jdrakeh said:
Again, you're substituting anecdotal experience for widely available and objectively verified marketing data. Google for and check out the latest sales figures for Halo 3 right now. Then Google for and check out sales figure for any current D&D supplement that you like. One of these will have sold millions of copies more than the the other.
Ah, but at least I'm using my anecdotal evidence correctly.
Your stats still aren't breaking down the use of those games over years.
If I'm a consumer trying to decide between two available uses of my money over a years long period of time, the amount of money spent on product X vs product Y within that given period of time is largely irrelevant.
The question is one of comparative utility vs. comparative popularity.
And in that sense I think it would be hard to argue that an RPG doesn't have an edge.
Video games are easier to use, certainly more popular, and they come with a lot more flash. For some video games such as Halo or WoW the size of the user community is also a major advantage.
But can you honestly say that any individual video game is designed to have even the fraction of long term utility that DnD is?
Some PRPGs are designed for shorter periods of use. Promethean by White Wolf is an excellent example of a medium term game. You'd play it for a few months, maybe a year, and exhaust its themes satisfactorilly. Spirit of the Century or Feng Shui are designed for extremely short use times, one maybe three sessions, but you can use them repeatedly and for different scenarios. The DnD core books can be played on any time frame, campaigns can last years, months, or even three sessions, and the Open License system means they also find utility under a vast array of scenarios and complementary systems.
PRPGs are made for long term use.
Video games? WoW is very long term use, but the overall driving dynamic of the industry is that you play a game for maybe six weeks and drop it. 20 hours of single player play is pretty bog standard. 80 hours is considered huge. Sandbox games throw the math off a bit and MMORPGs are meant for a longer time frame, but they are arguabley less successful than DnD at attaining this longevity and at least one of those models costs far far more than the three core books regardless.
DnD 3.5 came out in 2003. That company and community largely depend on people who are still playing that game or who have picked it up since.
How many video games from 2003 have been able to rely on that longevity?
heck, if you count from 3ed you're no longer talking about DnD competing with individual games but whole game systems.
Basically, my point was that the 'D&D versus video games' model of illustrating longevity or mass consumer appeal (of D&D) is a very flawed one.
On this point we could agree.
But as a consumer:
I like that when I buy 4E I know I'm buying something for the long haul. Even within the book market DnD is a good deal according to the standards of longevity. I reread those suckers more than anything.
When I buy a video game I know that I'll be playing it more than DnD over the course of that week, for certain, and maybe the next three or four as well, but I also know that I will be back within the next two months to sink that amount of money or more in games again.
You seem to be looking at this at an industry level, when I think that for most of us a game is a game is a game. If that, personally every game purchase I make is contrasted with books, music, and movies too. The time models are distinct, but not the basic use of my time.
