• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

4 years of 5E on Amazon: same old same old

sim-h

Explorer
Though this says nothing about 5e on the whole, in terms of its worth or popularity, 5e D&D has become dead in the water for my TTRPG group.
A more interesting post to other people in this thread might include details of what system(s) they prefer instead and why they are not keen on D&D 5e. Do tell!
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Something of interest...that WotC won't release or confirm obviously.

Number of players is an estimate, NOT based on DMGs or core sets sold, but I think PHB's sold.

In estimations, if 1,000,000+ (meaning over) PHB's of 3e were sold with a 5 million player base...that's a 1 to 5 ration.

If 500,000+ - 600,000+ 4e PHB's were sold and the player base was 2.5 to 3 million...that's still around a 1 to 5 ratio

Last year...2.3 million 5e PHB's sold as of the time they told their estimation...

This year they were at 3 million PHBs. The factor ranges from PHB x4 to PHB x5 which at 3 million PHB's sold is around 12 to 15 million Player base estimate depending on which factor you use.

They've sold at least 700,000+ PHBs in that time period...

5e has sold more PHBs than 3e, 3.5e, and 4e combined.

Just some thoughts on numbers...

and for fun...more D&D commercials...first is for the MMO a few years back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb7nLoCTnl0

And, I was going to post Key and Peele's D&D adventure...but figured it was inappropriate (but very hilarious) for the site...so you'll have to enjoy this one instead...from a year and a half ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn8Kpmm_aJA
A lot of what ifs and for example we don't even know if they are using the same metrics they used 18 years ago to estimate the numbers of players in the late 90's/2000, I remember a figure of 6 million being thrown around but 5 or 6 million is close enough not to nit pick over it.

The 1 million estimate I have seen comes from Dancey, another estimate at Pax East 2014 IIRC was 500k+ 3.0, 250-350k 3.5 so its not much lower than Danceys (and Pathfinder estimates are 250k circa 2014).

We do know the size of the RPG market now and in 2013 (estimates anyway) and we also know Paizo was gertting 12.7 million in 2012 so peak Pathfinder they probably got most of the money in the RPG market.

5E could get there on around 500k-1 million units sold per year (maybe less). That is everything DMG, adventures, PHB etc. Even with the low number of 500k over 4 years that is still 2 million units and if half of them are PHB they would cross or equal the "biggest selling D&D of all time threshold". We know that the PHB is basically the biggest selling 5E item and I think peak years could maybe beat an average 5E year what makes 5E good is its had 4 good years in a row, the peak years were 1983 and 2000, drop off was severe apparently (300k 1st month 3.0, 30% loss in 1984, bankrupt 85, 81 and 82 were not that big comparatively).

Beating 3.5 and 4E is also no great achievement in D&D terms all of them apart from OD&D do that.

If they were selling in the numbers you provided I think the PHB would be higher than what it is atm on Amazon and even with my 500k-1 million units of everything (50% perhaps being PHB) you would still get to 1-2 million PHB sold and 5-10 million using your 5-1 ratio with the disparity perhaps being the starter set, free downlaods, online games on VTTs; D&D Beyond and AL making up the rest (or all my estimates are completely wrong). Hell they may have used the 5-1 attach rate for the free downloads they may have had half a million or a million of them who knows (wotc has a guess I suppose). I'm guessing they got more than 250k which was what the playtest got.

But yeah the actual sales figures could be a lot lower and they could still fit into the numbers they have provided. I don't think they are beating the D&D spike year or years (1983 maybe 2000) but overall its believable IMHO.

Bestseller doesn't really mean what it used to and companies try and spin it in the best terms they can plausibly get away with. I highly doubt they have sold triple the lifetime sales of the best selling D&Ds of all time over 4 years vs a 10 year product cycle. People see bestseller and get carried away IMHO. I think we can say D&D 100% is doing very well, and about 90% it is doing the best consistently overall. The PHB is not in the top 100 that often except for short term sales spikes via discounts. You have to make some very large assumptions and start playing with some very silly numbers to get up into 3 million PHB sold (averaged out over 4 years its something like double the size of the RPG market just with PHB and Amazon has 2 spikes each year with the 5E adventure releases).

