to attempt to debunk that.

Really, for the typical gamer on the street this doesn't mean much. I think it's good when gamers have enough interest in the hobby that they want to see it thrive. If you are concerned about the future of the hobby, you're probably better off recruiting new gamers. That's really the best thing you can do.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> But I on the other hand would surmise that there is a greater chance for Mearls to have access to sales data for D&D than, say, Pramas.



In-house data? Quite likely he has a greater chance (with the chance being slim to none for in-house employees that are not in the accounting departments). But that is not the only place data can be gathered.


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Really, what you are saying is that the fact that Pramas used to work for WotC is a thing which speaks for him as an authority you trust. The fact that Mearls works for WotC makes his input "office gossip".



Sorry if that was the way it came across, but it isn't what I meant. My comment about Chris formerly working at WotC was only meant to indicate that he knows the corporate culture, and would understand whether or not a statement by somebody working from WotC would be spinning something due to the corporate culture.

But the biggest thing is that Chris is running his own company, and successfully, and to me that says that he is in a better position to judge the overall rpg market. He deals with things that Mearls does not. Things that can give him information on the whole market.

Where Mearls has already shown (in an earlier post) that he pretty much discounts everything that is not D&D. Sorry, but I find that a bit limiting in his perspective. If D&D were such a huge factor of the market, then however the market is going then so is D&D (i.e. market is shrinking overall). 


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> As for corporations always saying everything is fine, I've done that as well. Written press releases about the latest awards won, new clients aquired and all that, while basically the company was falling apart around us (web agency during 2000 to 2001). So I've told a few corporate "lies" in my life ...



Not corporate lies, it's spin-doctoring, or "Accentuating the Positive".  (now if I can just remember where I got that phrase - song from an old movie, IIRC).


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Come to think of it, WotC hiring Mearls could be an indicator that D&D is doing ok. Why would they add more expenses to the company if they were doing badly? Wouldn't they instead try to downsize and farm out stuff to freelancers?
> 
> Or is it the opposite? The fact that they needed to hire Mearls, means that they are desperate for a new edition, and that he's heading the project for 4e which is the only thing that can save D&D?



Well, I even take a guess on this one, but I will point out that on these very fora, Mearls did state (sometime late last year or early this year, IIRC) in one of the many 4E threads that he thought that 4e would be out in a "few years" because of the hiring that WotC was doing at the time. He was hired a few months later. Take from that what you will. 



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> And Rasyr, I apologise for picking on you all the time, it seems as if I only reply to your posts. I guess it's something about how you write and what you say that makes my fingers itchy.



hehe... Then click on the first link in my sig, go read that, and start up a thread about it. 

Seriously, no problems here. Nisarg used to do the same to me (though in a much more volatile manner) back when he was around here. At least I am not making you want to strangle me.... or am I?????


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think it's good when gamers have enough interest in the hobby that they want to see it thrive. If you are concerned about the future of the hobby, you're probably better off recruiting new gamers. That's really the best thing you can do.



To this, I can fully and whole-heartedly agree.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 6, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Opinions?




I bought The Five Nations which was my first d20 purchase in 8 months (I'm not counting product I've traded for) and I didn't buy a single d20 product at Gencon. I know I myself am getting a lot more frugal with my purchases. If it falls into the "this is the greatest thing ever catergory" I'm buying. If not, I don't bother. I think the market has matured and people are willing to shell out top dollar for quality product from proven publishers. However, I think if a new company tried to release a product at those prices regardless of quality it wouldn't move an inch.


----------



## Nikchick (Sep 6, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> But I on the other hand would surmise that there is a greater chance for Mearls to have access to sales data for D&D than, say, Pramas.
> 
> Really, what you are saying is that the fact that Pramas used to work for WotC is a thing which speaks for him as an authority you trust. The fact that Mearls works for WotC makes his input "office gossip".
> 
> ...




When considering the opinion of any current or former Wizards of the Coast employee, I keep in mind the difference between working at WotC as a new-hire R&D guy cranking out his assigned module units of book content and working at WotC as a Creative Director or Brand Development Manager who participated in cross-funtional team meetings and business planning.  And, in the case of former WotC Brand Managers in particular, I keep in mind whether their post-WotC business endeavors have been seen as works of quality and success and if they are people you can trust to behave ethically, vs. those whose grand ideas haven't met with much success in the marketplace once they were not propped up by WotC's budget/marketing team/staff of hundreds. 

An employee may very well believe with all his heart the things he hears and repeats (or chooses not to repeat) but honestly, at the end of the day, the big shots at Wizards and Hasbro are not sharing the ins and outs of the business with low level new-hires in R&D. IMO, if he "hears things around the office" it IS water cooler talk.


----------



## mearls (Sep 6, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> the big shots at Wizards and Hasbro are not sharing the ins and outs of the business with low level new-hires in R&D.




Yes, actually, they are. Each week in our department meeting, the brand team gives us an overview of the last week of sales. We also hear monthly overviews of how other parts of the company are doing.

Also, as a developer I don't "crank out my assigned module units." I'm not assigned module units. I'm a developer, not a designer.


----------



## Nikchick (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> Yes, actually, they are. Each week in our department meeting, the brand team gives us an overview of the last week of sales. We also hear monthly overviews of how other parts of the company are doing.
> 
> Also, as a developer I don't "crank out my assigned module units." I'm not assigned module units. I'm a developer, not a designer.




I was speaking in general terms, dear.  No personal offense intended.


----------



## Pramas (Sep 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Sorry if that was the way it came across, but it isn't what I meant. My comment about Chris formerly working at WotC was only meant to indicate that he knows the corporate culture, and would understand whether or not a statement by somebody working from WotC would be spinning something due to the corporate culture.




No one who works for a company of any size would go into a public forum on their own initiative and start talking about how badly their products are doing in the marketplace. Not if they wanted to keep their job anyway. When WotC folks comment on threads like this, there are three possibilities:

1) They are telling the actual truth.
2) They are telling the truth as they know it.
3) They are lying. 

I doubt most of the WotC folks that post here would bother to say anything if they were going to lie. It'd be far safer to just not  post anything at all. That leaves options 1 and 2. As with any company reps, you should take what the WotC folks with a grain of salt.

But I didn't pop in here to talk about that, or my qualifications for that matter. I just passed on what anyone involved in the business of the game industry would tell you right now: the hobby is going through a rough period. This is not to say there are not individual success stories, there are, but in general sales across all categories are down. I hear the same thing from every retailer and every distributor I talk to and those are the guys on the ground level selling this stuff.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I just passed on what anyone involved in the business of the game industry would tell you right now: the hobby is going through a rough period. This is not to say there are not individual success stories, there are, but in general sales across all categories are down. I hear the same thing from every retailer and every distributor I talk to and those are the guys on the ground level selling this stuff.




Thanks for the clarification. Note that nothing you say contradicts what Mike Mearls said earlier. I suspect the local gaming retailer is not going to stock much except the best-selling RPGs in the near future. As Mearls points out, the big chain bookstores and Amazon.com are set up much better to deal with RPGs than your local hobby game retailer. And to be honest, if my local hobby retailer went out of business altogether I wouldn't notice. They've not provided any service of value to me for the last 4 years, and are unlikely to do so better than Amazon.com and its ilk in the future.


----------



## philreed (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> Yes, actually, they are. Each week in our department meeting, the brand team gives us an overview of the last week of sales.




That doesn't sound very useful. I could see how monthly reports might be interesting but devoting attention each week to the previous week's sales seems like a waste of valuable time. It sounds like the company is far too focused on the short-term health of the brand -- especially if they're bothering everyone in the department with sales numbers on a weekly basis.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 7, 2005)

There's just no right answer, is there?

"You don't know the sales numbers."

"We have a report every meeting."

"That doesn't sound useful, and proves WotC is shortsighted and greedy!"


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> ... But I also expect people to extend the same skepticism to employees of other companies....




Then why not come straight out and explain where Chris Pramas is wrong and you're right?  :\


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Then why not come straight out and explain where Chris Pramas is wrong and you're right?  :\



 But why should he have to prove Pramas wrong? Gods, why does anyone have to be proving anyone else wrong?

Am I the only one confused by all of this? No matter what anyone says, you can't believe them. Its just not possible. You can't trust Mearls because he works for WotC...okay...then why do you trust any other publishers? Because they say its bad, so obviously they're speaking the truth?

Maybe, as Pramas has said, the hobby IS going through a rough period(hell, I won't even argue that one way or another). But what IS a rough period? Is a rough period when 3rd party publishers just aren't selling as much as they have before? If that's it, then how does that count for a rough period when we all know just how little effect the 3rd party publishers(no matter how much we love them) really have on things when compared to WotC and WW? 

And then again...what is 'the hobby'? Are we talking about just RPGs? Or all of gaming? There doesn't seem to be any consensus on what's actually being discussed here...just a lot of "the market is shrinking."/"No it isn't." No side has any evidence one way or another, for whatever reason.

So...IS the market dying? From this thread, you can't even tell what the market is, not to mention who we're actually going to accept it telling the truth on whether or not its even shrinking.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Indeed. Every year the first portion of "Year's Best Science Fiction" is spent debunking the "SF is dying" theory that propagates itself despite the fact that more SF books are published every year than the previous.




This is the kind of content-free thinking that's a persistent problem in SF circles and in this thread, too. Debunking the idea that SF is declining with licensed novel sales doesn't answer the concerns SF fans actually have.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...
> So...IS the market dying? ...




Relative to 1982?  It's in a coma.  Relative to 2000?  It's in a 'rough patch'.

Whether the market is 'in decline' depends on the time scale involved.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> Yes, actually, they are. Each week in our department meeting, the brand team gives us an overview of the last week of sales.




Net or gross? You can't effectively link sales to returns in such a short period of time.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I have a theory that every geek pastime has a sort of apocalyptic death cult attached to it. Just as there's religious cults utterly convinced that the end of the world is just around the corner, in RPGs, SF, TCGs, whatever, there's always going to be a hard core that almost seems like they *need* their hobby to be in dire straits.
> ...




What a load of crap.   :\ 

I'm very impressed with IH, Mike, but this is just complete rubbish.  Stick to the games.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I have a theory that every geek pastime has a sort of apocalyptic death cult attached to it. Just as there's religious cults utterly convinced that the end of the world is just around the corner, in RPGs, SF, TCGs, whatever, there's always going to be a hard core that almost seems like they *need* their hobby to be in dire straits.




Not really. RPGs probably have at least a good century in them. The commercial print RPG industry? Not so much. Board wargaming and comics are probably instructional about where things are headed -- and why, too. They aren't dead (and Marvel makes a lot of money --2% of it even comes from comic books), but you'd be hard-pressed to call them anywhere near as thriving as they were a decade ago.



> I remember threads about this stuff since I was first online, back in 1993. I'm sure you'd find similar threads on Google's Usenet archive back in the '80s.




Given that the first major drop in sales I can remember was '93-'95, you arrived at the right time at the right place. In any event, though, what's more salient are period bit about how marketing to a narrow target with MacFarlane foil covers and how computers would never replace boardgames mean that their related markets were going to do well for a while, yet, and pointing out otherwise is disloyal to the scene and a "death cult" of some kind.

Same one true-wayisms about the centrality of existing fandom and marketing schemes. Same denail when things don't work as plan. Same results.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Sep 7, 2005)

Listen to every song that's ever asserted that rock will never die before pooh-poohing *mearls*'s death-cult theory -- I think the mistake he made was to limit it to "geek pastime". 

SF is dying. RPGs are dying. Rock is dying. So are you and I; it's a fact of life. If the corpse of D&D fertilizes the soil and gives rise to descendants that carry on what was best about it, that's okay with me.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> This is the kind of content-free thinking that's a persistent problem in SF circles and in this thread, too. Debunking the idea that SF is declining with licensed novel sales doesn't answer the concerns SF fans actually have.



Man if you are calling it "content-free" then you obviously have never read a "Year's Best" Review.  The facts and figures that go into that detailed annual de-bunking are tremendous.

You seem to want everyone to trust your knowledge while you're free to blow theirs off.  
Sorry, it don't work that way.
I can respect that you may not be at liberty to share confidential information.  
But you're going to have to respect that if your evidence isn't admissible in court, you're going to lose the case.


I agree completely that there is a broad market decline.  But this "the sky is falling" mentality seems way over the top.  

Even by your claim of four declining years, it seems like a pretty good situation.  3E and OGL started a boom in gaming in late 99.  Give that two years of wild ride followed by four years of trending back to reality.  That's not even half empty.  

Sure, as the market restore itself to equilibrium, theres going to be a lot adjustment.  And, unfortunately it is human nature to quickly begin to take a boon for granted.  And when that boon turns back to a simple neutral status, it gets treated by some as a catastrophy.    But that doesn't make their viewpoint reasonable.  And that applies whether you are a big dog who has to re-adapt, or if you're just a fringe writer who doesn't have the edge to last in a smaller market.  Anybody getting pushed out now is 95% likely to be somebody who never would have gotten "in" in the first place if it weren't for the boom cycle.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> So...IS the market dying? From this thread, you can't even tell what the market is, not to mention who we're actually going to accept it telling the truth on whether or not its even shrinking.



You can always try with your purely subjective view. For me, personally, it means that there's still much more good RPG material available than I can responsibly buy. This means _my_ buffet looks great. I got a bit picky, but that's not bad for my wallet . The only debacle that somehow affected me was that of Green Ronin and their distributor. After 3 canceled orders, my urge to get hold of a copy of Blue Rose cooled substantially down; but thats a minor discomfort.

In principle, it wouldn't even affect me much if "the market" mysteriously vanished overnight. Some of my colleagues just forced me to DM for them; they want to learn D&D. I noticed that I had difficulties to decide what to use; I could most probably play with them for many years without the need to fall back on my own ideas, not that I wanted to go that way.

And somehow a statement like that from eyebeams about Chaosium, as bleak as this might look from a publisher's view, it's in one way comforting for a fan. The hobby lives on even when publishing itself becomes a hobby. Is the market dead then? Well, decide for yourself .


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I have a theory that every geek pastime has a sort of apocalyptic death cult attached to it. Just as there's religious cults utterly convinced that the end of the world is just around the corner, in RPGs, SF, TCGs, whatever, there's always going to be a hard core that almost seems like they *need* their hobby to be in dire straits.



Here are true words.

Not just in geek pastimes (although that's certainly a big place for it), but everywhere you'll see pessimists who say the end is nigh.  Before gamingreport.com required people to register to post, any bad news from any source would be immediately followed by a torrent of posts saying that the RPG industry was dying, that WotC was about to fold, that in 6 months there would be no RPG's still in print, or my personal favorite "In a year we'll all have new hobbies".  I'm a little dulled to gloom & doom talk because while I've only been gaming since 1997, I've been hearing nothing prognostications of imminent doom from certain quarters the entire time (including the dawn of 3e, when I heard predictions that it would be "the Edsel of gaming and destroy D&D" or that the OGL was some insidious WotC plot to steal everybody's works from their web pages and message board posts and make money off of them without paying the fans they took them from).  In fact, in the 8 years I've been a gamer, I can't remember a single time I've heard many good predictions about the industry.  

Some people say RPG's are dying because MMO's and virtual reality will replace them "in the future".  Of course, "in the future", electronic commerce was supposed to replace all cash, eBooks were supposed to replace all print books, we were all supposed to be shopping online for everything from groceries to cars, and TV will be interactive and we'll be shopping on TV.  Sometimes you just need butts in the seats, and no virtual world will ever truly replace to the comaraderie of a few friends around a table slinging dice and playing a game.  Just like online poker hasn't replaced live poker, virtual chess hasn't replaced real chess, and we still read hardcopy books, we'll still play actual D&D.

Just like electronic commerce experienced a huge surge in the late '90's as everybody moved to online sales of everything, and the buzz was that "brick & mortar" had no future, investors poured fortunes into e-Commerce, thinking it was the wave of the future.  Then the bust came: it's not practical to shop for a lot of things online, and people still like to physically examine articles before they buy them and to get them from local stores instead of having it shipped to them.  People decried this as a bust, a crash, but in reality it was the market normalizing itself.  Some people succeeded, but only by doing things that could not be done before.  Amazon and eBay were the two most famous success stories, the former for having a selection no physical store could match with highly competitive prices, the latter for being a collector's dream as a sort of ultimate electronic flea market.  A failure would be Tandy Leather, a chain of leatherworking stores that in late '98 shut down their nationwide chain of stores to only offer leatherworking supplies online, since that was The Way of the Future.  It was a failure, as raw crafting materials were impractical to buy that way, and the experience of selecting your materials and getting help from the employees was quite valuable.  Years later, they've begun to reopen their chain of stores.

This is very much like what the RPG industry has been through in the last few years.  Back in 2000, the d20 STL and D&D 3e changed the market.  Now, every homebrewer and wannabe game writer could make D&D compatible RPG's and sell them.  Since almost every GM thinks they are an excellent writer of material, almost every one tried to produce something to sell (or so it seems).  The quality of 3e gave D&D a fresh infusion of life, as gamers came back to D&D after sometimes long absences, new gamers flooded in, and other gamers were invigorated with the new rule set.  Riding on these coattails were many other companies, who converted product lines to d20, trying to ride the wave, or they produced wave after wave of poorly written drek.  Then things started to fade.  People realized that quality counts, and just being d20 isn't any sign of quality.  Companies who got into the industry to take advantage of d20 are feeling the pinch as the winds that power them die down, and the consumers go back to trusted names they know will bring them quality and entertainment.  WotC and White Wolf are the first names on that list.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Net or gross? You can't effectively link sales to returns in such a short period of time.



Why can't he? Simply because it doesn't prove the hobby is dying?
So, any evidence that contradicts your view is simply wrong or wishful thinking?

Are you argueing this from some personal attachment to a segment of the market that is declining?

Really, if you can't view any other opinion or information as valid, then why are people still responding to this thread?

 So Mearls can be attacked by others for posting what he has seen? But it's okay, because it's not really an attack if you say you meant it to include all the WotC guys posting on this thread.

It's amazing that a thread that really SHOULD be facts and figures is instead consisting almost entirely of argueing over semantics and avoiding what people actually post.

So, I guess the Market can't be "Dying" simply because it's not Alive.


----------



## Pramas (Sep 7, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It's amazing that a thread that really SHOULD be facts and figures is instead consisting almost entirely of argueing over semantics and avoiding what people actually post.




If there were reliable figures, people would post them, but one of the long term problems of the game industry is that such figures don't exist. Most companies are privately held and they don't share their sales information. Many retailers don't have POS systems and the ones that do have no mechanism to share their numbers. So we are left with the sales numbers we do know (our own), imperfect info like the Comics and Games Retailer numbers, and what evidence can be gathered from the other tiers (retailers and distributors). It doesn't create a slick report full of citations that can be posted and analyzed, but it is possible to discover and understand certain trends in the industry. And when you are hearing the same thing from 99% of your sources, it doesn't take a genius to draw the correct conclusion. Again, let me stress that I would not say the industry is dying. That's just hyperbole.


----------



## A'koss (Sep 7, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Some people say RPG's are dying because MMO's and virtual reality will replace them "in the future".  Of course, "in the future", electronic commerce was supposed to replace all cash, eBooks were supposed to replace all print books, we were all supposed to be shopping online for everything from groceries to cars, and TV will be interactive and we'll be shopping on TV.



Your analogies have little relevence to the future of RPGs. I can just as easily point out how 8-track cassettes, tapes, horse and buggies and Commodore 64s have gone the way of the dodo. RPGs are are a niche hobby and they were to disappear or be replaced, the world at large won't even bat an eyelash. 


> Sometimes you just need butts in the seats, and no virtual world will ever truly replace to the comaraderie of a few friends around a table slinging dice and playing a game.  Just like online poker hasn't replaced live poker, virtual chess hasn't replaced real chess, and we still read hardcopy books, we'll still play actual D&D.



You're forgetting one important point - D&D is a _fantasy roleplaying game_. It will eventually be replaced by the computer/VR because it can create a level of immersion that just can't be replicated with grid map and inch tall miniatures. Poker and chess don't gain anything by using a computer, you actually take a lot of the fun out of the game if you can't "read" your opponent. Books haven't taken off on the computer for a number of reasons - expense, portability, readability... That may change however.

FRPGs are simply _tailor-made_ to be replaced by MMORPGs/VR, and as I've pointed out,  are really just in their infancy right now. VR is what will finish it off.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Here are true words. ...




Um, no, they're not 'true words'.  Rather, it's a silly generalization.  Nothing more.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Um, no, they're not 'true words'.  Rather, it's a silly generalization.  Nothing more.



 Like this thread, eh?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Your analogies have little relevence to the future of RPGs. I can just as easily point out how 8-track cassettes, tapes, horse and buggies and Commodore 64s have gone the way of the dodo. RPGs are are a niche hobby and they were to disappear or be replaced, the world at large won't even bat an eyelash.
> You're forgetting one important point - D&D is a _fantasy roleplaying game_. It will eventually be replaced by the computer/VR because it can create a level of immersion that just can't be replicated with grid map and inch tall miniatures. Poker and chess don't gain anything by using a computer, you actually take a lot of the fun out of the game if you can't "read" your opponent. Books haven't taken off on the computer for a number of reasons - expense, portability, readability... That may change however.
> 
> FRPGs are simply _tailor-made_ to be replaced by MMORPGs/VR, and as I've pointed out,  are really just in their infancy right now. VR is what will finish it off.




I don't know about that.  Like you say, poker and chess lose a lot over the internet.  I would say that DnD does as well.  Without a live DM, your choices and freedoms are incredibly limited to whatever is coded into the game.  Even with a fantasticly responsive program, there will be limitations on what you as a player can do.  Unless, of course, you're talking about some sort of sensorium VR set up with smell and touch and whatnot.  But, then again, we're several decades from that sort of thing, so, it's a tad early to talk about computers replacing DnD.  

Right now, there are lots of people who do both.  It's not an either/or choice.  Lots of gamers come from things like Everquest and start into gaming.  There is quite a bit of crosspollination between CRPG's and PnP games.  

Who knows?  Maybe people will reject the idea of immersive VR and go for the face to face contact because they are so jaded by online life.  I'm quite sure there are some grognards out there who will do exactly that.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> If there were reliable figures, people would post them, but one of the long term problems of the game industry is that such figures don't exist. Most companies are privately held and they don't share their sales information. Many retailers don't have POS systems and the ones that do have no mechanism to share their numbers. So we are left with the sales numbers we do know (our own), imperfect info like the Comics and Games Retailer numbers, and what evidence can be gathered from the other tiers (retailers and distributors). It doesn't create a slick report full of citations that can be posted and analyzed, but it is possible to discover and understand certain trends in the industry. And when you are hearing the same thing from 99% of your sources, it doesn't take a genius to draw the correct conclusion. Again, let me stress that I would not say the industry is dying. That's just hyperbole.




Add on that much of the information is confidential or needed for legal proceedings and you end up with no idea of what is going on. All I know for certain is that RPGs have been declared dead or dying repeatedly in my lifetime. As a manufacturer, a retailer, and a person that has had a long and hard look inside the operations of a distributor, the industry is not dying, it is evolving. When I was a kid, there was D&D, some other TSR crap (and boy was it crap) and companied that TSR bought up and closed or sued into the dirt. Nowadays if you want a game about kung-fu robots in love with Japanese school girls, you can find it.

Look at the RPGs from small companies compared to something from a big company in 1985. The production values of a modern small-press product are FAR in excess of an old D&D book.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 7, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> By "everyone" I think eyebeams is talking about on any boards except the Palladium ones.




I like Palladium. The books are large, informative and affordable.


----------



## mearls (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Then why not come straight out and explain where Chris Pramas is wrong and you're right?  :\




I don't think it's that simple. Honestly, trying to pitch this as an us v. them situation is wrong. As I mentioned before, the "RPG market" is really a few different markets that exist under the same umbrella. It's completely possible for observers in different parts to have different views on how things are playing out.

My one sentence overview would be, "Things seem tough for hobby gaming in general, but D&D seems to be riding out the storm just fine."

Take a game near and dear to you as an example: Castles & Crusades. It's completely possible that while other d20 companies are seeing a drop in sales, Troll Lord is holding steady or even growing because of C&C. So, Chris might say "I see a big drop in RPGs," but the Troll Lords might see their sales holding steady or even growing. Market trends are just that; general tendencies that apply to most, but not all, companies.


----------



## mearls (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Net or gross? You can't effectively link sales to returns in such a short period of time.




I believe that we don't actually receive payment on anticipated returns. Book stores project out some percentage of stock they don't think will move, and they simply don't pay us for it up front. I imagine it works out to something similar to a flooring deal with a distributor.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But why should he have to prove Pramas wrong? Gods, why does anyone have to be proving anyone else wrong?



