Decline of RPG sales

[buzz]

I really wish Wizards was pushing a more generic setting like Greyhawk or Mystara - or even FR just so long as the sourcebooks didn't make you have to relearn the past 30 DR years of history to play.

GH, as it exists in the core books, is basically what you describe. It's all you need to play D&D.

 

[tylerthehobo]

GH, as it exists in the core books, is basically what you describe. It's all you need to play D&D.

Touche'

Just would be nice if there was a map or something generically sword-and-sorcery to get the ball rolling for players and dm's alike. Heck, even the old blue-box Expert set had a town map and some adventure seeds to get the ball rolling...

(here I go again, crotchety older gamer whining about the old days...)

 

[Vocenoctum]

The only reason I can think of that a store owner wouldn't send back the other eight (aside from sheer laziness) would be the distributor's returns policy. If he's not going to get close to full credit for them, it might be in his interests to hold onto them and see if he can sell them for a while, rather than eat the costs of returning all of them. Just a guess based on having worked in a few different bookstores over the last six years.

Nick

I can't discount laziness, but I also have no reason to accept what he said as truth either. Even if you get full credit for the books, you may still be out return shipping. Who knows...

 

[MerricB]

Touche'

Just would be nice if there was a map or something generically sword-and-sorcery to get the ball rolling for players and dm's alike. Heck, even the old blue-box Expert set had a town map and some adventure seeds to get the ball rolling...

(here I go again, crotchety older gamer whining about the old days...)

There was...



...back in 2000 when 3e was released.

Cheers!

 

[beaver1024]

I wonder why declining sales come as such a surprise. The simple fact is, time is precious. Yet the game designers and gaming companies don't take this into consideration when writing their source materials.

The participants of an RPG has to expend considerable effort already in the communication/interpersonal spectrum and yet game designers expect RPGers to spend time to compensate for their poorly tested and badly proof read products in order to play? For example: the use of tables and explanatory text in many WoTC source material. Instead of fixing the inconsistencies between table summaries and detailed text they just institute a policy that detailed text takes precedence if there are conflicts. This then makes using the summary tables such a hassle as to make them useless. Additionally this makes WoTC designers have a huge blasse attitude about making their work actually consistent with numerous errors in stat blocks and summary tables hand all because they can hand wave the "detailed text takes precedence" policy.

For all of WoTC's bluster about listening to their customers and not repeating the mistakes of TSR, all they've done is to spin their mistakes in a better light. Nothing they've done is any different that what TSR did. As time become more and more of a precious commodity due to the demands of corporations on their employees, who wants to spend time fixing broken products that they paid good money for in the first place? In the real world, no one would put up with this why should RPGers be any different? WoTC and other RPG companies should well remember that their entertainment product is very price and quality elastic. Maintaining their arrogance is a sure way of alienating their customers, as TSR found out to their sorrow.

 

[SBMC]

Charles Ryan is the Brand Manager of the D&D RPG.
Mary Elizabeth Allen is the Brand Manager of the D&D Miniatures Game.

(At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it works).

Cheers!

I see - thanks.

 

[SBMC]

SBMC,

Per my understanding, companies can make silly claims in advertising like, "Pizza Hut is America's Best Tasting Pizza" or whatever, without having to prove these facts, or be liable to shareholders if it isn't really the best tasing pizza.

Actually your statement is incorrect – if not proven it is false advertising – this is actually the very basis of consumer protection. A classic example of this is back in the 80’s Ford Motor Company had an Ad campaign that stated “Number one Quality in America”. That statement indicates that Ford’s quality is indeed better than everyone else’s.

Chrysler (who was first in line) challenged this via government regulators and courts. Ford Immediately changed to its slogan “Quality is Job One” which it uses today. After all there is no way they could prove that their products are better – perhaps a few are – but all? And you still need to prove that your few are indeed better.

Ever wonder why industry puts so much time and effort into things like getting good ratings from private independent firms. “JD Power & Associates” for example – think about how many times you have heard that name quoted on TV commercials, especially for cars. Neilson (which rates more than just TV; which is what they are best known for). Harvard Pilgrim is rating the best HMO in the nation; that had to have been proven by a survey that was valid.

If Pizza Hut says "Pizza Hut is America's Best Tasting Pizza" then they need to provide a basis for that statement; just because you don’t see it in the news does not mean that regulatory agencies do not question corporations advertising – they do it all the time.

Pizza Hut would need to complete a survey, comparing their product to others of equal value in a large enough sample set over a large enough geographical area to be able to make that claim. Talk to a Statistician, or an Actuary.

That is why so many ads, if you read the fine print or see it flash on the bottom of the TV screen for 5 seconds or so, something to the effect of “according to an independent survey“ or “according to independent laboratory tests.” They use independent sources a great deal for a variety of reasons but one big legal one is that if the sampling is flawed a company like Pizza Hut can just say “hey we paid them to do a job…it ain’t our fault”. Thus if Pizza Hut gets fined they turn around and sue the firm that did the research for them (and usually win).

I can virtually guarantee that every single retail pizza company (and perhaps even their suppliers and advertising firms) contacted the authorities and their lawyers when that ad came up; why would Papa Gino’s, Papa John’s, Domino’s or anyone else allow that to go on if their competitor really had no basis for the statement? If they said it then why doesn’t everyone else? Advertising for products and services is very different than a political ad where you can claim almost anything.

At the same time, I know that coporations and their officers can get in big trouble for lying to shareholders in their financial reports, as you have pointed out.

