Decline of RPG sales

[Sanackranib]

how about the obvious? already bought it and dont need 2. isnt this why they keep releasing "new" versions? so they can grab your money all over again and sucker you into "its better" like they did with 3.0 then right after I upgraded AGAIN with 3.5

 

[Justin Bacon]

At a Christmas party one year, a distributor told me that he had ordered 100 copies of a new book from one well-known d20 publisher...and sold less than 10. So maybe the publishers thought they were doing great, and didn't realize that this distributor was likely to cut his pre-order on their next book by 90%.

Part of the problem is that the retailers in this industry, as a general rule, don't understand inventory tracking and discrimination. Part of that is because they never really had to: You could look at a given product line (Heavy Gear or Ars Magica, for example), judge whether or not the game was selling well, and simply make sure you laid in an appropriate order for each and every supplement.

That works for Heavy Gear and Ars Magica. It doesn't work for a product line with wide variations in quality and with a size that makes it impossible for even the die-hard fans to buy every release (thereby forcing discretion).

In other words, it doesn't work for the D20 market.

I knew there were going to be problems when I saw my local retailer buying 5 copies of every single D20 module released regardless of whether they were good, bad, or a piece of . And never re-ordering the ones which sold out. (Thereby creating a burgeoning Wall of Crap.)

Eventually when this retailer realized they had a problem, they backlashed hard against the entire market segment of D20 modules: They cleared the shelves of all the non-WotC, non-S&S adventures and stuck them into clearance boxes. Penumbra, Necromancer, Green Ronin, and a lot of other top-tier module producers went into those clearance boxes right along with THE HORROR BENEATH. And their next releases weren't ordered either.

Now if this retailers, and hundreds like them, had been practicing discretion earlier (recognizing that THE HORROR BENEATH was crap and refraining from ordering it) or if they had even rudimentary inventory tracking and a way of analyzing it (allowing them to realize that THE HORROR BENEATH was a problem but TERROR IN FREEPORT wasn't), this wouldn't have happened: They'd have trimmed back their orders on crap, they'd have stepped up their orders on the stuff that was actually appealing to customers, and the Wall of Crap (which turned off casual browsers from third-party products) wouldn't have gotten itself established.

Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com

 

[Hussar]

When I'm speaking of something being "innovative," I'm talking about something that improves upon what came before, not different for difference sake.

So in that context, yes, I think innovative is good.

However, the problem with that is, how many products are innovative vs the number that do not improve on what came before or are just different for difference sake? For every great, innovative product that comes out, there are a huge number that suck. I'm sure that the writers of most of those products "thought" that they would be innovative, but, let's face it, not every product can be.

Now, as far as WOTC lacking in innovation, well, that's quite possibly true. Then again, how much damage would it do to WOTC to drop three or four lame duck products on the market? If WOTC crashes, it's going to take the innovators out there right along with them. A point you mentioned before.

Saying that they are marketing to the "lowest common denominator" is incredibly insulting. While some gamers may enjoy taking the risk on the next latest thing and trying out material which is frequently fairly far below WOTC standards, I don't think that consumers who stick with a tried and true provider should be seen as somehow less important or less valuable to the game.

A recent thread talked about d20 products that "owned" WOTC products. And there were quite a few. But, one thing I took from that thread was that while a given company might produce a single better book, WOTC produced the second best book in pretty much any given category. That means that WOTC, rather than simply catering to the masses, is actually producing very good products, just not the best product every time.

 

[trancejeremy]

Now, as far as WOTC lacking in innovation, well, that's quite possibly true. Then again, how much damage would it do to WOTC to drop three or four lame duck products on the market? If WOTC crashes, it's going to take the innovators out there right along with them. A point you mentioned before.

Actually, I think that is why things were better in the earlier days for d20 companies other than WOTC. Most of the early WOTC 3.0 products were pretty bad. Lots of the hallmarks of the bad old days of TSR - poor editing, poor rules complience, low production values.

The class splatbooks, especially.