I think those 2 big spikes each year+ consistent sales of the PHB+ sales of everything ( all the other books, older releases+ online stuff) else easily accounts for what WotC is claiming and some saner numbers. 1-2 million PHB sold would explain the D&D numbers for example and we don't know how many of the numbers they are claiming comes from online games and free downloads. If that counts for 50% of the players for example it would indicate probably something in the 1-1.5 range.

Note anything over a million is great in D&D terms, only 2 editions have done that maybe 3 if you count 3.0 and 3.5 as one edition (and maybe Pathfinder is needed to cross that as well depending on how accurate Dancey is and what he counted as 3E).
 
Last edited:

Aldarc

Adventurer
A more interesting post to other people in this thread might include details of what system(s) they prefer instead and why they are not keen on D&D 5e. Do tell!
Okay. I have been in two major gaming groups, both composed of good friends who can trust each other. One set while I was in America and another here in Austria. I have GMed and been a player alike. The snags in the games of 5E occurred at around the same places.

Group USA: We had previously played through the entirety of Rise of the Runelords using Pathfinder. Afterwards, we switched to 5e D&D in early 2015, not long after discussing the new edition and finishing our previous campaign. The game stopped at around 5-6th level when the GM burned out. The game was lighter and easier than PF1, both to GM and play, which made it easy to teach and run. But the game slowed down at around this time, and a lot of the enthusiasm for continuing just dive-bombed. However, in late 2015, we all split to different corners of the US while I went to Europe. (Education/career related reasons.) So we have never really had follow-ups regarding why things died around this level.

Group Euro 1: This was a comparatively short-lived one, composed of my flatmates and friends from my first year here in Vienna. The first day I moved in, this group began a campaign that I joined. I had asked why they played Pathfinder over D&D 5E. They preferred having greater player-facing options and system mastery of PF over what they felt was a lack of customization options for their characters in 5E. This group in general though preferred rules heavy.

Group Euro 2: This has been my main group for the past few years, made up of my partner and some of our closest friends here. This group, in contrast, hates rules heavy systems. Rules lite is preferred because they don't have time to learn or re-learn systems. Most of the group spoke ill of their prior experiences with Der Schwarze Auge and were mixed about 7th Sea 1e, though an ex-GM flavored their experiences with the latter. They had the most experience with these two systems. Almost all the players, including myself, lean rules-lite to medium-lite.

We played several games of various sizes of D&D 5E over the past few years. But the games rarely, if ever, extended past 8th level before everyone collectively loses their steam. We have started at 1st level and tried starting at 3rd level. We even ran a handful of one-shots at much higher level (15-18), but even then, it was not that fun for us. Magic kinda becomes a fix-all solution, and the PCs too safe. Advantage/disadvantage is easy, but boring. And no one else really wanted to put in the effort of adjusting the dials and knobs in the DMG as most are fairly casual players. Several other people proposed GMing, myself included, but several of us wondered whether D&D 5E is even an appropriate system for the setting ideas.

The GM and her partner prefer more lethality (or the feeling thereof) and felt that 5e is too forgiving. The primary GM and I also felt that the monsters were boring sacks of hit points as written that got monotonous and repetitive to run in encounters. They are gravitating now towards Warhammer RPG. (I believe 2nd edition?) But they are looking and experimenting with other systems. I also ran a one-shot of Index Card RPG in a sci-fi setting and Jade Punk (Fate), which they also found to their liking. But in the mean time, they are slowly working on their own system. Don't know if it will be for the group's liking, but it will be for the GM and her partner at least.