Because that's the point of argument.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> I like Palladium. The books are large, informative and affordable.



You would be the exception, then.


----------



## A'koss (Sep 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I don't know about that.  Like you say, poker and chess lose a lot over the internet.  I would say that DnD does as well.  Without a live DM, your choices and freedoms are incredibly limited to whatever is coded into the game.  Even with a fantasticly responsive program, there will be limitations on what you as a player can do.



I think that, as a player, the only meaningful thing you lose out on is the intelligent interaction between the DM (and therefore the story) and the players. The DM can change the "scene" and the story on a whim which obviously isn't easily done on a computer. PC capability I don't see as a big issue, games can give you all sorts of cool interactive capability.

That said, the rate at which game graphics, interactivity and AI is evolving you're going to find that players will be willing to give up a lot for the sheer immersion factor. It's also more convenient, you can talk to your buddies in real time, and so on. I expect you'll still find CRPGs designed liked Neverwinter Nights where you can have a "DM" to interact with.



> Unless, of course, you're talking about some sort of sensorium VR set up with smell and touch and whatnot.  But, then again, we're several decades from that sort of thing, so, it's a tad early to talk about computers replacing DnD.



I'm not talking sensoriums here (as cool an idea as it is) and I think VR glasses with stereo headsets are not that far away (seeing as you can buy them already).



> Right now, there are lots of people who do both.  It's not an either/or choice.



For quite a while you still had the choice of buying cassette tapes over CDs, eventually the market chose one and the other faded away. Again, MMORPGs are in their infancy right now and their influence is only _just _ being felt. I think the market is going to naturally gravitate towards them as they continue to get better and better. 



> Who knows?  Maybe people will reject the idea of immersive VR and go for the face to face contact because they are so jaded by online life.  I'm quite sure there are some grognards out there who will do exactly that.



Oh I can see that, no question, but not enough to the PnP companies alive in any meaningful way.


----------



## mearls (Sep 7, 2005)

I think a bigger and more interesting question is, "Will technology ever kill off tabletop gaming?"

I don't think it will. If it was going to, it would've done so already. We've had computer RPGs since 1981. We've had MMORPGs since 1997. I think we're already at the point where a computer interface makes it easier to manage the game and prettier to look at. Short of some radical, singularity-level change in technology, I think RPGs are too social in nature for a computer interface to replace them. As long as people like to interact face to face, I don't see RPGs as a form going anywhere.

But here's the catch.

The big "secret" of RPG publishing is that gamers don't need us. At all. RPGs are designed for the participants to act as game designers. IMO, RPG books are a real tough sell to gamers. Unless a publisher does a bang up job on a book, gamers just won't bother. They'll stick to their homebrew material, thank-you-very-much.

The challenge to an RPG publisher is to make products that grab gamer's attention and follow up with great rules, good writing, excellent layout, and cool art. If I've learned anything since I started on this crazy career path, it's that gamers are merciless when it comes to quality. There might be plenty of puff piece reviews for a book, and tons of "buzz", but when it comes down to sales, bad products are road kill.

At GenCon, I described my job like this: picture two 10 ton blocks of stone. On one side, you have every single DM in the world pulling on a block. On the other side, you have the 22 full-time RPG staff members at WotC. We, the WotC staff, are in a race to pull that block faster and farther than our entire customer base. If we slip behind, we're irrelevant. We're screwed. We're TSR circa 1996.

I think it's completely possible for game publishers to slide into oblivion, even while more gamers than ever play RPGs. I think that's part of why I love my job. We can't half-ass it if we want to stay relevant. As soon as an RPG designer stops looking at what gamers want, how gamers play, and how he can make his designs more fun, he's irrelevant.

The good side of this situation is that, once you decode what gamers want, they'll stampede book and gaming stores to buy it. Look at how low D&D dropped when TSR was dying. Dragon and Dungeon stopped publishing. There weren't any new books for months. GenCon was almost canceled. And yet, within 3 years a new edition of D&D hit the scene, blew out sales records, and ushered in a new golden age.

I think D&D is a hell of a lot tougher to kill than anyone can imagine.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> The big "secret" of RPG publishing is that gamers don't need us. At all.



I've been saying this very thing for years. If every game company were to suddently cease printing tomorrow, it wouldn't matter: there's more rpg material out there than anyone can use. People would keep gaming.


----------



## Fate Lawson (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I believe that we don't actually receive payment on anticipated returns. Book stores project out some percentage of stock they don't think will move, and they simply don't pay us for it up front. I imagine it works out to something similar to a flooring deal with a distributor.




Gods, if that were only true. But that isn't how the standard book retail end works. If I order 100 units the invoice for ALL 100 units comes due in 30 days (on average). I may however have "returns privelages" for 180 to 365 days (again -- on average). Then I can wait for anywhere from 30 to 120 days to get my refund back (that is if I can even get a cash refund -- I might only get "credit" to future purchases).

However, those sales figures may in week 1 have Sales of Books A,B,C - Returns of books A,B (C having been just released and returns not yet coming back) and then week 2 may be Sales of A,B,C,D - Returns of A,B,C  etc.,etc.


----------



## mearls (Sep 7, 2005)

Fate Lawson said:
			
		

> Gods, if that were only true. But that isn't how the standard book retail end works. If I order 100 units the invoice for ALL 100 units comes due in 30 days (on average). I may however have "returns privelages" for 180 to 365 days (again -- on average). Then I can wait for anywhere from 30 to 120 days to get my refund back (that is if I can even get a cash refund -- I might only get "credit" to future purchases).




It's completely possible that I'm totally mistaken. It's also possible that it's an accounting thing that we do on our end to hedge against returns. If TSR had huge problems with returns, I wouldn't be surprised if something was put in place to deal with that. Our paperback/fiction division obviously does lots of business with major book chains, so returns have always been something that WotC has to look at.


----------



## A'koss (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think a bigger and more interesting question is, "Will technology ever kill off tabletop gaming?"
> 
> I don't think it will. If it was going to, it would've done so already. We've had computer RPGs since 1981. We've had MMORPGs since 1997.



Strongly Disagree. We're only seeing the _beginning_ of what computers can really do for a RPG. The graphics, the AI and the "immersion factor" are still very crude, but are beginning to hint at what is possible. Think of what is available now graphics-wise to playing a game that can render LotR (the movie) level graphics in real-time. Now, imagine (10-15 years hence) if you could don a pair a VR glasses and "enter" such a world. 



> Short of some radical, singularity-level change in technology, I think RPGs are too social in nature for a computer interface to replace them. As long as people like to interact face to face, I don't see RPGs as a form going anywhere.



I think face-to-face interaction with your friends will always be there... just not necessarily for RPGs. 



> But here's the catch.
> 
> The big "secret" of RPG publishing is that gamers don't need us. At all. RPGs are designed for the participants to act as game designers. IMO, RPG books are a real tough sell to gamers. Unless a publisher does a bang up job on a book, gamers just won't bother. They'll stick to their homebrew material, thank-you-very-much.



Agreed. Though I think the greater concern yet will be attracting new, long-term players to the game.



> I think D&D is a hell of a lot tougher to kill than anyone can imagine.



Oh, it's a tough nut, thank goodness for that. But unfortunately, as a fantasy roleplaying game, it isn't necessarily best implemented in a face to face environment like poker or chess.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

Computers for rpgs = meh. No beer = not an rpg, to me.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 7, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Your analogies have little relevence to the future of RPGs. I can just as easily point out how 8-track cassettes, tapes, horse and buggies and Commodore 64s have gone the way of the dodo.



In each of those cases, what replaced them was better in almost every concievable way.  8-Tracks were inferior in every way to cassette tapes and CD's, later computers were superior in every way to Commodore 64.

Playing a tabletop RPG has many intangible elements.  Unless you can create quite literally a holodeck level simulation, you're not going to begin to touch things like the camaraderie of a group of friends sitting around a table having fun.

Call me a strong skeptic on people saying that "In The Future, It Will All Be Online".  I saw people claiming that many times, in many fields, and it never pans out.  I've been hearing it for over a decade now, and online alternatives to existing activities/entities compliment existing options, they almost never completely replace them.

Gamers are also a group that tends to be stingy, and while the more dedicated ones might collect books voraciously, others only buy one or two ever.  Some attempt to move the entire hobby over to some radical VR interface would have huge start-up costs, major software issues, initial costs for adopters, possible subscription costs.  No amount of VR compares to actually being in a place with an actual person, and for many gamers our games are a major social activity, and we aren't exactly eager to trade our major social activity for sitting alone in our basements hooked to a VR rig online (please reference the "WOTC Ad" thread going on now).

Take all the problems of a MMORPG and superimpose them on a gaming group (lag, bugs, explots, system crashes, ect.).  Throw in how hard it is to run a "pickup" game when everybody needs computers and VR rigs, no impromptu games anymore.  Much more GM prep time (or only running prefab adventures and worlds) since instead of having a few loose notes on a town, now it all has to be programmed in and instead of a GM improvising an NPC quickly it has to be programmed all in advance.  

The Tabletop RPG medium has enough advantages that electronic games can never completely replace it.  Compliment it, yes.  Replace it, no.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Computers for rpgs = meh. No beer = not an rpg, to me.




 

And I think Testujin hits it on the head right there.  For many players, it's a chance to get together with some friends and make a night of it.  I know it certainly was for me for more than a decade, so, I don't think you can discount the social aspect of PnP games.  I think that MMORPGS are going to complement PnP games, not out compete them.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

It's not that I don't enjoy playing NWN or the like, but I miss the lame jokes, the beer, and the general comradery.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 7, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Playing a tabletop RPG has many intangible elements.




Speaking as a person who was addicted heavily to Everquest for three years (I was spending at least 12 hours a day on it, and was deeply involved in the EQ End Game), and then has tried most every other MMORPG on the market since, I can safely say the MMORPG experience is almost an entirely different one than an RPG. 

MMORPGs are mainly concerned with busy-work and competition.  100s of hours grinding exp in some dungeon, sitting there and pulling creatures methodically to your group, to gain a level.  And then when you've got those levels, you can spend another 100 hours gaining keys to the dungeon where high-level loot drops.  And then when you get those keys, you can spend months in that dungeon trying to farm out the premium armor and weapons, but only if you can muster raid parties of 60 people for hours on end.  Oh and every step of the way, you're up against other players trying to get the same limited resource.  The boss mob which drops 1 key per kill, and only spawns once a week, for example.  Those creatures dropping the high-end loot in the keyed dungeon?  They're a week respawn too.  Etc etc.

Compare that with RPGs which let you get right to the heart of the interesting action, and which make you actually the hero, not some random schlub in a raid guild.

MMORPGs are also a strictly pre-designed experience.  Sometimes that works, EQ certainly had some interesting temples and quests, but in general you're playing someone else's vision.  And there's only so much of that content to see per game.  When you've beaten the End Dungeon, well, there's not much else to do but farm the hell out of it.  Killing the Supreme Bad Guy, who never stays dead, over and over again makes the experience lose a bit of luster.

RPGs let the group, through the GM, decide what kind of world they'll play in, and what style it will contain.  You'll also never run into a situation where the GM says "okay you've finished the three adventures I bought, feel like playing that Carrionette one again?"

There's also the fact that MMORPGs really have nothing to do with Roleplaying.  In those three years of EQ, over thirteen thousand hours of play time, I never once saw someone act in character.  A character is a pre-defined set of abilities, that's all.  There's no such thing as an "adventure" in a MMORPG.  At best you'll find a quest which requires gathering several items from several different boss mobs for turning-in to some NPC to gain an item.  And you can be certain that any good item will have such levels of competition surrounding those quest item drops that you'll spend days just trying to get a shot at killing the monsters which drop them.

There was a comic strip I saw once, which really captured the mood of MMORPGs.  There was a fire dragon named Lord Nagafen, who was one of the only two dragons in the entire game you could kill at that point.  He spawned once a week, and guilds would rush to kill him, often getting into long flame wars over who had killing rights.  This comic showed Lord Nagafen's Secretary facing hordes of players, saying "I'm sorry, he's all booked-up to be killed for this month.  Can I pencil you in for next?"

I'm not trying to say that MMORPGs aren't fun, because I certainly had a good time playing EQ (even if it was horribly debilitating in the end), but the experience is nothing like an RPG.   The best thing that can be said about them is their dungeons can be quite nice to look at, and killing stuff is a much more streamlined process than roll-this calculate-that.  Which is fine for them, since the entire POINT of them is loot.  I know there's this idea that D&D is all about item acquisition, but honestly, it pales in comparison to EQ.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> I like Palladium. The books are large, informative and affordable.



This is a nice example why we should be careful with internet talk. It's cool to make jokes about Palladium without fear of retaliation. Even if it's true that the Palladium system is pretty bad, I guess that most people here will call a few Palladium books their own. In the end, it probably doesn't matter that much what I say about the company, as long as I buy their books .

Those endless threads about the new "Ultimate Rifts" are a good example. People ridicule the book and the fact that the system still hasn't been updated. They engage in endless slander feasts. And nearly everybody does so by citing passages from his own copy of the book .


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 7, 2005)

Remember to be polite while discussing this topic, everyone.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> It's not that I don't enjoy playing NWN or the like, but I miss the lame jokes, the beer, and the general comradery.



You know, the lame jokes and the beer still exist, even if if the micro might interfere with the beer . There's also some kind of general comradery, even if it's of the virtual kind, but I know that some of those people meet in person from time to time.

A friend of mine has transferred most of his D&D campaigns to NWN, because of scheduling problems. In the beginning, it was a steep learning curve with all the involved scripting, etc. In the meanwhile, he's very fast at putting a module together. It works quite okay, although the visuals get boring after some time. For further socializing, there's a big board meeting in a castle once a year, and regional meetings are more often.

Don't underestimate the possibilities .


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 7, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> MMORPGs are mainly concerned with busy-work and competition.  100s of hours grinding exp in some dungeon, sitting there and pulling creatures methodically to your group, to gain a level.  And then when you've got those levels, you can spend another 100 hours gaining keys to the dungeon where high-level loot drops.  And then when you get those keys, you can spend months in that dungeon trying to farm out the premium armor and weapons, but only if you can muster raid parties of 60 people for hours on end.  Oh and every step of the way, you're up against other players trying to get the same limited resource.  The boss mob which drops 1 key per kill, and only spawns once a week, for example.  Those creatures dropping the high-end loot in the keyed dungeon?  They're a week respawn too.  Etc etc.




Quoted for truth.

Diablo is closer to the RPG experience than EQ imo. At least in Diablo you were adventuring and moving through a loosely structured plot, not sitting around waiting for monsters to spawn, fighting them, rinsing and repeating so that you could afford some materials to sit in town and work on your backpack-making skills for 8 hours.

EQ was the first game where I had a job I hated IN GAME. 

I think I lasted about 6 weeks before the wow factor wore off and I realized I was just bored.  

Chuck


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Why can't he? Simply because it doesn't prove the hobby is dying?
> So, any evidence that contradicts your view is simply wrong or wishful thinking?




Actually, it's because book trade returns take quite a long time to happen after an order. But if it makes you feel better to assume my position comes from being a mean man who hates teh D&D, I suppose that has at least as much merit as many of the other sentimental arguments here.


----------



## Psion (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Um, no, they're not 'true words'.  Rather, it's a silly generalization.  Nothing more.




Silly generalization, eh?

It rings very true to me. Having observed the repeated death knells of the hobby on the internet, and the repeated lack of dying.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> Yes, actually, they are. Each week in our department meeting, the brand team gives us an overview of the last week of sales. We also hear monthly overviews of how other parts of the company are doing.





			
				philreed said:
			
		

> That doesn't sound very useful. I could see how monthly reports might be interesting but devoting attention each week to the previous week's sales seems like a waste of valuable time. It sounds like the company is far too focused on the short-term health of the brand -- especially if they're bothering everyone in the department with sales numbers on a weekly basis.



Weekly? Once, I worked for an internet startup. We used to get monthly updates and such just as described above. Then there was a smaller group who got weekly updates. They got these weekly updates because the management thought that there were problems and was trying to find solutions for those problems. Not saying that that is what is happening here, but it does sound like there are similarities.







			
				mearls said:
			
		

> Also, as a developer I don't "crank out my assigned module units." I'm not assigned module units. I'm a developer, not a designer.



A developer, not a designer, huh? Makes me wonder what you are "developing"? Could it be? Nope! Won't say it! But it does give one food for thought....


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Silly generalization, eh?
> 
> It rings very true to me. Having observed the repeated death knells of the hobby on the internet, and the repeated lack of dying.




Very few comments about declining sales have equalled "death," but I suppose it's easier to defeat a strawman, 'innit?


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Makes me wonder what you are "developing"? Could it be? Nope! Won't say it! But it does give one food for thought....




WotC would be shoddy for not having at least finished a working outline for 4e at this point.


----------



## philreed (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> WotC would be shoddy for not having at least finished a working outline for 4e at this point.




Agreed. I suspect they've got more than one document floating around that deals with 4e. At this point the discussions probably involve more marketing decisions/ideas than design-related issues.


----------



## Psion (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Very few comments about declining sales have equalled "death," but I suppose it's easier to defeat a strawman, 'innit?




What's the title of this thread, now? Very many comments may not equal death, but certainly there have been some histrionics over the scale of the contractions. Otherwise the word "dying" would not have been invoked in the very title of this thread.

If you are suggesting that I am suggesitng that a death cult exists positing an actual and immediate total cesation of publishing RPGs, then YOU are the one who is guilty of strawmanning.


----------



## jcfiala (Sep 7, 2005)

(In response to "I like Palladium. The books are large, informative and affordable.")



			
				tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> You would be the exception, then.




There's probably a number of exceptions.  I can't really point to any Palladium book (that I own) and say 'This book was a waste of my money'.  They are packed with interesting ideas, and they're written for a system that is fairly understandable.  They may act wierdly in play, but as references for other systems you get a big chunk of interesting ideas.

I'm not currently playing a Palladium game, but I enjoyed Palladium Fantasy back in College, and I've found a few good PF books to read.  I take my time before buying them, and sometimes pick them up used or on clearance, but I do buy them.

They are large - I can see that holding them.  They are affordable - Are there any that cost more than $30?  And if you're careful about buying your books - as you should be with any RPG book - they are informative.  There are a number of serious reviews of Palladium books on rpg.net, for instance, that are quite positive.


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 7, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Silly generalization, eh?
> 
> It rings very true to me. Having observed the repeated death knells of the hobby on the internet, and the repeated lack of dying.






			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Very few comments about declining sales have equalled "death," but I suppose it's easier to defeat a strawman, 'innit?






			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> Relative to 1982?  It's in a coma.  Relative to 2000?  It's in a 'rough patch'.
> Whether the market is 'in decline' depends on the time scale involved.





I think the above sums it up pretty well.

1)  Few, if any, are saying the RPG hobby is in its final death throws.  They are rather noting a significant down turn and a pattern of down turns.

2) Such a down turn, and pattern of such, is quite noticeable if one looks at long term trends.  3E created a dot.com like RPG bubble that has now largely burst.  The return is not to a healthy status quo but to a declining hobby. 

The decline is gradual over time, and may be momentarily abated by the likes of a 3E, but it is a decline.  Mearls "death-cults" are, in fact, noting a historic trend.  For the pollyannas, that the hobby hasn't died completely is "proof" that it is not and never has been in trouble but that is flawed, zero-sum thinking.  A slow decline is still a decline and over the long term is troublesome, even while there will be bright spots now and again. 

While the decline may find D&D last, it will eventually find it.  Wotc will then need to "reinvent" the hobby to buck the declining trend line, 3E being the perhaps perfect example of a temporary propping up.    

The model appears to be  - decline, decline, decline, decline, PROPUP EVENT, decline, decline, decline, decline, PROPUP EVENT, decline, decline, decline, decline, PROPUP EVENT etc. 

As Akrasia has noted, D&D is far from its glory days, even while it is not yet taken to its sick bed.  This distinction seems to escape the "doing fine" set, who want instead to focus on "dead or not dead" black or white.  It is rather a darkening shade of gray, IMO.


----------



## tonym (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> D&D is doing fine...
> ...D&D is trucking along fine.




Several people clearly think Mearls painted a rosey, overly-awesome picture of the state of D&D when he said “D&D is doing fine,” and “D&D is trucking along fine.”  But not me!  

If somebody asked me how my marriage was going and I said it was “trucking along fine,” I would expect the listener to interpret my statement to mean that me and my wife were doing okay--not spectacular or fabulous by any stretch, but also not experiencing any problems worth mentioning.  In other words......“fine.” 

But apparently if I were speaking to a few people in this thread, they would interpret “trucking along fine” to mean, “Wow, his marriage is zooming along fantasticly!  I bet they made love three times last night and twice this morning, and are planning a cruise to Tahiti!”  Sheesh.

I think Mearls chose his words very carefully.  And I bet the next year or so will prove they were accurate, too.

Tony M


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And I think Testujin hits it on the head right there.  For many players, it's a chance to get together with some friends and make a night of it.  I know it certainly was for me for more than a decade, so, I don't think you can discount the social aspect of PnP games.  I think that MMORPGS are going to complement PnP games, not out compete them.




Because really, if you're going to sit in your basement pretending to be an elf, you should at least have some friends over to help.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 7, 2005)

*So What?*



			
				wingsandsword said:
			
		

> However, the mainstream bookstore market is killer for small press companies, since effectively everything sold through major bookstores is on consignment.  If it doesn't sell, it's sent back and the company that produced it has to eat the cost.  Compare that to the FLGS, where local stores end up with shelves of unsellable low-grade materials that periodically are cleaned out with a huge sale.




(I'm not arguing with Wings here, just responding to a convenient post about this.)

I am _all for_ the producers or sellers of low-grade product literally paying for their mistakes. If a small D20 company wants into the distribution channel, gets in, and has their product returned because it didn't sell more than the "seed" copies that determine what word of mouth says, so be it!

In the current FLGS model, the FLGS takes all the risk. I dare say that several FLGSs died before Fast Forward shut its doors. It would have been far better - and healthier for the industry as a whole! - for Fast Forward to have dealt earlier with the failure of their products to sell, rather than glutting the market and FLGS shelves with product that hasn't, doesn't, and won't sell. And they're not the only ones.

If _your_ product doesn't sell, it is _your_ fault. (The retailer who hides good product is going out of business no matter the quality of the product he's hiding.) I would love to see market forces "encourage" producers to make high-quality work, and I suspect the demise of widespread FLGSs will do that. Unfortunately, it will probably happen at the expense of the FLGS owners, not the creators of low-quality work.

One of the reasons I buy more PDFs than print books these days is that it costs less to buy a bad product. If a product is bad, I never have to buy from that author again; if the product is good, I buy things from that author. This is why Ronin Arts (Phil Reed), Creative Mountain Games, and Malhavoc Press (Mike or Monte) are all over my hard drive. 

No, I am not an FLGS, distributor, or developer nor am I affiliated with any. 

- Ket


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 7, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> I think Mearls chose his words very carefully.  And I bet the next year or so will prove they were accurate, too.





So, if Mearls had come in gushing with love for how well the brand was doing, would people have treated THAT as an honest accounting?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, it's because book trade returns take quite a long time to happen after an order. But if it makes you feel better to assume my position comes from being a mean man who hates teh D&D, I suppose that has at least as much merit as many of the other sentimental arguments here.




Well, that's the point. My "sentimental arguements" do have as much merit as your limited sampling projections for the entire industry. You close yourself off to any debate, and repeat your mantra. You've probably got 1/4 of the posts on this 7 page thread, and have not acknowledged any diversion from your starting point.
Realistically though, how many RPG companies have you worked for? Do you think the companies you've worked for have also ingrained their corporate environment into your responses?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 7, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> I think Mearls chose his words very carefully.  And I bet the next year or so will prove they were accurate, too.
> 
> Tony M




In the Gen Con transcript thingee, WotC said that there were no plans for 4e because 3.5 was selling better than any previous edition, or something of the sort.

So, was he lying, or were TSR's records that bad, or are there 50,000 WotC books in a warehouse somewhere about to be returned and destroy Hasbro?

I'm not saying the RPG business as a whole is healthy. Frankly I've cut back my buying habits a lot, due to poor quality material and the endless repetition of third tier books. I buy WotC products because in general I believe them to be superior to the next guy, not because I'm some Koolaid Drinker that can't make up his own mind.

So, this is why I think it's entirely possible for D&D to be expanding as the market contracts. I'm not saying it's true, but I think it's certainly possible.


