Hobby Games Down 3% But RPGs Up 18%

Mistwell · Apr 22, 2019

Jacob Lewis said:
I'll take Useless Numbers at My Table for $1000, Alex.

Jacob Lewis said:
I thought it looked like the board from Jeopardy. I didn't expect anyone getting so uppity about it. What's your issue?

Balooney, in part. You said it looked like "useless numbers" to you. That's more than the joke about Jeopardy (though the Jeopardy joke is funny), you just look like you're backing off now on that part since bunch of people called you on it. If you call challenging your opinion as "uppity" that's fine, mark me down as uppidity. Now, can you elaborate on why you think these numbers are "useless"?

jmucchiello · Apr 22, 2019

Jacob Lewis said:
I'll take Useless Numbers at My Table for $1000, Alex.

jmucchiello said:
I'm guessing Mr Lewis believes that his gaming table and play habits are unaffected by these numbers.

Jacob Lewis said:
Sorry, but you must phrase that in the form of a question.

No, no, no. You picked a category. I gave an answer. You are supposed to supply the question.

Morrus · Apr 22, 2019

OK, guys. Leave him alone, please. He made a snarky reply to an article and got called on it. It's fine*. Let's get back to the actual topic.

*Though to clarify, I generally take a dim view of actual obnoxious comments directed at our freelancers or staff; this article was by me though, and the comment wasn't *too* snarky.

Jacob Lewis · Apr 22, 2019

Mistwell said:
Balooney, in part. You said it looked like "useless numbers" to you. That's more than the joke about Jeopardy (though the Jeopardy joke is funny), you just look like you're backing off now on that part since bunch of people called you on it. If you call challenging your opinion as "uppity" that's fine, mark me down as uppidity. Now, can you elaborate on why you think these numbers are "useless"?

Or what? You're going to knock down my bike? Call me "chicken"? I hear "indian burns" are still making the rounds, but we can't call them that anymore. Sorry, I don't know the politically correct term because I stopped using these schoolyard tactics a long time ago.

But challenge accepted!

You admit you got the joke, which is what I was going for. The category was "Useless Numbers at MY Table". They never meant anything to me, and I have said as much every time it comes up. It wasn't a challenge or a slight, but there's always a "bunch of people" eager to find offense wherever they can. I've not taken those numbers or their value away from anyone else's table, did I? If I had, then you might have reason to complain. But at least I tried to make it amusing. Some people here did get it.

So if you took offense, I did mean not mean to give it. But I don't know if that matters to you, or if you're just looking to make an issue of something you imagined buried under a pretty darn good joke. That's not my problem. If you want to take offense, I'll leave you to indulge your own insecurities. I've better things to do than explain myself again to someone who picks apart posts looking for leverage. Enjoy your day!

Jacob Lewis · Apr 22, 2019

jmucchiello said:
No, no, no. You picked a category. I gave an answer. You are supposed to supply the question.

You know its really awkward when we're both standing at the podium trying to host the show!

Mistwell · Apr 22, 2019

Jacob Lewis said:
Or what? You're going to knock down my bike? Call me "chicken"? I hear "indian burns" are still making the rounds, but we can't call them that anymore. Sorry, I don't know the politically correct term because I stopped using these schoolyard tactics a long time ago.

But challenge accepted!

You admit you got the joke, which is what I was going for. The category was "Useless Numbers at MY Table". They never meant anything to me, and I have said as much every time it comes up. It wasn't a challenge or a slight, but there's always a "bunch of people" eager to find offense wherever they can. I've not taken those numbers or their value away from anyone else's table, did I? If I had, then you might have reason to complain. But at least I tried to make it amusing. Some people here did get it.

So if you took offense, I did mean not mean to give it. But I don't know if that matters to you, or if you're just looking to make an issue of something you imagined buried under a pretty darn good joke. That's not my problem. If you want to take offense, I'll leave you to indulge your own insecurities. I've better things to do than explain myself again to someone who picks apart posts looking for leverage. Enjoy your day!

I didn't find offense and didn't imply I did. But thanks for that silly strawman and nice spin to pretend you're some victim of a bully who dares...ask wtf you meant? All I did was ask why you thought that - and it's been like pulling teeth to get you to elaborate. Thanks for being so unwilling to have a conversation on a community based message board and cast aspersions on anyone who does?

I'm fine letting it drop. Hope you are too...without some parting sarcasm.

Morrus · Apr 22, 2019

@Mistwell, drop it, please. @Jacob Lewis, you too.

GreyLord · Apr 23, 2019

Well, it matches the numbers I posted earlier (though it's on the lower end of 65-75) independent of what their research showed. It should not be that much of a surprise to anyone.

That's still pretty decent growth and all indications are that it will continue to grow. Surprised at some of the numbers in other categories and the drop in at least one of them.

Depending on what numbers you use, that is either less than $1.50 per player (40 million player figure), less than $5 per player (15 million player figure), or more if you guestimate less players. This could indicate that better leverage of the brand could be utilized (less than $1.50 per player means that not a ton of accessories are being bought) which means with better marketing and usage of the brand there is a HUGE potential for exponential growth. OR, with a lower number it could indicate that it's about even where each group is probably buying around one or two of the accessories per year ($5 per player) most likely. OR, if there are less players than that it could speak of an enthusiastic customer base that has many of the players buying at least one accessory per year plus a growth in regards to how many are buying rulebooks and additional rulebooks. This also could be leveraged in growth to spark even greater sales as well.

Either way, it shows strength in the D&D sections of WotC, though it shows some concern in regards to collectible games. Hobby board games seems to also be growing and with strong growth could indicate a good area of continued expansion could also be in that area of board games.

Just some thoughts on the table posted.

Caliburn101 · Apr 23, 2019

[MENTION=4348]GreyLord[/MENTION]

Where do we find the player numbers figures which you place at 40 million?

Morrus · Apr 23, 2019

GreyLord said:
Depending on what numbers you use, that is either less than $1.50 per player (40 million player figure), less than $5 per player (15 million player figure), or more if you guestimate less players..

As mentioned in the last thread, you’re conflating different figures. The 15M was North America and the 40M is was worldwide. These figures are US and Canada.