The other set of players in this group have their own issues with D&D and D&D 5E. They felt that 5e is too rules heavy for their liking. My partner feels like the cleric (and healing magic) trivializes their medical career as a surgical nurse. Most dislike how classes and levels are structured. On the whole, they also dislike having to level up to play the character they want to actually play. And D&Disms such as the split between arcane and divine magic. Some find the D&D style fantasy kinda stale. One told me that she prefers science fantasy or just something other than the usual quasi-medieval flair.

As such, several want to go back to Numenera, especially now that Numenera 2 is out and it de-emphasizes combat for more exploration and community-building. Some of those same players also prefer playing Fate because they believe there is more flexibility in the narrative, player-empowerment, and character creation. There were brief talks of trying to replay Titansgrave (Fantasy Age), but that system has its own set of major problems.

So right now our group is basically between games. We want to game, but are mostly trying to figure out what to play. We just know that 5e will probably not be that game for the foreseeable future.

Edit: Apparently I submitted before finishing an explanation or maybe I accidentally cut it out.
 
Last edited:

happyhermit

Explorer
... The PHB is not in the top 100 that often except for short term sales spikes via discounts.
Uhm? Fact check in aisle 9. In the past 12 months AFAICT the PHB has dropped out of the top 100 books for what, two weeks? (In the US, in Canada it does MUCH better). You can find the data on Camelcamelcamel or other places. It's basically the opposite of what you state, it's only short term dips where it falls out.
 

TerraDave

5ever
Dragon Heist at the #1 gaming book and #21 overall.

PHB #56 overall.

Interestingly, WDotMM is #87 overall almost two months out from release.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Something of interest...that WotC won't release or confirm obviously.

Number of players is an estimate, NOT based on DMGs or core sets sold, but I think PHB's sold.

In estimations, if 1,000,000+ (meaning over) PHB's of 3e were sold with a 5 million player base...that's a 1 to 5 ration.

If 500,000+ - 600,000+ 4e PHB's were sold and the player base was 2.5 to 3 million...that's still around a 1 to 5 ratio

Last year...2.3 million 5e PHB's sold as of the time they told their estimation...

This year they were at 3 million PHBs. The factor ranges from PHB x4 to PHB x5 which at 3 million PHB's sold is around 12 to 15 million Player base estimate depending on which factor you use.

They've sold at least 700,000+ PHBs in that time period...

5e has sold more PHBs than 3e, 3.5e, and 4e combined.

Just some thoughts on numbers...

and for fun...more D&D commercials...first is for the MMO a few years back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb7nLoCTnl0

And, I was going to post Key and Peele's D&D adventure...but figured it was inappropriate (but very hilarious) for the site...so you'll have to enjoy this one instead...from a year and a half ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn8Kpmm_aJA
I see no reason to believe that the numbers WotC has are extrapolations from book sales: they have relativley easy access to far more accurate market demographic information. Indeed, many groups might not even use any books, between D&D Beyond, Fantasy Grounds, the free rules, Roll 20 and old fashioned teenage piracy (not that I endorse it, but is probably statistically significant in occurrence). WotC is more interested in people playing, because they make the real money from licenses.

Still and app, even at peak D&D, it is worth less hard cash than M:tG or My Little Pony. It is moving the needle enough for Hasbro for the CEO to say nice things about it on investor calls, but peak D&D is still not mainstream...yet?
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Dragon Heist at the #1 gaming book and #21 overall.

PHB #56 overall.

Interestingly, WDotMM is #87 overall almost two months out from release.
It's the first 5E book to have playable material beyond level 15: which is a friend use case, but what demand there is may be pent up.
 

GreyLord

Adventurer
More interesting numbers to drop. Remember, everything (including current player base) are complete guestimates. Ever wonder how we got that 25 million RPG player numbers...

1.7-2 million AD&D PHBs.

1.5 - 2 million Red Boxes (BECMI/BX)

1 million 2e PHBs

Grand total of PHB's/players books sold = 5,000,000

Once again, it's the factor of fives.