----------



## tonym (Sep 7, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> In the Gen Con transcript thingee, WotC said that there were no plans for 4e because 3.5 was selling better than any previous edition, or something of the sort.
> 
> So, was he lying, or were TSR's records that bad, or are there 50,000 WotC books in a warehouse somewhere about to be returned and destroy Hasbro?




Gosh, how am I supposed to know what's in WotC's warehouse?

Personally, I don't see any conflict between 3.5 selling better than previous editions, and the current state of D&D only being "fine."  The economy was a lot better-off when 3.5 came out, a lot of the sales could've happened then.  Furthermore, 3.5 can outsell the other editions and still only be "fine" if parent-company Hasbro is not happy with rate of sales, or if sales have been ho-hum lately.

In other words, discussing 3.5 sales equals discussing Years...
Discussing D&D being "fine" equals discussing Months.

Tony M


----------



## francisca (Sep 7, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Look at the RPGs from small companies compared to something from a big company in 1985. The production values of a modern small-press product are FAR in excess of an old D&D book.



Sure.  But to me, production values are over-rated.  Colorful, glossy, well-laid out crap is still crap.  

What would you rather have?

Product A:
96 or 128 pages
Simple cover image
Fairly plain paper, like used in the 1e core books
Sparse, but relevent, black and white illustrations
Good index
Good organization
Solid, tested mechanics
Is a good read

Product B:
256+ pages
Slick cover with gaudy photshopped graphics
Coated paper
Lots of color illustrations throughout the book, which happens to interrupt the flow of text
Poorly organized
Shoddy mechanics
and/or reads like an ITU-T standard specification

Personally, I'd go with A.  Now, there is nothing that says a product can't have the best of both.  However, the extra cost of the "higher production value" model may be a bit more than I am willing to shell out.


----------



## Pramas (Sep 7, 2005)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> In the current FLGS model, the FLGS takes all the risk.




Sorry, but that's a bunch of bull. What we've seen over the past decade, in fact, is the shifting of more and more of the risk to the manufacturer. The pre-order system is completely broken, so every print run done is just a guess. Distributors, who used to buy up a six month supply of a good title, don't want more than a couple of week's worth on hand. They'd rather do it "just in time", which can often lead to lost sales. Neither retailers nor distributors want to take much risk, and yet every year we hear the usual complaints from retailers about manufacturers selling direct at cons and online. 



> I dare say that several FLGSs died before Fast Forward shut its doors. It would have been far better - and healthier for the industry as a whole! - for Fast Forward to have dealt earlier with the failure of their products to sell, rather than glutting the market and FLGS shelves with product that hasn't, doesn't, and won't sell. And they're not the only ones.




I doubt that even one retailer went out of business because of Fast Forward. It's big ticket fad products like collectible games that can really burn a retailer. Many stores went out in the mid 90s after speculating wildly on TCGs. 



> If _your_ product doesn't sell, it is _your_ fault.




And why aren't bad retailers also to blame for continuing to order crappy product? Surely they are responsible for what they bring into their store. When you see a store with an entire shelf of unsold books from the same crap-peddler, you have to wonder why the buyer keeps ordering more. A store has complete control over what it brings in and what it doesn't. I find it hard to see how this means they take more risk.


----------



## francisca (Sep 7, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> As Akrasia has noted, D&D is far from its glory days, even while it is not yet taken to its sick bed.  This distinction seems to escape the "doing fine" set, who want instead to focus on "dead or not dead" black or white.  It is rather a darkening shade of gray, IMO.



Personally, I don't care either.  If D&D would have went belly up instead of being rescued by Peter Atkison, I'd still be playing.  Mearls is right, we don't need publishers.  I could ditch about 90% of what I have, never buy another game book, and be none the worse for it.

Now, that doesn't mean I want D&D (or RPGs in general) to keel over, nor does it mean I have any contempt for the publishers (well, most of them anyway).  I am always happy to find new products I can use.  But really, to me and my friends, if the industry dried up and blew away, I'd be bummed, but I'd still be playing monday nights at my place.  ( I would miss GenCon if it went away, but that's because of the people, not the games.)


----------



## Umbran (Sep 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Weekly? Once, I worked for an internet startup. We used to get monthly updates and such just as described above. Then there was a smaller group who got weekly updates. They got these weekly updates because the management thought that there were problems and was trying to find solutions for those problems.




I have heard it said that for many RPG products, the majority of the sales happen in the first 90 days after release, and they drop to a low level following that.  If you want to investigate that behavior, or the behavior of your RPG sales when someone else releases a product, or to see the effects of advertising, you'd need sales data with finer resolution than by month.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I think the above sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 1)  Few, if any, are saying the RPG hobby is in its final death throws.  They are rather noting a significant down turn and a pattern of down turns.
> 
> ...




Excellent summary.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 7, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Now, imagine (10-15 years hence) if you could don a pair a VR glasses and "enter" such a world.




Yes, but back in the 80s they were saying, "imagine that in 10 or 15 years you could put on some special glasses...".  Computing power is growing, yes.  But I think those who are making projections don't usually have a solid handle on what computing power is really required to make this vision come true.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Sep 7, 2005)

contracting

and 

purchasers re-aligning buying habits

nothing more

davis


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 7, 2005)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> (In response to "I like Palladium. The books are large, informative and affordable.")
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably a number of exceptions.  I can't really point to any Palladium book (that I own) and say 'This book was a waste of my money'.  They are packed with interesting ideas, and they're written for a system that is fairly understandable.  They may act wierdly in play, but as references for other systems you get a big chunk of interesting ideas.




I am hardly the exception, at most, I am the exception on this board. I am also the manager of a FLGS and if the belle's of this forum sold like Palladium, they'd be too damn busy to post here.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> ...
> The big "secret" of RPG publishing is that gamers don't need us. At all. ....




For many people this is not a secret.  There are large numbers of people who play OOP RPGs -- they never bothered to 'upgrade' out of AD&D 1e, RC D&D, Runequest 2e, or whatever.  For every new edition 'upgrade', many players are lost (i.e. the ones who are happy with the games they already play, or who end up leaving altogether).   The hope for a company is that the new edition will attract more new players (or bring back more old players) than it loses.  This didn't seem to work for AD&D 2e, but did work for 3e.  Whether it will work for 4e remains to be seen, but I am sure that thousands of players will simply stick with 3e.  

The fact that gamers don't _need_ to buy new rules or editions must be a factor contributing to the long-term decline in the market.  (I don't know how large a factor it is, of course.)


----------



## tonym (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> ...One thing I will tell you is that all of us have sources above and beyond what we're mentioning here...




Sources?

Who is this *eyebeams* person?  He said that he is the coauthor of two of the top 10 selling games over the past few years, but he neglected to identify himself.

Tony M


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Well, that's the point. My "sentimental arguements" do have as much merit as your limited sampling projections for the entire industry. You close yourself off to any debate, and repeat your mantra. You've probably got 1/4 of the posts on this 7 page thread, and have not acknowledged any diversion from your starting point.




That's because I haven't heard compelling arguments that I'm wrong. If you believe that failing to capitulate to arguments you don't think hold water is "closing myself off to debate," then you and I are not on a common footing where discussion is possible.



> Realistically though, how many RPG companies have you worked for? Do you think the companies you've worked for have also ingrained their corporate environment into your responses?




Of the four, White Wolf would be the only company with anything resembling that, unless you count (the now deceased) Andromeda Distributing, where I worked the floor in the early 90s, but that's hardly relevant now. Oh yeah -- and unless you count the guys who pretended they had a hard-to-reaching accounts dept. to avoid paying me promptly. Most companies *cannot* have a corporate culture because they're too small.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The fact that gamers don't _need_ to buy new rules or editions must be a factor contributing to the long-term decline in the market.  (I don't know how large a factor it is, of course.)



That's a problem inherent to RPGs. The core rulebooks are products that have only to be bought once. They usually stay intact for many years and can also be used indefinitely. I know that the largest producer of white goods in Germany went belly-up, because their products never ceased to work (I had a 27 years old automatic washing machine in a summer house that trodded on nicely ).

Basically, this means you can sell a large part of your product only to new customers. That's much more difficult than replacing broken down parts with something new.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Sources?
> 
> Who is this *eyebeams* person?  He said that he is the coauthor of two of the top 10 selling games over the past few years, but he neglected to identify himself.
> 
> Tony M




No, I said that I've written for them as a freelancer. The difference is subtle. My real name is Malcolm Sheppard, and the games in question are *Exalted* and *Mage: The Ascension* (do I count *Mage: The Awakening*, too? It'll probably be the second or third selling game this year, but it just came out. I suppose I'd be a defacto "coauthor" on M:tAw).

I've benefitted from contacts such as employees of Best Books (printers for White Wolf, Necromancer, Malhavoc, GoO and others), which have, among other things, given me a sense of relative and fluctuating print order sizes for the past few years (and in some cases, insight into their problems -- Best Books printed an overdark run of Silver Age Sentinels, causing GoO much consternation and giving those who wish to check a factiod, as Jeff Mackintosh should be able to confirm that this happen and I sold the overdark copy I had to John Snead). I can talk about them now because Best Books has been downsized by their parent.

Others? I don't feel comfortable talking about them so much.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> For many people this is not a secret.  There are large numbers of people who play OOP RPGs -- they never bothered to 'upgrade' out of AD&D 1e, RC D&D, Runequest 2e, or whatever.




I'll go further and say that there is now a significant group who roleplay with no rules whatsoever, usually on MUDs or fora. They use GM moderation and the "rules" of whatever book/comic/anime world they're playing in. There's no Harry Potter RPG, but a huge Potter roleplaying community.


----------



## mearls (Sep 7, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> So, if Mearls had come in gushing with love for how well the brand was doing, would people have treated THAT as an honest accounting?




God, I can't even begin to imagine what would happen. "Things are fine" was incendiary enough.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 7, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> As Akrasia has noted, D&D is far from its glory days, even while it is not yet taken to its sick bed.




Um...what?!

Does anyone not remember that D&D 3e has been doing the BEST of any edition? Not only that, but last year(2004) was the best year for D&D ever! And we're far from the glory days? Things have been declining since '82?! 

I'm sorry but...what the hell?!

Those don't mesh at ALL.

But wait! I forgot! WotC was the one who told us how great last year was! We can't trust them, nooo! So, obviously, they're lying to us and we can't believe them at all. Yes, decline. Of course. Far from our glory days. Yep.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Um...what?!
> 
> Does anyone not remember that D&D 3e has been doing the BEST of any edition? Not only that, but last year(2004) was the best year for D&D ever! And we're far from the glory days? Things have been declining since '82?!
> 
> ...




That must explain the thriving D&D toy line, cartoon and all the commercials you see for D&D on TV these days.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Um...what?!
> 
> Does anyone not remember that D&D 3e has been doing the BEST of any edition? Not only that, but last year(2004) was the best year for D&D ever! And we're far from the glory days? Things have been declining since '82?!
> 
> ...




It's not a case of 'lying'.  The data from the 1980s is pretty sketchy.  There are estimates that 4-5 million people were playing RPGs in the early-mid 1980s.  There is _no way_ that WotC would claim that that many people are playing D&D now.

It seems obvious that the high point of RPGs was the early-mid 1980s.   That is not incompatible with WotC claiming that, based on _reliable_ data that they have, last year was the 'best' year for D&D.  But that's just because the data from the 1980s is so sketchy.


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That must explain the thriving D&D toy line, cartoon and all the commercials you see for D&D on TV these days.




Well there are two movies, however bad they are, but the cartoon wasn't a winner exactly, either 

I'd think that the sales of the core books are a better indicator of the games 'health' than the D&D Monopoly games and toy lines. In that regard, wasn't 3E more succesful than any other edition? 

Anyhoo, this, right now, is a great time to be a D&D player! There are more great products than ever on the market (Shackled City, WLD, Necromancer Games adventures), more coming up, EN world is as nice as ever, my new campaign is picking up soon .. if this is the decline, bring it on.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That must explain the thriving D&D toy line, cartoon and all the commercials you see for D&D on TV these days.




Do novels count?

D&D miniatures?

Computer games?

Console games?

Movies in the theater and DVD?

Official soundtracks?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> It's not a case of 'lying'.  The data from the 1980s is pretty sketchy.  There are estimates that 4-5 million people were playing RPGs in the early-mid 1980s.  There is _no way_ that WotC would claim that that many people are playing D&D now.



That's right. They're claiming 6 million .


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> That's right. They're claiming 6 million .




I assume that you're joking, right?  The estimates I've heard range around 1.7 million.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Do novels count?
> 
> D&D miniatures?
> 
> ...




Would you believe that there's a precise answer for this?

Computer games, console games and films don't count. WotC no longer has software licensing rights and never had film rights (TSR sold those).

Miniatures apparently don't figure into the "best year ever," claim, according to Charles Ryan. That leaves books, some of which do extraordinarily well.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I assume that you're joking, right?  The estimates I've heard range around 1.7 million.



No, I'm not joking. And the number was for the US alone. Note, though, that this number most probably counted people who picked up D&D 3.x at some time and may have left active gaming again. I suppose there were also some other creative assumptions involved, like the number of people who never bought anything but played in a group, nevertheless. I also think that the constantly active gamer core is more like the number you mentioned.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Would you believe that there's a precise answer for this?
> 
> Computer games, console games and films don't count. WotC no longer has software licensing rights and never had film rights (TSR sold those).
> 
> Miniatures apparently don't figure into the "best year ever," claim, according to Charles Ryan. That leaves books, some of which do extraordinarily well.




But what does that have to do with popularity? Are you saying that because they had a carton back in the 80's that was a better indicator of their popularity than numerous companies coming out with computer games and console games that cost millions of dollars to produce?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Computer games, console games and films don't count. WotC no longer has software licensing rights and never had film rights (TSR sold those).



Well, but is this relevant for the question at hand? If somebody sees the D&D brand as valuable enough to base computer games, console games and films on this brand, that's some kind of advertisement even if WotC doesn't get any royalties from those endeavours.


Edit: I just looked at some games from 2002/2003 that I have. They contain this information:

_"Neverwinter Nights, Forgotten Realms, the Forgotten Realms logo, Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. and are used by Infogrames Entertainment, S.A. under license. All Rights Reserved."_

Wouldn't this point to a different company if the license wasn't given out by Hasbro?


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Would you believe that there's a precise answer for this?
> 
> Computer games, console games and films don't count. WotC no longer has software licensing rights and never had film rights (TSR sold those).
> 
> Miniatures apparently don't figure into the "best year ever," claim, according to Charles Ryan. That leaves books, some of which do extraordinarily well.




Why do the 80's wacky stuff include in your estimation of D&D popularity? 

Besides, were _they_ some extraordinary cash cow for the TSR?


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, but is this relevant for the question at hand? If somebody sees the D&D brand as valuable enough to base computer games, console games and films on this brand, that's some kind of advertisement even if WotC doesn't get any royalties from those endeavours.




To a certain extent it is, but the maddening thing about the D&D brand is its relative distance from the actual D&D game. TSR built a hugely successful book publishing arm that WotC inherited, but it doesn't seem to have helped D&D sales. D&D-based computer games have done quite well, but have not necessarily brought people into D&D. In fact, many non-gamers I meet assume D&D is a genre with wizards and fighters and monsters, and not a specific RPG.

R.A. Slavatore novels set in the Forgotten Realms are NYT Bestsellers. D&D, not so much.

This isn't something exclusive to D&D. Comic books are getting turned into very successful films, while comics themselves are not doing so great. In the early 90s I filled store orders of 100 to 200 copies per store, per title, for titles that now have total runs of around 5,000 or less.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> No, I'm not joking. And the number was for the US alone. Note, though, that this number most probably counted people who picked up D&D 3.x at some time and may have left active gaming again. I suppose there were also some other creative assumptions involved, like the number of people who never bought anything but played in a group, nevertheless. I also think that the constantly active gamer core is more like the number you mentioned.





3 million according to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3655627.stm

(27th or so paragraph.)


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But what does that have to do with popularity? Are you saying that because they had a carton back in the 80's that was a better indicator of their popularity than numerous companies coming out with computer games and console games that cost millions of dollars to produce?




The cartoon made money that actually went to the company.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, but is this relevant for the question at hand? If somebody sees the D&D brand as valuable enough to base computer games, console games and films on this brand, that's some kind of advertisement even if WotC doesn't get any royalties from those endeavours.
> 
> 
> Edit: I just looked at some games from 2002/2003 that I have. They contain this information:
> ...




Inforgrames/Atari has the exclusive license for a decade more, at least, after having had it practicallyever since Hasbro bought WotC. In fact, Hasbro paid big money to get back rights for almost everything *but* D&D and a couple of other things. This is why the E-Tools software project was virtually stillborn.


----------



## turbo (Sep 7, 2005)

> Wizards estimates that three million people play [Dungeons and Dragons] in the US each month.





That's coy:  play _what_ Dungeons and Dragons?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The cartoon made money that actually went to the company.





But what does that actually have to do with the market dying or the D&D brand name itself being viable? As we saw, TSR couldn't manage it's money so that carton really didn't do a whole lot.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Why do the 80's wacky stuff include in your estimation of D&D popularity?




TV ads? A toy line during the height of the children's action figure market? It's not bad.



> Besides, were _they_ some extraordinary cash cow for the TSR?




Maybe they did. By some reckonings, it wouldn't have done them a bit of good either way.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> 3 million according to this:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3655627.stm



The 6 million came up this year from last years marketing study, together with the claim of continual growth. If someone has the search function, he should be able to find it on this board somewhere.


----------



## turbo (Sep 7, 2005)

What does the viability of the brand name have to do with the health of RPGs?


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But what does that actually have to do with the market dying or the D&D brand name itself being viable? As we saw, TSR couldn't manage it's money so that carton really didn't do a whole lot.




It's interesting how this has shifted to the "D&D brand name" from the game, Dungeons and Dragons. The two are not the same thing. Nor is TSR's competence directly relevant to D&D's popularity. That was one of the reasons WotC picked it up in the first place.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Inforgrames/Atari has the exclusive license for a decade more, at least, after having had it practicallyever since Hasbro bought WotC. In fact, Hasbro paid big money to get back rights for almost everything *but* D&D and a couple of other things. This is why the E-Tools software project was virtually stillborn.



So you think it's not a successful brand? I heard they announced that they don't want to produce any game under the D&D license anymore. Their next game will use their own system and world.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> What does the viability of the brand name have to do with the health of RPGs?



Nothing. We were talking about advertising effects.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> So you think it's not a successful brand? I heard they announced that they don't want to produce any game under the D&D license anymore. Their next game will use their own system and world.




No, I think D&D is a remarkably successful brand. Sometimes, that success even rubs off on the RPG of the same name


----------



## Psion (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's interesting how this has shifted to the "D&D brand name" from the game, Dungeons and Dragons. The two are not the same thing.




I thought you were the author of that direction in the thread; you pointing at the presence or lack of toys seemed to indicate that brand presence was an indicia of strength of the line. If that's not what you were after, just what were you getting at?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, I think D&D is a remarkably successful brand. Sometimes, that success even rubs off on the RPG of the same name



Okay, I agree on this point. Being too successful is often a problem, because the connection to the actual product gets lost, like with Coca Cola or Kleenex. It's like with "RPG" and "Dungeon & Dragons", which works at least in this way, though obviously not the other way round.

This leads to the question, how would an advertisement for D&D, the game, have to look like? Does it make sense to launch ads at all?


----------



## Psion (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> This leads to the question, how would an advertisement for D&D, the game, have to look like?




That's a really good question. New and glitzy ads would tend to oversell the product, make people think they are getting something like a CRPG. Something more down to earth would have to fall into the tune of the parker brothers "family game night" ads, which seem almost apologetic for not being new, glitzy computer games.

You and I know (at least I hope you know) how exciting RPGs can be. But how can you convey that. RPGs aren't much of a spectator sport.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> The 6 million came up this year from last years marketing study, together with the claim of continual growth. If someone has the search function, he should be able to find it on this board somewhere.




I found this, which was quoted off of the amazon.com listing for D&D for Dummies (Link) :



> Market research indicates that 4 million American males, ages 8 to 45, play Dungeons & Dragons, while 7.6 million who haven’t played say they want to learn how. The popularity of recent sci-fi and fantasy movies has also boosted interest. D&D is complex to learn, and this friendly guide helps the curious locate a game, understand the rules, choose or create a character, follow proper game etiquette, and even move up in the hierarchy to become a Dungeon Master. The four-page foldout cheat sheet will include markers and a model dungeon layout that serves as an actual game board, allowing readers to play using this book and nothing else.




And then Charles Ryan confirms that this is a US only figure here:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=5061177#post5061177


----------



## Umbran (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I assume that you're joking, right?  The estimates I've heard range around 1.7 million.




I believe the 1.7 million number comes from the only market research results that I know of that WotC has allowed into reasonably wide release - but those numbers are, iirc, from back in 1999, and thus do not include any growth from 3e.


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, I think D&D is a remarkably successful brand. Sometimes, that success even rubs off on the RPG of the same name




So, the D&D branded stuff in the 80's was an indicator of D&D's popularity, but the branded stuff of today isn't?


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I thought you were the author of that direction in the thread; you pointing at the presence or lack of toys seemed to indicate that brand presence was an indicia of strength of the line. If that's not what you were after, just what were you getting at?




The stuff in the 80s made money that went right back to the company that made D&D and could be said to be a part of its success. The swath of stuff that makes money now from the brand is much more economically detached, with the exception of books and miniatures.

Therefore, if you want to lump these things in with the game of D&D (as Joe Kushner did), you have to be aware of their relative circumstances. 

Furthermore, D&D's early popularity was directly related to playing the game. 80s advertisements existed for the actual game, not just spinoffs.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Okay, I agree on this point. Being too successful is often a problem, because the connection to the actual product gets lost, like with Coca Cola or Kleenex. It's like with "RPG" and "Dungeon & Dragons", which works at least in this way, though obviously not the other way round.
> 
> This leads to the question, how would an advertisement for D&D, the game, have to look like? Does it make sense to launch ads at all?




D&D For Dummies is basically an ad for the game. Any campaign would need to explain what it is. It would also have to abstract actual table play, just the way that boardgame ads don't really show you play -- just the impression of enjoying play.

It would also require an introductory game, which WotC has, but it would need to build up to full participation in the D&D game, which WotC's game doesn't do. That's the big difference between it and the successive boxed sets TSR used for D&D. They didn't render the first box obsolete.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> You and I know (at least I hope you know) how exciting RPGs can be. But how can you convey that. RPGs aren't much of a spectator sport.



Now that you mention this I have to think of this painful D&D TV ad someone was linking last week. Those people were a tad too excited .

If it was easy to place an ad in the right medium with a good ratio of expense and expected return, Hasbro would have already done this, I suppose.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I found this, which was quoted off of the amazon.com listing for D&D for Dummies (Link) :
> 
> And then Charles Ryan confirms that this is a US only figure here:
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=5061177#post5061177



Ah, thanks . So it's 4 million regular players in the US alone what he said. Here's a direct link to the post.

I also noticed that i's always nearly the same people in these threads .


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> D&D For Dummies is basically an ad for the game. Any campaign would need to explain what it is. It would also have to abstract actual table play, just the way that boardgame ads don't really show you play -- just the impression of enjoying play.



Look at this commercial: Dungeons & Dragons
It's too funny !



> It would also require an introductory game, which WotC has, but it would need to build up to full participation in the D&D game, which WotC's game doesn't do. That's the big difference between it and the successive boxed sets TSR used for D&D. They didn't render the first box obsolete.



This was one complaint with the 3.0 box, though only a minor one. The dice, the counters and the terrain were reusable. My main complaint was the very limited usefulness of the box itself. A tad bit more support would have been desirable.


----------



## Pramas (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks . So it's 4 million regular players in the US alone what he said.




Yep, and that sounds great until you realize the other "dirty secret" of D&D: only a fraction of those 4 million buy any D&D products. If even 5% of those people bought every D&D release, the D&D business would be frickin' great. If 10% did, it'd be utterly fantastic. They don't though and that's the rub. Many players don't even buy a current PHB and a fair number are still playing with the same old edition books they've had for 10 or 20 years.

For the sake of comparison, let's look at World of Warcraft, which has over 4 million world wide subscribers, each one of whom pays monthly to play. Quite a difference to the bottom line.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Yep, and that sounds great until you realize the other "dirty secret" of D&D: only a fraction of those 4 million buy any D&D products.



That's right, I already mentioned that further up. I don't think you publish pen & paper RPGs because you think it's the best business model ever. I think you do it because you like RPGs and try to make a living of those. I'd be interested to know what they tell Hasbro all the time .


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Yep, and that sounds great until you realize the other "dirty secret" of D&D: only a fraction of those 4 million buy any D&D products.




