Ryan Dancey - D&D in a Death Spiral

[Aberzanzorax]

Umm, excuse me if I'm wrong here, but, isn't WOTC still producing some miniatures? And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but, just because they're not producing their minis themselves, doesn't really mean anything. I mean, D&D has long used miniatures (although not to the extent 4e and 3e do) and, for the most part, it's been other companies that supply those miniatures.

Is there really a shortage of minis on the market?

I think you have a point here...that players are not going to be starved for minis.

However, I agree with Carmachu insofar as it is ironic how 4e talks about "squares" and basically does require (I KNOW, I KNOW some few groups have houserules so they don't need minis) miniatures, but WotC has stopped selling them.

 

[Hussar]

OK. I honestly DON'T know that, but I'm willing to accept it.

I don't think the subscription base to the old magazines has anything to do with the conversation.

Maybe, maybe not, but you are missing the point about player base.

Not to mention the lack of equivalence between one month of subscription and one unit of one single book, but this significant distinction is still pretty trivial to the main point.

DDI makes a lot of money.
4E lost a lot of D&D fan base.
These statements are not remotely incompatible.

Is there really a large lack of equivalence though? I have no idea. How much money does a game company see on one book vs how much they see on one subscription? Again, I have no idea. At a guess, I'd say they're not as far off as all that. Book retails at about 40 bucks, which means half to the retailer. Then half again to the distributor. So, ten bucks to WOTC. How much is a sub per month? It's about ten bucks isn't it? I doubt they're too far off actually.

As far as your two last statements, yes, you're right that they are not incompatible. However, they are both entirely speculative. Neither of us has any idea how much of the fan base was lost by 4e.

So, basing the idea that 4e has lost lots of fan base because of subscription numbers is about as meaningful as consulting the magic 8 ball. After all, if 3e had X number of fans and 50k subs for Dungeon and Dragon, and 4e has twice the number of subs for the DDI, does that mean it has twice the fans?

I highly, highly doubt it. But, again, I have no idea how many players there actually are. But, then again, I'm not trying to say that 4e is successful. I have no idea. All I'm saying is that no one can make any real pronouncements, either way, because it's all pure speculation.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I think you have a point here...that players are not going to be starved for minis.

However, I agree with Carmachu insofar as it is ironic how 4e talks about "squares" and basically does require (I KNOW, I KNOW some few groups have houserules so they don't need minis) miniatures, but WotC has stopped selling them.

Ummh... You don't need minis, just identifiable markers of some kind. Like those supplied with the new Essentials line.

While I prefer minis, I wouldn't say that WotC has stopped producing a needed supplement.

Ironically, they do the same they had done for their VTT: moving from 3E to 2D.

 

[billd91]

After all, if 3e had X number of fans and 50k subs for Dungeon and Dragon, and 4e has twice the number of subs for the DDI, does that mean it has twice the fans?

I don't think we can really compare subscription numbers for Dungeon and Dragon with DDI and imply anything about the size of 4e's fan base. I don't believe Dungeon or Dragon were every perceived as anything other than optional. People may have loved them, but I don't believe they had ever taken on the same air of indespensibility that DDI has taken on thanks to the character builder. With that in mind, I would expect a higher proportion of 4e players to be interested in taking out a subscription to the DDI than I would have expected to see taking out subscriptions for Dragon or Dungeon during previous editions.

 

[BryonD]

Is there really a large lack of equivalence though? I have no idea. How much money does a game company see on one book vs how much they see on one subscription? Again, I have no idea. At a guess, I'd say they're not as far off as all that. Book retails at about 40 bucks, which means half to the retailer. Then half again to the distributor. So, ten bucks to WOTC. How much is a sub per month? It's about ten bucks isn't it? I doubt they're too far off actually.

But there are more factors than this. The fact that they publish more than one book a month just being the most obvious. But that gets into a deep tangent. They are not the same thing.

So, basing the idea that 4e has lost lots of fan base because of subscription numbers is about as meaningful as consulting the magic 8 ball.

Huh? You are the one that was using DDI to claim that the fan base was still there. It was your argument that "decay" in the book market didn't mean D&D was losing fans, but that they were just "moving from one market venue to another". You are the one who brought up this "eight ball" as a source of wisdom. Not me.

After all, if 3e had X number of fans and 50k subs for Dungeon and Dragon, and 4e has twice the number of subs for the DDI, does that mean it has twice the fans?

Didn't we just cover this?
The magazines were a side market, a tiny fraction of the player base.

No one EVER claimed that buying those magazines took away from people buying the game itself. This EXACT argument is now being made regarding DDI. DDI replaces buying books. The magazines were nothing remotely similar to that.

I highly, highly doubt it. But, again, I have no idea how many players there actually are. But, then again, I'm not trying to say that 4e is successful. I have no idea. All I'm saying is that no one can make any real pronouncements, either way, because it's all pure speculation.

"Pure speculation" is a very charitable spin. Not knowing the answer to two decimals places does not mean that the ballpark is not pretty well understood.

 

[Matt James]

Ya know, with all of the business advice being tossed around here, it sounds like users in this thread, alone, could start a very lucrative and profitable gaming company. I mean, the answers are so simple. If only WotC would read this thread!

As for the correlation to minis, WotC is producing tokens to help offset the loss of miniatures for the time being. So, in that, I don't accept the notion of something more devious on their part. If they could churn out miniatures and make a boat-load of cash, you really think they wouldn't?

 

[Umbran]

Ya know, with all of the business advice being tossed around here, it sounds like users in this thread, alone, could start a very lucrative and profitable gaming company. I mean, the answers are so simple. If only WotC would read this thread!

Yep. Just like you'd imagine that the sports world could gain a lot from tapping the crop of genius football coaches found in American homes this time of year.

Armchair quarterbacking is not just a hobby, it's a calling.

 

[BryonD]

Ya know, with all of the business advice being tossed around here, it sounds like users in this thread, alone, could start a very lucrative and profitable gaming company. I mean, the answers are so simple. If only WotC would read this thread!

I promise you that the game designed to my personal specifications would be a total disaster on the market. *I'd* be very happy. But it would flop.

But, then again, simply pointing out clear mistakes is much easier to do than having a strong path forward.

If I need to admit that I couldn't do any better than WotC, I'll do that with no hesitation. But, unlike WotC, my failure there really has no consequence.

 

[BryonD]

Armchair quarterbacking is not just a hobby, it's a calling.

Yep.

But "armchair quarterbacking" is about second guessing. It happens to the team that lost.

 

[ATimson]

Umm, excuse me if I'm wrong here, but, isn't WOTC still producing some miniatures?

Producing, yes; selling, no (since they're being repurposed as board game pieces).