Proof D&D is in serious decline

[Libramarian]

Whenever someone says that D&D is dying, or 4e failed, or some similar doom-saying, someone doesn't believe it and says the numbers are made up by DDi subs, or the market is just switching to PDFs instead of printed books, or forum traffic isn't a good measure of the number of people playing, etc.

This to me is the proof: Google searches for dungeons and dragons and D&D

As you can see, there has been a remarkably steady downward trend since 2004. There was a spike in interest in June 2008 (release of 4e) but it quickly dropped off. Right now the Google search volume for these terms is less than a third what it was in Jan 2004 (this is as far back as you can look at, btw).

WotC has to do something really, really different with DDN from what they've done in the past 10 years to have a chance at reversing this trend. I don't think there's any point to approaching this project as a continuation of the previous edition, or the half-edition previous to that. Another way of putting the data is even if all of the current interest evaporated, they would only need to regain half of what they've lost since 2004 to make up for it.

 

[Jester David]

It's proof that people aren't searching for the term, yes. But add in "Magic the Gathering" and you also see a sharp decline for that, although the game is still going strong and is quite profitable.

The decline is likely less related to people not searching for the game and more the player base already knowing the URL or having the site bookmarked. I haven't Googled either term in years because I have the site favourited, and I have a comfortable amount of side content (blogs, message boards, etc). And my Google-fu is strong enough that I seldom search for a single term anymore.

Yes, it might mean fewer people are getting into the game. This is not a surprise. But dying? No.

 

[Raith5]

WotC has to do something really, really different with DDN from what they've done in the past 10 years to have a chance at reversing this trend. I don't think there's any point to approaching this project as a continuation of the previous edition, or the half-edition previous to that. Another way of putting the data is even if all of the current interest evaporated, they would only need to regain half of what they've lost since 2004 to make up for it.

That assumes that it is possible to reverse this trend. After all 4th ed was an attempt to look outside the RPG pond and get a few of the computer game/WOW gamer pool. This approach to develop a more gamist and cinematic game alienated a large segment of people in the RPG pond - I am not sure how many new gamers were attracted. Is DDN with its focus on the history of the game really going to expand the game?

The other thing about the Google graph which is interesting is the western centric nature of the searches - I am sure WOTC would love to get some Chinese and Indians playing the game!

 

[el_stiko]

I found another thread along these lines, from 2009, but can't post the link yet.

 

[el_stiko]

"enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?247971-What-can-Google-Trends-tell-us-about-D-amp-D"

 

[Libramarian]

It's proof that people aren't searching for the term, yes. But add in "Magic the Gathering" and you also see a sharp decline for that, although the game is still going strong and is quite profitable.

The decline is likely less related to people not searching for the game and more the player base already knowing the URL or having the site bookmarked. I haven't Googled either term in years because I have the site favourited, and I have a comfortable amount of side content (blogs, message boards, etc). And my Google-fu is strong enough that I seldom search for a single term anymore.

Yes, it might mean fewer people are getting into the game. This is not a surprise. But dying? No.

I don't really know anything or care about MtG, but are you sure it's doing so well? The decline is similar but not as steady as D&D's; I did a little bit of research and found an article on ICv2 that said the MtG player base grew 80% from 2008 to 2011, but if you look at the Google search trend for MtG during that time, it's almost the exact same amount of growth (there's a huge spike in 2011 for some reason), so if anything that supports the relevance of Google search trends.

No doubt most established players arne't googling D&D anymore. What it mostly represents is newbies looking to network and interested non-customers, people browsing past the store window. I don't have any proof of this but I think it stands to reason that D&D converts a much smaller percentage of window browsers into paying customers than MtG (or almost any other game?), because a) the brand has big awareness relative to current playerbase and b) pdf game books are easily pirated (who knows how many people get interested in D&D, pirate the books and play without spending a dime)?

 

[darjr]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?247971-What-can-Google-Trends-tell-us-about-D-amp-D

 

[Jester David]

No doubt most established players arne't googling D&D anymore. What it mostly represents is newbies looking to network and interested non-customers, people browsing past the store window.

Which just means there isn't a growing number of new player. Or that new players are holding steady while established players are googling less. Heck, or even that there's an increase of new players and established players' search habits are suffering an even sharper decline.
There's no way to be sure.

But for a humbling look at the hobby throw in a term like "Jersey Shore" or "Paris Hilton" and see what happens to the numbers.

I don't have any proof of this but I think it stands to reason that D&D converts a much smaller percentage of window browsers into paying customers than MtG (or almost any other game?), because a) the brand has big awareness relative to current playerbase and

Not so much. MtG is a huge cash cow and the reason WotC is owned by Hasbro. D&D may be recognised by more common people as a term, but Magic and the like have a much larger audience.

D&D is also much harder to sell people on. You need 2 people to play Magic, and it's easy to get a game going quickly with strangers. The introductory buy-in is small and the initial learning curve of the game is low. Mastery is hard but you can get a passable knowledge in minutes.
D&D takes three or four times the money, three times the people, and has a much steeper learning curve. It's much harder to sell people via online.
Plus, until recently WotC was doing a pretty terrible job of introducing new people to the hobby via their website. And even now it's really, really, really not the focus.

b) pdf game books are easily pirated (who knows how many people get interested in D&D, pirate the books and play without spending a dime)?

Likely higher than MtG with its competitive element. Although, with a good printer and once inside a sleeve it would be hard to tell a knock-off of a rarer card from a real one.

Still... if D&D was so easily pirated, wouldn't its player base be growing?
And people searching for pirated books would still trigger search engine results.

 

[Stormonu]

Just playing around with that graph, and some interesting trends:

http://www.google.com/trends/explor..., Pathfinder, d20, Magic the gathering&cmpt=q

As a whole, looks like queries for D&D and D&D-like products are on the decline. Comparatively, looks like M:tG has been on a search decline as well. "Pathfinder" must be picking up a lot of buzz for the non-D&D association (Pathfinder trucks, movie, military group, etc.), or it's been surprisingly a steady searched-for game.

<EDIT> Yeah, ignore the Pathfinder. After some investigation, it looks like it's mostly picking up "nissan Pathfinder" (oddly enough, which I drive).

 

[Dice4Hire]

I fail to see how Google searches has anything to do with the health of this hobby.