What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[ggroy]

It certainly wasn't their intention, I'm also sure of that. I'm also sure that Wizards has a lot of demographic information on sales, spending habits, etc. that most of us don't have. I know I spent more in my 20's than I do now in my 30's precisely because I'm working full time, have children to pay for, a mortgage, car payments, etc and have less disposible income than when I was in high school or university, despite increased earnings.

The real life equivalent of "always fighting orcs" as one advances up in levels (or age).

 

[Umbran]

It's possible that practices have changed somewhat, but I see no reason to believe they've changed that significantly.

Don't confuse current practices with potential market.

Yes, in 1999, the research showed that older gamers tended to spend more than younger gamers. Those were spending habits largely associated with folks who were already players of 2e.

A study I saw recently suggests that teens spend about 8% of their budgets on video games, and that teens represent about 35% of the video game market.

Note that video games are a $7.3 billion dollar business. If 35% of that is teens, that's $2.5 billion on games (and their budgets totaled up are something like $30 billion).

So, as a company you have a choice - market to a few old warhorses, or try to get a hunk of that $30 billion (or that $2.5 billion). Relying on spending patterns from 10 years a go is perhaps not the best way to grow a business.

 

[Shazman]

From a business perspective, money you spent in the past doesn't matter. They only care about current/future profits, therefore current/future sales, just as any business that makes money should. Wizards doesn't care that you bought every 1e book that was published, or even that you bought every 3e book. Those profits have already been booked, the shareholders have received their dividends (or increased share value) and the managers their bonuses. Now they look forward and try to gain customers who will spend more money. Younger individuals have more time, and likely will spend more money as they don't have a family, mortgage payments, car payments, utilities, etc. that most of those playing for years have.

It's a cold rationalization, but look at Jack Welch, he was certainly not a loving, feel good CEO, but damn he increased shareholder value and that's what every business strives to do.

Also, I've played since 2e and I feel no alienation, so please don't paint everyone who's played for a long time with the same brush. Thanks.

Except that a lot of those gamers have shown that they were willing and able to spend a lot on RPG products and that money would most likely still be going to WotC, if WotC were making a game they wanted to play. There are a lot of us that went from buying a lot of WotC products to "WotC now gets none of my money" with the edition switch or as a result of their horrendous PR blunders. The constant layoffs and the change in direction with the Essentials products seems to indicate that they lost more money from those fans that didn't swith than they planned on and would like some of it back. Maybe they "fired" too many customers and didn't replace them with enough new customers, or the new customers aren't buying as many products. Perhaps the "fire the audience" policy didn't work out for them like they planned.

 

[The Ghost]

From a business perspective, money you spent in the past doesn't matter. They only care about current/future profits, therefore current/future sales, just as any business that makes money should. Wizards doesn't care that you bought every 1e book that was published, or even that you bought every 3e book.

They should. It is a known market with a predictable spending pattern.

 

[Umbran]

They should. It is a known market with a predictable spending pattern.

Maybe it being a known market is what keeps them from doing it? It is known, but quite possibly small. Niche of a niche, and all that.

 

[renau1g]

They should. It is a known market with a predictable spending pattern.

With 4e, it's the largest change in mechanics between any of the editions IMO, so the current patterns aren't ones that can be counted on continuing as I'm sure they did market research and there was certainly some 1/2/3e players who felt the changes were too drastic and too video game-y (as I've heard from many here).

Their predictable spending patterns are on past products, which may or may not still hold true based on the reactions of those customers to the new product offerings.

 

[Wicht]

Don't confuse current practices with potential market.

Yes, in 1999, the research showed that older gamers tended to spend more than younger gamers. Those were spending habits largely associated with folks who were already players of 2e.

A study I saw recently suggests that teens spend about 8% of their budgets on video games, and that teens represent about 35% of the video game market.

Note that video games are a $7.3 billion dollar business. If 35% of that is teens, that's $2.5 billion on games (and their budgets totaled up are something like $30 billion).

So, as a company you have a choice - market to a few old warhorses, or try to get a hunk of that $30 billion (or that $2.5 billion). Relying on spending patterns from 10 years a go is perhaps not the best way to grow a business.

The main problem with your reasoning is that while teens may represent 35% of the market, non-teens must represent close to 65% percent of the video game market.

If your company targets the 35% and mine targets the 65%, if we both pull in just ten percent of the people we target, I'll make twice as much money as you do, more or less.

 

[renau1g]

Except that a lot of those gamers have shown that they were willing and able to spend a lot on RPG products and that money would most likely still be going to WotC, if WotC were making a game they wanted to play. There are a lot of us that went from buying a lot of WotC products to "WotC now gets none of my money" with the edition switch or as a result of their horrendous PR blunders. The constant layoffs and the change in direction with the Essentials products seems to indicate that they lost more money from those fans that didn't swith than they planned on and would like some of it back. Maybe they "fired" too many customers and didn't replace them with enough new customers, or the new customers aren't buying as many products. Perhaps the "fire the audience" policy didn't work out for them like they planned.

Without actual figures, "a lot' isn't a definable amount. Even if half of Enworld's user base is of those "I hate 4e, I am not playing it" group (that may be high) then that's approx. 45k users.

Constant layoffs have been shown to be SOP at Wizards since 3e, so don't blame 4e for that. PR blunders? *sigh* IF you can demonstrate with financial information that WoTC is making less money now with 4e + DDI than with 3.5e I will concede that you seem to have a point, but monthly subscriptions have shown to be excellent, reliable sources of revenue (ask Morrus or check out Blizzard's earnings for examples) and I'm fairly certain that DDI is doing very well for WoTC.

There's something you learn in business and not every customer is desirable. You have to look at each customer to determine their profitability, and sometimes its better for you to cut a customer loose than it is to continue to try and service them. It's called Customer profitability analysis, and it's an excellent tool to use when running a business. My first reaction when I encountered this in my organization was "OMG, we can't just let that really small client go, how can we make money letting clients leave?" but now I see, it took our firm too much resources for too little return to service them.

WoTC has limited resources and must focus those resources on the areas that they make the most money.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't buy into the "younger people have more money" idea. More time yes. Money no. I spend more now, in my 30s on my hobby, than I ever did in my 20s (of course I blame Paizo).

To be accurate, renau1g said that yougner people will likely spend more money, not that they have more money. And in my case, that is correct. While I have more money now than I did when I was younger, I do not spend as much on gaming as I did since I have greater needs for my money. Saving for that new house, college expenses and retirement takes precedence over buying the shiny new book.

The main difference now is that I plan and budget my gaming purchases; many fewer impulse purchases than when I was younger.

As well, while past sales may not count towards future profits, the habits of past customers should not be ignored. Its foolish to write off faithful customers in an attempt to gain younger customers. I have come to believe this was not their intention, though it was, for many of us, what did happen

Well, past history also says that, no matter what you will lose customers when you make an edition change. I suspect that WotC knew moving to 4e would create a divide in the market, but their market research concluded that the potential gains outweighed the losses.

 

[renau1g]

The main problem with your reasoning is that while teens may represent 35% of the market, non-teens must represent close to 65% percent of the video game market.

If your company targets the 35% and mine targets the 65%, if we both pull in just ten percent of the people we target, I'll make twice as much money as you do, more or less.

But you're assuming 100% of people who are not teens suddenly abandon D&D and head to Pathfinder or other games.

If they sold PDF's of older editions would you (or most of the others who are upset about it) buy 4e products? Or would your patronage be a one time, tiny boost to profits?