Which groups of fans are worth going after?

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't think 5e has much of a chance. It's D&D, so initial sales will be high, then it'll taper off and the suits will be raising hell and firing people. Again.
The Pathfinder crowd has Pathfinder. The 4e crowd has 4e. The old school crowd is out there, but 5e will have to rock their socks to even get them to notice it. And no matter the modularity, pulling all 3 factions under one tent is going to be nigh impossible. Why should I stop my 1e game for 5e when it's going to have encounter powers and at will spells and healing to full after every fight which - modular or not - I will have to remove to get the game I want? 5E's grand unification theory is a fine idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. I see it as an better option than 4e, but still not the type of game I want. I imagine a whole lot of 4e and Pathfinder fans feel the same. 5e seems to me to be a game where everyone has to give up something to get...what, exactly? No, it will be the same old flash in the pan. Collectors will buy it, some will buy it to check it out, then go back to 4e/Pathfinder/insert game of choice here. Then they'll drift back to their old game. Sure, it will retain a solid core of players that would make any small company happy, but it won't please Ha$bro. 3 Years later, 6e will be announced with some marketing spiel about how this time they'll really let you kick the football, Charlie Brown.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This just comes off as another edition war post to me. I don't know if it was intended that way (and it probably wasn't), but I'm getting that feeling from you quite a bit recently (the "AD&D wasn't good" thread, with the "looking backwards" line in the title; or the tone of some posts in "convincing 4e players to consider 5e" thread). That might be unfair, but I'm saying how it's coming across to me.

That's not my intent, certainly. I actually like 1e and have the Deluxe 1e DMG. I'm just getting fed up with the way it's getting described a lot of the time - things like "simpler" really bear no resemblance to the game I read and played in the 90s.

The "convincing 4e players" started off by me trying to post the positives of 4e that need not get in the way of playing in any other style, but the D&D Next designers weren't providing - but somehow almost immediately turned round to people wanting to erase anything at all that resembled in 4e in any possible way. This likewise started as a reply to someone who thinks we don't need 4e players to make D&D a success. Which isn't true. We need everyone if D&D Next is to be a success - and WotC/Hasbro needs the profits from that.

in order to meet Hasbros unrealistic sales goals, they have to get all groups as well as a whole slew of new groups. even 3.5 in its hey day did not meet Hasbros goals. it more than likely that 5e will be a smashing success greater than 3.5 and 4e put together and still get shelved by hasbro for not being profitable enough. the numbers mentioned in articles i've seen are around $100,000,000 as goals...

I've heard £50 million. Which is only half as bad. But even that would be a level of success well beyond anything we've seen. 4e I believe had a strategy that might have reached this goal (and didn't completely fail or we wouldn't have a 5e at all) - but that was doomed with Gleemax.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I find it rather dismissive and condescending

The point was to reflect not only the content of the original post, but the tone.

It's not clear to me which edition has the most players, but I think that if one considers 3.5 and PF together, it is likely certainly the largest group of people by a wide margin (and, given Paizo's numbers, customers and subscribers). Dismissing them:

3.5 and 3.0 fans should therefore be almost entirely ignored from a business decision perspective.

would be foolish.

A new OGL game that improved on 3e's flaws would hit a rather large audience.

to assert that most 4E fans are followers who just play whatever, as opposed to liking and preferring 4E as a system.

I think WotC is guessing that to be the case. I really don't know.

That said, I think this is true of most things. How many people research the nutrition facts of something before they eat it? The ENW crowd is a very knowledgeable group, but I suspect most gamers are not particularly discriminating consumers and don't put that much thought into what game they play or carefully consider alternatives, at least no more so than most people do when buying anything.

I find more than a whiff of wishful thinking in there as well. I also find two practical issues with the assertion. First is if 4E fans are blind followers, why has 4E been played at all given all the opposition.

They're not blind followers, but I'm sure there are many people who simply play whatever is being offered at their game store/convention/etc. and simply buy whatever is in the big box retail stores. The average D&D player (any edition) probably does not seriously consider playing another rpg instead. D&D is still the only name brand in this hobby, whatever the sales figures are for Pathfinder.

The second is if 4E players are just sheep who follow whatever their friends play, if their friends are playing 4E and refuse to switch to 5E, it would stand that the sheep would be more likely to follow their friends than follow WotC into a new direction.