That's very true.  My wife is a regular player.  Guess how many books she's bought in the past 20 years.  My other players have her beat by about 5 books combined.  I've got shelves and we use my stuff.


But, on the other hand, I don't think this was any less true in the 80s.  So it doesn't play much into the relative health.


I know that this "grey" patch of the last four years has produced the highest quality stuff I've seen.  So if that's unhealthy let's round up some RPG industry arsenic 'cause I want me some more.

I also predict that I'll be taking doom and gloom for the industry with a heaping of salt 10 years from now.


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Um...what?!
> 
> Does anyone not remember that D&D 3e has been doing the BEST of any edition? Not only that, but last year(2004) was the best year for D&D ever! And we're far from the glory days? Things have been declining since '82?!
> 
> ...




Not exactly.

"Doing the best of any edition" is a loaded phrase.   

D&D 3E could generate more dollars than any prior edition in a given year due to price escalation that outstrips the rate of gamer decline.  Selling to fewer books for more money.  (I actually have some direct experience, not in the game field, with this phenomenon sufficient to say that it occurs and has been used to declare "great years.")

It is not clear what is meant by "doing best of any edition" absent hard numbers Wotc will not divulge.  



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> Yep, and that sounds great until you realize the other "dirty secret" of D&D: only a fraction of those 4 million buy any D&D products. If even 5% of those people bought every D&D release, the D&D business would be frickin' great. If 10% did, it'd be utterly fantastic. They don't though and that's the rub. Many players don't even buy a current PHB and a fair number are still playing with the same old edition books they've had for 10 or 20 years.
> 
> For the sake of comparison, let's look at World of Warcraft, which has over 4 million world wide subscribers, each one of whom pays monthly to play. Quite a difference to the bottom line.





This is also in line with a "sell for more/or more to fewer people" hypothesis.  

It is also relevant, I think, to Wotc' relationship to the rest of the hobby.  As Wotc may be more insulated from some market fluctuations, they may feel any decline later than other d20 publishers.  These other d20 publishers, I would advance, helped fuel the 3E boom that also feathered Wotc's nest, and, if these same d20 publishers are now feeling a squeeze, it more than suggests to me that the boom is fading into a decline that eventually will be felt my Wotc, even if not yet. 

These d20 D&D publishers, I suggest, are then like the proverbial canary in the coal mine.  They are sensing trouble before Wotc, which for the moment may not be sensing trouble because they are not as sensitive to the market, having the biggest brand name and Hasbro's resources.


----------



## francisca (Sep 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Yep, and that sounds great until you realize the other "dirty secret" of D&D: only a fraction of those 4 million buy any D&D products. If even 5% of those people bought every D&D release, the D&D business would be frickin' great. If 10% did, it'd be utterly fantastic. They don't though and that's the rub. Many players don't even buy a current PHB and a fair number are still playing with the same old edition books they've had for 10 or 20 years.



Really?  Do you know if the much bandied "4 Million players" figure represents players of *all* editions of D&D/AD&D, or 3e alone? 

Also, it seems to me that many of us buy enough books for about 10 people.  I'm sure that helps the bottom line a bit.

--plays old and new editions spikey


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 7, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks . So it's 4 million regular players in the US alone what he said. Here's a direct link to the post.
> 
> I also noticed that i's always nearly the same people in these threads .





"4 million American males, ages 8 to 45, play Dungeons & Dragons,"
I wonder how many females play.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

Just to give non-industry folks a glimpse at the reports that we see:

The September 2005 issue of COMICS & GAMES RETAILER contains sales reports as of June 2005.   Now, admittedly, these numbers are flawed, since they are a self-selecting survey.  However, they are the only numbers we have, and are useful for extrapolating larger trends.

C&GR averages reported figures across all stores in the sample to show a raw per-store average number of units sold of each RPG product line.

In June of 2005, the average store reporting sold at least 32 units for the month (i.e. 32 individual RPG products, for the entire month), for an average gross revenue of $850.

For the month.

Average unit sales for the entirety of 2004 hovered around the mid-70 mark.  In October of 2004, they rose to a nearly-respectable 119 units.  Since then however:

October 2004: 119 units
November 2004: 90 units
December 2004: 102 units
January 2005: 82 units
February 2005: 70 units
March 2005: 69 units
April 2005: 40 units
May 2005: 35 units
June 2005: 32 units

That's a massive drop.   Yes, it's coming from stores that are volunteering the info...but then again, the participating stores represent some of those that are most serious about the business, and so can reasonably be assumed to represent AT LEAST the average, if not an example of a superior store.

Things are hurtin', kids.   No lie.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> In June of 2005, the average store reporting sold at least 32 units for the month (i.e. 32 individual RPG products, for the entire month), for an average gross revenue of $850.
> 
> For the month.



That's of course far from being able to live on. Do you have the numbers for the months before October 2004, at least till June 2004, in order to be able to filter for the Christmas season?

Edit: 32 units may be in the region what I alone buy per year. Although I only bought one of those books in a game shop.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 8, 2005)

Eh, I do 100% of my RPG shopping online.  I know most other people do too.  If the FLGS is going the way of the dinosaur, maybe it's fitting it does.  I haven't been in a good one for 7 years.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Just to give non-industry folks a glimpse at the reports that we see:
> 
> The September 2005 issue of COMICS & GAMES RETAILER contains sales reports as of June 2005.   Now, admittedly, these numbers are flawed, since they are a self-selecting survey.  However, they are the only numbers we have, and are useful for extrapolating larger trends.




Question: Do they tell how many survey's were returned for these numbers? Also, is it correct that the Average Store sold at least 32, as opposed to say, store's Averaged 32 books?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Eh, I do 100% of my RPG shopping online.  I know most other people do too.  If the FLGS is going the way of the dinosaur, maybe it's fitting it does.  I haven't been in a good one for 7 years.



It's about the same here. The one book I bought in a shop this year was when I wanted some special item, and the game shop is next to a food store I frequent. They didn't have what I wanted, but I picked one book from the bargain bin. The two years before that, I didn't enter a game shop. The only other time I ever was in one, I bought dice and a battlemat. That's about it. That means I'm not really part of that statistic.

One of my colleagues, who asked me to run an RPG for him and some friends, also surprised me by just ordering the PHB online as soon as he heard some vague 'yes' from me. It never came to his mind to go for a shop (it never came to his mind, either, that I might want to run something other than D&D ).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 8, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Many players don't even buy a current PHB and a fair number are still playing with the same old edition books they've had for 10 or 20 years.




I wopnder how many though use the SRDs or illegal copies to play?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I wopnder how many though use the SRDs or illegal copies to play?



I gave a copy of the Sovelior/Sage SRD on CD to my players, so that the one who is pretty skint has something to work with. For the organization of your spells it's much nicer than the book, anyway. This means this player will be one of those without book.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Average unit sales for the entirety of 2004 hovered around the mid-70 mark.  In October of 2004, they rose to a nearly-respectable 119 units.  Since then however:
> 
> October 2004: 119 units
> November 2004: 90 units
> ...




I think, though, even though things seem to be down (and probably are), one needs to compare like months from year to year to have a complete analysis.  I would think that sales might pick up after Gen*Con - especially in September - when a lot of new products hit the shelves.  Do you have the numbers for the 12 months prior to this?  That way we could compare June 04 to June 05, etc.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 8, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> 3 million according to this:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3655627.stm
> 
> (27th or so paragraph.)




Also from that article:

'At the _height of its popularity in the 1980s_ the game became a target for cultural conservatives.' (My emphasis.)

and

'D&D's popularity began to wane in the early 1990s as the videogame boom began.
"D&D never went away," says Liz Schuh, marketing director for Wizards of the Coast. "It was huge in the 1980s and then dropped off the radar screens but it never went away."
"D&D was so successful that it spawned an industry that ate it," says Mr King.'

and

'But the game remains - even thrives. Wizards estimates that three million people play in the US each month.'

So assuming that the claims cited in the article are correct (and the author appears to rely primarily on WotC for information), the overall picture appears to be that while no longer at the height of its popularity (which occurred in the 1980s), it is nonetheless 'thriving'.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 8, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> .... Many players don't even buy a current PHB and a fair number are still playing with the same old edition books they've had for 10 or 20 years. ...




I made the point earlier in this thread that RPGs are somewhat unique in that players never _need_ a new product once they own the core rules.  Many players never 'upgrade' to new editions, etc.  Apparently there are large 'shadow communities' of gamers who play OOP RPGs (1e AD&D, RC D&D, Runequest, MERP, etc.).  This feature of RPGs must have _some_ impact on the long-term economic viability of the industry.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 8, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> "4 million American males, ages 8 to 45, play Dungeons & Dragons,"
> I wonder how many females play.




Around 5.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> This feature of RPGs must have _some_ impact on the long-term economic viability of the industry.



I don't think that it must have an impact. Most of the time it's a question of age. It's like how many people stop buying pop music when the reach a certain age, and some time later they listen to radio stations with the "music of the 70's, 80's..." or something similar. This doesn't affect the music industry, either.

The main question is whether new people come into the hobby, preferrably the "younger generations". They usually spend loads of cash on hobbies and like to try everything. That's exactly the right customer for most hobby industries.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I don't think that it must have an impact. Most of the time it's a question of age. It's like how many people stop buying pop music when the reach a certain age, and some time later they listen to radio stations with the "music of the 70's, 80's..." or something similar. This doesn't affect the music industry, either.
> 
> The main question is whether new people come into the hobby, preferrably the "younger generations". They usually spend loads of cash on hobbies and like to try everything. That's exactly the right customer for most hobby industries.




Rather than refuting my claim, you've just described the impact the phenomenon I described _does_ have: older gamers don't buy (or buy less of) the new stuff.  This might be fine for pop music -- that industry is entirely focused on the 15-30 demographic, and has been since its emergence.  But the gaming population itself is greying.  If the market you're trying to serve is getting older, and older people buy less new stuff, that's an 'impact'.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Average unit sales for the entirety of 2004 hovered around the mid-70 mark.  In October of 2004, they rose to a nearly-respectable 119 units.  Since then however:
> 
> October 2004: 119 units
> November 2004: 90 units
> ...




Looks a lot like seasonal variation to me. Most retailers have numbers that drop during the year and then pick up again during Christmas season. Many retailers will tell you that they lose money 10 months out of the year and make it back up between Thanksgiving and New Year's. That's why all the official government statistics (jobs, GDP, etc) are "seasonally adjusted."

Unless you've got statistics that compare year over year numbers for the same month, you might simply be crying that the sky is falling just because people out travelling for summer vacations don't play (or buy) RPGs. (I know I suspended RPG activities during the summer for that very reason)


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Just to give non-industry folks a glimpse at the reports that we see:
> 
> The September 2005 issue of COMICS & GAMES RETAILER contains sales reports as of June 2005.   Now, admittedly, these numbers are flawed, since they are a self-selecting survey.  However, they are the only numbers we have, and are useful for extrapolating larger trends.
> 
> ...





First of all: That's a slump.  
If you want to say that there is a slump out there and the smaller publishers are getting pinched by it, then I agree 100%.
But extending the last year's trend to say that the glory days are past and the sky is falling is going way to far.

I'm sympathetic for the small publishers trying to weather this storm.   But I think insiders get lost in their own little world and really lose the big picture.  

Things are not hurting.  Not to me.  Not one bit.
I'm not a publisher.  I'm a consumer.
I've got lots of great stuff.
And if I want to go buy something new tonight, there is plenty for me to pick from.
What more could I possibly ask for?  I've got it on a silver platter, so don't try to tell me it's hurting.

You've done some good stuff and I don't want to see you fail.
But you might.  (I don't have a clue, just speaking in general)
But if a slump drives you under, it won't mean much at all in the scheme of things.
Three years from now when I want to buy a new game product, somebody WILL be out there waiting to sell it to me.  
That's little comfort to you.  To you that would be a major loss.  But the market will emerge from this slump with or without you.  
I think a lot of insiders get so (rightly) focused on their own personal here and now that they (wrongly) assign that to the big picture.

The past six+ years have been an awesome time to be a gamer.  And that's continuing into the future. 
Maybe the past six+ months haven't been such a good time to be a game publisher.  
I'm sorry, but it happens.  There are booms and there are busts.  That cycle may define the market, but one end of the pendulum doesn't begin to.

If you'd told me in the 80s that I'd have this level of options and support for my gaming, I'd have said you were DREAMING.  This is awesome.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Rather than refuting my claim, you've just described the impact the phenomenon I described _does_ have: older gamers don't buy (or buy less of) the new stuff.  This might be fine for pop music -- that industry is entirely focused on the 15-30 demographic, and has been since its emergence.  But the gaming population itself is greying.  If the market you're trying to serve is getting older, and older people buy less new stuff, that's an 'impact'.



I refuted this claim:


			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> I made the point earlier in this thread that RPGs are somewhat unique in that players never need a new product once they own the core rules... This feature of RPGs must have some impact on the long-term economic viability of the industry.



I still refute it, because that's the same with most hobby industries, with some exceptions (like model railways, which are usually too expensive for younger people without approprate income). It's not the feature of the product you mentioned, the indestructible manual, that leads to the decline of the hobby, because music CDs are equally indestructible. It's the inability to win young customers. That's something different from what you claimed.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 8, 2005)

Hi guys,

I acknowledge in advance that I may regret stepping into this one 

I'll try to give some figures where I can (and I'll be general where I deem it wise - your call whether you want to believe me or not ) but remember that I speak only for my corner of the industry.  My credentials are that I run an RPG company, I watch sales daily, track them against costs and compare them with past performance to work out how to steer the company a month, six months, a year, or further from now.  I have managed to do this for more than four years now, with at least a degree of success.

A lot of people have weighed in on this thread already and some know what they are talking about.  However, keep in mind that people have a natural tendency to seem as if they know more than they really do (particularly in this industry, draw your own conclusions as to why), so apply filters where you feel necessary (and feel free to include this post!).  That said, a PDF publisher is unlikely to know a great deal about the paper publishing side of the industry.   An employee of a company is not going to have the same handle on things that his boss does, no matter how many meetings there are (no offence intended here, Mr Mearls, keep up the good work).  A freelance writer, no matter how many 'contacts' they do or do not have, is _really_ on the outside of things.  But I guess most of you figured all that out already.

People talk about shrinking print runs as an indication of an industry failing - and it is worth keeping in mind that even a shrunken print run can be over printed.  The number 10,000 keeps getting cited as a bastion for 'real' success these days.  So, looking at Mongoose, let's start by ignoring the likes of the Slayer's Guides and the Quintessentials - they were released during the d20 boom days and so cannot be representative, right?  Well, we have other titles that have shot past the 10,000 mark, starting with Babylon 5.  But then, that kind of tailed in with the d20 boom days too.  There is Conan, of course, but let's call that fluke.  Paranoia, but let's call that a foregone conclusion.  We also have Starship Troopers, released just a short while ago - and that is where things start to get a bit hazy, you see.  We'll come back to this.

Let's look at employment figures.  In the past 12 months, Mongoose has roughly doubled its full-time, permanent staff members.  Not too impressive if we had just one guy working for us last year, true.  However, today we currently have 22 people employed at Mongoose.  A healthy proportion of the increase has been from our expansion into miniatures but the RPG department has increased in staff as well, following a restructuring and, wait for it - increased demand.  It is also worth bearing in mind that Mongoose has not borrowed any money to move into miniatures production, even though we needed to fund production of not one but seven plastic kits (currently on sale - more out this year).  The entire investment came from RPG revenue.  I would have to tot all those figures up but off the top of my head, the Starship Troopers miniatures game has required an investment of over half a million Dollars.  That is RPG money.

Worth talking about revenue, of course - the lifeblood of any business.  For reasons of competition, I don't want to go into actual figures here (though it is likely that any switched on competitor already has a pretty good idea of what our turnover is - I'll come back to that) but I can give you statistics.  Mongoose's total revenue over the past 12 months has increased something like 120% over the preceding 12 months.  Mongoose's total revenue from RPGs alone has increased by something like a third.  Our forecasts show no slowdown in the RPG sector as we move into 2006, spearheaded as it is with two large game releases (one of which is RuneQuest).  We also know that our revenue in April (an odd month to pick, but I have figures to immediate hand for it) was greater than the total revenue for the past 12 months of another well known RPG company (no, not WotC or White Wolf ).

That brings another point into play.  There is a lot of talk about figures for this industry and their general untrustworthiness.  You can believe that.  However, there _are_ figures which _are_ solid.  They are just not made public   For example, we know the turnovers of most other publishers (those who sell above a certain threshold, at least) with an error margin of around 10% - and you might appreciate that this is information that company owners do not want thrown about.  However, it is not rocket science and I imagine that the top five publishers (at least) have this information too.  For all the good it does.  However, it is nice (or, at least, interesting) to know how your own efforts stack up among your peers and, over time, you can get a sense of the industry as an (almost) whole.

So, back to the original question - is the industry (or, rather, its customer base) shrinking?  The answer is a conditional yes.  At this precise moment, it is.  But it is not a) going to shrivel and die any time soon and b) it is not shrinking as quickly or as much as some would have you believe.  That said, I have never seen this industry in a truly static condition.  As with individual companies, it either goes forwards or backwards, it never stands still.  There have certainly been enough recent successes (Vampire, Warhammer, yes, even Starship Troopers) to keep it burbling along until the next Big One comes.  Maybe that will be RuneQuest (he said, I hope).  Maybe Mr Pramas will get to write the 40k RPG (I believe that will be MASSIVE, though it might not necessarily help the RPG industry directly in the long term - but I'll be first in line).  And there is always 4e 

I am not surprised to see some publishers in trouble.  Some have made some massive errors in their business decisions lately (I won't go into specifics on that - the rumours you hear will probably be more fun).  Others have been publishing the wrong titles, running their subject material as if it were still the d20 boom days.  Ultimately, I believe (with some evidence of sales to back me up, I feel) that if you publish the right books, people will come.

Remember, all of this is just my own ramblings and I can already see some things I meant to talk about left out - but this post is too long already, I fear.  It is accurate, but only from my perspective.  It is entirely possible the guys running WotC and WW know something I don't about how the industry will change over the next year or so   I imagine a few feathers may be ruffled by all of this but other publishers do not (directly) keep us in business - you chaps do.  I'll be as open as I can with you.

Oh, and I am going to presume the talk of wargaming decline was about boardgame-based wargames - the miniatures industry is very healthy right now, yes, even the historical side is showing promise.

Ah, and another thing - never write off Kevin from Palladium.  That guy knows what he is doing 

(Hoping that last one is not a Murray Walker).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 8, 2005)

Murray Walker??


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Murray Walker??




A recently retired motorsport commentator in the UK.  Whenever he made a comment ('Just look how this expert driver takes this corner'), you could be sure a car would go flying off the road


----------



## Crothian (Sep 8, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> A recently retired motorsport commentator in the UK.  Whenever he made a comment ('Just look how this expert driver takes this corner'), you could be sure a car would go flying off the road




Thanks, that totally explains why I had no idea who that was.  And thanks for the insight into the market from the Mongoose point of view!!


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Thanks, that totally explains why I had no idea who that was.  And thanks for the insight into the market from the Mongoose point of view!!




I've just seen where you come from, actually - you may be very close to our Miniatures Facility.  Ever been to Beaver Creek (for those who are not in Ohio, yes, that really is the name of the place)?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 8, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> I've just seen where you come from, actually - you may be very close to our Miniatures Facility.  Ever been to Beaver Creek (for those who are not in Ohio, yes, that really is the name of the place)?




Its about an hour away from me I think, its been years since I have been there though.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Thanks for chiming in with the Mongoose's point of view.

I noticed that Mongoose products are much better placed with US online vendors today than about a year ago, both as far as availabilty and prices go. It's quite the opposite from how some other renowned publishers developed.


----------



## romp (Sep 8, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> I've just seen where you come from, actually - you may be very close to our Miniatures Facility.  Ever been to Beaver Creek (for those who are not in Ohio, yes, that really is the name of the place)?




I have heard of the place and maybe been by it in my younger days, but not recently, although I might make the trip now myself

BTW, Matt  very much thanks for your openness about your business and forthright discussion of its operations.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 8, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Mongoose's total revenue over the past 12 months has increased something like 120% over the preceding 12 months.  Mongoose's total revenue from RPGs alone has increased by something like a third.  Our forecasts show no slowdown in the RPG sector as we move into 2006, spearheaded as it is with two large game releases (one of which is RuneQuest).




Oh no, the sky is falling! Only 120% growth!  The industry is shrinking!  

And this is despite an unfavorable currency exchange for the first half of 2005! Congratulations on a successful year to date.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 8, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> And this is despite an unfavorable currency exchange for the first half of 2005! Congratulations on a successful year to date.




Don't remind me.  When Mongoose started, the exchange rate was 1.44 Dollars to the Pound or thereabouts.  Thinking in those terms, we are losing tens of thousands of Dollars every month because of that.  It is a _staggering_ difference.

Realistically, however, that is just business, and one of the things you have to put up with.  In response, we developed our UK and European business (which, outside the efforts of the top five publishers, is practically virgin territory).

If the exchange rate was the same as it was four years ago, Mongoose Towers would be positively palatial.  In the very least, all our computers would be capable of running Battlefield 2 (hmm, maybe that is not such a good thing. . .).


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 8, 2005)

I just wanted to chime in and thank the industry people who have some facts sharing them in this thread.  It's interesting to hear some of the inside information and it's appreciated.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 8, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> D&D-based computer games have done quite well, but have not necessarily brought people into D&D.



Amusingly enough, it at least partially brought me into D&D many years ago.  In Junior High, when my dad wouldn't let me play D&D because he'd heard rumors it was Satanic, I was still interested, and the NES version of Pool of Radiance was something I could get and just keep stored with the rest of my nintendo games (and he was very unlikely to ever notice exactly what it was).  I played that game many, many times, learning character classes, spells, THAC0 and AC, magic items, and even some basics of the Forgotten Realms from that game.  Years later, when I picked up gaming (through Star Wars), my memories of Pool of Radiance were something that got me to check out this D&D game that other gamers played, and what I learned there greatly eased the learning curve of picking up the sometimes arbitrary rules of AD&D.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I also predict that I'll be taking doom and gloom for the industry with a heaping of salt 10 years from now.



Same here.  In 10 years, I'll predict the following topic heads on ENWorld (or whatever site replaces it).
1. Fears that 5e will come out sometime soon.
2. Claims that the market is imminently dying, recent events are a terrible harbinger of things to come, and the sky is now officially falling.
3. The <insert class here> is broken & overpowered.

In the late 90's, it was clear that D&D was dying, and RPG's as a whole weren't very healthy.   FASA and West End, two significant companies had both folded, and TSR looked like it was on the ropes when WotC bailed it out at the last moment.  It all works in cycles, ups and downs, all consumer industries work like that.  Some people like to call the early 80's the peak, but we really can't do that reliably.  We have no reliable sales numbers for D&D from then, and a zillion spinoff products does not a successful game make.

That dirty little secret is true, gamers don't _strictly_ need the companies to keep operating (but they're nice to have around).  People still play 1e AD&D and d6 Star Wars (among many other OOP RPG's), and if it all crumbled today there would be people playing 3e and WoD (New or Old) for decades.  Thanks to the SRD's, OGL and the net, a free and publically distributable version of D&D (sans the actual name) is out there, and if D&D crumbled and WotC folded, fans would doubtless produce annotated versions with all the little rules like character creation & XP left out of the SRD that would get passed around.  However, gamers like to homebrew, and many dream of making a living from their games somehow.  Even if every company crumbled tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before small-time outfits emerged as a cottage industry selling to other die-hard gamers.

However, as long as WotC (and other companies) keep turning out innovative, helpful and fun games and gaming suppliments (preferably at prices that don't make my wallet shriek in pain), I'll keep buying, and I know that there will enough people will to keep the market alive.  If they produce derivative, useless, or unimaginative works, or works that are percived as overpriced for what they offer, then it's economic darwinism as another company comes along to fill the gap.  They make niche products for tiny things, RPG's won't go away, I can't imagine a Worst Case Scenario anytime in the forseeable future where tabletop RPG's are effectively extinct.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 8, 2005)

Let me preface this by saying that while CMG, Malhavoc and Ronin Arts decorate my desktop, Green Ronin decorates my bookshelf (more GR products than any other non-WotC manu). That said, I disagree with you, Chris.



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that's a bunch of bull. What we've seen over the past decade, in fact, is the shifting of more and more of the risk to the manufacturer. The pre-order system is completely broken, so every print run done is just a guess. Distributors, who used to buy up a six month supply of a good title, don't want more than a couple of week's worth on hand. They'd rather do it "just in time", which can often lead to lost sales. Neither retailers nor distributors want to take much risk, and yet every year we hear the usual complaints from retailers about manufacturers selling direct at cons and online.