5 million x 5 = 25 million.

Not something you'll probably see again...but the factor of five is a basic estimation for D&D I'd say for guestimates.

PS: People may bring up OD&D and Holmes...they sold some but comparatively to the rest...are negligible on numbers (from my viewpoint).

PPS: Redbox sales may be an underestimate in relation to the Basic of BECMI. AS per Frank (perhaps the most loyal to Gygax and a great guy in regards to early D&D creators, also one who knows of the period because he was right in the middle of it) The BECMI Red box was the best seller for TSR D&D ever. In that light, it probably outsold the AD&D PHB. I suppose that could be accounted by taking a few million from the AD&D PHB (to 1.7 maybe or more) and adding it Redbox sales (2.3 or more). His memory and recollection is probably better than many.
 
Last edited:

Mistwell

Adventurer
I'm not seeing those nor the links you posted (only source I found was a statement in a local newspaper).
I didn't post any links. You dismissed three links someone else posted as "name dropping on the internet". Which was ridiculous as it was CEO commentary on annual and quarterly reports covered under FTC regulations as forward looking statements. The full links were posted, AND YOU RESPONDED TO IT. You seem to be saying you were SO eager to dismiss it you not only didn't click on it but you didn't even see it was links? Yeesh.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
No one knows exactly how much the red box sold. Most estimates are in the 1 to 1.5 million range.

Back in the day I thought AD&D was better. Having played both again in the last 4 to 5 years. BECMI is better IMHO. B/X is even better and joins my holy D&D Trinity along with 5E and 2E.

They're not really better than 5E but do certain things better (settings 2E, hexcrawls and domains B/X).
 

Mistwell

Adventurer
The PHB is not in the top 100 that often except for short term sales spikes via discounts.
This is a very curious statement, coming from you. I've seen you in so many threads where it was confirmed without question that what you just said was not accurate. It's very odd you'd say that. I've SEEN you quote the camecamelcamel sales graphic. So I know you know it's been in the top 100 for almost the entire last two years.

Here it is again. Are you seeing a big Fnord in the graphic and your mind is blocking it out or something?

 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
I was in a rush and looked at the dmg by mistake.

I did say what is good about 5E is it's doing consistent sales so far vs big spikes like 2000 or 1983. I don't think the 5E spike was 1983 but it's had 4 good years vs the golden ages 1 or 2.

And that's what makes D&D good. 3E and 4E both had big spikes, 2E kind of did as well but the WoTC ones crashed and burned although I think that was also corporate wanting that sales spike high. Works short term but they did 3 editions in 8 years that's to many. Same thing when they had Star Wars 3 editions in 7 years.

5E is going to have at least a 7 year cycle and that would be if they announced 6E in the next year which I don't see happening.

5E has benefitted from a perfect storm of social media, price via Amazon, online play and being a good edition. Even 10 years ago social media was in it's infancy along with things like apps and YouTube was kind if new. Most of that did not exist when 3E landed.

If you make a crap edition though all of that will sink you though even worse than the blowback on 4E. I just turned 40 and my youngest player is 26 and his younger sister and friends are also playing and are using D&D beyond and are fans of critical role. Watching other people play is anathema to me lol but I at least understand why it appears to others, hell I don't expect others to like my Farscape and Stargate addictions.
 
Last edited:

GreyLord

Adventurer
I didn't post any links. You dismissed three links someone else posted as "name dropping on the internet". Which was ridiculous as it was CEO commentary on annual and quarterly reports covered under FTC regulations as forward looking statements. The full links were posted, AND YOU RESPONDED TO IT. You seem to be saying you were SO eager to dismiss it you not only didn't click on it but you didn't even see it was links? Yeesh.
This is odd, but I have no idea what the heck you are talking about...but...okaaaaay....

No one was posting ANY information on what I was asking about until AFTER I actually found out the information via other sources. Even then as far as I saw it was ONE person who dropped a link to something I mentioned in regards to a local paper story.