Even when the 3rd party stuff wasn't better, the poor quality stuff still looked okay compared to WOTC's output.

Nowadays, though, WOTC has improved its quality immensely, particularly the production values. So 3rd party stuff can look a lot worse in comparison.

 

[Maggan]

Does that answer your question adequately?

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

/M

 

[SBMC]

I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown. But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry. The core argument sounds like, to me, "WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy". As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers. From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do. That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.

Sometimes things are obvious and no one sees it…except a choice few
Damn…what a way with words! A Wise man indeed!

 

[SBMC]

Pardon me for being a tad on the stupid side, but I don't understand something.

How can appealing to the largest segment of the consumers possibly be considered a bad thing? Whether you like WOTC material or not, that's precisely what publishing mainstream material means. That some call it "appealing to the lowest common denominator" seems a little counter intuitive. Just like any entertainment medium, you will always have "mainstream" and the "fringe". Mainstream keeps the medium alive.

Without mainstream producers, the fringe producers would cease to exist. It takes the mainstream to keep people interested in the medium. The mainstream is mainstream precisely because it appeals to the widest possible audience. That means that it doesn't take a lot of risks and that mainstream material, be it RPG's, music, movies or whatever, appears to be "31 flavours of vanilla".

The reverse is also true. Fringe elements are required to inject new material into the mainstream. New ideas are developed on the fringe, bounced around by the brownian motion of consumers fed up with mainstream and either die a quiet death or become popular enough that they become adopted by the mainstream.

The mainstream maintains the system and the fringe insures that the system doesn't stagnate. But, blaming the mainstream element for not taking risks looks like a misunderstanding of the system. The mainstream can't take major risks because it risks losing the largest fan base. Fringe elements can afford to take risks because they have much less to lose.

So, is much of what WOTC cranks out derivative? Of course it is. They take ideas that look viable and turn them into mainstream works. In doing so, they are going to lose a lot of the more radical ideas, but, they are also going to introduce this idea to a much larger consumer base.

Maybe I'm missing something, but, why isn't this a valid model of doing business?

Darn your good! Textbook Good! An excellent explanation of the basics of complex market structure without the technical jargon – THANK YOU

A point I think many (including me) were trying to make but failed to you have so eloquently articulated! Thank you!

 

[SBMC]

They don't repackage Monopoly over and over again hoping to get all Monopoly owners to purchase yet another Monopoly game. Rather, what the Monopoly makers are trying to do is get a game of Monopoly in ever single house in the country. You can say the same of pretty much every single other mainstream game ever made except for RPGs. Only with RPGs is there this expectation of support and revision followed by support and revision.

To me, rpg makers should try to break down the perceived differences between rpgs and "regular" games. RPGs should be less complex, have less supporting materials, and there should be more of them in more different genres. A mother or father or girlfriend should be able to walk into any toy store in the country and buy their loved one a box of Dungeons & Dragons or Call of Cthulhu or whatever. (That's actually started to become closer to reality with the new D&D Basic game.)

Of course all of the above is the absolute anathema to the hardcore gamers who want, more, more, more specialization. And for that reason alone the above strategy will never, ever, ever be attempted by an established game maker.

R.A.

Err…then why the insane number of books with an insane variety of feats, classes, spells, etc? They are trying to meet as many tastes as possible.

It is getting frustrating listening to folks talk about marketing and business that seem to have a minimal understanding of it based upon what is being posted by some.

And to quote JamesdJarvis:

Well actually yes, the monopoly makers do in fact want you to buy a Monopoly game over and over again. That is one reason they package deluxe, anniversary, themed and travel editions of games to get people to buy the game again not just to find that part of the market that didn't want the original version. .

And he is 110% correct – same foundation product with a new cover to appeal to a wider range of customers; coke and diet coke, fat free and not, etc…same thing.

 

[SBMC]

The argument is that Wizards of the Coast's 'safe' strategy produces vanilla books which sell well, but that doesn't make them particularly 'good' (read: innovative and interesting, moving the hobby in new directions) unless one defines quality by sales figures.