I'm not saying game retailers are blameless. I am saying that they bear the majority of the risk, and it's not fair when they aren't responsible for the quality of the product they try to sell. I do agree, though, that distributors are a large part of the problem. They drive the number the publisher/developer has to print. They pay based on cash flow, sticking it to the publisher if they didn't sell enough to pay the full order. If the publisher complains, the distributor stops carrying their product... and in most cases, that hurts the publisher more than the distributor.

That said, and to sort of turn the tables a bit - the publisher who prints a great deal more of his product than the market will bear doesn't really know his market... and that's not the retailer's or even the distributor's fault, is it? 




> I doubt that even one retailer went out of business because of Fast Forward. It's big ticket fad products like collectible games that can really burn a retailer. Many stores went out in the mid 90s after speculating wildly on TCGs.




I posted that and on my way to work realized I was not clear. My apologies.

In the time it took for Fast Forward to go out of business, I am sure that several retailers went out. My point is that retailers pay the price faster than bad developers/publishers. And FF is just one example of a D20 developer/publisher that had, shall we say, lower standards - there are many others like them who aspire to be a Malhavoc, Necromancer, or Green Ronin that can't or won't produce good product. Even if retailers buy the first product and realize it sucks, they're stuck with 1-2 copies of product that won't sell unless they sell it at a loss (which is less costly than keeping it for a year, admittedly). I've even known retailers to offer products that don't sell as a free giveaway, and the customer won't take it.

Sure, the retailer is responsible for what he buys. Should he buy only what he knows sells, or should he take a chance a small publisher might release something that might sell? And if a product line is inconsistent, like anything from Mongoose, what does he do then?



> And why aren't bad retailers also to blame for continuing to order crappy product? Surely they are responsible for what they bring into their store. When you see a store with an entire shelf of unsold books from the same crap-peddler, you have to wonder why the buyer keeps ordering more. A store has complete control over what it brings in and what it doesn't. I find it hard to see how this means they take more risk.




Chris, it's not just the same "crap-peddler's" product that sits on a shelf. There are many different crap-peddlers out there, and the retailer has to buy a variety since his clientele will eventually buy everything that sells (since he's selling to the same audience, in many cases). Thus, he gets stuck - despite best intentions to buy only good product - or he misses a sale. And the cost of ownership is high, even if he doesn't go out of business.

Believe me, I'm not saying there are no clueless retailers. One visit to Fantastic Games & Toys in Lynnwood will dispel that, though Scott turned a corner last year after he got spiritual. I'm also not saying that developers never pay a penalty - they certainly do. Less frequently than retailers pay for it, though.

Should the retailer get stuck with it, or should the crap-peddlers (I like that term) learn - no, not learn, _make the effort_ to peddle something else? If Malhavoc, CMG, Ronin Arts, Necromancer, Green Ronin, and others can do it, why can't Fast Forward, Mongoose, and the rest of the clowns in the Beetle do it? Concentration of talent helps, but it's not the only reason they sell.

I don't believe the retailers should pay the price, and that's the model we have now. Your mileage may vary.

- Ket


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 8, 2005)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> If Malhavoc, CMG, Ronin Arts, Necromancer, Green Ronin, and others can do it, why can't Fast Forward, Mongoose, and the rest of the clowns in the Beetle do it?




Anyone find it funny that Mongoose gets mentioned like this after the long post by Matt not a page earlier?


----------



## Numion (Sep 8, 2005)

In my experience the computer games have helped people switch to D&D RPG. Totally anecdotal, I know, but one of my friends never wanted to play when we asked him to join our warhammer FRP campaign in the late 90's. He had never played role playing games, but he was a very big fan of BG, and then BG2. When 3E was launched, I bought it, and started to put together a FR campaign. Now this novice player suddenly is very eager to play, "Is it like BG?"

The funny thing is .. he never was the best roleplayer, and had trouble remembering some basic stuff (like adding modifiers to his damage roll) even after 4 years of playing, but he never missed a session.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> eyebeams said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same here. I also got to play D&D, the tabletop game, via a CRPG. That's how I learned to explain THAC0 and AC to others . And that's why I still have a soft spot for the Forgotten Realms .

Edit: No, I never played in Numion's game .


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> In my experience the computer games have helped people switch to D&D RPG. .




One of my best friends got into D&D after playing Baldur's Gate. She was totally into it, and we almost decided to do a combined D&D sailing vacation together before we realized that we never liked each other when we had to spend that much time together.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2005)

A semi-coherent thought about computers taking over the rpg industry.

Take a look at a different segment which has had unbelievable success in computers - RTS games like Warcraft or Ages of Empire.  Compare that to the tabletop minis games.  Now, apparently, WOTC's minis game is doing very well, ticking along pretty good.  But, shouldn't RTS games have buried them?  Think about it, an RTS game operates much smoother, faster, with much better visuals and sound than any tabletop minis game.  Add to that the fact that you can find any number of people to play with you at any time of the day or night and you'd think games like WOTC's minis or Warhammer would have gone the way of the dodo.

And, really, it isn't the artistic end of things that's keeping the minis games afloat.  Unlike Warhammer, you don't paint WOTC minis, nor do you cut them apart and create entirely new minis.  There's little or no modling going on with WOTC's minis, so why are they doing well despite directly competing with games like Warcraft 3, Empire Earth 2 or any of the other umpteen RTS or even turn based games out there?

I think people who think that computers will replace tabletop games greatly underestimate the social aspect of gaming.  Whether you game with longtime friends or people you just met at your FLGS, its still the face to face interaction that drives gaming.  

RTS gaming hasn't seemed to have spelled the end of tabletop mini wargaming, so why should it bury PnP gaming either?


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Just to give non-industry folks a glimpse at the reports that we see:
> 
> The September 2005 issue of COMICS & GAMES RETAILER contains sales reports as of June 2005.   Now, admittedly, these numbers are flawed, since they are a self-selecting survey.  However, they are the only numbers we have, and are useful for extrapolating larger trends.
> 
> ...




I'm a retailer also. There is nothing in this that suprises me at all, there is also nothing in there that indicates a decline. If I were to line up my best months in order, they would show up pretty much like that, though June is typically better than April and May. Though we probably have never had a month where we've sold less than 60 RPG units, and that includes months with multiple named storms, all visiting on weekends.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 8, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Anyone find it funny that Mongoose gets mentioned like this after the long post by Matt not a page earlier?




I find "clowns in the Beetle" to be completely uncalled for and needlessly insulting.... and also a very funny analogy.


----------



## philreed (Sep 8, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> That said, a PDF publisher is unlikely to know a great deal about the paper publishing side of the industry.




Keep in mind that some PDF publishers have extensive experience -- at all levels of operation -- with the print side of things.


----------



## philreed (Sep 8, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Compare that to the tabletop minis games.  Now, apparently, WOTC's minis game is doing very well, ticking along pretty good.  But, shouldn't RTS games have buried them?  Think about it, an RTS game operates much smoother, faster, with much better visuals and sound than any tabletop minis game.  Add to that the fact that you can find any number of people to play with you at any time of the day or night and you'd think games like WOTC's minis or Warhammer would have gone the way of the dodo.




I never expect computer games to replace miniatures (or high-end boardgames). People that play minis games are buying the toys (especially those that are buying the randomized, pre-painted pieces). While a computer game can replace the game play it can never replace the toy value of miniatures.

One of the reasons boardgames, for example, are praised when they're loaded down with bits and pieces is the toy value. Having little things to play with is very important to a lot of people, even if they don't realize it.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> That said, a PDF publisher is unlikely to know a great deal about the paper publishing side of the industry.




...so I'll rely instead on the years from 1995-2004 when I worked exclusively in the print business, including handling the sales of two different companies, and the years 1988-1994, when I worked at the distribution and retail levels of the industry.



			
				MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> apply filters where you feel necessary




On this, at least, we agree.



			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Unless you've got statistics that compare year over year numbers for the same month,




I've got monthly statistics in C&GR going back to 1997 (when they didn't have "GAMES" in their title), and they produce an annual yearly summary of the game business as well.  

In fact, each issue provides a graph with the tracking going back quite some time.  The current issue shows the trends back to July of 2001....and, because obviously I'm going to continue to get nay-sayers unless I provide the info:

7-01:  93
8-01: 131
9-01: 107 
10-01: 75
11-01: 88
12-01: 107
1-02: 86
2-02: 77
3-02: 67
4-02: 86
5-02: 108
6-02: 94
7-02: 72
8-02: 76
9-02: 73
10-02: 63
11-02: 56
12-02: 52
1-03: 66
2-03: 63
3-03: 60
4-03: 62
5-03: 58
6-03: 70
7-03: 81
8-03: 61
9-03: 60
10-03: 59
11-03: 66
12-03: 75
1-04: 80
2-04: 68
3-04: 77
4-04: 74
5-04: 74
6-04: 75
7-04: 78
8-04: 61
9-04: 63
10-04: 119
11-04: 90 
12-04: 102 
1-05: 82
2-05: 70 
3-05: 69 
4-05: 40 
5-05: 35 
6-05: 32 

I could go back into earlier issues, but really...that should be enough for you.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2005)

From those numbers I notice two things:

1) There seems to be only 1 bad quarter (2nd quarter 05).  The first quarter of this year is compatible to last year's.  Of course if Q3 is as bad as Q2, then there might be a trend.

2) There does not seem to be a spike in the numbers in Summer/Fall 2003 with the release of v3.5.  I find that odd.  I understand that 3.5 may not have done as well as the release of 3.0, but shouldn't there at least be a small spike if the numbers are reflective of the RPG industry?


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 8, 2005)

Here is the same data in a slightly easier to read format.

```
[u][b]2001	2002	2003	2004	2005[/b][/u]
[b]January			[/b]86	66	80	82
[b]February		[/b]77	63	68	70
[b]March			[/b]67	60	77	69
[b]April			[/b]86	62	74	40
[b]May			[/b]108	58	74	35
[b]June			[/b]94	70	75	32
[b]July		[/b]93	72	81	78	
[b]August		[/b]131	76	61	61	
[b]September	[/b]107	73	60	63	
[b]October		[/b]75	63	59	119	
[b]November	[/b]88	56	66	90	
[b]December	[/b]107	52	75	102
```


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2005)

Looking at that data makes the "sky is falling" seem even more of an over-reaction than before.

For one thing, I'm surprised to note the lack of the steady decline over four years.  After 01 that data becomes quite reasonably stable.

In 4Q 04 you had a spike.  I don't recall any talk about how wonderful things were then.
If you take the last three quarters your average is just barely below the 2002 forward average.  

Yeah, the last one quarter is a slump.  
In the big picture scheme of things: shrug


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

I'm more the visual guy, therefore an Excel sheet of those data.

They show an exceptionally great end of year sale followed by three very bad months. The sky is falling .


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> . . . I've got monthly statistics in C&GR going back to 1997 (when they didn't have "GAMES" in their title), and they produce an annual yearly summary of the game business as well.
> 
> In fact, each issue provides a graph with the tracking going back quite some time.  The current issue shows the trends back to July of 2001....and, because obviously I'm going to continue to get nay-sayers unless I provide the info:
> 
> ...




These numbers, to me, well document a slow but noticeable decline.  I am also surprised at just how low these numbers are overall.  The numbers, I think, obviously do not tell the entire story but they just as obviously, I believe, tell part of it.  I return to the "canary in the coalmine" metaphor.

Mongoose Matt's information is most welcome and appreciated but I read it as speaking of DOLLARS _ NOT_ GAMERS.  It is the number of gamers, which I think is at issue.  Dollars, as a mere consumer, I find of interest only to the extent they provide some insight into the number of gamers.  

I have been gaming since the 1970's.  I remember the go-go gaming of the 80's.  It is entirely unscientific and unquantifiable (by me) but I can say that in my personal experience the gamer vibe is nothing now like it was in the 80's.  Maybe there are vast hordes of new gamers now buying RPGs, in my experience then they must all be living in their parents basements, ordering from Amazon and Dominoes and reading, not playing, the game materials.  With more disposable income and the will to make the time to play, I'm still not seeing these hordes.  Gencon attendance, which might argue the other way, is not seeing huge increases of gamers but is relatively flat around the mid 20's each year, and what is more represents the hardest of the hardcore, the last to go.

I don't suppose, it matters much to Joe Consumer whether or not the hobby is growing, stagnating or declining in the near term.  As someone said, and rightly so, this is a "golden age" in terms of quality product availability.  I agree.  And I have enough game material to game for at least 3 lifetimes if I never buy another thing.  What concerns me, however, is the future of the hobby and what I see as a failure in some parts to acknowledge that everything is not universally peachy.  I am particularly concerned when smaller d20 publishers start to feel a squeeze as they produce a great deal of the D&D material I find most interesting.  

I can go along, I suppose, with the "I've got mine" thought but I married a gamer and will always have someone with whom to game.  Others, who have "got theres" now, may find they have only themselves to play with in 20 years, if they are still around.  20 years only seems like a long time if you havn't already been playing for longer.  2005 is by no measure I can see like 1985 in terms of number of gamers and excitement about the game.  There has been in my experience a noticeable decline.  Its not the end of the world but it is a decline, IME.


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 8, 2005)

Please pardon me, but NO ONE I see is claiming "the sky is falling" except those erecting strawmen that they then proceed to knock over.  What is being said is that there is a DECLINE.  A DECLINE is _not_ the same as "the sky is falling."  If one cannot discuss matters without unfairly categorizing the statements of others using such hyperbole . . . well, you may draw you own conclusions about they and their position.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

Yes, it's a steady decline.  The years previous had regularly higher figures.

Nobody is saying "the sky is falling", despite the continued attempts on the part of the happy-shiny-nothing-is-wrong-with-my-hobby-lalalalalICANTHEARYOU crowd to portray the position as such.     

What *is* being said is that the market is in an obvious decline.

"You have no proof" They say.

"Here."

"Well...uh...it's obviously just a recent slump, chicken-little!"

Whatever.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 8, 2005)

*Hey Rasyr!*



			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> Here is the same data in a slightly easier to read format.




Ummmm ... thanks for posting it like that. Neat, now if we could keep track of the units sold and finish the table to inlude the whole year, that'd be cool!

The last three months on the table are really, really harsh. Thanks to GMskarka for sharing the numbers.

And Rasyr, that thing about Nisarg ... I hope I'm not shaping up to take his place!   

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 8, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> These numbers, to me, well document a slow but noticeable decline.




Huh? Are you reading the same numbers? Month by month, over the last four years, the numbers show a lousy second quarter in 2005, but the 1st quarter is virtually identical to the previous three years.

January 2002-2005: 86, 66, 80, 82
February	2002-2005: 77, 63, 68, 70
March 2002-2005: 67, 60, 77, 69

That seems _very much_ like a steady market. From year to year, sales fluctuate up and down over a fairly small range. The second quarter does look bad though:

April 2002-2005: 86, 62, 74, 40
May 2002-2005: 108, 58, 74, 35
June 2002-2005: 94, 70, 75, 32

But it isn't clear from this whether the second quarter 2005 is a trend, or just a temporary drop. The numbers from 2003-2004 look very steady, and the numbers from the second quarter of 2002 look like a spike (since they seem out of line with the rest of the data). If things continue this way in the third quarter, then you might have a trend. On the other hand, if you took a similar snapshot at the end of 2004, things would look like the market was gaining steam (look at the numbers for fourth quarter 2004, higher than almost anywhere else).


----------



## Maggan (Sep 8, 2005)

*Heh*

Isn't it ironic, as whatever her names is sang, that once we get the numbers, we still stand on two opposite sides, saying "it's a decline, stupid!" or "no it's fluctuation of a healthy market, doomsayer!".

I'm really enjoying this, since it brings many different viewpoints on the table.

Thanx everyone!

/M


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 8, 2005)

Isn't the place where we see this slump where a bunch of 3rd party companies are releasing non-D&D d20/OGL/independent game systems? I could be wrong on that one, but it does seem interesting that there's a lot of talk about the d20 bubble bursting...but the slump is in the time when people are producing LESS d20 specific material.

Good to see some actual numbers, even though its hard to say anything beyond this year has had somewhat of a slump...though how do you put those numbers together with what Matt has said? Because he sure seemed pleased with how things are going with Mongoose.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Agreed. I suspect they've got more than one document floating around that deals with 4e. At this point the discussions probably involve more marketing decisions/ideas than design-related issues.



Of course they have documents floating around. I recall Monte Cook saying something like "While working on 3e, I kept a 4e file around on my computer to put stuff I thought would be cool, but too much of a departure from the old stuff, in."

So, looking at it that way, you could say that WOTC has been working on 4e since before 2000.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Edit: I just looked at some games from 2002/2003 that I have. They contain this information:
> 
> _"Neverwinter Nights, Forgotten Realms, the Forgotten Realms logo, Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. and are used by Infogrames Entertainment, S.A. under license. All Rights Reserved."_
> 
> Wouldn't this point to a different company if the license wasn't given out by Hasbro?



The way I understand it, Hasbro sold off Hasbro Interactive, including the rights to D&D computer games, to Infogrames soon after 3e was released (this is apparently what prompted Peter Adkison to resign). This is, I think, technically a license since Hasbro owns D&D itself. More recently, they renegotiated the deal (or made a new one), so that Hasbro regains the rights to D&D computer games in about ten years.


----------



## philreed (Sep 8, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> So, looking at it that way, you could say that WOTC has been working on 4e since before 2000.




Shhhh.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I'm more the visual guy, therefore an Excel sheet of those data.




I'm more of a stats guy; the trend isn't statistically significant (and anyways wasn't there a lot of talk about how the C&GR numbers were meaningless a few pages ago?)


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Yes, it's a steady decline.  The years previous had regularly higher figures.
> 
> Nobody is saying "the sky is falling", despite the continued attempts on the part of the happy-shiny-nothing-is-wrong-with-my-hobby-lalalalalICANTHEARYOU crowd to portray the position as such.
> 
> ...



Yes, it's just a recent slump. If you cared to look at the data, you would see it. For illustration, I'll show the seven months averages for those data, including all months suitable for full 7 months averages. You will note that the market pointed upwards for a long period of time after the D&D 3.5 release. It shows a sharp decline for the last months.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Good to see some actual numbers, even though its hard to say anything beyond this year has had somewhat of a slump...




That's because I'm not about to go back to dig out 9 years of back issues, just so I can provide data to satisfy a few insistent posters on an internet forum.  Sorry.   At some point, you'll just have to take my word for the fact that the earlier numbers were higher, and when added to the figures I provided above, a definite downward trend is visible.

Why would I make this up?   What possible vested interest would I (somebody who does this full time, for a living) have in portraying a decline if there wasn't one?  



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> though how do you put those numbers together with what Matt has said? Because he sure seemed pleased with how things are going with Mongoose.




Trying to put this politely as possible:  Matt's statements have been, shall we say, historically divergent from things that I've heard about Mongoose's operations, from people who have since been let go.

Now, given the fact that I no longer know anybody on the staff, it's entirely possible that things have changed drastically, and he's entirely forthright and things are as he says.  You all should certainly give someone the benefit of the doubt.   I, however, will allow past trends to color my opinions, and take it all with a grain of salt the size of Swindon.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> I'm more of a stats guy; the trend isn't statistically significant (and anyways wasn't there a lot of talk about how the C&GR numbers were meaningless a few pages ago?)



You are right, the C&CR data are next to meaningless. The sample is self-selected, which doesn't allow for statistically relevant conclusions. Additionally, the data contain only an increasingly unimportant sector of the RPG market, completely ignoring those parts where the sales continually shift to.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 8, 2005)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> I'm more of a stats guy; the trend isn't statistically significant (and anyways wasn't there a lot of talk about how the C&GR numbers were meaningless a few pages ago?)




They're meaningless because they're a self-selecting survey.

Which, if you ask Akrasia, is the reason you can't trust messageboard polls - not even for general trend detection, and certainly not for anything like actual numbers.

It's interesting to see that the only hard numbers available are ones which, according to that side's supporters, anyway, you can't trust.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Yes, it's just a recent slump. If you cared to look at the data, you would see it. For illustration, I'll show the seven months averages for those data, including all months suitable for full 7 months averages. You will note that the market pointed upwards for a long period of time after the D&D 3.5 release. It shows a sharp decline for the last months.




Wow.   You've got a near-evangelical need to be right, don't you?

OK, sure.   Fine.    You win!

Yes...if you cook the numbers of a single-issue report, without knowledge of the previous decade's sales figures, and average them, and put them in a nifty graph, then yes: it's just a recent slump.   Kudos.    Everything's fine.    You have Saved The Hobby.    Laurels and rose petals all around.


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Huh? Are you reading the same numbers? Month by month, over the last four years, the numbers show a lousy second quarter in 2005, but the 1st quarter is virtually identical to the previous three years.
> 
> . . .
> 
> But it isn't clear from this whether the second quarter 2005 is a trend, or just a temporary drop.




I agree entirely that 2005 data is incomplete and drawing conclusions is then speculative.  Comparing year over year data for the same months and between months, however, 2005 is shaping up/trending to be noticeably worse than prior years, particularly 2004 but maybe not as bad as 2003.  Only time will tell, as you note, whether this is true. I imagine this subject will not go away if matters do get worse and we would then see Mr. Skarka or someone else post numbers for the latter part of 2005.

I think, however, rather than heavily engage numbers agreed to be still forming, it is still possible to note longer term trends as I (unscientifically) and others have, above.  IMO, this is not a 5 year thing or even a 10 year thing, necessarily.  The sky is not falling.  But the clouds are lowering.  The decline, as I percieve it, is playing out over the life of the game.  From an initial spurt of enthusiasm and regular, active participation in the game in the 80s by large numbers of people, it is my perception that such has declined.  Calling it the "graying" of the hobby or whathave you.  That some d20 publishers are apparently feeling a squeeze makes matters more immediate but the trend, I believe, is slower and long term.  I think it not helpful to imagine everything is rosy simply because the sky is not falling.  No one wants the sky to fall.  Trying to reverse or slow the decline would be, I think, a place to start to ensure the sky never falls and, in fact, rises to new heights.  But no one starts to think seriously about improving matters if no one sees a need to do so because everything is seen as unfailingly rosy.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Wow.   You've got a near-evangelical need to be right, don't you?
> 
> OK, sure.   Fine.    You win!
> 
> Yes...if you cook the numbers of a single-issue report, without knowledge of the previous decade's sales figures, and average them, and put them in a nifty graph, then yes: it's just a recent slump.   Kudos.    Everything's fine.    You have Saved The Hobby.    Laurels and rose petals all around.



All your snarkiness aside, those are figures that contain data for several years! They show several years of increasing sales prior to the recent slump! You think that, because the numbers don't really support your statement, you can win the upper side with some verbal manoeuvres? Where's the rolleyes smily when you need it?

Edit: The other thing is that, I suppose, nobody thinks that the game shop will survive. In principle, I expect those numbers to hit zero at some time in the future. But not because the RPG hobby vanishes. Those numbers have only a very loose relation to the state of RPGs.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 8, 2005)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> Believe me, I'm not saying there are no clueless retailers. One visit to Fantastic Games & Toys in Lynnwood will dispel that, though Scott turned a corner last year after he got spiritual.




I bet that's a fascinating story. What did he do to turn his business around and 'buy a clue'? What's his business like? Is he purely an RPG games retailer or does he have things like boardgames, darts, chess, etc in the mix?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Please pardon me, but NO ONE I see is claiming "the sky is falling" except those erecting strawmen that they then proceed to knock over.  What is being said is that there is a DECLINE.  A DECLINE is _not_ the same as "the sky is falling."  If one cannot discuss matters without unfairly categorizing the statements of others using such hyperbole . . . well, you may draw you own conclusions about they and their position.




Well, I'll also join in pointing back to the title of the thread.  I think one can just as well draw conclusions regarding thew biases of someone who would require others to pretend such statements are non-existant.  But maybe it be better if we both didn't go there, eh?  

Please target your frustration at those on your side making excessive statments, rather than those who point them out.

But that aside, this is all a temptest in a teapot.  Slumps happen.  The data presented isn't even that big a deal.  Get over it.


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> You are right, the C&CR data are next to meaningless. The sample is self-selected, which doesn't allow for statistically relevant conclusions. Additionally, the data contain only an increasingly unimportant sector of the RPG market, completely ignoring those parts where the sales continually shift to.




I think we, non-insiders, must make do as best we can with what data is available.  Everything is then relevant but the degree of relevance will vary.  Which lets us keep talking.    