Quite possibly, which is why 5e is a gamble. This certainly has happened already; not every 3.5 or PF player explicitly dislikes or avoids 4e, they just play what their DM comes up with. Paizo has been very effective with grassroots marketing and social networking.

The point I was getting at is that I think it would be far more difficult to sway those 4e activists to 5e than any other group, unless 5e were a 4e revision, in which case WotC would make no progress with any of the many other groups.

 

[Lokiare]

That's not my intent, certainly. I actually like 1e and have the Deluxe 1e DMG. I'm just getting fed up with the way it's getting described a lot of the time - things like "simpler" really bear no resemblance to the game I read and played in the 90s.

The "convincing 4e players" started off by me trying to post the positives of 4e that need not get in the way of playing in any other style, but the D&D Next designers weren't providing - but somehow almost immediately turned round to people wanting to erase anything at all that resembled in 4e in any possible way. This likewise started as a reply to someone who thinks we don't need 4e players to make D&D a success. Which isn't true. We need everyone if D&D Next is to be a success - and WotC/Hasbro needs the profits from that.



I've heard £50 million. Which is only half as bad. But even that would be a level of success well beyond anything we've seen. 4e I believe had a strategy that might have reached this goal (and didn't completely fail or we wouldn't have a 5e at all) - but that was doomed with Gleemax.

It appears you are correct, but its $ not E.

Here is the source. Note its an article about the murder/suicide and may be upsetting to some people.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

So what's WotC's big strategy?

The core strategy is taking those people for a ride who are not too jaded to try something different.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Anything Pre-4th Ed; I did it, did it hard, never again.

Make 4th Ed what it is, an expanded version of Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures; no fact about it, not being weird, that's there what it is. *in the voice of H.I./Nicholas Cage in Raising Arizona*

 

[Scylla]

I don't think 5e has much of a chance. It's D&D, so initial sales will be high, then it'll taper off and the suits will be raising hell and firing people. Again.
The Pathfinder crowd has Pathfinder. The 4e crowd has 4e. The old school crowd is out there, but 5e will have to rock their socks to even get them to notice it. And no matter the modularity, pulling all 3 factions under one tent is going to be nigh impossible. Why should I stop my 1e game for 5e when it's going to have encounter powers and at will spells and healing to full after every fight which - modular or not - I will have to remove to get the game I want? 5E's grand unification theory is a fine idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. I see it as an better option than 4e, but still not the type of game I want. I imagine a whole lot of 4e and Pathfinder fans feel the same. 5e seems to me to be a game where everyone has to give up something to get...what, exactly? No, it will be the same old flash in the pan. Collectors will buy it, some will buy it to check it out, then go back to 4e/Pathfinder/insert game of choice here. Then they'll drift back to their old game. Sure, it will retain a solid core of players that would make any small company happy, but it won't please Ha$bro. 3 Years later, 6e will be announced with some marketing spiel about how this time they'll really let you kick the football, Charlie Brown.

All sadly true.

 

[Scylla]

My breakdown of the basic groups:

4e players: About a third of these will never get onboard unless D&D-Next suddenly becomes 4.5e; so they'll stick with 4e. Another third, after some protesting or a win-over period, will make the switch. The last third will move ahead to Next because of brand/WotC loyalty or simply because they always want to try new editions.

Pathfinder players: This will be a hard sell, but not impossible. D&D-Next, the little we've seen, has an awful lot of 3e mechanics under all that 2e paint. But these folks resisted the siren call of 4e, which means they either resisted the new & shiny or didn't like something that felt too different from 3e. Moreover, Paizo has incredible company loyalty, bolstered by good writers and adventures (IMHO), beautiful production values, and staff that actually respond to customers directly. For many Pathfinder fans, you're not just persuading them to switch systems but to switch companies.

3e/3.5e players: These guys didn't make the jump to Pathfinder or 4e, so it's doubtful they're going anywhere. You might net 10% of these. Clearly, they've found what they like.

1e/2e players: I'm lumping these folks together. Despite what the OP says, these guys are a rich untapped market. Most are older, and many have demonstrated a years-long loyalty to the hobby, and they have disposable cash (they don't have to ask Mom & Dad for money—they often are Mom & Dad). The surge in retro-clones, OSRIC materials, and the DCC-RPG popularity prove that these folks will buy new product that feels old-school. Indeed, I know many of these folks, and they will happily buy again when a product/edition arrives that resembles the game they grew up with. But that's the key, the edition can't be too far evolved ("evolved" here being subjective).

