Which groups of fans are worth going after?

[Mattachine]

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.

I knew there was some behind the scenes problems, but I had no idea about this. Very sad.

 

[Raith5]

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).

Agree. I am enjoying seeing WOTC try to unify the editions, and I hope they succeed. But if it were my money on the line I would something along these lines.

 

[Umbran]

Money matters, and to Hasbro (and thus to the success of D&D Next), money is the only thing that matters.

The fundamental weakness with your entire piece lies here - we do not have a clear indication that Hasbro mucks in on the strategy of D&D. We don't have a strong indication that Hasbro is leaning heavily on WotC on the matter, such that WotC would have to approach it from an immediate-$$-only perspective.

Plus, even if "money is the only thing that matters", this does not necessarily lean to a ruthless strategy. Health of the brand depends on loyalty of the fanbase, which means that money depends upon the loyalty of the fanbase. Dong things we like that don't actually haul in many $$ may still be seen as a loss-leader from that perspective.

So, I don't think we can predict so clearly what the strategy should be.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I have a hunch that the bigger question is going to be how many gamers tend to really lock into one game, versus how many gamers tend to enjoy experimenting with new systems? The first group is a much tougher crowd when it comes to making a sale. You have to convince them not only that you have something good, but that it is better than what they are currently locked onto, and more likely to appeal to them. Of course, if you can so convince them, they tend to be the best customers, as now locked onto your thing, they'll but a lot of it.

I think those characteristics cross editions. You'll find the full spectrum in fans of all editions. And in any case, the reality is that they are going to get some of both, if they put out a good game. But you pick a wider pool of "partial" customers with one focus but a deeper pool of locked in customers with another. Ideally, they'd like to have a game good enough to pay for itself with the partial customers, and then take off with the niches of customers where it can.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My thought is that the bean-counters have to look at the sales history of the game, and say "Hey, do what you did in the 80s, it worked great."

While it's not the 80s anymore, the D&D fad in the 80s was heavily among teenage boys, and those teenagers who made D&D a fad and then never touched it again, are now in their peak earning years and having mid-life crises. By conventional marketing wisdom, they're a prime target market for a 'come back.'

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think the point he's trying to make is that subscribers/collectors are more significant from a revenue perspective, than more casual purchasers, and that only 4E and Pathfinder players over the past five years have shown that behavior. I think he has a point, though the conclusions he derives from it are up for debate.

I don't think it's an invalid or irrational line of thought, but I still get an "edition-war" feel from it. I really do hope this thread is productive and civil, but we'll see.

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.

This is not only a reasonable viewpoint, it sounds reasonably worded. No objections to this post.

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.

It's true is there are a lot of "4e failed, so they need to ignore 4e to succeed" posts. And they're aggravating. I just got a feeling of edition-war return fire (or often preemptive strike) that didn't add much to the productive part of the discussion. And, honestly, got a similar feeling from the original post.

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 agree, they need to pull from all groups to make 5e a success. And, in order to do that, they need to please each group. This obviously includes 4e, and to no small degree.

So, I definitely agree with you here. As always, play what you like

 

[Incenjucar]

My thought is that the bean-counters have to look at the sales history of the game, and say "Hey, do what you did in the 80s, it worked great."

While it's not the 80s anymore, the D&D fad in the 80s was heavily among teenage boys, and those teenagers who made D&D a fad and then never touched it again, are now in their peak earning years and having mid-life crises. By conventional marketing wisdom, they're a prime target market for a 'come back.'

Bean counters are not automatically mentally-challenged, and the 80s of D&D are not up to contemporary Hasbro standards. It's true that people often make decisions about things they don't understand well, but the people who ARE in touch with the game are making at least half of the questionable decisions, so let's not go blaming people who can't defend themselves.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Here's how I see it.

Every edition has those that have a passionate attachment which they will never transfer to another edition.

I'd say that's a small percentage of each edition. We can now discuss the rest of the gamers.

A majority of the remaining players will update to the newest version as long as it isn't too far from their preferences.

Those who don't update, do it because they find another edition more to their liking. We've seen from the OSR that that isn't necessarily the version they were playing--they might start hunting around to see their options if they aren't happy with the newest offering.

New players usually enter through the newest version.

The current division tells us that a large number of people who weren't passionately attached to any particular version are now consciously considering and choosing which version they prefer. Some choose 4e, some PF, some retro-clones, some 3.x, and some go dig out their pre-3e books for the first time since the 90s.

And then there are those D&D fans who are looking for a version to call their own and haven't found it yet.

The state of the hobby has given us a highly informed fanbase.

5e will succeed because it is targeting exactly that fanbase. Those passionately attached to one editon won't switch. But that's a minority. Our fanbase is composed primarily of those who automatically switch (which WotC has no need to focus on), and those who switch as long as the game isn't too far from their preferences--exactly who they are targeting with their inclusive and modular nature.

This is why they are doing it right from a financial aspect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Bean counters are not automatically mentally-challenged,

I've counted a few beans in my day. My point was actually that focusing on lapsed players who were part of the 80s D&D fad makes some solid (if maybe a bit facile) marketing sense - not that it was a bad idea* or indicative of being out of touch.




* from that perspective, obviously if you're a fan of modern D&D (3e, 4e - even 2e in some ways), it's a terrible idea.

 

[Steely_Dan]

My thought is that the bean-counters have to look at the sales history of the game, and say "Hey, do what you did in the 80s, it worked great."

While it's not the 80s anymore, the D&D fad in the 80s was heavily among teenage boys, and those teenagers who made D&D a fad and then never touched it again, are now in their peak earning years and having mid-life crises. By conventional marketing wisdom, they're a prime target market for a 'come back.'

Would you please stop with your anti pre-4th Ed crusade...for all of us, it's not fun, it's not cool, it is passive-aggressive and boring.

Go shoot something, maybe that will take your mind off it.