The "increasingly unimportant sector of the RPG market" comment, I think, represents a ENWorld on online bias.  First, I do not know of any quantitative numbers that are available that demonstrate that brick and mortar sales are not still dominate and by a more than fair margin.  Second, assuming that online sales are more significant, that says nothing about the "incubator" effect brick and mortar stores have on the hobby, particularly as relates to cross-game migration, say from cards to rpgs or from miniatures to rpgs.  It is an online conceit, I think, that online is the big show.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

For the reasonable people who have participated in this thread:  Thanks for your interest, but I think you can see from this thread why, generally, most industry folks avoid discussing the state of the business on internet fora.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 8, 2005)

It'd be interesting if you could find out how many RPG units that places like Amazon, Wallmart.com, and other online vendors like Buy.com and Overstock.com are moving. You could add those numbers to those already provided and get a slightly "bigger" picture.

Do any game companies provide numbers? I know I've seen more than a few complain that they aren't getting visibility to how much they're selling, but I also don't recall seeing a lot of data coming out from them either. It was more of a pie in the sky thing like Mike's OGL Wikki.


----------



## GVDammerung (Sep 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Please target your frustration at those on your side making excessive statments, rather than those who point them out.
> 
> But that aside, this is all a temptest in a teapot.  Slumps happen.  The data presented isn't even that big a deal.  Get over it.




Fair enough.  I can readily agree to agree that there is enough hyperbole to go around, on all sides.   

I would like to offer that my appreciation of the size or "biggness" of the deal is relative to the appraisal of the situation by those d20 D&D publishers who have come along to note that they have some measure of concern at present.  Unscientific.  Personal, with my liking of the products these d20 D&D publishers produce.  But there you have it.  The sky may not be falling but if some of my more favorite d20 D&D publishers will publically express concern, I will by turns think there is something to be concerned about.  That Wotc has everything as rosy is all well and good but I buy far more product from non-Wotc publishers than Wotc.  Should the number of d20 publishers suffer for a "contraction" or whatgaveyou, I would be distressed as I like regularly seeing their products readily available to me without incident or interruption.  On a grander stage, "canary in the coalmine?"


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I think we, non-insiders, must make do as best we can with what data is available.  Everything is then relevant but the degree of relevance will vary.  Which lets us keep talking.



If we constrained our discussions to effects that are specifically bound to game shops, I'd agree. This means things like whether game shops can survive on RPG sales (quite obviously not) or whether they have any future at all. As soon as we come to the question how RPGs sell in general, these numbers are not very helpful though. 



> The "increasingly unimportant sector of the RPG market" comment, I think, represents a ENWorld on online bias.  First, I do not know of any quantitative numbers that are available that demonstrate that brick and mortar sales are not still dominate and by a more than fair margin.  Second, assuming that online sales are more significant, that says nothing about the "incubator" effect brick and mortar stores have on the hobby, particularly as relates to cross-game migration, say from cards to rpgs or from miniatures to rpgs.  It is an online conceit, I think, that online is the big show.



I agree with your "online" comment. Although amazon has a big importance for people here on EN World, it's not that important for many people outside from online communities. But those numbers don't contain any data from the likes of Barnes & Nobles etc., either. There are many people who just take their monthly 30% coupon and buy their stuff at a normal chain book store. Someone from WotC said that they sell 50% of their RPG books outside of game stores, tendency increasing. This means that the C&GR numbers are severely lopsided, because they don't really give an adequate image of the RPG market. This also explains the consistently lower numbers for the WotC market share that C&GR reports. This is simply because WotC leaves those game shops behind for good.


----------



## Yair (Sep 8, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Hi guys,
> 
> I acknowledge in advance that I may regret stepping into this one
> 
> I'll try to give some figures where I can [snip]



Thank's a lot for that. That was very interesting.

As a big company of print RPGs that also sells pdfs, I was wondering if you could comment on how large is the pdf RPG buisness from your prespective anyway? I realize it's probably much smaller, but I'm wondering just how much of your revenue comes from online pdf versus print products. Are the pdf sales 1% of your RPG revenues? 5%? 10%? What's the scale of their impact? 

Of course, you're free to ignore the question. I'll just keep on living in ignorance.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 8, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I agree entirely that 2005 data is incomplete and drawing conclusions is then speculative.  Comparing year over year data for the same months and between months, however, 2005 is shaping up/trending to be noticeably worse than prior years, particularly 2004 but maybe not as bad as 2003.




Only in the second quarter. In the first quarter, the month-by-month numbers look virtually identical to those of previous years. The numbers from 2002-2004 look remarkably stable for the first quarter months, and virtually the same in 2005. We have a couple spikes here and there (the most noticable ones being in late 2001 and late 2004), but other than that and the 2nd quarter 2005 slump, all the other numbers look _very_ close over the given period.

Now, GMS may have some data he's not shared with us from, say 1990-2000, but since we can't see it, we can't evaluate it. Given that he stated that the 2001-2005 data showed a clear declining trend, which doesn't seem to be true (it shows spikes, and a recent, relatively short slump, which may or may not continue), I don't know if we can trust his recollections about data that is 5-15 years old.


----------



## NewLifeForm (Sep 8, 2005)

*Opinions of a Would-Be Game Designer*

While my opinions and views on this subject may have less weight then the "big guns", this is a subject I've been keeping a very close eye on. I've worked in the industry as an artist, a writer and a retailer, but never as someone who owns a company. Bare this in mind as I try to rant as intelligently as possible...

To say that the development and wide spread popularity of computer RPGs, especially MMORPGs, hasn't hurt table-top gaming is to be blind to not only a fault in our market, but also an oppurtunity.

I am obessed with table-top RPGs, I love them with a passion, but I haven't been able to assemble my group for several months. We're a group of 5 to 7 individuals, 30-40 years of age, with an average of 15 years of experience playing RPGs (some of us as little as 5 or 6 years, some of us as many as 28). We live in three different states. Getting together to game is not an easy task. As an insomniac with a high-speed internet connection, I have been able to get together with them online, and have clocked far to many hours on World of Warcraft.

At the risk of sounding extremely cynical (heck, I'm a New Yorker, I'm allowed   ), humans are essentially lazy. Getting someone to look at the pretty pictures on their computer screen is much easier then getting them to read a book. In addition, getting them to fork over 30 to 40 bucks for a book compared to automatically draining 12-15 dollars from their account is an impressive task. So what are we in the table top industry to do to compete?

First, we need to up the graphics on our books a notch or two (or ten). Our pictures need to just be as pretty or prettier. Little black and white illustrations in the corner of the page are not going to impress the polygon, frames-per-second crowd. We need to modernize the appearence of our books and try some different style approaches. Ptolus looks the most promising in this regard, more inspired b travel books then text books. Don't just be better, be different.

Second, I think our inactive online community needs to be stronger. More and better online content and extras will give RPG products that MMORPG and DVD Director's Cut appeal (WotC already do a fine job of this-but I would still love to see it expanded).

Thirdly, I agree to some extent that the nature of the current distribution and retail system could use some work, but as someone who has worked in retail for over 16 years, the current economic crunch is hitting the small business person very hard. My store simply can not have product sit on the shelves. If I think I can sell 100 pieces of an item, I'm almost better off getting 75 and selling out guaranteed. There is simply too much product coming out too quickly. Dead product is money lost and money lost at this point is doom. As for myself, I used to spend anywhere from 20 to 100 dollars a month easy on game products, where as I now spend 30 or 40 dollars once every few months. Once again, too much mediocre stuff, less time to make use of it and as was stated earlier, after 28 years of gaming, I don't really *need* anything. I buy what inspires me.

I don't think the market is dying, but I do think it is going to reach an extremely endangered point within the next 5 years if it doesn't start evolving. More advertisting, better overall marketing, positive media coverage, better graphics and better magazine coverage are definitely needed. I stopped purchasing Dragon and Dungeon a few months ago and I'm eagerly searching for (or awaiting the creation of ) a gaming magazine the covers all RPGs (if you can, check out a copy of the Japanese magazines Roll & Role or RPGamer - GURPS, Classic Traveller material, Castle Falkenstein and a slew of other titles in the same freakin' issue! Banzai!). Have you noticed there are about 10 or 15 major computer game magazines on the newstands? Not in the video game stores but on the newstands! We only have Dragon, Dungeon and Inquest in NYC. Come on marketing and PR - get the word out there!

Finally...

I would like thank all the pros for treating this thread, and those who've posted on it, with patience and respect. I would also like to thank them for their opinions and for being genuinely informative. This, I must say, is an area where our industry has virtually every other beat, hands down. I raise my GenCon mug to a better next quarter and another 100 years of the greatest hobby on Earth.

NewLifeForm


----------



## rpghost (Sep 8, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> If there were reliable figures, people would post them, but one of the long term problems of the game industry is that such figures don't exist. Most companies are privately held and they don't share their sales information. Many retailers don't have POS systems and the ones that do have no mechanism to share their numbers.




I try to open my books when I can to give some general feedback to publishers and retailers. I have done so in the past, here you are again...

Our total gross sales represent roughly 1.5 million a year. Not a large segment of the market, but a sizeable snapshot not to be ignored. Bellow are some long term charts (each bar representing one month) of gross sales from 3 major segments of this market we participate in:

1) Game Universe - Our brick and mortar store in the Midwest (which uses a POS):







2) RPGShop - our online book/dice/minis store:






3) RPGNow - our ebook sales site:







Granted much of the early growth on these charts is do to obtaining marketshare (Online sales, New B&M store has been open only 2.5 years) or establishing the industry (ebook sales pioneer).

It is my feeling that we're in a cyclical down tread in this industry (much to do with the burnout of d20) along with some major new factors pulling at our customers purse strings:

- Gas Prices
- World of Warcraft
- Disasters and Charity

James Mathe
Minion Development Corp.

P.S. If any publishers wants to know their SPECIFIC numbers, email me at webmaster@rpgshop.com


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> That's because I'm not about to go back to dig out 9 years of back issues, just so I can provide data to satisfy a few insistent posters on an internet forum.  Sorry.   At some point, you'll just have to take my word for the fact that the earlier numbers were higher, and when added to the figures I provided above, a definite downward trend is visible.
> 
> Why would I make this up?





Normally I wouldn't be this blunt, but since you asked:  I suppose your sales aren't doing particularly well at the moment, and you want to make it look like it's the entire industry, not just yourself and some others. 

And really, 9 years of back issues?  Are you honestly trying to say that the market is selling less product right now than in the dark days of the late 90s?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 8, 2005)

Thanks for providing some more numbers to look at, James!

So...the question now becomes, how does this fit together with everything else? I can't help but find it interesting that its very easy to get completely contradictory statements from many different people on the 'inside'...with some swearing we're in a slump, and showing at least some numbers that prove it, while at the same time others are saying just the opposite, and even have numbers to show that, and then even some that are just in the middle and don't really show anything one way or another.

So, is it really just a matter of taking one's own success/failure and projecting it over the entire industry?


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> In fact, each issue provides a graph with the tracking going back quite some time.  The current issue shows the trends back to July of 2001....and, because obviously I'm going to continue to get nay-sayers unless I provide the info:
> 
> <SNIP NUMBERS>




If you want the numbers Gareth quoted, scroll down.

The indication of decline is 2Q this year. Funny thing about CG&R, a little while ago they went from voluntary reports where we could just tell them what we did as retailers, to a more in depth data-mining effort where they wanted actual sales records. Many stores don't have a POS and inventory system to track each and every sale precisely. As a result, far fewer stores report their sales (I know I don't any longer) and the most likely to be able to meet their requirements are comic book shops, which should sell fewer titles than your dedicated FLGS.  Funny thing is, the change in methodology occured about the same time as the appearant decline.

I happen to know that there is a decline, because much of my competition has gone away, but I haven't seen it in RPGs on the retail level. What I have seen from a publishing level is that even though Living Arcanis is larger than ever, the distributors are ordering less and less. So much so, that they have to reorder our titles immediately (and I do mean same day) upon their arrival in their warehouse. Not only do distributors make no effort to have a month's supply, they often fail to maintain even a *single day's* supply. This doesn't apply to all distributors, some are plugged in enough to know the demand for Arcanis titles.

Now, as a result I get a great many direct sales requests from consumers, which is nice because I stand to make much, much, more on a sale. Problem is, that doesn't grow my consumer base. As a result, I contact those consumers that order from me, find out who their FLGS is, call that store, and if the store is willing to put forth the 5 minutes of effort (I am astounded by the number that aren't) I walk the order back to their primary distributor and back to me. Just so that my distributor can make a buck and maybe order more next time. I never want to circumvent the other 2 tiers if it can be helped, but sometimes it can't.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Normally I wouldn't be this blunt, but since you asked:  I suppose your sales aren't doing particularly well at the moment, and you want to make it look like it's the entire industry, not just yourself and some others.




Which would make sense, if I mentioned anything about my sales anywhere in this thread.

Which I haven't.

For what it's worth, Adamant Entertainment is PDF-only right now, and is one of the top 20 in that portion of the market.  I make enough to live on it full-time, which is more than can be said for the majority of companies in this business.   So, I'm doing just fine....but that's largely because I'm concentrating on PDF.  If you look at the graphs that James provided, you'll see that PDF is experiencing steady growth.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, Adamant Entertainment is PDF-only right now, and is one of the top 20 in that portion of the market.  I make enough to live on it full-time, which is more than can be said for the majority of companies in this business.   So, I'm doing just fine....but that's largely because I'm concentrating on PDF.  If you look at the graphs that James provided, you'll see that PDF is experiencing steady growth.





Your sales are fine, you're not even in the print rpg market now, but you're insisting there's a "steady decline" that's apparently been going on for 9 years?  We're all looking at the numbers you posted and seeing a three month slump.  I assumed you had some private business figures that pointed to a larger issue, but now you're saying that's not the case.


----------



## Numion (Sep 8, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Funny thing is, the change in methodology occured about the same time as the appearant decline.




...aaaand we have a winner.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> The indication of decline is 2Q this year. Funny thing about CG&R, a little while ago they went from voluntary reports where we could just tell them what we did as retailers, to a more in depth data-mining effort where they wanted actual sales records. Many stores don't have a POS and inventory system to track each and every sale precisely. As a result, far fewer stores report their sales (I know I don't any longer) and the most likely to be able to meet their requirements are comic book shops, which should sell fewer titles than your dedicated FLGS.  Funny thing is, the change in methodology occured about the same time as the appearant decline.



Thank you very much. This sheds some very interesting light on those C&GR numbers, which makes their significance even more questionable.

But I think that all this quibbling about details doesn't really help with finding good answers to a few long term developments.

The RPG sales are slowly declining over time, even if it's not that dramatic as some want us to believe, and although it's always interrupted by periods of growth or relative stability.
The brick and mortar game stores will mostly vanish over the next decade or even years, and the RPG industry has to think about how to replace these shops as recruitment grounds for new tabletop players.
Online games and other hobbies are always a competition to tabletop games, and there must be new strategies how to tap this large pool of gamers for tabletop RPGs. This worked with me, so it should work with others .
I think these are the points worth talking about. And somehow I have the feeling that most posters in this thread agree on this, despite the arguments we see .


----------



## Warbringer (Sep 8, 2005)

The data and G&GR indicates a definite slum (R(2)= .17). Interesting the the trend was flat, only (r(2)=.05) with data to March, and the second order polymonimal indicated the market had rebounded from lows through Q4 2002/Q1 2003.

Data is partial and self-selected, so of course issues there.

But, it does support a general slump in the market; Wotc reported CCG down significantly, GW reported 10% contraction in Sales/Turnover (LoTR contraction), WizKids seeing significant reduction in CMG. ALL markets seem to have a glut, RP, CCG, CMG...

Compared to 1999 this is still good.

One comment, the Q2 05 is significant... Why? Channel switch? Real drop in demand at the FLGS....

2c


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> One comment, the Q2 05 is significant... Why? Channel switch? Real drop in demand at the FLGS....



Switch in the method how data were obtained, as stated above.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I assumed you had some private business figures that pointed to a larger issue, but now you're saying that's not the case.




You know, the attitude that somehow you're owed this information is really feckin' annoying.

Yes, I have figures, private and public, going back for about a decade.

Yes, it indicates a downward trend.

But there's no convincing you or those like you, so I'll stop bothering, as it's not ever going to change your mind, and will only serve to aggravate me further.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> This sheds some very interesting light on those C&GR numbers, which makes their significance even more questionable.




You'll note (or maybe you won't) that before I posted the figures from C&GR, I said they were flawed, but that they were the only publicly-available figures this industry has.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You'll note (or maybe you won't) that before I posted the figures from C&GR, I said they were flawed, but that they were the only publicly-available figures this industry has.



Yes, I noted as much. My comment just regarded the methodological change in data acquisition which might explain the observed slump all by itself. That's something more severe than just the general point that the data are flawed because they only regard a subset of the market and are self-selected, because this specific point basically kills the whole statistics.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 8, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> The last three months on the table are really, really harsh. Thanks to GMskarka for sharing the numbers.



Hence, Chris stating that rpgs are going through a rough patch.


			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> And Rasyr, that thing about Nisarg ... I hope I'm not shaping up to take his place!



Well, not unless/until you start rabidly attacking anything that isn't d20 and start quoting a former WotC exec like he was some sort of messiah....


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Well, I'll also join in pointing back to the title of the thread..



Why keep pointing back to the thread title? That was the question originally asked. However, I would like to point out that, as far as I recall, NOBODY has replied to the question in the thread title with an affirmative. Everybody has said, "no, the market is not dying". Several have said. "no, the market is not dying, but it is getting smaller", to which a number of folks reacted AS IF they were told that the market was dying. Nobody has said that it was.







			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> Switch in the method how data were obtained, as stated above.



 But what did that switch in the way data was collected do? Some possibilities:

1) Retailers could not just estimate sales anymore, they had to go back and dig through actual data. - Conclusion: data prior to the switch is inaccurate, and on the high side.

2) Less retailers answered the request for data - Conclusion: less variance in the information collected, less artificial puffing of units sold, better number result, indicating that perhaps previous numbers were higher than actual...

Simply put, by being more rigorous in the information collected, the data ia actually more accurate than that collected previously, and if the data is more accurate (and shows lower sales than previously). This would seem to indicate that sales reported before the data collection method changed was possibly inflated slightly.

Just something to think about...


----------



## eris404 (Sep 8, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I am depending more on reviews.




Amen to that. I still buy a whole lot of PDFs (since they take up a lot less space and tend to be cheaper), but as for bound books, I read as much about a potential purchase as I can (previews, reviews, etc.) before I buy.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> ...aaaand we have a winner.




Lets not kid ourselves, Adventure Game unit sales (all segments save board games) are not what they once were. D20 sales even moreso. I've noticed a downward trend and some clear warning signs. 3 of the US' largest distributors have closed in the past 5 years. Some smaller ones have also closed and another 3 were acquired by larger competitors. The S. Florida Market had 14 retailers and now has 7, I read similar stories for other markets on industry forums. These are all signs of an industry at least in transition, if not decline, and all 3 tiers are responsible. 

Some manufacturer's flooded piles of crap into the chain, some as many as 4 - *AWFUL!* books a month, and fouled the waters for those that make quality goods. Some manufacturers have decided to test the $50-$150 waters; adventure games in direct cost competition to X-Box 360 is a bad idea. Some manufacturers in non-RPG sectors are printing less than pre-order then allocating the rest, driving down sales and harming the FLGS and distributor and ultimately themselves by shrinking the market.

Distributors are trying for a NIRTS market, where they try to meet demand to the second, an impossible task. A fraction of product that is backordered is a sale that is lost forever. Since some manufacturers (again not RPG guys) refuse to warehouse any product and the distributor refuses to order big and warehouse the product, all back orders in those segments are lost sales, for everyone.

Retailers refuse to preorder, even if they KNOW they are going to get a product, driving down distributor orders. Also, a significant number of retailers won't take the time to read about new releases and won't chase down in-print but older products for their customers. Also, many clump non-D&D d20 into one huge brand and will skip the newest release from a publisher because they are sitting on some 3 year old crap from 3 other publishers because it is all "D20". 

Gareth is right about at least one thing, C&GR is the only source for hard data, and that is a problem because their methodology is flawed. We can't even use them because of those flaws.


----------



## Numion (Sep 8, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> 2) Less retailers answered the request for data - Conclusion: less variance in the information collected, less artificial puffing of units sold, better number result, indicating that perhaps previous numbers were higher than actual...




Increasing sample size decreases variance in this kind of situation, actually. The results are average - would you rather trust checking two shops logs instead of calculating the average from ten?

EDIT: what I meant to say was that there is more confidence in the numbers (shorter confidence intervals), sample variances are also more accurate, not necessarily smaller.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 8, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Simply put, by being more rigorous in the information collected, the data ia actually more accurate than that collected previously, and if the data is more accurate (and shows lower sales than previously). This would seem to indicate that sales reported before the data collection method changed was possibly inflated slightly.
> 
> Just something to think about...




If it isn't the new data that is low, but instead the old data is high, it would still reflect a much more consistant flow. Which still means that the C&GR data cannot be used to show a decline.


----------



## Warbringer (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Switch in the method how data were obtained, as stated above.



Thanks Turjan... Didn't see that, but that would make any comparisson meaningless.....


----------



## Numion (Sep 8, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Some manufacturers have decided to test the $50-$150 waters; adventure games in direct cost competition to X-Box 360 is a bad idea.




Thats a great idea actually. Paizo people have even said so .. shackled city has done well.


----------



## Krolik (Sep 8, 2005)

rpghost said:
			
		

> It is my feeling that we're in a cyclical down tread in this industry (much to do with the burnout of d20) along with some major new factors pulling at our customers purse strings:
> 
> - Gas Prices
> - World of Warcraft
> - Disasters and Charity



Another thing I would add to your list is the current price of books as well. 3 years ago $20-25.00 would get you a nice book. Now you are looking at $40.00+ [with $50, $60, $70+ becoming far more popular]. If a gamer has a $50.00 per month gaming allowance [$600.00 per year is not unreasonable] he is now looking at 1 book purchase per month where he was once looking at 2-3 books. So now one company benefits rather than 2 or 3. There's only so much blood in the turnip to go around.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Why keep pointing back to the thread title? That was the question originally asked. However, I would like to point out that, as far as I recall, NOBODY has replied to the question in the thread title with an affirmative.




How's this one:



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Yes...if you cook the numbers of a single-issue report, without knowledge of the previous decade's sales figures, and average them, and put them in a nifty graph, then yes: it's just a recent slump.   Kudos.    Everything's fine.    You have Saved The Hobby.    Laurels and rose petals all around.




Apparently its not just a slump and the hobby is in need of being "saved".
Not that I agree.

There has certainly been some more reasonable data presented from both sides.  But I think you are being overly forgiving of one side here. 
There has been a lot of comments that are talkign about decade long trends and implying (if not outright stating) that it is all coming to a head right now.  I think that is well over the top.  It is a slump.  It happens.


----------



## Paradigm (Sep 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Thats a great idea actually. Paizo people have even said so .. shackled city has done well.




Sure, if somebody wants to define "done well", people have differing standards of what doing well might mean.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Simply put, by being more rigorous in the information collected, the data ia actually more accurate than that collected previously, and if the data is more accurate (and shows lower sales than previously). This would seem to indicate that sales reported before the data collection method changed was possibly inflated slightly.
> 
> Just something to think about...



If they get less reports, the variance is most probably higher, as Numion pointed out.

Anyway. The main point is that you cannot compare the data from before the method switch to the data from after the method switch. It's not permissible to estimate any trend from data that stretch over the point where the method of data acquisition was switched.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  I can readily agree to agree that there is enough hyperbole to go around, on all sides.




Works for me.  I'll not be one to claim one-side only here.  



> I would like to offer that my appreciation of the size or "biggness" of the deal is relative to the appraisal of the situation by those d20 D&D publishers who have come along to note that they have some measure of concern at present.  Unscientific.  Personal, with my liking of the products these d20 D&D publishers produce.  But there you have it.  The sky may not be falling but if some of my more favorite d20 D&D publishers will publically express concern, I will by turns think there is something to be concerned about.  That Wotc has everything as rosy is all well and good but I buy far more product from non-Wotc publishers than Wotc.  Should the number of d20 publishers suffer for a "contraction" or whatgaveyou, I would be distressed as I like regularly seeing their products readily available to me without incident or interruption.  On a grander stage, "canary in the coalmine?"




I certainly agree that somebody trying to get to the next quarter and still be in business is going to have a different point of view.  But that's really my point.  My company might die here is not at all the same as The Market is in Severe Decline. (or whatever phrase is acceptable to all parties).  

I disagree with your canary in a coal mine idea, however.
Contractions are good for the market in the long run.  
Sometimes you gotta let the weakers players fall away.

