D&D: big as it ever was? (Forked Thread: So...How are Sales of 4E Product?)

[Dire Bare]

But, but, but...the game was everywhere back then, from middle schools to college campuses. I was denounced in churches, and had its own cartoon! It was huge!.

As others have posted, D&D had a higher visibility in pop culture in the 80s than it does now. But that is a different thing from the number of people who are actually playing the game and buying new books. The audience for all the various D&D novels over the years also overlaps but does not equal the audience that plays the game. I had friends when I was a kid in the 80s who LOVED the D&D cartoon and had some of the toys . . . but didn't even know it was all based on a new kind of game called a roleplaying game. Just as I have friends now who love reading the latest Drizzt book but have never rolled a set of polyhedral dice . . . conversely I have grognard rpg friends who despise the D&D novels despite never having read any since the original Dragonlance trilogy.

And part of the reason why we don't have a D&D cartoon and D&D toys and merchandise today is that TSR was not a good student of the Lucas School of Brand Marketing (Star Wars, dont'cha know). The D&D brand was not well managed and died the quick death of a fad . . . but the niche hobby of roleplaying has slowly and steadily gotten larger and larger over time despite that.

I think the folks who persist, despite common sense, to claim D&D 4e is not a success, is not selling well, or that there are less players today than yesterday just can't accept the fact that their individual tastes regarding D&D aren't necessarily shared anymore by the majority of roleplayers. It's a lot like music geeks who love obsure bands . . . but if the bands somehow find commerical success they instantly become "sellouts"! Loving the obscure and inaccessible is part of their identity.

 

[Delta]

I think the folks who persist, despite common sense, to claim D&D 4e is not a success, is not selling well, or that there are less players today than yesterday just can't accept the fact that their individual tastes regarding D&D aren't necessarily shared anymore by the majority of roleplayers.

I think this is broadly the same sort of defense I heard around the 2E era in the early 90's.

 

[Demongirl]

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems as if even with the cartoon, the 70s - 90s saw the game as obscure. Late 90s saw a boom in gamer population. Hell, the game even got its own movie, even though it stank something rotten. I'm pretty sure that the movie helped to put the game on the map.

 

[justanobody]

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems as if even with the cartoon, the 70s - 90s saw the game as obscure. Late 90s saw a boom in gamer population. Hell, the game even got its own movie, even though it stank something rotten. I'm pretty sure that the movie helped to put the game on the map.

That crap with Wayans in it movie?

The movie didn't put anything on the map except for that director's career which was located in the gutter, and WotC inability to fund things and get people that could work within a budget, which still holds true today with bad R&D and marketing decisions. That is what that movie put on the map, as well as poorly designed stories.

There may be more places in the open to play now because of the CCG craze and gaming stores, but there are actually less people playing the new edition than played previous editions and transferred to them.

Remember that sales of current material is meaningless, because it doesn't mean that many people are actually using those products. Some may have no place to get rid of them at, and may not use them at all. It doesn't mean that many people are playing, just that many people bought it.

The past was less true of this, because if you spent that kind of money you were going to use it, and already know you needed it.

Also how many books have been bought as gifts that may never see use? The past didn't have many impulse gift giving sales.

So what the CCGs did, does not translate into RPG or D&D growth. CCGs just pretty much replaced sports cards and comics somewhat.

The game was on the map long before the movie, but most people just didn't know how to read the map at the time to find it.

Once they did they wanted it changed to be something other than it was, and viola 4th edition.

Don't credit that movie with anything more than the novelty it was. It added no new awareness for the game, or increase sales. It just had people realize they could play again, and many people did, but not with the latest edition.

We need solid real numbers of population and sales to determine how well 4th, 3rd, etc did compared to older editions over their lifespan and average that to the age of the shortest lived product....being 4th edition with only a few months.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That crap with Wayans in it movie?

