Ben Riggs Interview on the Death of the Golden Age

[FitzTheRuke]

Twice on Page 1 of this thread. Not calling out names.

I must have a thick skin about these things or something, because I just re-read PG1 and I still don't see it. I mean, I see what I think you're probably referring to, and you're entitled to that opinion, of course, but it seems pretty mild to me. A bit of snark, sure.

At any rate, I think you're spot-on here:

Riggs makes some good observations and solid points throughout this interview, but also makes some leaps of logic that I cannot follow. Overall, his thesis that the "Golden Age of D&D is dead" is flawed. However, WotC/Hasbro is definitely making some serious errors in managing the brand.

THAT, I agree with!

 

[Dire Bare]

It's not "true or a lie". It's TRUE (if you only look at initial sales). They DID outsell each other, as I illustrate above, INITIALLY. But that's not the same as "over their lifetime".

No, it's not, sure. But again, not PR spin. Initial sales vs lifetime sales is an important point, but a clarification, not spin.

My recollection (again, perhaps flawed) is that WotC was claiming lifetime sales of each edition outsold the previous. The problem wasn't 4E not doing better than the previous edition, the problem was 4E wasn't making ENOUGH money for the suits at Hasbro even with solid sales numbers. 4E was doing good for D&D, but not good enough. WotC was under tremendous pressure at the time to push the D&D brand to the same level as other Hasbro properties.

That's what I remember WotC saying, but . . . . perhaps they claimed initial sales outsold each previous edition, not lifetime. That is certainly a different situation, and in line with what Riggs is saying in the interview.

The only folks who could really know are folks at WotC. Not other creators in the community (unless they are ex-WotC) and not FLGS owners with anecdotal data from their store.

I'd love to drag up some older threads, but my forum search-fu isn't good. Oh well.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, it's not, sure. But again, not PR spin. Initial sales vs lifetime sales is an important point, but a clarification, not spin.

It's a clarification if you clarify that THAT is what you're talking about. When you declare "All editions outsold each previous edition WITHOUT saying "when" or "in what way". I think it's fair to call it "spin". YMMV. At any rate, we don't need to argue the point - I only used it as a tongue-in-cheek critique of that quote.

My recollection (again, perhaps flawed) is that WotC was claiming lifetime sales of each edition outsold the previous.

Yeah, at this point I have no idea the context of that original claim. I remember it, too, but details are fuzzy.

The problem wasn't 4E not doing better than the previous edition, the problem was 4E wasn't making ENOUGH money for the suits at Hasbro even with solid sales numbers. 4E was doing good for D&D, but not good enough. WotC was under tremendous pressure at the time to push the D&D brand to the same level as other Hasbro properties.

Nah, I love 4e, and it DID sell VERY WELL at first, but it died out pretty quickly. It did NOT beat previous editions in lifetime sales. I mean, I'll grant that I've read compelling evidence to this that could be wrong, but I was convinced by it (in spite of having always assumed that 3.5 outsold everything else).

That's what I remember WotC saying, but . . . . perhaps they claimed initial sales outsold each previous edition, not lifetime.

I don't think that they ever specified. Hence, my point about spin.

That is certainly a different situation, and in line with what Riggs is saying in the interview.

AFAIK, the only sales figures we have are from Riggs, who did painstaking research on the subject (including getting his hands on a LOT of stuff from TSR). He generally knows his stuff, which is one of the reasons I find this recent tangent of his to be... disappointing.

The only folks who could really know are folks at WotC. Not other creators in the community (unless they are ex-WotC) and not FLGS owners with anecdotal data from their store.

Woah! You jabbing at me? I haven't been speaking to my store's data (4e outsold 3e at my store, but my store was much bigger by then. That's also true for 3e vs 2e, but I was "only" around for the 2e revised black books, not its initial release) - I've been speaking to books that I've read on the subject, and threads here.

I'd love to drag up some older threads, but my forum search-fu isn't good. Oh well.

If you go for it, dig up the ones that talk about how 1e outsold 2e which outsold 3e which outsold 4e while you're at it.

 

[mamba]

A WotC staffer saying, "All editions of D&D have outsold the previous edition" isn't PR spin. It's either true, or lie.

Well, it is a lie then, because it is definitely not true. I never heard this said for lifetime sales though, only something vague like 'initial sales'

 

[Dire Bare]

Woah! You jabbing at me? I haven't been speaking to my store's data (4e outsold 3e, but my store was much bigger at the time) - I've been speaking to books that I've read on the subject, and threads here.

Nope, no jab intended.

 

[mamba]

Lifetime sales is the Key here, and 5e wins handily, with 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e going in that order (again, AFAIK, based on information that appears to be legit

yes, my bad, I lumped 3e and 3.5 together when I said 3e outsold 2e, 3e by itself did not and 3.5 by itself sold less than 3e. If I keep those separate it is 1e > 2e > 3e > 3.5 >? 4e

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Nope, no jab intended.

I appreciate that.

 

[S'mon]

I can tell you as the owner of an FLGS that people certainly DO go from playing BG3 to buying D&D. I've had it happen many many times in the past few months. Thinking that they won't is like thinking that they won't go from Stranger Things to D&D, or from Critical Role to D&D. Obviously, in all three groups, it's a percentage of people and not everyone, but there's absolutely no reason to think that it's not going to happen.

Yeah, I just started a new 5e game on Roll20, new players. Half of those new players had played BG3, and then went looking to play D&D for real. My experience is BG3 has created a lot of potential new players - they want to play, they know Thunderwave is a good spell , but may not have access to a GM. Also they keep wanting to use their bonus action to jump.

 

[S'mon]

I do think there was a recent golden era for D&D (not so much for RPGs overall) from around 2015, and that that era probably ended in 2023. At the start of that year WoTC burned off two decades of goodwill within a couple weeks; now 3PPs no longer trust WoTC. This did huge damage to the D&D ecosystem I think. One reason 4e D&D fared poorly was lack of a robust 3PP supporting ecosystem, WoTC have never been very good at creating support material like adventures and campaign settings, but in the 3e and 5e era the OGL was doing that for them. I think the 2024 attempt to shift D&D to a primarily digital experience using WoTC's in-house 3D VTT will further dissuade third party support and will further contribute to that 'stagnation & decline'. WoTC may increase monetisation of players, but the overall D&D market will be smaller.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No, it's not, sure. But again, not PR spin. Initial sales vs lifetime sales is an important point, but a clarification, not spin.

My recollection (again, perhaps flawed) is that WotC was claiming lifetime sales of each edition outsold the previous. The problem wasn't 4E not doing better than the previous edition, the problem was 4E wasn't making ENOUGH money for the suits at Hasbro even with solid sales numbers. 4E was doing good for D&D, but not good enough. WotC was under tremendous pressure at the time to push the D&D brand to the same level as other Hasbro properties.

That's what I remember WotC saying, but . . . . perhaps they claimed initial sales outsold each previous edition, not lifetime. That is certainly a different situation, and in line with what Riggs is saying in the interview.

The only folks who could really know are folks at WotC. Not other creators in the community (unless they are ex-WotC) and not FLGS owners with anecdotal data from their store.

I'd love to drag up some older threads, but my forum search-fu isn't good. Oh well.

This does not match my memory, not say I am correct but my memory of the claims of 4e outselling 3.x were made mid way in 4e lifetime, when it was obvious that Pathfinder was taking a chunk of sales.