D&D General Why grognards still matter

[DrJawaPhD]

I’m sure, but that wasn’t the claim.

Agreed, there are 3 components to his claim and I dispute the other two. Wealth increases with Age, ok sure I'll bet that's true. Dollars spent increases with Wealth, debatable. Prospensity to prefer older DnD editions increases with Age, I disagree without evidence

 

[Morrus]

Agreed, there are 3 components to his claim and I dispute the other two. Wealth increases with Age, ok sure I'll bet that's true. Dollars spent increases with Wealth, debatable. Prospensity to prefer older DnD editions increases with Age, I disagree without evidence

The claim I am asking for a cite on is "We still buy a higher percentage of books than kidz these daze." I'm not saying that's not true (I don't know) but I'd like to see evidence that it is. I have a higher disposable income than many 20-year olds, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean people my age spend more on skateboards (hah, dated reference!) than 20-year olds do. The demographic info I've heard from WotC over the last decade says those older D&D fans are far fewer in number than younger ones.

 

[Lanefan]

The claim I am asking for a cite on is "We still buy a higher percentage of books than kidz these daze." I'm not saying that's not true (I don't know) but I'd like to see evidence that it is. I have a higher disposable income than many 20-year olds, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean people my age spend more on skateboards (hah, dated reference!) than 20-year olds do. The demographic info I've heard from WotC over the last decade says those older D&D fans are far fewer in number than younger ones.

Far fewer in number, perhaps. What we don't get to see is whether or not those older fans spend more, the same, or less per capita on the game than the younger fans; and I think what's being posited here is that it is - or has the potential to be - somewhat more.

 

[Clint_L]

The thing is, there's only so much you can actually spend on WotC products. It's a few books a year, even if you buy all of them. So I'm not sure that much of the higher disposable income of us old-timers is going to make its way to WotC/Hasbro.

I'm going to Gen Con this year. I've got tickets to see the Critical Role show there. I'll likely be backing another Dwarven Forge kickstarter, not to mention the next Dungeons and Lasers one. And I just backed another C'Mon games KS. So I am definitely spending money I didn't have when I was a youth, but little of it is going to WotC. What is going to them is $7/month for DDB and maybe $100 for mostly digital books (well, more last year because I had to have the anniversary OD&D book). I don't think I'm actually giving more to WotC, relative to inflation, than I gave annually to TSR when I was 15 (buying the physical books/modules plus Dragon magazine every month). Probably less!

Edit: writing that made me realize that Hasbro is not wrong to note that D&D is poorly monetized. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but for such a well-recognized brand, there's not a ton to spend your money on, at least when it comes to the people who own the actual brand.

 

[CrashFiend82]

I think the underlying premise of the OP is wrong. Considering incomes, generally they increase with age. Using google (yeah I know that isn't always reliable) the average 16 year old makes $32,500 vs at 60 it's $62,000. However, teens have near zero in bills while older adults save at much higher rates. Most economists I follow consider 40 to be a break point. That is why "most" products are targeted at the coveted 14 - 29 year old. I would like to raise 2 additional thoughts I rarely see discussed.

1. Demographics - While I don't want to take time to cite all the sources, and some I can't. Working for a large corporation I have gotten to see the trends in our marketing over the past few decades. We generally market to a more mature audience, but realized roughly 20 years ago we needed to transition from Boomers to Gen-x, however due to simple numerical differences between each generation took a very slow approach. We "needed" to hold onto Boomers while targeting GenX. Therefore while we subtly marketed younger but made choices to avoid ruffling feathers. Now the Boomers have aged into retirement you would think we would more heavily target GenX, but the numbers have reversed, we "need" to get Millennials more than GenX. This has caused our strategy to change dramatically. IE Boomers and Millennials have very different tastes and GenX barely matter.

2. The Pandemic - while no one wants to remember that mess it changed people's habits. With things shut down and fewer ways to o spend money people had more available capital. A vast number spent that capital to find leisure at home. It was one of the biggest booms for gaming, PC, TTRPG, and board gaming alike. When it ended and people could go outside again those markets equalized, or busted. A number of those sectors are laying off, downsizing, or even closing shop. My only point is that 2014 could be as "popular" with the average "gamer" and still drop sales dramatically, which would appear to many that 2024 is "worse".