The movie didn't put anything on the map except for that director's career which was located in the gutter, and WotC inability to fund things and get people that could work within a budget, which still holds true today with bad R&D and marketing decisions. That is what that movie put on the map, as well as poorly designed stories.

There may be more places in the open to play now because of the CCG craze and gaming stores, but there are actually less people playing the new edition than played previous editions and transferred to them.

Citation needed.

Remember that sales of current material is meaningless, because it doesn't mean that many people are actually using those products. Some may have no place to get rid of them at, and may not use them at all. It doesn't mean that many people are playing, just that many people bought it.

Non-representative, self-selecting poll:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...4th-edition-d-d-you-playing-already-ever.html

Sure, sale numbers don't tell us how much actually play. But I think that there is a typical pattern that describes the relation between sale numbers with actual player numbers, and I can't think of why this should be different for 4E. So if Edition A sold x and had y players, Edition B selling 2X will have 2Y players.

For both 3E and 4E there were enough information available to make some educated guesses on whether you would like the game or not. Also, many later buyers will rely on feedback from early buyers, and all this will inform sales and the eventual player retention, too. 4E marketing wasn't that genius that it could really "fool" anyone better then the 3E marketing, could it?

 

[justanobody]

Citation for what?

The DVD says they went way over budget, that is why the dragon hatching scene was cut and several others went unfinished because they went over budget and couldn't get more money.

Meaning WotC/Hasbro taking a chance on a nobody director because he was cheap means they got what they paid for.

The second movie had less special effects and a better look to it overall. Soemthing that drew you to know what things were without trying to be flashy/shiny.

The love scene itself was laughed at because that is not really a normal part of D&D, or many D&D games.

Novels included relation ships, but their adventures didn't have a place really for them, and not everyone played D&D for a dating game. That entire part of the story could have been replaced and let the political tension be the focus rather than sexual tension/frustration.

With the childlike empress, it also looked to steal from Neverending Story; which was by far a much better movie.

The second movie story was much better but still not that good because it tried to be too many things, including the old modules ideas and 1st edtion play style with a recycled character fromt he first movie, aka Damodar.

As for what it did for sales...in my area I know that the entire theatre clapped when it was over because they were glad it was over and kids were crying because were disappointed in it.

No books sales were made of current product from the movie, and some were even sold to second hand stores. The movie even drove people to sale off their older edition books because of the way the movie made the game look so stupid.

Other than first hand information presetned here, what other types of citations for that section would you like? The DVD itself and interviews with the actors and pres statements made around it can point you in the correct direction, but I doubt the newspapers had online versions at that time to be archived.

The bad profit margin....loss margin of the movie is what held a second one back for years, combined with the director having rights tot he film and not ewanting to give them up, and he still had to be included in the second one for it to be made. But rather than director he was the executive producer or something and had little to do with it from what I can tell.

It put a stain and scar on D&D to all but the hardcore fans, that I know of.

Sorry, I don't get what you mean by your poll reference? People saying then they bought and were going to try 4th doesn't mean they are still playing or buying new books.

That is all speculative until some actual sales figures are presented. It will be a while before the novelty of 4th edition wears off and see how well the game is actually doing, by what happens around June of next year with sales, and how quickly the next prinrun sell out.

But remember the enxt printrun is errated so it automatically skews any results as people may buy the PHB etc again for "fixed" copies, rather than outdated ones. But I would wager that it won't be the same number that bought the originals, and will take quite a while to meet the number of sales the original run made as the novelty is gone, and some people may not want to even buy it to try it anymore.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Citation for what?

The second paragraph of the quote!

 

[darjr]

There may be more places in the open to play now because of the CCG craze and gaming stores, but there are actually less people playing the new edition than played previous editions and transferred to them.

A citation for this, please. Otherwise it's just seems like wishful, spiteful thinking.

Remember that sales of current material is meaningless, because it doesn't mean that many people are actually using those products. Some may have no place to get rid of them at, and may not use them at all. It doesn't mean that many people are playing, just that many people bought it.

