General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
There's a bit to remember in here too - age. WOTC's market research showed that after about 35, buying goes down. Really down. To the point that they actually stopped looking at anyone over the age of 35 when they started doing market research for 3e.
Look at the age on this board. There's a whole lot of us in the 30+ crowd. It's been shown that at this age, we stop buying.
So, why would you design a game for me?
We're quite possibly not terribly representative because we're just outright older on average than most gamers. I know the last Paizo poll I saw for Dragon pegged Dragon readership average age at early 20's. The average age on this board is about ten years older than that.
Which is more representative of gamers? I have no idea.
Interesting. In my gaming group, 3 of us are over 35 (the other three are late 20's). One of them plays 4E (and has bought several books) and the other feels that he dislikes the WotC treadmill.
Myself, I have bought the 4E PHB I&II, MM, DMG, the 3 power splat books, one FR book and open grave. I also bought the Pathfinder core rules and the Golarion campaign setting. So I guess I voted for both systems.
Both have features that I really like. I think Pathfinder was (to my great surprise) well done. I like a lot of the 4E mechnanics although it's no longer like the AD&D of my youth. I still have 1st and 2nd edition with a strong bias to trying them again someday.
But all of the games under discussion seem to be really good systems to me. Not to everyone's taste in all cases but there is a reason that they have partisans. Unlike other systems that I have bought and have languished in (deserved) obsurcity.
Nobody in my extended circle of gamers has adopted 4Ed. The only exemplar I've seen of the RW schism occurred shortly after 4Ed's release, when the clerk at one of my FLGS's chided me on my perceptions of the game. I held my ground, and it didn't really bother me much. I've known the guy for years- we're not buddies, but he's a kidder by nature (though serious in this case) and my skin is pretty thick.
I'm not sure how other gamers might have taken it, though.
Re: gamers purchasing habits by age
I'm not sure how WotC's stats should be taken.
Personally, I'm 42 and I'm a Mr. Library...and over several systems (my collection is at 65+, down from 100+). The other gamers in my group are all over 35. Of those, most only buy D&D stuff.
The thing is, most of them have responsibilities- wife, kids, car, mortgage, medical bills- that most 20somethings don't have.
HOWEVER...
There is another statistical force at work here.
RPGs were invented by Boomers, but it was Gen X that took up the mantle of the games and made the hobby huge. Part of that is because of the money we're willing to throw at entertainment (we save a smaller % of our income than Boomers, and a higher percentage of our purchases are for entertainment), part of that is because we were introduced to the game as kids and young teens. RPGs grabbed our imaginations while we were still expanding our horizons.
Gen Y, OTOH, is like a mutant combination of the Boomers and Gen X. They, like Gen X, are coming into the hobby as youths.
Like the Boomers, though, Gen Y is Legion- already nearly as numerous as the Boomers, they already control an amount of wealth equal to Gen X...and they don't even have all of their members in the workforce yet.
Plus, if you adjust for inflation, you'd probably find that hardcover RPG books have fallen in price from the 1970s to today. A 1Ed PHB was $12-19, depending upon where and when you bought it (I just looked at the price tags on a couple). My 4Ed book has a cover price of about $40. But 31 years have passed.
I'm not going to look for my financial calculator at this time of night, but by way of comparison, the price of a gallon of gas has risen from 57¢ to $2.39 (or more) in the same time.
IOW, WotC's numbers could just be an artifact of the fact that there are more Gen Ys than Gen Xs, and the hobby is cheaper for them than for us.
Now, that still means that there are excellent reasons for them to target the 20somethings- "Gamers, Mr. Rico! Zillions of them!"- but their stats may not be telling them why with any accuracy.
I think the schism has more to do with the similarities that 4e has with WoW, and the fact that most younger gamers experienced WoW first, as opposed to the other way around for us older folks. Speaking as a rare individual who hardly ever plays video games at all (I'm not counting Solitaire), I can't say that I'm happy with the new edition, particularly its breakdown of combat into chapters that resemble levels in a video game, complete with "boss" monsters. Sure, there have always been arch-villains in D&D, but were they ever really just "boss monsters" to kill and loot for treasure? I remember playing in Ravenloft and knowing that I would never really defeat the villain for good, but I could maybe foil his or her plans to a degree. We always had enemies in town that thwarted us, but we couldn't raise a sword against them without the law siding with them against us. Also, the concept of the wizard as little more than an energy blaster with every spell the same but for the type of energy it uses is sort of a video game staple. Sometimes taking out loopholes (like summoning a mount twenty feet above your opponent's head and watching them get squashed as it falls on them) also takes a little bit of the charm from the game as well. It starts to feel like the villains are all the same: this is a minion goblin, this is an elite goblin, this is a boss goblin... whatever, we're sick of frickin' goblins! Does anything else live in this cave? I'm getting way off-topic here...