Lastly, it is just a simple approach to the market. Even if Mature Gamers (don't like the connotation of Gronard) spent equal to younger they aren't going to be targeted nearly as much. First most Mature Gamers started years ago and likely know very well what they want from a TTRPG, most (as polls here suggest) made up their minds when 2024 was announced. Second it's just a matter of age, if they "hook" a Boomer they may get a customer for 20 more years, but get a new GenZ, Zennial, they likely get 50+ years of spending. If I were them and a million to spend on marketing it makes simple sense to focus on gaining a few 1,000 new kids than retaining 100 Mature Gamers. Hence, the new focus of the 2024 DMG.

TDLR: Gronards (Matur Gamers) matter just far less than they would like and will (over time) spend far less than those darn kids. Also the pandemic screwed up the math and likely "ballooned" 2014 sales leading to a likely downward trend for 2024 (even if "popularity" is equal).

 

[Older Beholder]

New players have a lifetime of spending ahead of them, which is why companies focus on them.
It’s also a game for kids, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that’s how it’s marketed.

The other thing to note is that the game still caters to Grognards, it’s just not exclusively focused on them. I think it was Mike Mearls in another thread that pointed out that the biggest growth in 5E wasn’t in young people, it was women.

 

[Morrus]

Far fewer in number, perhaps. What we don't get to see is whether or not those older fans spend more, the same, or less per capita on the game than the younger fans; and I think what's being posited here is that it is - or has the potential to be - somewhat more.

You’ve added the “per capita” bit there. And also it’s not really relevant—one fan who spends £1000 a year on D&D books is not a more important cohort than 1,000 fans who spend £10 each. Per capita is just a red herring. But no, we don’t know what they (we) spend as a whole, which is why I asked, since the OP states it like it’s fact.

 

[Lanefan]

You’ve added the “per capita” bit there. And also it’s not really relevant—one fan who spends £1000 a year on D&D books is not a more important cohort than 1,000 fans who spend £10 each.

Following that logic, *2000 a year looks a lot better than *1000 a year; meaning it would seem in the business' best interests to keep both those cohorts in the fold if possible.

* - sorry, if this Canadian keyboard has a pound-sterling symbol on it I've no idea where it's hiding.

 

[nevin]

There is a phenomenon known as retro nostalgia, where people who weren't born for a particular cultural touchstone still feel nostalgic for a thing (or the representation of it in media) and seeks to emulate it. You find that the recent revival of vinyl records and 8/16 bit retro games. I suspect that this is true for OS RPGs as well. For some, it's a call for an era they missed that was "purer" than what is mainstream now. It's a little bit romanticism for what's past and a little bit hipster/anti-trend chasing. I'm not saying that's the reason OS gaming is popular, but it is A factor.

Thing in the rear view mirror always look different than they were.

The claim I am asking for a cite on is "We still buy a higher percentage of books than kidz these daze." I'm not saying that's not true (I don't know) but I'd like to see evidence that it is. I have a higher disposable income than many 20-year olds, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean people my age spend more on skateboards (hah, dated reference!) than 20-year olds do. The demographic info I've heard from WotC over the last decade says those older D&D fans are far fewer in number than younger ones.

white whales can be younger there are well off kids but the middle aged person is more likely to buy a sports car a nice house or all the stuff they want for thier hobby. Obviously there are homeless middle aged people and stupidly rich 10 year olds but the business is looking for the groups most likely to spend not the outliers.

 

[nevin]

You’ve added the “per capita” bit there. And also it’s not really relevant—one fan who spends £1000 a year on D&D books is not a more important cohort than 1,000 fans who spend £10 each. Per capita is just a red herring. But no, we don’t know what they (we) spend as a whole, which is why I asked, since the OP states it like it’s fact.

The Pareto Principle in business states, 10 percent of your customers provide 90 percent of your profit. the other 90 percent of your customers spend lots of money but in small amounts. Smart companies always cater to the 10 percent first then the 90 percent.