They've never reported the numbers of D&D in reports. It may have had a mention, but it's not been like MtG which is named and in instances we see how much it actually is making for Hasbro.

Anyways, I tracked down the source of the information people were thinking about, and found out what it's all about. I'm happy to let you guys go on with your party now that I know what all of it is really about.

On your link thing though...I really have no idea what you are talking about or referring to. Most of the links that I see and things posted are on how the books are selling on Amazon, not the Hasbro stock reports.

Right now they are up 2 from when I last mentioned them (they were at 105 around at that time, currently at this point they are 107.62 high right now).

I don't think I'm going against your numbers anymore now that I know the REASON why they probably are advertising it like they are with those numbers and an actual plausible explanation of where they got those numbers in the first place.
 

GreyLord

Adventurer
No one knows exactly how much the red box sold. Most estimates are in the 1 to 1.5 million range.

Back in the day I thought AD&D was better. Having played both again in the last 4 to 5 years. BECMI is better IMHO. B/X is even better and joins my holy D&D Trinity along with 5E and 2E.

They're not really better than 5E but do certain things better (settings 2E, hexcrawls and domains B/X).
1.5 is commonly found.

Everything is estimates from that far back (for example, the 1.7m pHB's is off the 100K standard print run of the PHB in the later 80s and that we had at least 17 print runs of the AD&D (1e) PHB, though some put it a little higher. Thus working off of Mentzer's statements that the Red Box outsold all other products, it would mean that the Red box (BECMI had to outsell at least the AD&D PHB...which could put it higher than 1.5, it also takes into consideration that BX started selling right about the point when the AD&D brand started quadrupling in sales regularly [due to the media attention of the Ebert III case which turned out to be false...but drew attention to D&D]).

In the end, everything is basically estimates and guestimates on much of the early stuff based on various things we find out.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
More interesting numbers to drop. Remember, everything (including current player base) are complete guestimates. Ever wonder how we got that 25 million RPG player numbers...

1.7-2 million AD&D PHBs.

1.5 - 2 million Red Boxes (BECMI/BX)

1 million 2e PHBs

Grand total of PHB's/players books sold = 5,000,000

Once again, it's the factor of fives.

5 million x 5 = 25 million.

Not something you'll probably see again...but the factor of five is a basic estimation for D&D I'd say for guestimates.

PS: People may bring up OD&D and Holmes...they sold some but comparatively to the rest...are negligible on numbers (from my viewpoint).

PPS: Redbox sales may be an underestimate in relation to the Basic of BECMI. AS per Frank (perhaps the most loyal to Gygax and a great guy in regards to early D&D creators, also one who knows of the period because he was right in the middle of it) The BECMI Red box was the best seller for TSR D&D ever. In that light, it probably outsold the AD&D PHB. I suppose that could be accounted by taking a few million from the AD&D PHB (to 1.7 maybe or more) and adding it Redbox sales (2.3 or more). His memory and recollection is probably better than many.
That back of the envelope math may have worked for TSR in the 80's, but they were a fairly badly run company. Hasbro uses modern Big Data techniques, and WotC has repeatedly made use of those resources this decade. Their numbers are almost certainly not derived from sales, but from professional market research.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
This is odd, but I have no idea what the heck you are talking about...but...okaaaaay....

No one was posting ANY information on what I was asking about until AFTER I actually found out the information via other sources. Even then as far as I saw it was ONE person who dropped a link to something I mentioned in regards to a local paper story.

They've never reported the numbers of D&D in reports. It may have had a mention, but it's not been like MtG which is named and in instances we see how much it actually is making for Hasbro.

Anyways, I tracked down the source of the information people were thinking about, and found out what it's all about. I'm happy to let you guys go on with your party now that I know what all of it is really about.

On your link thing though...I really have no idea what you are talking about or referring to. Most of the links that I see and things posted are on how the books are selling on Amazon, not the Hasbro stock reports.