If the younger generation grew up on video games, why not give them a pen and paper RPG that builds on what they already know from video games, complete with a monthly membership? WotC made the right call, for their business and their desired target audience. Do the younger players buy more books? Certainly, if we're talking about a new edition that requires a lot of books to play effectively and still have any decent amount of options. They are also more likely to succumb to a monthly membership fee than those of us more used to just picking up Dragon magazine a couple times a year when it has something we can use in our game. WotC knew that many of us older players wouldn't bother with the D&D Insider, and we would have too much invested in our existing 3e libraries to abandon them altogether for new books. So they deliberately went after a completely different audience, and they found it. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and yes, they abandoned the older players. That's business. MTV doesn't want you anymore, go watch VH1.
Now, I think the Pathfinder game will tell the real story of which age group buys more books. Will the Pathfinder Bestiary outsell the next 4e monster book? Maybe, maybe not, but I am damn glad somebody remembered that older gamers still want and are willing to buy new books.
----------------------------------
"I don't understand video games these days. two hundred buttons? and all this online play! When it comes to World of Warcraft, I'll just have to pass. But give me two flappers and one ball bearing and I'll kick your ass!"
- Gerbils 2.0, formerly Jenn and the Gerbils
Last edited by ronnieramone; 17th September 2009 at 12:05 PM..
Reason: add quote
If the younger generation grew up on video games, why not give them a pen and paper RPG that builds on what they already know from video games, complete with a monthly membership? WotC made the right call, for their business and their desired target audience. Do the younger players buy more books? Certainly, if we're talking about a new edition that requires a lot of books to play effectively and still have any decent amount of options. They are also more likely to succumb to a monthly membership fee than those of us more used to just picking up Dragon magazine a couple times a year when it has something we can use in our game. WotC knew that many of us older players wouldn't bother with the D&D Insider, and we would have too much invested in our existing 3e libraries to abandon them altogether for new books. So they deliberately went after a completely different audience, and they found it. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and yes, they abandoned the older players. That's business. MTV doesn't want you anymore, go watch VH1.
Now, I think the Pathfinder game will tell the real story of which age group buys more books. Will the Pathfinder Bestiary outsell the next 4e monster book? Maybe, maybe not, but I am damn glad somebody remembered that older gamers still want and are willing to buy new books.
Anecdotal data is anecdotal data.
WOTC didnt abandon you anymore than they abandoned the people of 1st edition when 2nd came out or 2nd when 3E came out.
And really 4E=Wow?.
Really?
IMHO: If anything, 4E caters to the older crowd, I for example no longer have 3 hours to design NPCs/Encounters. The new way of 4E makes me do this in 10 mins tops(have done the night's adventure in 30 mins) and with the extra stuff from DDI this easeness of play extends to the players themselves. I DM a table of 6 people on avg, and the youngest one there is 36. All of them have sworn off any 3E incarnation, with some citing that 4E reminds them more of when we used to play 1st edition way back then.
So you see, everygroup's experience is totally subjective. Either 4E/pathfinder fails or wins, doesnt matter. Just play what you like and let other be.
live and let live.
Quote:
Now, I think the Pathfinder game will tell the real story of which age group buys more books. Will the Pathfinder Bestiary outsell the next 4e monster book? Maybe, maybe not, but I am damn glad somebody remembered that older gamers still want and are willing to buy new books.
If Pathfinder could sell the same amount of books the lowest selling book from wotc did, they would have been ultra successful. Can you not undertsand the different in magnitudes between both companies sales?
Pathfinder is a success because they found their niche in the market. As long as they can mantain that niche they can last years, look at Palladium they been in business 20+ years. Paizo will be the Palladium of 3E.
Last edited by cangrejoide; 17th September 2009 at 01:23 PM..
New Rule: No one can use the phrase 'younger generation' until they have grandchildren. Calling people out on their age is silly when you can count the difference on your hands.