There are many, many places to dump used books. Ebay being the number one example. Also, your just plain wrong, sales numbers are not 'meaningless', they certainly mean something. First they mean that the gift set is the 25th most sold book on Amazon for 2008. That is huge, and I think impossible to reach without players. Already you have to stretch way out on a limb with your 'places to play' theory to dismiss it.

We need solid real numbers of population and sales to determine how well 4th, 3rd, etc did compared to older editions over their lifespan and average that to the age of the shortest lived product....being 4th edition with only a few months.

Ah man, what? The best selling 100 books of 2008 for Amazon isn't a real number? Please, can you tell me why not? Didn't you just tell us that those numbers were meaningless?


anyway, just for those that would claim I'm fighting an edition war, my 3.5 game is on! Let me tell you about my Orc Barbarian, Cretor, and his oogly twin brother stinky...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorry, I don't get what you mean by your poll reference? People saying then they bought and were going to try 4th doesn't mean they are still playing or buying new books.

I hope to repeat the poll at a later time. (That's why I gave it a ending date.)
I wish it was possible to make the same poll around 3E release and 3.5 release, this way it's mostly for "fun" and can't be used for much.

But my goal was to know how EN World did react to 4E, and especially how the player retention was here. It seemed at least as if reading the books didn't turn off to many, nor did the first games.

That is all speculative until some actual sales figures are presented.

Meaning it will always be speculative for us, since we will never see the actual figures.

It will be a while before the novelty of 4th edition wears off and see how well the game is actually doing, by what happens around June of next year with sales, and how quickly the next prinrun sell out.

My point here is saying that the effects of "novelty" and "novelty wearing off" are patterns that repeat themselves, regardless whether we're talking AD&D, D&D 3E, D&D 3.5, D&D 4E, Shadowrun or Exalted. The success of the initial print runs between editions will give us a notion of the overall success.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are no patterns and it's different for every edition and every game. But in that case, we don't have any basis for speculation at all. Even if 4E sales would suck in the beginning, one could claim that the sales will improve over time and hold far longer then that of 3E. Of course, that sounds to me just as much as "wishful" thinking as saying that the sales will decline faster and last shorter with 4E.

I think actually the size of the initial print runs and the fact that the Core Rules exceeded WotC expectations could also be something surprising, considering that D&D 4E hits a market that seemed pretty content with 3E and already decried D&D 3.5 as being too early for new Core Books. 3E seemed to have arrived at a time where AD&D was more dead then alive, while 4E came after a system that still enjoyed strong first and third party support and had a very strong userbase.

But maybe there is a flaw in assuming that a large and strong userbase is bad for a new game edition - maybe in fact it's a good thing and can only promote an expansion, since you don't just catch the old fans, but will invariably attract new ones. While if you have a disgruntled fanbase that possibly even partially gave up the old edition, you first have to slowly excite them to the "new thing" and then slowly can expand your base.

But I really don't know what's closer to the truth, if any. I am not a marketing or business guy.

But remember the enxt printrun is errated so it automatically skews any results as people may buy the PHB etc again for "fixed" copies, rather than outdated ones. But I would wager that it won't be the same number that bought the originals, and will take quite a while to meet the number of sales the original run made as the novelty is gone, and some people may not want to even buy it to try it anymore.

People don't buy the PHB again if it's fundamentally flawed and they didn't like it so far. And both concerns would also hold true for comparable print runs of 3E, so comparing them should be valid. Of course, the problem is we don't have the real data to compare.

 

[malraux]

The DVD says they went way over budget, that is why the dragon hatching scene was cut and several others went unfinished because they went over budget and couldn't get more money.

Meaning WotC/Hasbro taking a chance on a nobody director because he was cheap means they got what they paid for.

IMDB says that it was TSR who sold the director the rights in 1990. And its not like WotC had anything to do with the production of the movie.

edit: Wikipedia claims that the film was eventually profitable. And its not like claiming a film is unprofitable is a meaningful statement.