Right now they are up 2 from when I last mentioned them (they were at 105 around at that time, currently at this point they are 107.62 high right now).

I don't think I'm going against your numbers anymore now that I know the REASON why they probably are advertising it like they are with those numbers and an actual plausible explanation of where they got those numbers in the first place.
[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] (who, IIRC, is both a Hasbro stockholder and a lawyer) is referring to your post, #133, which quotes [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] in post #130, wherein can be found three links providing details of the Hasbro CEO discussing D&D in a stockholder facing context: that is, not a marketing context, but an actionable stockholder communication. The local paper article is interesting because it provides a solid number, but it is in line with what Hasbro has communicated to stockholders.
 

Mistwell

Adventurer
This is odd, but I have no idea what the heck you are talking about...but...okaaaaay....

No one was posting ANY information on what I was asking about until AFTER I actually found out the information via other sources
Yes, they did. You even responded to it. In a very dismissive way. In a way which showed you clearly had not clicked on the three links provided. Go back to post #120. Now actually click the links.

Even then as far as I saw it was ONE person who dropped a link to something I mentioned in regards to a local paper story.
As I said earlier, one was a transcript to a stockholder conference call directly related to a quarterly report issuance, and the other two were the CEO of Hasbro on CNBC speaking about the quarterly and annual reports they had issued. None were local papers.

They've never reported the numbers of D&D in reports.
He mentions the three statements I repeated back to you. "He" is the CEO of Hasbro making forward looking statements on CNBC about the reports they had released that day.

Anyways, I tracked down the source of the information people were thinking about, and found out what it's all about.
Yes, you're a modern day Sherlock Holmes, tracking down the information people had already provided to you in this thread, dismissing those comments, then finding that same information again and patting yourself on the back for your sleuthing skills. Bravo :)

I'm happy to let you guys go on with your party now that I know what all of it is really about.
Yes, you're "letting" us go on with our opinions. Very gracious of you. :)

On your link thing though...I really have no idea what you are talking about or referring to. Most of the links that I see and things posted are on how the books are selling on Amazon, not the Hasbro stock reports.
Right. Because you responded to it without clicking on the links, dismissed them, complained nobody had provided the links you'd just dismissed, and then found other links yourself and crowed about your achievement :)

I think we're all caught up now.

[Edit: because my #120 might not be your #120, look for whatever post looks like this]:

 
Last edited:

GreyLord

Adventurer
Yes, they did. You even responded to it. In a very dismissive way. In a way which showed you clearly had not clicked on the three links provided. Go back to post #120. Now actually click the links.
WHAT!???

Okay, now that I see more clearly what you are talking about...You misread the post entirely.

First, it was clearing up his math...and SECONDLY it was clarifying WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

If you are a Stockholder, than you are acting in pretty bad faith in your understanding. I wasn't talking about his discussions in other articles...

and thus I specified that what I WAS talking about was NOT something that CNBC or other articles (and especially NOT an enworld thread or article which I would have to search through just to find the link...why not just post the link itself?.) but the quarterly and annual reports...official ones that Hasbro puts out (aka...they have Hasbro branding and other items, such as directly released by Hasbro. Some of them are the direct talking of Hasbro, not the reports talking about what Hasbro said in these things to their stockholders)

Hasbro is NOT a hard company to follow. I've posted some of the current stock prices (in case people have missed it) because it really is that easy. ANYONE can follow it...and Hasbro also makes many of it's reports PUBLIC. In these reports D&D has been mentioned, but normally it's financial impact is small enough to not be a major point of interest (as opposed to MtG which has regularly been a major point of financial graphs and other items in the reports).

That means, the reports to stock holders...these are not articles on other sites but things specifically from Hasbro. They at a minimum come out quarterly and annually. Hasbro actually has things that come out from Hasbro itself almost daily.