I am 40 and I have bought a lot of books in the last 5 years, including 8 4E books, and maybe another 7 or so from 3.5E. It is looking like I'm not buying many more, though.
I also use the younger generation as I see fit. There is a younger generation, and I am not in it.
If Pathfinder could sell the same amount of books the lowest selling book from wotc did, they would have been ultra successful. Can you not undertsand the different in magnitudes between both companies sales?
Pathfinder is a success because they found their niche in the market. As long as they can mantain that niche they can last years, look at Palladium they been in business 20+ years. Paizo will be the Palladium of 3E.
I have to admit Pathfinder has found a nice niche in the market, the 3.5 market. Now if they had just not gone and changed 3.5 so much, I would be a lot happier. I'm about to leave 4E for modified 3.5, but I do not see myself going for Pathfinder. And now I cannot really even use Paizo's adventures either, which I enjoyed a lot a few years ago.
It is rather disappointing.
And please do not say I can just convert the modules, I can do that with any gaming system , just yoink the story and make up the encounters on my own. I don't see Pathfinder modules to be a lot easier to convert.
Face it, man. We're the hardcore. We represent the core target audience of the hobby (because I assume we're all "second, third, fourth, etc purchase" people), but we're not really like the majority of gamers.
So you're saying that if anyone is to be dismissed it should be the majority since, once the core rules are out, mostly the messageboard-using, convention-going, gamestore-frequenting folks are the ones doing most of the buying? So, if your somewhat dated info is on track, the people who ignore the messageboard-using, convention-going, gamestore-frequenting folks are actually dismissing the groups that are primarily the majority of beyond-core purchasers? It's an interesting premise and I hadn't look at it from that angle.
I wonder about this claim that 35+ gamers stop buying. I turned 36 this year and I have spent more on gaming this year and last than I have the years before. For one thing Paizo really sold me on their products and I've been buying and subscribing to their stuff consistantly. I've encouraged gaming in all 4 of my children and even this year took the whole family to Origins where we spent even more money on game books and dice. But besides that, older players (I would think) would tend to have more money - even if they also have more expenses. I won't argue that WotC didn't do the study but if it was my business I would be looking at ways to market to us older players, not ways to write us off. Buts its not my business.
A point of note: I kinda get the impression this is happening.
"WotC's market research says that the average 35+ gamer doesn't buy books. As age increases, book buying goes down."
"WELL I DON'T." (Subtext: Therefore, it must not be true!*)
Findings in research deals with averages. They take the average of various groups and compare them. Averages are not individual differences. The issue is that there are just more 35+ with fewer new books than those that have a library of new books. It doesn't surprise me that the people here have the multitude of books.
*I'm not saying anyone has SAID overtly "WotC's data is wrong". But a reader can get the impression that the data is wrong from a multitude of posters saying that they don't qualify.
*I'm not saying anyone has SAID overtly "WotC's data is wrong". But a reader can get the impression that the data is wrong from a multitude of posters saying that they don't qualify.
I think that I was trying to say that if WotC decides that 35+ gamers don't bvuy and therefore stop marketing to them, it will become a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm also saying that when one does such a study and gets such results, if it was my company, the question I would ask would not be, "How can we better market to the younger crowd that is already buying more than the older crowd." I would ask myself how I could better serve the older crowd which I would calculate to have more money to spend.
I wonder about this claim that 35+ gamers stop buying. I turned 36 this year and I have spent more on gaming this year and last than I have the years before. For one thing Paizo really sold me on their products and I've been buying and subscribing to their stuff consistantly. I've encouraged gaming in all 4 of my children and even this year took the whole family to Origins where we spent even more money on game books and dice. But besides that, older players (I would think) would tend to have more money - even if they also have more expenses. I won't argue that WotC didn't do the study but if it was my business I would be looking at ways to market to us older players, not ways to write us off. Buts its not my business.
I wonder as well. I'm 40 and I've spent more on my gaming habit in the last 5 years than I had in my all previous years. (I've been gaming since I was about 10-11) The biggest reason is, I've got more money to spend now than I did in my earlier years. (The lack of game stores and no internet probably helped contribute a little, but really I didn't have as much disposable income I do now.) I've bought 4th ed. & Pathfinder stuff.
Now if I could just have the same amount of time for gaming that I used to...
Now that I think about it, maybe a 35+ is just less likely to take the time to answer a survey
I would ask myself how I could better serve the older crowd which I would calculate to have more money to spend.
