Fracturing...or Diversification?

[MichaelSomething]

Yep, this. If the market for RPGs was thriving, and we all lived in gamer-rich environments, then diversity would be a great thing - everyone could just play what they liked.

But if the market is just barely big enough to support D&D or Pathfinder, then having both may mean that both fail.

So you would rather have only one game in town, even if it's the one you hate?

 

[delericho]

So you would rather have only one game in town, even if it's the one you hate?

If my only other choice is "no game in town", then yes. I would grin and bear it. Honestly, about 90% of the enjoyment from an RPG comes from the people around the table anyway, so whether we're playing 4e or Pathfinder (or Star Wars, or Call of Cthulhu... or FATAL, for that matter) actually makes relatively little difference.

My preference, of course, would be to have loads of games, and be able to play whatever I liked whenever I liked. But if the choices boil down to "this, or nothing", then I'll take the one game.

Hell, even if I hate it to the extent that I simply will not play, it's still preferable to "nothing at all" - at least that way some gamers get to have fun. Which is better than the simple extinction of the hobby.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Diversification is all well and good if you're in a gamer-rich environment. But if you're in a place where it's tough to get 5 gamers together, it becomes even harder when 2 want edition X, 2 won't touch Edition Y, and 1 rolls his eyes to everything but Edition Z. That is before you even discuss playstyle.

If those people are unable to come to a rational and mature decision without use of gunfire and sword there's probably something else that's wrong that has nothing to do with RPGs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If my only other choice is "no game in town", then yes. I would grin and bear it. Honestly, about 90% of the enjoyment from an RPG comes from the people around the table anyway, so whether we're playing 4e or Pathfinder (or Star Wars, or Call of Cthulhu... or FATAL, for that matter) actually makes relatively little difference.

This is wisdom that too few people embrace. In reality its the people that make the gaming experience what it is.

 

[khantroll]

Here's a funny thing, to me at least: gamers, myself included, have longed for the quote "good ole days", but the way it is now reminds me a lot of late 80s/early 90s. You have multiple editions of "The Worlds Most Famous RPG" currently in play with various amounts of support, a different "main game" for each genre (gamma world for post apocalyptic scifi, spycraft for espionage, etc), and a bunch of games on the shelf that you've never heard of because there are so many different publishers from all over the world.

So, in effect, we have the "ole days". Just a little older and maybe not "good" depending on how you look at it.

The thing is, this takes care of the whole "D&D represents the industry" concept. Just like I'd wager most of us did, a new generation will try the flashy, big box products, whether it be Pathfinder or 4E. They will decide whether they like or not, but if they like the concept of RPGs, they'll try other ones. For us, it was Ars Magica and WoD. For them, it'll be Risus and All Flesh.

If this is anything, it is diversification, but I don't personally like that term for this. I'd call it normalization, because d20 brought a sort of unification that was never seen before, and thus wasn't normal. No matter what you wanted, there were d20 rules for it. Now, we go back to different games for different games.

I don't agree with the idea that the RPG market is only big enough for one game or version of a game. This isn't Middle Earth, and there is not One Game to Rule Them All. Pathfinder and 4E are not, in terms of the market, that different a situation from 1e and 2e in the late 80s. In fact, it's better because we have more support for both. This is a problem for WoTC in terms of sales, but in the terms of the industry and the hobby it's a good thing. More people playing different games means more players and more product.

As for 5e being a disappointment...You can't call it a disappointment because it doesn't exist yet. It's like being disappointed that your personal time machine takes 1.21 gigawatts when you don't even have one. That said, I would lay fair odds that WotC will not find the sort of success they'd like from that product. The truth is that I doubt there is anything they make to approach the level of success d20 enjoyed, short of purchasing Paizo and merging the product lines in to an old-school Basic and Experts line while producing dual-stat source books.

 

[frankthedm]

Calling 5e a failed product when it 1. hasn't been made, B. we know absolutly nothing about it and III. we don't even know absolutely if it is even in the pipe is absurd.

Not absurd at all when it has near impossible profit requirements to meet.

 

[Glade Riven]

Sorry, but I'm not going to hunt for that information hidden in that link.

 

[frankthedm]

Here is the direct link with relevant quotes.

The Escapist : The Ghosts of D&D: Past
As much as fans of the game were impressed with 3rd edition and its modest revision of 3.5, market pressures began to build. Wizards of the Coast, at first emboldened by the corporate resources of Hasbro, suddenly felt the need to make D&D more profitable. In the mid-2000s, "Hasbro restructured itself internally to focus on its most successful brands," said Dancey. "Brands that did $50-$100 million a year in revenue were considered 'core,' and smaller brands were going to be marginalized. Marginalized businesses get downsized in headcount. They may also be mothballed, or sold."

The sad truth was that D&D was in danger. "Wizards has a $100 million brand - Magic: the Gathering. It tried to convince Hasbro that it could have two, by amping up D&D to that level," continued Dancey. "D&D was not a $50 million a year business, nor was it likely to ever become one on its then-current trajectory. So the reaction of the folks working on RPGs at Wizards is totally understandable - they felt their jobs were at risk."

 

[GreyLord]

I think 50 million itself is NOT the line to match actually, I think that's actually the bottom of the flagpole...where you have what MIGHT be a bigger than marginal brand...or not. Bottom of the stack isn't exactly stellar either.

So if D&D made ~40 mil the first year of 3e's existence, and then dropped to 25 mil the second year...maybe ~30 mil it still wouldn't be at the 50 mil position...obviously. That doesn't mean it's sales are unsubstantial, but at the same time I'd say they'd have to at least DOUBLE the sales at it's high points to make it a bigger player for the company.

The problem is, after the initial hype and sales, they continue to fall lower each year...so how do they keep the game not only selling between 60-80 million the first year...but every year after that.

Something like a subscription service like DDI suddenly sounds like it may be a good idea...but even with that you need a LOT of subscribers...

An electronic format with all editions now...that might work...but only if it was not downloadable...otherwise people would access it for a month, download what they want...and that's the end of that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The bottom line: tabletop rpgs do not produce the kind of revenue a company the size of Hasbro demands of them.

Therefore the game must morph into a revenue producing stream (no longer being a tabletop rpg at that point) or get mothballed.

This is why D&D needs to be in the hands of a smaller company that could actually thrive on the level of rpg sales that D&D can realistically bring in.

Don't see Hasbro letting go of the IP anytime soon though.