I was clarifying this is what I was looking at, not IGNORING what he was posting (I took it because he didn't understand what I was asking...though in some ways it would seem if you ARE a stockholder (shareholder) than what you did was deliberately ignoring what I was asking or referring to rather than anything else. Why would you do that?)

Now that I finally GOT the answers I was looking for and BECAUSE I figured out the source was able to go and ask some others (in private) how this was all going down and why this type of stuff wasn't showing up in the money...

My position has CHANGED (which is why it is even more confusing why you are pursuing this course of discussion).

It is more congruent and parallel to your own original discussion (unless you are now trying to argue against your old position).

Because I got an explanation (not here, and I don't think anyone here actually KNOWS why) I understand WHY we might not see a financial breakdown or financial breakthrough with D&D. I understand why it hasn't suddenly stood out with major financial numbers showing an impact as great as some of the other departments (or even greater than many of them) in recent months and why we may not see one (or we might) in an upcoming report.

A lot of it is because my assumptions (everyone buying all three core rulebooks, the number of rulebooks sold, etc) were flawed off of what I thought they would be considering.

In reality, it really appears the answer to how they come up with some of the ideas (and why it is actually kind of vague in regards to hard numbers) is pretty simple in my opinion.

But, as it is actually more marketing thing than monetary (and most of the statements that I've discussed I think are coming from a PR and marketing viewpoint rather than monetary, whilst I was coming from a monetary viewpoint, which I now know was flawed, it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with marketing and PR) I think saying 12-15 million players is fine.

It doesn't actually effect me, but it can affect a lot of others and even, eventually have that impact on the "monetary" side of things. However, my assumptions of how much this money should be reflected in the stock reports and money were off because I was looking at it from the wrong angle.

If you look at the numbers I posted, in regards to sales, from a PR and marketing viewpoint, 5e IS the best selling D&D ever, has sold more rulebooks in accounting them (PHB) than any other edition, and has sold more than 3e and 4e combined.

I think those were along the lines of what Mistwell was saying, so if that is true, what exactly is Mistwell trying to argue now?

In this, I am very confused as to what he is trying to say or argue in regards to my current position
 
Last edited:

GreyLord

Adventurer
As MISTWELL wants a commentary on the specific articles posted by Jester David...

Point blank, that was NOT what I was talking about or looking for.

What I stated was

This stuff should be reflected in the Quarterlies, or at a minimum the Annuals. This type of money in flow should mean at least a bump to investors.
This is in reference to, at a minimum, the Quarterly or Annual reports to stockholders. What it was specifically looking for were the NUMBERS, similar to what I see in regards to various divisions of WotC, and regularly at times, specifically the dollar amounts in relation to how well MtG is doing. When I mean bump, I felt that something being spent by 15 million customers, from a monetary viewpoint, would be significant enough to start showing the actual NUMBERS and percentages (things that I was discussing).

Instead, he gave me articles that reported ON one of the annual earning calls. This annual (I think it was an annual earning call) was where D&D was mentioned to be doing well. That wasn't what I was asking for though. A direct link to the report would have been better if anything else (and I believe that is one of the reports that is actually publically available and was commented on). I'm not sure, but I believe I had acknowledge D&D had been MENTIONED in the reports, but it hadn't had the impact (100 million USD probably would though, and it might even have that amount stated directly) that MtG and thus specific monetary amounts and hard numbers were not being mentioned.

The articles discuss Goldner mentioning D&D (but still not divulging the financials I was specifically after and was saying we should see, In addition, that is a dated report and pretty old. Other mentions have been made afterwards in various meetings, but D&D still was never big enough or made a big enough strike that it was dealt with like MtG was (which, if one had been following my discussion, was what I was after, that treatment of D&D like MtG had with it's financial impacts and breakdowns).

This should be something a stockholder (shareholder) would have understood what I was looking for (as someone mentioned Mistwell was one). I attribute Jester David to simply not understanding what I was asking (which is why I clarified what I was after). However, if one was a stockholder (shareholder), not posting the to the Annuals or quarterlies is not a misunderstanding, but I think deliberately trying to ignore my request with full knowledge of what I was asking about.