The reason that 35+ do not buy books might have nothing to do with the books themselves, but instead might be that they don't have the money to spend, due to having more obligations.
Children, mortgages, health bills, etc etc. In such a situation, gaming books might be seen as decreasingly unimportant commodity.
Also there is the question of: "If we market/put content in the books to appeal to OLD gamers, will it turn off the YOUNGER gamers who buy way more of our books than the old gamers?" The company doesn't want to threaten the demographic that is giving them more money, and if appealing to Older gamers would do that, take a guess which they're going to do.
I'd be much more willing to abandon a given edition than to abandon gaming with friends.
Sadly, I've always ended up having to abandon gaming with people when this happened - back when I was first into roleplaying, before I quit for about 4 years, my group went on one of those "renounce AD&D, play WoD, we're roleplayers-not-rollplayers" benders and I stopped wanting to play with them ever.
And well, the pre-release information of 4e apparently caused two of the people in my community to become so frustrated with 3e that they immediately declared, before 4e was even released, that they would never play 3e again. One of them was in my 3e game at the time and made good on such by immediately walking out.
The reason that 35+ do not buy books might have nothing to do with the books themselves, but instead might be that they don't have the money to spend, due to having more obligations.
Children, mortgages, health bills, etc etc. In such a situation, gaming books might be seen as decreasingly unimportant commodity.
Also there is the question of: "If we market/put content in the books to appeal to OLD gamers, will it turn off the YOUNGER gamers who buy way more of our books than the old gamers?" The company doesn't want to threaten the demographic that is giving them more money, and if appealing to Older gamers would do that, take a guess which they're going to do.
Methinks they should work on trying to find a way to support BOTH demographics.
Step 1: Target and capture younger audience
Step 2: Target and maintain current older audience
Step 3: Profit.
my group went on one of those "renounce AD&D, play WoD, we're roleplayers-not-rollplayers" benders and I stopped wanting to play with them ever.
This is one of the reason why whenever "roll-playing" is used against D&D, it really gets my goat - didn't we get this when Vampire showed up, and we were shown what "true roleplaying" was?
__________________ el gobierno confiscará sus pollos
This is one of the reason why whenever "roll-playing" is used against D&D, it really gets my goat - didn't we get this when Vampire showed up, and we were shown what "true roleplaying" was?
But did we learn from it? Apparantly not, we're still playing D&D.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
You do realize this thread was started by someone stating that 4E was a failure because there were no games for it at Dragoncon?
Um, no, he said that "the edition war" was still going on, not that 4E was a failure. The fact that this thread is so all over the map suggests that he is probably right, whether or not he looked under the right heading for 4E games at Dragon*Con.
As I mentioned earlier, I went there specifically looking for some "non-campaign" 4E to play and couldn't find it, whereas there was plenty of 1e and 3.x/d20 stuff going on. I think the belief that there's still plenty of acrimony about editions is a perfectly sound conclusion to draw from this state of affairs. In the days when "campaign" gaming was all 3.5, that didn't stop there from being plenty of 3.5 stuff happening in the "non-campaign" arena as well.
-The Gneech
__________________ gneech.com -- My writing, comics, and art, including NeverNever, The Suburban Jungle, and the Brigid & Greg Fictionlets.
"Not everybody likes the same sort of games.
Everybody ought to play the sort of games they like.
It's not a stupid idea to sometimes try something you're not sure if you like or not.
Just because somebody likes or dislikes something you feel differently about doesn't make them (or you) stupid or a jerk.
Except Julie Andrews. If you dislike Julie Andrews, you're a jerk. And Golden Retriever puppies." --Barsoomcore
"There is a handsome and mysterious stranger in your future. He will try to kill you and take your stuff." --Sejs
As I mentioned earlier, I went there specifically looking for some "non-campaign" 4E to play and couldn't find it, whereas there was plenty of 1e and 3.x/d20 stuff going on. I think the belief that there's still plenty of acrimony about editions is a perfectly sound conclusion to draw from this state of affairs. In the days when "campaign" gaming was all 3.5, that didn't stop there from being plenty of 3.5 stuff happening in the "non-campaign" arena as well.
-The Gneech
Ah, but just as importantly, the RPGA has changed.
The RPGA from my perceptions seems more casual friendly, thus, the type of gamer who might've been frustrated with the more "hardcore" LG campaign might be more willing to try LFR in 4e.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
