The Angry DM thinks so. What do you think?
http://www.angrydm.com/2014/09/dear-wotc-why-do-you-suck-at-selling-games/
http://www.angrydm.com/2014/09/dear-wotc-why-do-you-suck-at-selling-games/
D&D 5E Does WotC suck at selling games?
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
This is the comment thread attached to the news page.
Astrosicebear
First Post
Methinks he should've waited for the DMG.
While its true Wizards cant market for crap, that falls more onto Hasbro crippling advertising budgets and combating negative press/brand image from the 80's.
Angry is basically chastising WOTC for making a product that doesnt sell itself... but it does. Any player that plays usually buys. A good DM can help that process. No, not many ppl will randomly pickup a sourcebook in Barnes and Noble and say, I think Ill buy this Rules book.
You cannot compare D&D to a visual medium or board game. Saying WOW or Magic:The Gathering is marketed better than D&D is like trying to market an Occulus Rift to a blind person, you may have a fantastic product but how do you get them to see it? D&D is not the same beast. Ever watch a D&D game (outside of PAX)? Try to think to your own sessions. How much is BSing and how much is game time?
People buy WOW because they see it and try it. People buy magic because they see it and play it. WOTC has not figured out a way to show D&D in a cool, marketable way yet. No tabletop RPG company has.
While its true Wizards cant market for crap, that falls more onto Hasbro crippling advertising budgets and combating negative press/brand image from the 80's.
Angry is basically chastising WOTC for making a product that doesnt sell itself... but it does. Any player that plays usually buys. A good DM can help that process. No, not many ppl will randomly pickup a sourcebook in Barnes and Noble and say, I think Ill buy this Rules book.
You cannot compare D&D to a visual medium or board game. Saying WOW or Magic:The Gathering is marketed better than D&D is like trying to market an Occulus Rift to a blind person, you may have a fantastic product but how do you get them to see it? D&D is not the same beast. Ever watch a D&D game (outside of PAX)? Try to think to your own sessions. How much is BSing and how much is game time?
People buy WOW because they see it and try it. People buy magic because they see it and play it. WOTC has not figured out a way to show D&D in a cool, marketable way yet. No tabletop RPG company has.
Or, leave it as it is as a way to help generate discussion. Given the tollbooth model in the article, this seems reasonable.
There's a question that the AngryDM doesn't address - does D&D lend itself to being sold?
He goes on about how RPGs are complicated, with high barrier to entry. He asserts that creating simpler and simpler products, and selling tutorial products will get people into the game as a whole. He's so convinced that he offers to write the products himself, if they'd give him a license. But I'm not convinced he's correct.
There's a term from business that's relevant: being "high touch". When a thing is "high touch", it requires a lot of contact with the salesperson to close the deal. In business, this is costly, and businesses spend a lot of effort to convert high touch things to be low touch. But some things are irreducibly high touch - if you break them down to the point where you don't need the extra effort of the salesperson, you're no longer selling the original product. There is a limit to how far down you can go to create an entry-level product, and for D&D, the level you can reach with product alone, without a human salesperson, may not be low enough to open floodgates of new players.
RPGs at this time may be irreducibly high touch - if you create a low-touch product to bring them in, the experience it will provide may be different enough from the full game that it doesn't actually serve as an on-ramp. It may be that the apprenticeship, "older cousin," model is the most effective one for RPGs.
There's a question that the AngryDM doesn't address - does D&D lend itself to being sold?
He goes on about how RPGs are complicated, with high barrier to entry. He asserts that creating simpler and simpler products, and selling tutorial products will get people into the game as a whole. He's so convinced that he offers to write the products himself, if they'd give him a license. But I'm not convinced he's correct.
There's a term from business that's relevant: being "high touch". When a thing is "high touch", it requires a lot of contact with the salesperson to close the deal. In business, this is costly, and businesses spend a lot of effort to convert high touch things to be low touch. But some things are irreducibly high touch - if you break them down to the point where you don't need the extra effort of the salesperson, you're no longer selling the original product. There is a limit to how far down you can go to create an entry-level product, and for D&D, the level you can reach with product alone, without a human salesperson, may not be low enough to open floodgates of new players.
RPGs at this time may be irreducibly high touch - if you create a low-touch product to bring them in, the experience it will provide may be different enough from the full game that it doesn't actually serve as an on-ramp. It may be that the apprenticeship, "older cousin," model is the most effective one for RPGs.
Wrathamon
Adventurer
I thought this was an excellent read. Very well thought out.
Wotc tried with the red box during 4e to make a solo adventure to teach the players ... but D&D is about groups. I think a learn the rules as you play approach with rule sidebars is probably a really good idea.
To help bring in new players ... you need to sell the social aspect of D&D.
You could start the adventure with premade characters ... play a session. Then the next session or the end of that session, you make characters. These new characters are the children(or have strong ties) of the premade ones you just played. Let the players then figure out what they want to make and then continue the adventure as a legacy adventure.
The adventure itself would have the rules presented when its needed and a really good index and glossary to help new DMs find other rules they might need.
I would also but something in the starter box that players really want to have (own) that gets new people talking about the game, some incentives. It also needs to be sold at Walmart, Target, Toys'rus, etc.
Wotc tried with the red box during 4e to make a solo adventure to teach the players ... but D&D is about groups. I think a learn the rules as you play approach with rule sidebars is probably a really good idea.
To help bring in new players ... you need to sell the social aspect of D&D.
You could start the adventure with premade characters ... play a session. Then the next session or the end of that session, you make characters. These new characters are the children(or have strong ties) of the premade ones you just played. Let the players then figure out what they want to make and then continue the adventure as a legacy adventure.
The adventure itself would have the rules presented when its needed and a really good index and glossary to help new DMs find other rules they might need.
I would also but something in the starter box that players really want to have (own) that gets new people talking about the game, some incentives. It also needs to be sold at Walmart, Target, Toys'rus, etc.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
Coupla points: 1) All that sounds great in theory, but then again--what exactly enables DM conversion, and how can WotC cater to that? It's not clear to me that making the game "simpler" really accomplishes that. All kinds of rules-lighty D&D alternatives have come and gone without accomplishing that. I'm not sure that anyone knows how to accomplish DM conversion. And I'm not sure that most players are interested in being DMs no matter what the game looks like. (Based on admittedly anecdotal evidence.)
2) The implicit claim, which was actually not quite as clearly articulated by Mearls has he later interpreted it to be, that D&D has consistently grown over time and edition to edition is, in my opinion, a dubious claim.
2) The implicit claim, which was actually not quite as clearly articulated by Mearls has he later interpreted it to be, that D&D has consistently grown over time and edition to edition is, in my opinion, a dubious claim.
Similar Threads
- Locked
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
