The market dying?

Hey Rasyr!

Rasyr said:

Here is the same data in a slightly easier to read format.

Click to expand...

Ummmm ... thanks for posting it like that. Neat, now if we could keep track of the units sold and finish the table to inlude the whole year, that'd be cool!

The last three months on the table are really, really harsh. Thanks to GMskarka for sharing the numbers.

And Rasyr, that thing about Nisarg ... I hope I'm not shaping up to take his place!

Cheers!

Maggan

GVDammerung said:

These numbers, to me, well document a slow but noticeable decline.

Click to expand...

Huh? Are you reading the same numbers? Month by month, over the last four years, the numbers show a lousy second quarter in 2005, but the 1st quarter is virtually identical to the previous three years.

January 2002-2005: 86, 66, 80, 82
February 2002-2005: 77, 63, 68, 70
March 2002-2005: 67, 60, 77, 69

That seems very much like a steady market. From year to year, sales fluctuate up and down over a fairly small range. The second quarter does look bad though:

April 2002-2005: 86, 62, 74, 40
May 2002-2005: 108, 58, 74, 35
June 2002-2005: 94, 70, 75, 32

But it isn't clear from this whether the second quarter 2005 is a trend, or just a temporary drop. The numbers from 2003-2004 look very steady, and the numbers from the second quarter of 2002 look like a spike (since they seem out of line with the rest of the data). If things continue this way in the third quarter, then you might have a trend. On the other hand, if you took a similar snapshot at the end of 2004, things would look like the market was gaining steam (look at the numbers for fourth quarter 2004, higher than almost anywhere else).

Heh

Isn't it ironic, as whatever her names is sang, that once we get the numbers, we still stand on two opposite sides, saying "it's a decline, stupid!" or "no it's fluctuation of a healthy market, doomsayer!".

I'm really enjoying this, since it brings many different viewpoints on the table.

Thanx everyone!

/M

Isn't the place where we see this slump where a bunch of 3rd party companies are releasing non-D&D d20/OGL/independent game systems? I could be wrong on that one, but it does seem interesting that there's a lot of talk about the d20 bubble bursting...but the slump is in the time when people are producing LESS d20 specific material.

Good to see some actual numbers, even though its hard to say anything beyond this year has had somewhat of a slump...though how do you put those numbers together with what Matt has said? Because he sure seemed pleased with how things are going with Mongoose.

philreed said:

Agreed. I suspect they've got more than one document floating around that deals with 4e. At this point the discussions probably involve more marketing decisions/ideas than design-related issues.

Click to expand...

Of course they have documents floating around. I recall Monte Cook saying something like "While working on 3e, I kept a 4e file around on my computer to put stuff I thought would be cool, but too much of a departure from the old stuff, in."

So, looking at it that way, you could say that WOTC has been working on 4e since before 2000.

Turjan said:

Edit: I just looked at some games from 2002/2003 that I have. They contain this information:

"Neverwinter Nights, Forgotten Realms, the Forgotten Realms logo, Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. and are used by Infogrames Entertainment, S.A. under license. All Rights Reserved."

Wouldn't this point to a different company if the license wasn't given out by Hasbro?

Click to expand...

The way I understand it, Hasbro sold off Hasbro Interactive, including the rights to D&D computer games, to Infogrames soon after 3e was released (this is apparently what prompted Peter Adkison to resign). This is, I think, technically a license since Hasbro owns D&D itself. More recently, they renegotiated the deal (or made a new one), so that Hasbro regains the rights to D&D computer games in about ten years.

Staffan said:

So, looking at it that way, you could say that WOTC has been working on 4e since before 2000.

Click to expand...

Shhhh.

Turjan said:

I'm more the visual guy, therefore an Excel sheet of those data.

Click to expand...

I'm more of a stats guy; the trend isn't statistically significant (and anyways wasn't there a lot of talk about how the C&GR numbers were meaningless a few pages ago?)

GMSkarka said:

Yes, it's a steady decline. The years previous had regularly higher figures.

Nobody is saying "the sky is falling", despite the continued attempts on the part of the happy-shiny-nothing-is-wrong-with-my-hobby-lalalalalICANTHEARYOU crowd to portray the position as such.

What *is* being said is that the market is in an obvious decline.

"You have no proof" They say.

"Here."

"Well...uh...it's obviously just a recent slump, chicken-little!"

Whatever.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's just a recent slump. If you cared to look at the data, you would see it. For illustration, I'll show the seven months averages for those data, including all months suitable for full 7 months averages. You will note that the market pointed upwards for a long period of time after the D&D 3.5 release. It shows a sharp decline for the last months.

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:

Good to see some actual numbers, even though its hard to say anything beyond this year has had somewhat of a slump...

Click to expand...

That's because I'm not about to go back to dig out 9 years of back issues, just so I can provide data to satisfy a few insistent posters on an internet forum. Sorry. At some point, you'll just have to take my word for the fact that the earlier numbers were higher, and when added to the figures I provided above, a definite downward trend is visible.

Why would I make this up? What possible vested interest would I (somebody who does this full time, for a living) have in portraying a decline if there wasn't one?

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:

though how do you put those numbers together with what Matt has said? Because he sure seemed pleased with how things are going with Mongoose.

Click to expand...

Trying to put this politely as possible: Matt's statements have been, shall we say, historically divergent from things that I've heard about Mongoose's operations, from people who have since been let go.

Now, given the fact that I no longer know anybody on the staff, it's entirely possible that things have changed drastically, and he's entirely forthright and things are as he says. You all should certainly give someone the benefit of the doubt. I, however, will allow past trends to color my opinions, and take it all with a grain of salt the size of Swindon.