White box and older set players: These guys are a tiny subset and I would sadly assume them lost to any new edition. They're happier scoring a copy of Chainmail on eBay.

So the two biggest groups to gain are the 4e players and 1e/2e players. Good luck with that, Wizards!
That's why I stick with my theory—which WotC would never do—that WotC should actively support two editions: a 4.5e and an official retro-clone (basically a 2.5e).

 

[Tovec]

The point was to reflect not only the content of the original post, but the tone.

Agreed. Tried to +1 but still can't.

It's not clear to me which edition has the most players, but I think that if one considers 3.5 and PF together, it is likely certainly the largest group of people by a wide margin (and, given Paizo's numbers, customers and subscribers). Dismissing them:would be foolish.

A new OGL game that improved on 3e's flaws would hit a rather large audience.

I happen to agree, but it is as impossible to prove; as "PF outselling 4e but 4e wins via DnDInsider subscriptions" or w/e the claims are.

to assert that most 4E fans are followers who just play whatever, as opposed to liking and preferring 4E as a system.

I think WotC is guessing that to be the case. I really don't know.

That said, I think this is true of most things. How many people research the nutrition facts of something before they eat it? The ENW crowd is a very knowledgeable group, but I suspect most gamers are not particularly discriminating consumers and don't put that much thought into what game they play or carefully consider alternatives, at least no more so than most people do when buying anything.

This is entirely debatable too. He was talking mainly about the hardcore, pay every month, subscription based consumers. They are generally the ones who would come to ENWorld or places like it and post and discuss. Subscribes are probably the most knowledgeable group of players and care most about this game's direction. I'll certainly agree to that. I disagree that they are universally 4e/PF players because things aren't anywhere near that simple.

They're not blind followers, but I'm sure there are many people who simply play whatever is being offered at their game store/convention/etc. and simply buy whatever is in the big box retail stores. The average D&D player (any edition) probably does not seriously consider playing another rpg instead. D&D is still the only name brand in this hobby, whatever the sales figures are for Pathfinder.

Quite possibly, which is why 5e is a gamble. This certainly has happened already; not every 3.5 or PF player explicitly dislikes or avoids 4e, they just play what their DM comes up with. Paizo has been very effective with grassroots marketing and social networking.

The point I was getting at is that I think it would be far more difficult to sway those 4e activists to 5e than any other group, unless 5e were a 4e revision, in which case WotC would make no progress with any of the many other groups.

This is true of almost all 'casual gamers' or 'customer' players I think. I think a very small portion, the 'subscriber' players, actually only play just 4e over any other edition.

I also agree with the trying to sway the 4e players, but I think they have to work equally hard to sway ANY demographic. I'm a 3e/PF player and I won't play 5e unless it wows me. They'll have to convince me too.

The casual gamer and some customer gamers might pick up 5e because it has the name on the box. Monopoly sells how many different versions of the same game every year? I think that Neonchameleon is probably right about that. If they can keep selling identical monopolys then they can sell 5e to players of any edition. To turn casual gamers into subscribers (a term I dislike BTW because I'm hardcore and I'm not subscribed anywhere) they are going to need to come up with a damn good and inclusive game. Focusing on only 4e or 3e or PF or any one group isn't going to work. I hate to ruin the whole simplifying you (Ahnehnois) and Neonchameleon are doing but I don't agree on that one part.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Focusing on only 4e or 3e or PF or any one group isn't going to work. I hate to ruin the whole simplifying you (Ahnehnois) and Neonchameleon are doing but I don't agree on that one part.

Oh, no, it certainly isn't. That's why I've argued (elsewhere) that D&D simply isn't a good business (as [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] was getting at). There just isn't much impetus for people who have a working game to keep buying more and more stuff; there are a few "subscribers" out there, but the subscription model clearly isn't going to meet WotC's financial goals. The only thing I see that would work is a true mechanical revolution that unequivocally moves the game forwards and expands its appeal (like what 3e was at its initial release) combined with a variety of external factors that broaden the audience. I don't see that happening, but I try to have hope.