Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 768759" data-attributes="member: 2013">Clearly, the average age of a gamer is moving upward over time.&nbsp; This has more to do with the &quot;head&quot; and &quot;tail&quot; of the curve moving, though - I think the &quot;head&quot; is simply tracing out a greater area.&nbsp; I tried to make it clear that I *did* see the aging demographic.&nbsp; I think the demographic used to look something like this (number of gamers is vertical, age is horizontal) around 1973:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ______&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; &nbsp; /&nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; /&nbsp;//&lt;/pre&gt;And in 1983:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; _____________&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; &nbsp; /&nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; /&nbsp;//&lt;/pre&gt;And in 1993:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; _________________________&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; &nbsp; /&nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; /&nbsp;//&lt;/pre&gt;And today:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ____________________________________&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; &nbsp; /&nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; /&nbsp;//&lt;/pre&gt;I'm just concerned that if we cut off the tail, rather than looking like this in 2013:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ______________________________________________&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; &nbsp; /&nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; /&nbsp;//&lt;/pre&gt;it will instead look like this:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ______________________________________________&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&lt;/pre&gt;And as people start aging and dying, it will eventually look like this:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ____&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&lt;/pre&gt;Instead of like this:&lt;pre&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ______________________________________________&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; &nbsp; /&nbsp;&nbsp; /&nbsp; /&nbsp;//&lt;/pre&gt;None of the above means that publishers should ignore the largets demographic.&nbsp; I'm just concerned they are ignoring the &quot;source&quot; of the water, so to speak.&nbsp; If you shut off the faucet, you eventually run out of water.Obviously, everyone wants publishers to serve the age group they're in - it's human nature (though I fail to see what career, family, and life have to do with the question). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The question is, are we enlightened enough to demand that they serve us without cutting off the influx of new gamers - and thereby the constant influx of new money that sustains and grows the product?&nbsp; Or do we selfishly insist &quot;only me right now&quot; and kill the revenue streams of the future, making our hobby wither and die on the vine before its time.That's where I say the &quot;selfishness&quot; comes in - we're so determined to have the market serve US what WE want RIGHT NOW to the exclusion of everyone else that we're blind to the fact that doing so hastens the market's demise.&nbsp; If we ask them to serve us WITHOUT excluding everyone else - i.e., we compromise a little and get mostly what we want - we can keep the market alive. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I guess the whole point of the thread is, &quot;do you understand what the ramifications of moving the hobby too far away from 'family-friendly' are?&nbsp; Are you willing to live with those ramifications?&nbsp; And if the response is, 'what do I care, my needs are still met,' does the inherent selfishness in that statement bother anyone else?&nbsp; Should it?&quot;I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, or accusing anyone of being bad...&nbsp; I just hope this inspires a little bit of thought before saying, &quot;of course D&amp;D should serve the majority of the market without regard to a smaller part&quot; if that smaller part is the source of future growth (and even just sustaining at a constant level) in the hobby.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 768759, member: 2013"] [B] Clearly, the average age of a gamer is moving upward over time. This has more to do with the "head" and "tail" of the curve moving, though - I think the "head" is simply tracing out a greater area. I tried to make it clear that I *did* see the aging demographic. I think the demographic used to look something like this (number of gamers is vertical, age is horizontal) around 1973: <pre> ______ / / / / / / </pre> And in 1983: <pre> _____________ / / / / / / </pre> And in 1993: <pre> _________________________ / / / / / / </pre> And today: <pre> ____________________________________ / / / / / / </pre> I'm just concerned that if we cut off the tail, rather than looking like this in 2013: <pre> ______________________________________________ / / / / / / </pre> it will instead look like this: <pre> ______________________________________________ | | | | | | </pre> And as people start aging and dying, it will eventually look like this: <pre> ____ | | | | | | </pre> Instead of like this: <pre> ______________________________________________ / / / / / / </pre> None of the above means that publishers should ignore the largets demographic. I'm just concerned they are ignoring the "source" of the water, so to speak. If you shut off the faucet, you eventually run out of water. Obviously, everyone wants publishers to serve the age group they're in - it's human nature (though I fail to see what career, family, and life have to do with the question). ;) The question is, are we enlightened enough to demand that they serve us without cutting off the influx of new gamers - and thereby the constant influx of new money that sustains and grows the product? Or do we selfishly insist "only me right now" and kill the revenue streams of the future, making our hobby wither and die on the vine before its time. That's where I say the "selfishness" comes in - we're so determined to have the market serve US what WE want RIGHT NOW to the exclusion of everyone else that we're blind to the fact that doing so hastens the market's demise. If we ask them to serve us WITHOUT excluding everyone else - i.e., we compromise a little and get mostly what we want - we can keep the market alive. ;) I guess the whole point of the thread is, "do you understand what the ramifications of moving the hobby too far away from 'family-friendly' are? Are you willing to live with those ramifications? And if the response is, 'what do I care, my needs are still met,' does the inherent selfishness in that statement bother anyone else? Should it?" I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, or accusing anyone of being bad... I just hope this inspires a little bit of thought before saying, "of course D&D should serve the majority of the market without regard to a smaller part" if that smaller part is the source of future growth (and even just sustaining at a constant level) in the hobby. --The Sigil[/b] [/QUOTE]

Verification