Now, I thought a casual statement like "DnD is having its best year ever!" would fall into the first catagory as meaningless PR speak, and not into the second catagory of serious financial data. Especially since DnD might be selling well, but margins could have been reduced causing profits to go down. Since you seem very confident in that this falls into the second catagory, could you explain why you think this? It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me, and its not what I would have guessed, though I admit to not being an expert on such matters.

I think this because the bottom line is the bottom line. “Best Year Ever” will always be translated into things such as “Highest Sales”, “Highest Profit”, “Highest Margin”, etc. A for profit company cannot have a “Best Year Ever” based upon anything other than financial data – their function is to make money. One reason for this is that I, as a stockholder (not that I am) would perhaps make investment decisions based upon that very statement; people do this all the time. “Well if Charles Ryan says that they are having the Best Year Ever then I should buy more Hasbro Stock!”. If I do and in the end it turns out sales were low or whatever then here comes the Lawyers. Charles Ryan is a manager in that company (probably an officer as well) – making him an “agent” of the company - anything he says about WoTC or Hasbro has legal implications; ANYTHING. Anyone with the title “Supervisor” or above (as believe it or not titles such as these are defined by law) is also an agent of the company.

As I also pointed out earlier in previous posts; it could be just sales, just profit, just margin or a combination of them all. A company could have stellar sales and still loose money; or have a very small margin (all of which would come out at the end of the quarter; in this case December). If say Charles Ryan meant only sales, and indeed they were the best ever, that aforementioned investor would not be successful in his suit (but then again it may depend on who your lawyer is!). Why? Because it was a vague statement that was still true – shame on the investor for assuming it meant something it did not.

In the Pizza Hut example – it could be the only reason their Pizza scored higher on their own survey would be better tasting crust – but no one would say that; or even want to measure that particular thing; they want “Best in America (according to an independent survey)” or nothing

 

[SBMC]

I wonder why declining sales come as such a surprise. The simple fact is, time is precious. Yet the game designers and gaming companies don't take this into consideration when writing their source materials.

The participants of an RPG has to expend considerable effort already in the communication/interpersonal spectrum and yet game designers expect RPGers to spend time to compensate for their poorly tested and badly proof read products in order to play? For example: the use of tables and explanatory text in many WoTC source material. Instead of fixing the inconsistencies between table summaries and detailed text they just institute a policy that detailed text takes precedence if there are conflicts. This then makes using the summary tables such a hassle as to make them useless. Additionally this makes WoTC designers have a huge blasse attitude about making their work actually consistent with numerous errors in stat blocks and summary tables hand all because they can hand wave the "detailed text takes precedence" policy.

For all of WoTC's bluster about listening to their customers and not repeating the mistakes of TSR, all they've done is to spin their mistakes in a better light. Nothing they've done is any different that what TSR did. As time become more and more of a precious commodity due to the demands of corporations on their employees, who wants to spend time fixing broken products that they paid good money for in the first place? In the real world, no one would put up with this why should RPGers be any different? WoTC and other RPG companies should well remember that their entertainment product is very price and quality elastic. Maintaining their arrogance is a sure way of alienating their customers, as TSR found out to their sorrow.

To be honest with you I own a ton of D&D WoTC stuff; and with the FAQ and Erratta out there I have not really had a problem. This is a complex gaming system - things can't be 110% perfect the first time.

I am not a book editor nor an english teacher so a misspelled word here or there does not bother me at all.

 

[Belen]

Not disputing you, Belen - especially since you're a delegate and probably spend more times in games shops than I do - but anecdotally speaking (As I think almost all of us are in this thread), of the 3 tables that I ran on D&D Game Day this year, the ages spread from about 10-60. Kids are still in it - I probably had more folks at the tables who were under 21 than over.

It, like many folks have said, is a matter of marketing. The marketing for d&d isn't all that different from when I was a kid in the early 80s - riding the coattails of Conan and the like. ("Hey, like warriors? You'll love this...") I know that Eberron was a stab at attracting Gen Y, and it is groovy, but it's really not accessible to a kid - it's accessible to a young teen who's into anime or someone older - not to a kid who is just trying to get a hang of the gaming system without having to learn what dragon shards and warforged are. I really wish Wizards was pushing a more generic setting like Greyhawk or Mystara - or even FR just so long as the sourcebooks didn't make you have to relearn the past 30 DR years of history to play.

Just my $0.02.

I have about three kids who regularly show up whenever I run a demo. However, I introduced them to the game a while ago, so they were not new.

 

[Turjan]

If Pizza Hut says "Pizza Hut is America's Best Tasting Pizza" then they need to provide a basis for that statement; just because you don’t see it in the news does not mean that regulatory agencies do not question corporations advertising – they do it all the time.

I don't want to doubt this, because my knowledge of US law is hazy at best . I can just say that, in my home country, you wouldn't have a chance in court against such a statement. They would tell you that taste is a highly subjective matter, and this means you would have to prove that the company itself does not believe in this statement, which is an impossible task. Even if an objective majority thought otherwise about the taste of that pizza, you would not stand a chance.

I think this because the bottom line is the bottom line. “Best Year Ever” will always be translated into things such as “Highest Sales”, “Highest Profit”, “Highest Margin”, etc.

Nearly the same here. The point in case would be the context. Something like "In 2005, D&D had its best year ever. We had so much fun in producing [insert list of products]." would be hard to object. If you buy stock because other people had fun, it will be your own..., eh, fun .

But I understand that American law is very different.