If there are two companies for which I am a fanboy it is Green Ronin and Bad Axe.
One of the bigger rocks in the 3rd party scene and a 1 man show, so night and day there.
If Ben decides Bad Axe isn't worth the effort, it'll go.  That would kinda suck.
But only kinda.  Because if 6 months later Ben wants to crank something out, when the market turns back, he can just do it.

Green Ronin is much more likely to weather the storm.  But, there is certainly luck and many other factors that have nothing to do with quality of end product that can make a company o down.  And these times are when its most likely to hit.  So lets assume that the unlikely happens and Green Ronin crashes.  That would kinda suck.  But only kinda.  Because the guys cranking out material there are really good.  Like, notably above average good.  Unless they choose to pursue other paths, these guys will have options.  Somebody with average quality writers will "adjust" their staff.  Or a new game company will appear 6 months later.  

Is any of this magic wand guarantees?  No on your life.  Crap happens and we have to live with it.  But if there is a weeding out, 90% of those left standing will be the best ones who were willing to keep dealing with the market.



As an aside, next time some insider complains that RPG stuff is to cheap, I'm going to point them to this thread.  Not that I mind in the least what people charge.  Price what the market will bear and get rich guys.  No sarcasm in the slightest, I want it to happen.  But the gamer market is fickle and is in competition with people who will just about write for free to just know that they are doing it.  It don't compare to other markets.  And if you're afraid of the long term trend, then askign for more money might not be the best foundation.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> If they get less reports, the variance is most probably higher, as Numion pointed out.
> 
> Anyway. The main point is that you cannot compare the data from before the method switch to the data from after the method switch. It's not permissible to estimate any trend from data that stretch over the point where the method of data acquisition was switched.




Hmm, I just caught up to this.  Good point there.


----------



## siege72 (Sep 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How is Palladium successful if everyone hates their games?



I know this is late and tangential, but I don't hate Palladium games. I just can't stand the company and its *ahem* leadership.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Apparently its not just a slump and the hobby is in need of being "saved".




You quoted my sarcastic slap at another poster as proof of hyperbole?  Compare it to everything else I've said in this thread...."which of these things belongs together..."

Holy Reading Comprehension, Batman....I would've thought that I was obviously being sarcastic in that post, but I guess not....


----------



## KaosDevice (Sep 8, 2005)

rpghost said:
			
		

> It is my feeling that we're in a cyclical down tread in this industry (much to do with the burnout of d20) along with some major new factors pulling at our customers purse strings:
> 
> - Gas Prices
> - World of Warcraft
> ...




Bing! I think non-game related money concerns may be the hugest part of this whole picture. Games (in spite of what some on the board may think  ) are luxury items after all.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> There has certainly been some more reasonable data presented from both sides.  But I think you are being overly forgiving of one side here.
> There has been a lot of comments that are talkign about decade long trends and implying (if not outright stating) that it is all coming to a head right now.  I think that is well over the top.  It is a slump.  It happens.



Not to mention the claims that computer games and VR will lead to the death of tabletop RPG's soon, the claims that young people aren't interested in tabletop games anymore so the hobby will soon die off without fresh blood, the claims that sales have dropped so sharply and so quickly that the market is less than half the size it was only a few years ago.  There have been plenty of predictions of either imminent doom, or distant but inevitable doom in this thread.  

There are problems with the current distribution model of tabletop roleplaying games, this leads to a pinch at the retailer level, and is putting a squeeze on smaller companies.  This is not killing the industry.

There may be a general downward trend in sales in RPG's.  All industries have up and down trends.  A rough overall economy, high gas prices, and rising production costs hurt the industry.

Neither of these problems is a critical, mortal blow to RPG's that means the market is "dying".  My posts have been all about showing that the hobby will be here in a decade, or decades from now (if they've gone afield of that, it was me getting off my intended topic).  Some existing companies will doubtless fold, the distribution models may change (I don't think the FLGS is entirely doomed, but there will doubtless be fewer of them), and the overall play style and philosophy will certainly change (a typical new gamer now has pretty different expectations of what the Fantasy genre is than one from 25 years ago, see the "Who is Lieber" thread), but in another 30 years people will be still sitting down and slinging dice and pouring through gaming books, looking over their character sheets and playing heroes and adventurers in a roleplaying game.  D&D will almost certainly be the flagship, but there will be a constellation of less successful and lesser known games each with a small but highly loyal fanbase.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 8, 2005)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> Bing! I think non-game related money concerns may be the hugest part of this whole picture. Games (in spite of what some on the board may think  ) are luxury items after all.



 That's a dirty lie and you know it! Take it back or we'll vote you off ENWorld!!


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You quoted my sarcastic slap at another poster as proof of hyperbole?  Compare it to everything else I've said in this thread...."which of these things belongs together..."
> 
> Holy Reading Comprehension, Batman....I would've thought that I was obviously being sarcastic in that post, but I guess not....




It was clear that you were being sarcastic.  Further, the specific sarcastic point was that the other poster had NOT achieved these things.  

Sometimes reading comprehension is limited by the quality of the writing, Robin.


----------



## smcrey (Sep 8, 2005)

Gaming items are definitely a luxury item. I have a wife and 2 children who i have to look after and they come first before any gaming purchases. in regards to what i purchase, i have been extremely loyal to the Dungeons and Dragons brand for eighteen years. if it has Dungeons and Dragons on it then i buy it.  the d20 market has made some great games, but they tend to go against some canonical elements of Dungeons and Dragons. i am not a fan of pdfs for the simple fact that i do not have a hard copy at my disposal. if they would produce actual books out of the pdfs, then it would create interest to me. I would like to thank all of the publishers and enworld members who are Passionate and responsible enough to worry about the RPG market. Kudos!  just my 2 cents.


----------



## GMSkarka (Sep 8, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> A rough overall economy, high gas prices, and rising production costs hurt the industry.




Part of the problem is that until we entered the 21st century, common wisdom was that the industry was recession-proof, as it had thrived through the economic downturns that had previously occurred.


----------



## TFJ3 (Sep 8, 2005)

I wonder if, based on these numbers, what we're seeing isn't as much a general decline of the industry as much as the beginning of the end of the FLGS. 

Late 1Q2005 was the first time locally (Atlanta, GA) I've seen major booksellers like B&N and Borders all properly stocking D&D and a handful of other RPGs. During the same period of time our oldest FLGS (well stocked/run store in business for over 28 years) saw their sales plummet and closed down at the end of August. I would wonder if that sort of thing is happening in other markets as well and is therefore what is causing those C&GR numbers to drop so rapidly.

If this is what's happening, I guess what we'll see in fairly short order (12-24 months) is that companies which can't sell through major booksellers will either have to make a transition to direct sales or pdf or go under. This isn't to say the FLGS will vanish entirely, but rather that there won't be enough of them to be primary source of sales for a given product. (Which actually as I look at decisions made by publishers like Hero Games and Guardians of Order, may well be what's happening already.) This would also logically lead to an increasing number of high-priced products where the publisher has to move less units to make the same profit. (Which again may already be what's happening resulting in products like the Wilderlands boxed set and Ptolus.)


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 8, 2005)

TFJ3 said:
			
		

> I wonder if, based on these numbers, what we're seeing isn't as much a general decline of the industry as much as the beginning of the end of the FLGS.
> 
> Late 1Q2005 was the first time locally (Atlanta, GA) I've seen major booksellers like B&N and Borders all properly stocking D&D and a handful of other RPGs. During the same period of time our oldest FLGS (well stocked/run store in business for over 28 years) saw their sales plummet and closed down at the end of August. I would wonder if that sort of thing is happening in other markets as well and is therefore what is causing those C&GR numbers to drop so rapidly.
> 
> If this is what's happening, I guess what we'll see in fairly short order (12-24 months) is that companies which can't sell through major booksellers will either have to make a transition to direct sales or pdf or go under. This isn't to say the FLGS will vanish entirely, but rather that there won't be enough of them to be primary source of sales for a given product. (Which actually as I look at decisions made by publishers like Hero Games and Guardians of Order, may well be what's happening already.) This would also logically lead to an increasing number of high-priced products where the publisher has to move less units to make the same profit. (Which again may already be what's happening resulting in products like the Wilderlands boxed set and Ptolus.)





This is a good insight.

Id also add to this the lovely and wonderful fact that when you're a small publisher a lot of time distributors just dont even bother to pay you. That factors in companies' decisions to try and avoid the distribution chain as much as possible as well.

Chuck


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 8, 2005)

TFJ3 said:
			
		

> Late 1Q2005 was the first time locally (Atlanta, GA) I've seen major booksellers like B&N and Borders all properly stocking D&D and a handful of other RPGs.




I lived up in Woodstock, GA for about 9 years...the nearby B&N in Kennesaw has carried RPG books for as long as I can remember. In fact, pretty much all the bookstores always have. Media Play even does. So this isn't really anything THAT new.


----------



## TFJ3 (Sep 8, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I lived up in Woodstock, GA for about 9 years...the nearby B&N in Kennesaw has carried RPG books for as long as I can remember. In fact, pretty much all the bookstores always have. Media Play even does. So this isn't really anything THAT new.




Actually, then they were the exception rather than the rule. Most (and I had actually thought all) of the B&N stores in the metro area made a decision in the mid-late 90's to completely quit carrying RPGs as they were seen a high-shrinkage, low-profit item. (Knew someone who worked as a manager at the Dunwoody one back then.) They started bringing them back in 2004, but even then they were only carrying the core rule books and no supplements. At the same time stores like Borders, which already carried RPGs (though only WotC & White Wolf), have now gone so far as to add branded shelving prominently displaying (face-out) D&D products. They've also started picking up additional lines such as the new Warhammer Fantasy RPG, which while they've had the odd core rulebook for another RPG from time to time, is the first time I've seen them actually stocking an entire line which wasn't produced by White Wolf or WotC.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 9, 2005)

TFJ3 said:
			
		

> Actually, then they were the exception rather than the rule. Most (and I had actually thought all) of the B&N stores in the metro area made a decision in the mid-late 90's to completely quit carrying RPGs as they were seen a high-shrinkage, low-profit item. (Knew someone who worked as a manager at the Dunwoody one back then.) They started bringing them back in 2004, but even then they were only carrying the core rule books and no supplements. At the same time stores like Borders, which already carried RPGs (though only WotC & White Wolf), have now gone so far as to add branded shelving prominently displaying (face-out) D&D products. They've also started picking up additional lines such as the new Warhammer Fantasy RPG, which while they've had the odd core rulebook for another RPG from time to time, is the first time I've seen them actually stocking an entire line which wasn't produced by White Wolf or WotC.




Hmm...well, its not just Georgia that I've found non-gaming stores to have been carrying RPGs for a while. Here in G'ville, FL, I've been able to find RPG books all over the place for years. There IS the possibility that that's because this is a college town, but still, IME, book stores carrying RPGs really isn't very new at all(especially not 2005 new).

EDIT: Oh, and welcome to the boards!


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 9, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Pramas
> Sorry, but that's a bunch of bull. What we've seen over the past decade, in fact, is the shifting of more and more of the risk to the manufacturer. The pre-order system is completely broken, so every print run done is just a guess. Distributors, who used to buy up a six month supply of a good title, don't want more than a couple of week's worth on hand. They'd rather do it "just in time", which can often lead to lost sales. Neither retailers nor distributors want to take much risk, and yet every year we hear the usual complaints from retailers about manufacturers selling direct at cons and online.




I think the distributors are the biggest problem right now, at least from my admittedly biased perspective.

The only serious bump in the road RPGO has experienced lately in this "shrinking market" hasn't been from a decline in sales, its been from a distributor who didn't pay us.

Chuck


----------



## drothgery (Sep 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I lived up in Woodstock, GA for about 9 years...the nearby B&N in Kennesaw has carried RPG books for as long as I can remember. In fact, pretty much all the bookstores always have. Media Play even does. So this isn't really anything THAT new.




When I lived in upstate NY (~5-15 years ago), the local Borders and B&N stores I went to never carried RPG books (though Media Play and Waldenbooks did); here in San Diego, the B&N-owned or affiliated Bookstar (which is the closest big box bookstore, and the only one I ever go to; I buy 99% of my books -- both fiction and RPG -- from Amazon) had an almost non-existent RPG section (basically the D&D core books and the Vampire core books stuffed in corner shelf in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section) until recently. Now they seem to have most new stuff from WotC and White Wolf, plus a few relatively high-profile hardcovers from smaller publishers.


----------



## Kradlo (Sep 9, 2005)

I'm an oldtime gamer (from '77), playing D&D and countless other RPGs.  I'm a strong supporter of my Friendly Local Game Store, and do my best to support the industry.  That means that I spend my money at the FLGS, and usually only ordering online such products that it doesn't carry.

My miniature collection would surpass most game stores.  Okay, most three game stores.  Some day, I'll paint them all... assuming that I suddenly had unlimited free time (I paint very well, but oh so slowly).

When the new lead hits the store, I want it, and I get it.  But even I can't get it all, because in the real world there are limits to disposable income.

Lately, my FLGS has been ailing for sales.  They've stopped keeping up with the new Reaper releases, which has caused me to diminish my buying habits there.  Another FLGS has opened up in the area, and now I'm torn between loyalty to my old store, and the bright, shiny new one.  The guy that runs it is really cool, and is even running monthly miniature painting contests.  It does my heart good to see that kind of person running a game store, but I know that he's facing innumerable obstacles to success.  Online sales from sellers that don't have to pay rent on brick-and-mortar stores are hard to compete against, especially when those sellers don't charge sales tax for out-of-state sales.  Don't get me wrong, I love a good deal and an attractive discount, but I've got to put my money where my mouth is, so I tend to spend it at these stores.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, maybe I'm deliberately passing up bargains that another will happily accept, but I know that my hobby is supported by the people that run our FLGS.  I may pay a little more (i.e., retail), but I get a place that really cares about the games, and the gamers.

I want my industry to continue.  As such, I have to support it, and that means buying the books, buying the figures, and the like.  Sure, I didn't need another D20, but playing with a huge brushed steel D20 for Iron Heroes was too cool to pass up.  I still have to be selective in what I buy, but that's always going to be the case.  Sometimes I've waited to pick up a book because I didn't have a use for it at the time.  I was going to pass up Iron Heroes until my group decided to try it out.  I'm glad they did, and glad I picked up the book.

To those out there that only shop online because you think you're getting a bargain, remember that bargain when your job gets outsourced to another country that will do it cheaper.  Barnes & Noble online just isn't the same as a real game store.  If I want a new paperback, I'll hit B&N, but when I want game product, it's my FLGS.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 9, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Thank's a lot for that. That was very interesting.
> 
> As a big company of print RPGs that also sells pdfs, I was wondering if you could comment on how large is the pdf RPG buisness from your prespective anyway? I realize it's probably much smaller, but I'm wondering just how much of your revenue comes from online pdf versus print products. Are the pdf sales 1% of your RPG revenues? 5%? 10%? What's the scale of their impact?
> 
> Of course, you're free to ignore the question. I'll just keep on living in ignorance.




As I said before, I'll chip in where I can.

As a percentage, you are looking at something like 0.0002%   However, that is no slight on PDFs, as far as they go - we have just never really attacked that market in any meaningful form.  The problem, you see, is that we have to make a conscious decision to make something a PDF as, up until it goes to print, much of the design process is the same - with the same attendant costs.  Once you have a final product ready to go, it is all too easy to acknowledge that a paper product will sell more units for more revenue.

That said, we have been fairly astonished with sales via Drivethru - they do not seem to eat our existing paper sales and they amount to thousands of Dollars every month.


----------



## rpghost (Sep 9, 2005)

smcrey said:
			
		

> i am not a fan of pdfs for the simple fact that i do not have a hard copy at my disposal. if they would produce actual books out of the pdfs, then it would create interest to me.




I hope you know that many books at RPGnow.com are now available in high quality print versions from our store.

James


----------



## rpghost (Sep 9, 2005)

TFJ3 said:
			
		

> Late 1Q2005 was the first time locally (Atlanta, GA) I've seen major booksellers like B&N and Borders all properly stocking D&D and a handful of other RPGs. During the same period of time our oldest FLGS (well stocked/run store in business for over 28 years) saw their sales plummet and closed down at the end of August. I would wonder if that sort of thing is happening in other markets as well and is therefore what is causing those C&GR numbers to drop so rapidly.




The same exact story here in Milwaukee with another 25+ year old store. I do think that B&N and Amazon are hurting the core sales of WOTC products from LGS. Add to that the dive of non-WOTC d20 product sales and it's not hard to see why stores of having trouble. Not to mention that most of the CCG department is stagnent and no new fad has it in a while. (Believe it or not there are many stores that make it only by riding one fad to the other).

James


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 9, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Trying to put this politely as possible:  Matt's statements have been, shall we say, historically divergent from things that I've heard about Mongoose's operations, from people who have since been let go.




Well, after  being called a liar outright, I can be somewhat less polite.  This is coming from a guy who was never particularly successful while involved with a print company, who likes to pick fights on forums, who was forced out of his last print business by his own partners and who has busted every deadline he ever accepted while trying to freelance for Mongoose (we told him not to bother in the end).  He is also persisting in the use of C&GR figures after I pointed out that more solid information is waiting for anyone in the industry with the nous to find it.

On to his particular point about comments from people let go from Mongoose - remember, that is an enjoyable euphemism for being fired.  We have no gag orders on such people and we know they have portrayed us in a less than nice light.  Probably something to do with having being fired.

Also, remember my comment in the first post about employees of companies not having the full picture - the only people who know anything about the sales, costs and finances of Mongoose are myself and my business partner, Alex.  No one else can talk with any authority about these things.

One thing to consider.  Suppose, just for a moment, I was indeed lying about how Mongoose is doing.  How would we have been able to release plastic miniatures, open a seperate miniatures production facility in Ohio, move into not-exactly-small offices (you can see the pictures of the place in our magazine, even if you cannot attend our regular Open Days), and still pay the salaries of over 20 staff members?

It would just not make sense. . .


----------



## rpghost (Sep 9, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> As a percentage, you are looking at something like 0.0002%   However, that is no slight on PDFs, as far as they go - we have just never really attacked that market in any meaningful form.  The problem, you see, is that we have to make a conscious decision to make something a PDF as, up until it goes to print, much of the design process is the same - with the same attendant costs.  Once you have a final product ready to go, it is all too easy to acknowledge that a paper product will sell more units for more revenue.
> 
> That said, we have been fairly astonished with sales via Drivethru - they do not seem to eat our existing paper sales and they amount to thousands of Dollars every month.





To be fair (or shed some other light on this), Mongoose products at RPGNow have done ok, but not steller, mainly cause they have been second class products. There are several other vendors (5-10 usually each month) that are getting "thousands of dollars" from pdf sales each month. And we too see it not caniblizing their print sales. 

Now that many DTRPG vendors are using watermarks (which also isn't very secure) and see their sales sky rocket, just think what a store with 80,000 customers could do for you...

James


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> ... I still refute it, because that's the same with most hobby industries, with some exceptions (like model railways, which are usually too expensive for younger people without approprate income). It's not the feature of the product you mentioned, the indestructible manual, that leads to the decline of the hobby, because music CDs are equally indestructible. It's the inability to win young customers. That's something different from what you claimed.




The inability to win young customers is one factor.  The inability to _keep_ older players buying new products is also a factor -- viz. an 'impact' on long-term viability.  That was my point.  And it is an impact worth noting if the average age of your market is getting older (which is true of RPGs).  So I fail to see how you refuted my original claim (a poor analogy with the pop music industry isn't adequate -- the RPG market is simply too different).


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 9, 2005)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Funny thing about CG&R, a little while ago they went from voluntary reports where we could just tell them what we did as retailers, to a more in depth data-mining effort where they wanted actual sales records. Many stores don't have a POS and inventory system to track each and every sale precisely. As a result, far fewer stores report their sales (I know I don't any longer) and the most likely to be able to meet their requirements are comic book shops, which should sell fewer titles than your dedicated FLGS.  Funny thing is, the change in methodology occured about the same time as the appearant decline.
> 
> I happen to know that there is a decline, because much of my competition has gone away, but I haven't seen it in RPGs on the retail level. What I have seen from a publishing level is that even though Living Arcanis is larger than ever, the distributors are ordering less and less. So much so, that they have to reorder our titles immediately (and I do mean same day) upon their arrival in their warehouse. Not only do distributors make no effort to have a month's supply, they often fail to maintain even a *single day's* supply. This doesn't apply to all distributors, some are plugged in enough to know the demand for Arcanis titles.




For those trying to keep track of what is actually going on - it is worth paying attention to all of this.

Excellent post.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 9, 2005)

Kradlo said:
			
		

> To those out there that only shop online because you think you're getting a bargain, remember that bargain when your job gets outsourced to another country that will do it cheaper.  Barnes & Noble online just isn't the same as a real game store.  If I want a new paperback, I'll hit B&N, but when I want game product, it's my FLGS.




I doubt if buying from your FLGS (which for me, typically means wandering into a dark, god-forsaken store far from my home to deal with a greasy teenager behind the counter who's rude to me) rather than Amazon.com is going to have any impact on whether your job gets outsourced. It just means that you have less savings to cushion you when the shoe drops.

I'm not going to miss the terrible FLGSes near me when they go.


----------



## Krug (Sep 9, 2005)

Well one sign that the d20 market is drying up; almost 1/3 of the month is gone, but over at RPGNow.com, there's only been 38 d20 products that have sold 5 or more this month. But it does look like other non-d20 RPG products are selling pretty well.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The inability to win young customers is one factor.




That 'inability' is a myth spread by gamers who have gotten older and no longer have any real contact with younger gamers. D&D is out there in schools, churches, homes, and all the things it always was in, you just don't see it as much anymore because they ARE young gamers...and a majority of them still see D&D(or RPing in general) as a stigma and do their best to keep the fact that they play to themselves and their group.


----------



## smcrey (Sep 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> That 'inability' is a myth spread by gamers who have gotten older and no longer have any real contact with younger gamers. D&D is out there in schools, churches, homes, and all the things it always was in, you just don't see it as much anymore because they ARE young gamers...and a majority of them still see D&D(or RPing in general) as a stigma and do their best to keep the fact that they play to themselves and their group.



 i tend to agree that they are out there. i attend Radford University and for my Adolescent Literature course i picked the fantasy element for my paper(s). what is interesting is that we have a pen pal project starting up in which we will exchange emails with a local seventh grade student. i will definitely address my love for Dungeons and Dragons and rpgs. i hope that it will create an interest in the younger generation. if you have any suggestions on bringing attention of the young ones into our hobby, please let me know!


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> ..
> I'm not going to miss the terrible FLGSes near me when they go.




I will (and the ones I frequent are not 'terrible').

The FLGS provides an essential service: the ability to browse or 'read through' RPGs that you would not otherwise have encountered.

They also provide a location to consult with other people about products.

Don't sneer at the utility of FLGSs!  Their disappearance will be a great loss to the community.


----------



## smcrey (Sep 9, 2005)

rpghost said:
			
		

> I hope you know that many books at RPGnow.com are now available in high quality print versions from our store.
> 
> James



 thanks , i will definitely look into it


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The FLGS provides an essential service: the ability to browse or 'read through' RPGs that you would not otherwise have encountered.
> 
> They also provide a location to consult with other people about products.
> 
> Don't sneer at the utility of FLGSs!  Their disappearance will be a great loss to the community.




- the ability to browse or read is juast as well served by publisher's web-sites or Amazon.com's "browse the book" feature
- enworld is a fine location to consult with others about products

If FLGSs have utility, then they will be commercially successful enough to stay afloat. My guess is that as long as you have an internet connection their value add isn't enough to compensate for their increased cost and relatively low quality of service. Some exceptionally well-run stores will have no trouble surviving, but the majority of them will probably go under or serve a different hobby market.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> That 'inability' is a myth spread by gamers who have gotten older and no longer have any real contact with younger gamers. ...




I have plenty of contact with younger gamers (at least at the University level, ages 18-22).  There are indeed lots of young RPG players.  But there are fewer than there were in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The fact that there are fewer young RPG players today doesn not mean that there are still not substantial numbers of young RPG players.  Punk music is less popular than it was in the late 1970s, but there are still plenty of punk fans in their teens and 20s.

Don't equate 'relative decline' with 'disappearance'.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The inability to win young customers is one factor.  The inability to _keep_ older players buying new products is also a factor -- viz. an 'impact' on long-term viability.  That was my point.  And it is an impact worth noting if the average age of your market is getting older (which is true of RPGs).  So I fail to see how you refuted my original claim (a poor analogy with the pop music industry isn't adequate -- the RPG market is simply too different).