What IS interesting about Jester David's comments, and that you should have noticed (but I don't think some realized my viewpoints have changed) is that his other comment about the Pareto Principle is now directly related to what I've been posting in regards to Numbers (the x5 factor, which is directly related to the 20/80 principle of the Pareto Principle).

In essence, after I found the answers, I actually have posts that are 100% agreeing with that portion of his post.



PS: As to what I was asking about, as numbers stated were comparable to the numbers MtG was putting out, I was looking to see where the money was in that regards as if it is competing close to MtG levels, it should be mentioned similarly.

To elaborate...this is where you can find the annuals

https://investor.hasbro.com/financial-information/annual-reports

And this is where you can find the quarterlies

https://investor.hasbro.com/financial-information/quarterly-results

An example of numbers

In 2017, Hasbro Gaming revenues grew 10% and our overall gaming category, which also includes MONOPOLY and MAGIC: THE GATHERING, grew 8% to $1.5 billion. Over the past 5 years, our overall gaming category has grown at a 6% compound annual growth
rate with a 9% annualized increase in operating profit. During this period, we generated operating profit margins above 20% in each of these years.
Franchise Brands are Hasbro’s most significant owned or controlled properties which we believe have the ability to deliver significant revenues and growth over the long-term. In 2017 our seven Franchise Brands were LITTLEST PET SHOP, MAGIC: THE GATHERING, MONOPOLY, MY LITTLE PONY, NERF, PLAY-DOH and TRANSFORMERS.
Net revenues for Hasbro’s total gaming category, including the Hasbro Gaming portfolio as reported above and all other gaming revenue, most notably MAGIC: THE GATHERING and MONOPOLY, which are included in the Franchise Brands portfolio, totaled $1,497.8 million in 2017, up 8%, versus $1,387.1 million in 2016.
*from the 2017 annual report Not sure if this link will work but the link is

https://investor.hasbro.com/static-files/151365c7-d90c-4f88-967f-a46f52b62e6e

D&D may or may not be mentioned in the next annual...who knows, but I'm not holding my breath anymore. I have no problems with the numbers stated anymore (12-15 million playerbase) but because of the purpose behind why they are being used, I won't hold my breath waiting to see it competing with MtG, though if it does, that could be pleasantly surprising.
 
Last edited:

Jester David

Villager
D&D may or may not be mentioned in the next annual...who knows, but I'm not holding my breath anymore. I have no problems with the numbers stated anymore (12-15 million playerbase) but because of the purpose behind why they are being used, I won't hold my breath waiting to see it competing with MtG, though if it does, that could be pleasantly surprising.
yeah... about that

You say:
PS: As to what I was asking about, as numbers stated were comparable to the numbers MtG was putting out, I was looking to see where the money was in that regards as if it is competing close to MtG levels, it should be mentioned similarly.
and then quote:
net revenues for Hasbro’s total gaming category, including the Hasbro Gaming portfolio as reported above and all other gaming revenue, most notably MAGIC: THE GATHERING and MONOPOLY, which are included in the Franchise Brands portfolio, totaled $1,497.8 million in 2017, up 8%, versus $1,387.1 million in 2016.
And LITERALLY the paragraph above that is:
The Hasbro Gaming portfolio grew 10% in 2017 compared to 2016. Higher net revenues resultedfrom new social gaming products such as SPEAK OUT, TOILET TROUBLE and FANTASTIC GYMNASTICS and otherHasbro Gaming products such as DUNGEONS & DRAGONS as well as the successful launch of DROPMIX, anelectronic music mixing game. These increases were partially offset by lower net revenues from PIE FACE products
Emphasis added.

The $1,497.8 million mentioned in that report INCLUDES Dungeons & Dragons. That's all the numbers you're going to get: a big pool of all the games.
 

Advertisement

Top