*shrug*

Fact is that nearly all hobby markets see a constant stream of people coming into the hobby and others leaving the hobby again. There's absolutely nothing remarkable about this fact. When people grow up, get married and get children, that's what happens most of the time. It's only remarkable if there is an imbalance of both streams. As there is not much you can do about people leaving the hobby (it's mostly circumstantial), the important point is the other side, winning new people over.

So, maybe "refute" wasn't the adequate word. Perhaps, calling your statement a truism fits the situation better.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> - the ability to browse or read is juast as well served by publisher's web-sites or Amazon.com's "browse the book" feature...




Rubbish.  The 'browse the book' feature only lets you look at certain chapters of the book in question (usually only the first 1-2 chapters).  You can't get a decent overall feel of the product that way (at least I can't, and I am sure others prefer to look at the entire book as well).



			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> ...
> - enworld is a fine location to consult with others about products...




Enworld is a fine place, but probably less than 1 percent of RPG players frequent this place.



			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> ...
> If FLGSs have utility, then they will be commercially successful enough to stay afloat...




Not necessarily.  Social utility does not necessarily equal economic viability.   Libraries have huge social utility, but generally could not be successfully run without public subsidies.  If FLGSs die out, it will likely because people choose to buy from Amazon instead (after browsing at their FLGS, etc.).   And once they are gone, they will have to buy based on the limited knowledge Amazon is _willing_ to provide. 

If the FLGS dies out, it will not be the end of the world.  But please do not generalize about FLGSs based on you own, rather unfortunate and limited, experience.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> But there are fewer than there were in the late 1980s and early 1990s.




And you know this...how?


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> *shrug* ...
> 
> So, maybe "refute" wasn't the adequate word. Perhaps, calling your statement a truism fits the situation better.




My statement is _not_ a 'truism', since it is _not_ 'true by definition'.  My statement is not true of all hobbies.  Moreover, your reply was a generalization based on a bad analogy, and a claim about 'hobbies in general', as well as a misunderstanding of my original point (which, I confess, may not have been explained in the clearest manner possible).

There is indeed nothing remarkable about the fact that 'nearly all hobby markets see a constant stream of people coming into the hobby and others leaving the hobby again'.  The interesting question is the extent to which different hobbies have different turnover rates (i.e. are capable of retaining existing players), are capable of 'growing' in terms of players, and so forth.

(And in any case, there are hobbies that are pretty successfull in encouraging existing participants to 'upgrade' on a regular basis -- e.g. CCGs, video games [or whatever they're called now -- that stuff involving the X-box, etc.], music CDs, mini wargames like GW Warhammer, etc.)



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> ...  It's only remarkable if there is an imbalance of both streams. As there is not much you can do about people leaving the hobby (it's mostly circumstantial), the important point is the other side, winning new people over...




The fact that people 'leave the hobby', or choose not to 'upgrade', is an _impact_ on the market.  Other hobbies do _not_ see this same phenomenon.  Some can retain existing players more successfully than RPGs, or, more importantly, are more successful in convincing existing players to buy new products.  This problem is likely something intrinsic to the nature of RPGs (for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post), and is an 'impact' on the market.

As for your claim that 'the important point is the other side, winning people over ...', well, no kidding.  Thanks for the revelation.  However, my point was not about 'market strategy'.  It had to do with a possible problem intrinsic to the RPG market.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> video games [or whatever they're called now -- that stuff involving the X-box, etc




Hah!

Akrasia's officially old.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And you know this...how?




I can only speak from experience.  I've had knowledge of RPG club memberships at nine different universities from 1988-2004 (I've attended 4 of those universities; the data from the other five came from friends involved in other clubs).  Overall membership numbers have declined since 1988, though with some spikes in particular years.  (It would be incorrect for me to generalize on the basis of those numbers to _all_ universities, obviously.)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I can only speak from experience.  I've had knowledge of RPG club memberships at nine different universities from 1988-2004 (I've attended 4 of those universities; the data from the other five came from friends involved in other clubs).  Overall membership numbers have declined since 1988, though with some spikes in particular years.  (It would be incorrect for me to generalize on the basis of those numbers to _all_ universities, obviously.)



 Intersting...I've noticed that(these days at least), D&D seems to be much, much more popular among Middle/High School age students. It was all over both High Schools I attended(both in different States, even), and many people around my age seem to have seen the same thing.

Maybe the 'young gamer' demographic is just younger than College Age and simply stops playing when they head off to a University and lose their groups?


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Hah!
> 
> Akrasia's officially old.




You kids!  Get off my lawn!!!


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ... Maybe the 'young gamer' demographic is just younger than College Age and simply stops playing when they head off to a University and lose their groups?




When I was in high-school (1984-88), D&D was _huge_.  (And geeky.)   There were clubs, etc.  A television crew even showed up at my high-school one day to report on our game.  

As for my (highly nonscientific) report, two of the university clubs were in Canada, one in the U.K, and the rest in the U.S. (NY, Michigan, and California).


----------



## Turjan (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The fact that people 'leave the hobby', or choose not to 'upgrade', is an _impact_ on the market.  Other hobbies do _not_ see this same phenomenon.  Some can retain existing players more successfully than RPGs, or, more importantly, are more successful in convincing existing players to buy new products.  This problem is likely something intrinsic to the nature of RPGs (for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post), and is an 'impact' on the market.



Thank you for this remarkably fuzzy explanation. Which are those hobbies that successfully keep their players across the hurdles that the time necessary for a successful career and a family pose? It's simply a fact that most people stop playing at that age, no matter what kind of game. The same is true for buying pop records and other activities typical for younger people, who keep up with the newest fad. As I said, it's mostly circumstantial. That's nothing specific for RPGs. That's why I think this aspect is unimportant.



> As for your claim that 'the important point is the other side, winning people over ...', well, no kidding.  Thanks for the revelation.  However, my point was not about 'market strategy'.  It had to do with a possible problem intrinsic to the RPG market.



Well, to put it bluntly: You yourself spoke of a greying player base. For me that expression illustrates the whole problem intrinsic to the RPG market .


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2005)

Well, I mentioned this before, but it seems to have gotten a tad lost in the wash.  I game over OpenRPG, which, I admit, is hardly completely representative of the gaming community, but, there's no reason it doesn't at least give a bit of an idea.

In all of my games, and the games of the DM's I speak to, about 1/4 of their and my players are under 18.  I've gone through 25 players and had about 6 high school students in my games over the years.  Others have anecdotally mentioned similar numbers.  Again, take from it what you will.  But, I would be curious about something like GhostOrb.  On their site, they apparently have about 500 members.  I would be very interested in how many are teens.  I know at the forum which hosts my game and about a dozen other games, d20 and not, the numbers are all around 25% for the under 18 crowd.  Hardly a small number of new gamers coming up through the ranks.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Thank you for this remarkably fuzzy explanation....




Sorry.  



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> ...
> Which are those hobbies that successfully keep their players across the hurdles that the time necessary for a successful career and a family pose? It's simply a fact that most people stop playing at that age, no matter what kind of game....




Actually, different hobbies _do_ retain players at highly different rates.  I would be surprised if you dispute this.  Playing something like poker, chess, or a computer game, requires far less investment -- both in terms of preparation and scheduling -- than RPGs.  Thus there are hobbies that people find themselves able to to continue, despite family and careers, unlike RPGs (which are very time-intensive, and require careful scheduling, etc.).

Different hobbies face different attrition rates in the face of competing time demands on players.



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, to put it bluntly: You yourself spoke of a greying player base. For me that expression illustrates the whole problem intrinsic to the RPG market .




Fair enough.   I agree that recruiting new players is very important, and didn't mean to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 9, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> How's this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about going back to his original post in this thread, rather than a smart-alecky response that he made to somebody outside the industry (who has no idea what they are talking about) telling him that he has no idea what he is talking about.

If you go back to his original post, he basically said that he agreed that the industry was shrinking, not dying. End of story.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 9, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Actually, different hobbies _do_ retain players at highly different rates.  I would be surprised if you dispute this.  Playing something like poker, chess, or a computer game, requires far less investment -- both in terms of preparation and scheduling -- than RPGs.  Thus there are hobbies that people find themselves able to to continue, despite family and careers, unlike RPGs (which are very time-intensive, and require careful scheduling, etc.).



Sure, some people always keep playing something. That's not the rule, though. But to shorten this to the main point: if the player base is greying, this means that RPGs do a remarkably good job in keeping the players in the hobby .


----------



## Turjan (Sep 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> How about going back to his original post in this thread, rather than a smart-alecky response that he made to somebody outside the industry (who has no idea what they are talking about) telling him that he has no idea what he is talking about.
> 
> If you go back to his original post, he basically said that he agreed that the industry was shrinking, not dying. End of story.



Sorry, this original remark was directed at me. Sure, I'm not in the industry. Nevertheless, I can see when someone is making up stuff from some data points. At least, I expect his conclusions to fit the data points. As even this condition was not met, I pointed this out. As the addressed was running out of arguments, I got this wonderfully snarky response. Tell me who's being smart-alecky here .

And perhaps it doesn't hurt if you read up on the whole exchange yourself .


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 9, 2005)

TFJ3 said:
			
		

> I wonder if, based on these numbers, what we're seeing isn't as much a general decline of the industry as much as the beginning of the end of the FLGS.



Well, I know from sources on one industry list that there is normally a cycle of stores closing and new stores opening. The speculation there is basically that there used to be more opening than were closing, but right now there are more closing than opening (hence some shrinkage in the market). The retailers on this list really tend to dislike online stores, especially the deep discounters, and tend to lay a lot of blame on them. Of course they also dislike the PDF market as well, but that is another story. 


			
				TFJ3 said:
			
		

> If this is what's happening, I guess what we'll see in fairly short order (12-24 months) is that companies which can't sell through major booksellers will either have to make a transition to direct sales or pdf or go under.



Or both... And some companies have already done this.







			
				TFJ3 said:
			
		

> This isn't to say the FLGS will vanish entirely, but rather that there won't be enough of them to be primary source of sales for a given product. (Which actually as I look at decisions made by publishers like Hero Games and Guardians of Order, may well be what's happening already.)



Yup, exactly.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Sep 9, 2005)

Interesting discussion with some very varied  and  valid perspectives- I think that the topic is important and relevant to all of us as such, we should discuss this in a positive manner and try and remember to be polite, considerate and good to one another lest the thread be closed.

Is the hobby shrinking? Quite possibly, the only fact i have is that everyone i game with is in their late 20s- early thirties- i dont see any new people or kids playing. Note that this is only an opinion based on my very limited, immediate environment.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 9, 2005)

I can't speak for any other part of the country, but in Denver, the hobby is (proportionately) very successful and growing.  Denver has nine FLGSes with in-store gaming, and only two of those don't host RPG sessions at least twice a month.  At least two routinely host more than four RPG sessions per month.  The player base is very young; more than 50% of the players I've met are under 21.  And contra the early-90s hysteria, collectible games have demonstrated again and again that, at least in this area, they serve as a sort of "entry drug" to either wargames or RPGs.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> How about going back to his original post in this thread, rather than a smart-alecky response that he made to somebody outside the industry (who has no idea what they are talking about) telling him that he has no idea what he is talking about.
> 
> If you go back to his original post, he basically said that he agreed that the industry was shrinking, not dying. End of story.




Shrug.  I'm not even going to bother trying to acount for everything that may have been said 400 posts back.  

The clear tone has been established that this is a big deal.  I reject that claim and haven't seen any data posted yet that makes me re-visit that.  This is nothing more than the latest pass through a cyclic thing.  And if that's what he is trying to say then he needs to find a job that doesn't involve the written word.

I've seen statements (from others) claiming steady yearly declines and a total absence of data that actually supports that.  Then I've seen people show data that refutes it and the people with "secret" data basically say to ignore the man behind the curtain.  

GMSkarka put up data that was supposed to support a drop and pretty well proved the absence of any real trend at all.  And that was before the data was accused of being skewed.  I haven't seen any good rebuttal of that accusation.  At the end of the first data post, GMSkarka said "things are hurting".  The context of this thread is the market as a whole.  In that context, things are not hurting.  There may be some vendors that are hurting.  The difference between a vendor and the market is a point I've been making over and over.

So you can call one statement the "end of story", but that doesn't make it so.  Other things have been said that are well worth closer scrutiny and critic.


----------



## Fate Lawson (Sep 9, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> As I said before, I'll chip in where I can.
> 
> As a percentage, you are looking at something like 0.0002%   However, that is no slight on PDFs, as far as they go - we have just never really attacked that market in any meaningful form.  The problem, you see, is that we have to make a conscious decision to make something a PDF as, up until it goes to print, much of the design process is the same - with the same attendant costs.  Once you have a final product ready to go, it is all too easy to acknowledge that a paper product will sell more units for more revenue.
> 
> That said, we have been fairly astonished with sales via Drivethru - they do not seem to eat our existing paper sales and they amount to thousands of Dollars every month.




So much so that you obviously feel it has enough potential to warrant your own full-scale entry into the distribution end.

www.wargamingonline.com

Edit: Ooops, my bad. That link doesn't seem to work yet. Instead see this thread on MGP's own boards:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10011


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 9, 2005)

Fate Lawson said:
			
		

> So much so that you obviously feel it has enough potential to warrant your own full-scale entry into the distribution end.




Umm. . .  

What do you mean by 'so much so'?  It sounds as though you think I was talking PDFs down.

Not in the least.  They have a very definite market.  What I said was that you have to make a conscious choice to make something as a PDF - for 99% of everything Mongoose does, Mongoose is better off with a paper release.

However, RPGNow was a _fantastic_ idea.  As good an idea (if not as profitable ) as eBay.  As we move into the miniatures market, it makes sense to bring the ideas we learned in the RPG market with us.  To a degree, at least, PDFs seem to make more sense in miniatures games than they do in RPGs. . .


----------



## Fate Lawson (Sep 9, 2005)

> What do you mean by 'so much so'? It sounds as though you think I was talking PDFs down.




Ooops, sorry...bad phraseology on my part. I didn't mean it to sound snarky or confrontational. Just thought I'd point it out as a display of how the industries distribution channels are (or should be) changing/expanding. The old content delivery methods aren't enough.


----------



## Solauren (Sep 9, 2005)

Maybe I should wade in a little here.

My RPG purchases have gone way down in the last year - year and a half.

Why?

Well, partially because, there is nothing new coming out to interest me or grab my attention.

And I mean this as in 'new concept', as well as 'new content'.

Sci-Fi and 'Modern' RPG stuff?  Doesn't interest me, so there goes alot of RPG content right there and there.

So, staying in fantasy

What could interest me?

New Classes?
Probably not.   I own enough books that my 'class count' is at least 2,469  (i'm still putting stuff into my inventory list/database)

New Feats?
1,537 in my list and still putting them in.

New Monsters?
5,055 in the list/database, and I still have to put in the contents of at least 5 monster books (the 2 Mongoose Encyclopedia's, my everquest monster books, and I think there's another one.)

New Races?
NO idea how many i have.  Most of my players run elves or half-elves

New Magic Items?
2135 and climbing, and I still haven't begun converting the old 2e Encyclopedia Magica

New Spells?
7787 D20 (there may be more, as this is just going by unique names.    You'd be amazed how many spells have close to the same name but do different things).   Probably 200 homebrew, and at least 9843 spells from pre-d20 Dungeons and Dragons (both old TSR spells, and stuff from long gone Internet sources like the Great Net Book of Spells), and both of those lists are still growin!
I'm even working on converting stuff from Everquest's mana system, and Guardian's of Orders magic system for Slayers.  (Surprisingly easy actually)

You really, really, really have to come up with something new to get my attention and want to buy it (on that note, I still grab up new Forgotten Realms supplements, and any new book that has more spells in it that gets my attention.   I'm practically the Order of the Book without any help....)

With me, it's just, when my RPG collection is totally taken into account, about everything's been covered.

Gothic Horror?  Ravenloft
Oriental?   Rokugan, Kara-tur
Alternate Worlds:  Pick one!  I have like 10 of them (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Scarred Lands, Mystara/Known World, Rokugan, Spelljammer, the Realms, and various one shots from Dragon Magazine)
Cyberpunkish?  Steampunk? Got those covered.

In the end, I don't need anymore.

I also bough a house last year, so money's been tight


----------



## jcfiala (Sep 9, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I can't speak for any other part of the country, but in Denver, the hobby is (proportionately) very successful and growing.




Denver also just had one of it's gaming conventions - Tacticon.  And even with some people not showing up (generally one-day people, probably because they were coming from far away and didn't want to deal with the higher costs of gas), we still did a bang-up business in sitting gamers in seats and having a good time.


----------



## William Ronald (Sep 9, 2005)

I am uncertain of the market's current health and the long term prospects, although I do appreciate the insights provided by people in this thread.  Despite the differences in opinions and data, I believe that the posters in this thread are passionate about our hobby.


I think one thing that both industry professionals as well as gamers in general can focus on is recruiting new people to gaming.  As that is a different topic from the health of the market, I started a new thread called Attracting new people to gaming -- ideas and strategies .


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 9, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Well, after  being called a liar outright, I can be somewhat less polite.  This is coming from a guy who was never particularly successful while involved with a print company, who likes to pick fights on forums, who was forced out of his last print business by his own partners and who has busted every deadline he ever accepted while trying to freelance for Mongoose (we told him not to bother in the end).  He is also persisting in the use of C&GR figures after I pointed out that more solid information is waiting for anyone in the industry with the nous to find it.




Well, some prefer discretion. They are not as cavalier about things that might be variously defined as breaches of trust or petty industrial espionage. Of course, people have been known to be cavalier about just such things, haven't they?



> On to his particular point about comments from people let go from Mongoose - remember, that is an enjoyable euphemism for being fired.  We have no gag orders on such people and we know they have portrayed us in a less than nice light.  Probably something to do with having being fired.




One's politeness tends to fray when they work for a penny a word long enough, I hear (be it by contract or by the terms of employment with expected by word rates). Or when they're sacked for the incompetence of their editor because it would be cheaper to sack them -- general incompetence that would lead to the grossest example of plaigiarism ever seen in the industry, in fact. Me, I don't like it when some weasel implies others are to blame for their legal woes just because they chose a stupidly actionable title for their RPG.



> One thing to consider.  Suppose, just for a moment, I was indeed lying about how Mongoose is doing.  How would we have been able to release plastic miniatures, open a seperate miniatures production facility in Ohio, move into not-exactly-small offices (you can see the pictures of the place in our magazine, even if you cannot attend our regular Open Days), and still pay the salaries of over 20 staff members?
> 
> It would just not make sense. . .




Well, that's like 5 staff members in decent-pay-ese, Matt.

As long as you want to be frank and all.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2005)

*sniff sniff*

I smell something burning.  



((Anyone else want some popcorn?))


----------



## MongooseMatt (Sep 9, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, some prefer discretion. They are not as cavalier about things that might be variously defined as breaches of trust or petty industrial espionage. Of course, people have been known to be cavalier about just such things, haven't they?




Okay, I realise that, for whatever reasons, Skarka and yourself have a problem with me. However, I am getting a little tired of these veiled insinuations.

Will you kindly list where I have breached any trust?  Or engaged in industrial espionage, petty or otherwise?



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> One's politeness tends to fray when they work for a penny a word long enough, I hear (be it by contract or by the terms of employment with expected by word rates). Or when they're sacked for the incompetence of their editor because it would be cheaper to sack them -- general incompetence that would lead to the grossest example of plaigiarism ever seen in the industry, in fact. Me, I don't like it when some weasel implies others are to blame for their legal woes just because they chose a stupidly actionable title for their RPG.




Okay, let's tick these off one by one.

No employed writer of Mongoose has ever worked for a penny a word.  Ever.  If a writer proves himself (and that part is critical), he will become one of the highest paid members of Mongoose.

We have only ever offered a penny a word to freelancers for a small amount of PDF work - and we were completely up front about it.  No one who accepted such a contract was surprised and all had the chance to turn it down.

No one has ever been sacked from Mongoose for the incompetence of an editor or any one else.  People _have_ been sacked for taking pay cheques and not doing any work and they have been sacked for gross misconduct - but never for taking the blame for someone else.

I have absolutely _no_ idea what you are talking about with regards to plagiarism or actionable titles.  Again, instead of veiled insinuations, say what is on your mind.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, that's like 5 staff members in decent-pay-ese, Matt.




Mongoose's pay rates are among the best in the industry.  The fact that we insist on a low-paying probationary period for most positions is because we have been burnt in the past.  Some people, including some of your own friends I believe, will actually accept a pay cheque when they have done _no_ work for it.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> As long as you want to be frank and all.




I'll be as open as I can.  Will you?


Still, I have been called a liar and a weasal within a couple of pages - we must be doing something right


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 9, 2005)

*OT: Fantastic Games*



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I bet that's a fascinating story. What did he do to turn his business around and 'buy a clue'? What's his business like? Is he purely an RPG games retailer or does he have things like boardgames, darts, chess, etc in the mix?




Scott always had (and has!) non-RPG materials in the mix. His store has always been dingy, always been a little cluttered, and as long as I've known it (5 years) has always been glutted with RPGs that didn't sell. His traffic was down, his cash flow was poor, and he didn't carry MWDA and Heroclix during their booms because of personal choices and being burned on early Heroclix and some WizKids tourney support. He also steadfastly refused to provide good customer service by not calling when a customer's (sometimes prepaid) order came in. Frustrating, and I only went in when I couldn't get down to Redmond or Bellevue (when the Wizards stores were still around, even though they were terrible experiences).

Then one day last year (I don't recall when, though it was around July 2004), he put all the RPGs on a ridiculous sale - upwards of 40% on most items, always 10% on big ticket "overpriced" hardcovers, and the "crap-peddlers'" wares were effectively free with enough total purchases. It took a while, but he cleared the shelves of all but the most stubborn junk. He even got rid of his extensive Mongoose collection (he recognized they were inconsistently crappy to mediocre, and people who lucked out and got their mediocre stuff didn't think it was worth the risk of buying more crap, so it stopped selling altogether) and all six copies of Love and War! (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=5013&)

At about the same time he added a huge toy section, began carrying D&D miniatures and some clix, and reorganized the store to add more game space (where before he had only one table). He also made the toy guy a store manager. Now the store does brisk business, he carries popular D20 titles and limits his unknown purchases considerably so he carries less dead weight.


----------



## Numion (Sep 9, 2005)

If there is a big decline, it sure is kept out of sights. Great products coming out, bigger products than ever. I'm sorry, but if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog .. 

I mean, if game companies were _this_ adept in hiding the bad times, they'd be working for the government or the MIB.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I mean, if game companies were _this_ adept in hiding the bad times, they'd be working for the government or the MIB.




So, you didn't get the memo? They ARE working for the MIB, all this "roleplaying industry" talk is just a cover up. I mean, just look at it, the "roleplaying industry".  It's a contradiction in terms.  

Maybe we should rename it the "roleplaying playground" ... but I don't think CIA would like that ...   

/M


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 9, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is that until we entered the 21st century, common wisdom was that the industry was recession-proof, as it had thrived through the economic downturns that had previously occurred.



The only industries I can think of that are really "recession proof" are food, utilities & tobacco/alcohol, because even in the worst of times, people still need electricity/water, they need to eat, and they'll want to smoke and drink.  What do people _need_, and what will they always want? 

RPG's are, really, a luxury item.  They are a relatively inexpensive luxury item that has a pretty dedicated consumer base, so it's pretty resistant.  However. . .

The price of gaming books has risen sharply over the last few years.  A typical new book at my FLGS is $40, and less than a decade ago typical new books were almost half that.  In that time, wages haven't increased much (minimum wage hasn't increased a bit), but it looks (from my POV) that the price of RPG's has risen faster than the cost of living in other aspects and way faster than wages.  This means that relatively, gamers have less money to spend on games.

If a gamer has $50 to buy books with in a month (not unreasonable for many gamers I know), not too long ago that could buy you a hardcover and a paperback suppliment (or module), or maybe three paperbacks or two small hardcovers.  Now, it's more likely to be one hardcover, or maybe two cheap paperbacks.  This means fewer companies will have gamers buying their products, since numerically fewer products are being bought, and it looks like that they fall back to the companies they see as the core of their hobby (WotC and WW).

When the economy picks up (it too works in cycles), and there is more disposable income, I think it's safe to say RPG's will benefit from any increase in spending power among its fan base.  I for one know if I had more money, I'd spend at least a fair share of it on RPG's.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 9, 2005)

Woah, far too much bad stuff in this thread at the moment. This forum isn't the place for name calling and airing personal issues, and I don't think this thread has anywhere to go except down from now on.

I'm closing the thread, but if anyone thinks there is a compelling reason for it to stay open, please email me on the link below.


----------