So what you are saying is that WoTC material is not up to your own artistic standards? Ok – but then again that is you and you seem to be in the minority by far

There seems to be a boom-and-bust integral to the gaming 'industry' - a new product is released, people snap it up, more product is released, fewer and fewer people buy it, and so a new edition is released, and the process starts all over again.

I already said that. And in addition; every other product does the same thing; even toothpicks.

I believe that it would be healthier for the cottage industry that is RPGs if the focus was on creating sustained growth, rather than simply trying to ride out the rough patches until the next boom rolls around.

Now here you are starting to preach to the choir; based on various posts there are a good number of business, accounting and economics folks out here on this thread (or at least they looked up what they were saying and interpreted it well)

Cottage industry? I do think you need to look that up; this is not a cottage industry by any means per the actual definition.

Sustained growth – every single industry has it’s own unique lifecycle for its products based upon a nearly infinite number of variables. In the case of RPG’s that is the cost of software, paper, ink, gas (distribution), cost of living in the cities where the company is located, etc, etc.

How can you possibly know how to create sustained growth in this industry? Sustained growth to you as a long term gamer is very different to a newbie who never saw what was going on 10 years ago – the books, concepts etc are all new to him.

Growth is about two things, in simple terms – taking market share (stealing others clients) and growing the market (new customers to the industry). The auto industry pretty much has no more actual growth save the increase in the worlds population that comes to driving age; as anyone who is going to own a car does (generally in the aggregate). Thus the focus there is market share. In other industries such as a new software tool; it is about both; getting those new customers to buy into your industry and also to buy you product. Example; Financial Services.

IMO, as I stated in earlier posts, it seems that the growing of the market is happening at the same time that WoTC is grabbing up more of the actual market share out there for the same reasons I posted before; you can rely on their products to work mechanically in your campaign (or at least have enough clarity to interpret the RAW well or house rule well).

Why is it that when you make a copy of something people still call it “Xeroxing”? Why when you are inline skating do you call it “Rollerblading”. Why, even with all of its problems, to companies and people still go to Microsoft? Because you are the core product of the industry – when someone wants to know what they are getting they go to you. That is WoTC; and Hasbro made sure that happened.

Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time: "Okay, people like Jedis and the Force from Star Wars, so let's turn that into a 'new' magic system and new classes for Dungeons and Dragons!" "Great idea!" And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.You're right - some of it's completely execrable.No, I consider my tastes pretty far outside the mainstream.

Do you think that any of these companies sits there and designs their products around you? Don’t you think that WoTC did some market research on this and other things? I don’t have that/those books yet but some people may love the idea; just like some folks like horror movies and others don’t – individual taste – which change over time. These RPG companies are trying to cover as much ground regarding various tastes as they can in order to get as many customers as possible - but it is impossible to do it in the core books alone or in just a few products.

However, I'm still capable of weighing a book on its merits as an RPG resource, and comparing it to similar products from other publishers, even if it doesn't appeal to me personally or is something that I plan to use in my own games. WotC products rarely deliver the same level of innovation that third-party publishers provide, even when it's the same authors working on the respective WotC and third-party books. To me this reflects a middle-of-the-road design strategy that permeates WotC's decision making, one that I find produces bland books.Including .pdfs, about a dozen.

Again:

Do you think that any of these companies sits there and designs their products around you? Don’t you think that WoTC did some market research on this and other things? I don’t have that/those books yet but some people may love the idea; just like some folks like horror movies and others don’t – individual taste – which change over time. These RPG companies are trying to cover as much ground regarding various tastes as they can in order to get as many customers as possible - but it is impossible to do it in the core books alone or in just a few products.

 

[SBMC]

In response to Hussar you posted:

Yes, I think you are missing something:

Shaman – I am sorry but you truly don’t know what you are talking about. You really and truly don’t.

And with that you are saying that the core concepts and realities of the market place are incorrect? I think a good number of folks at Harvard, Yale and Wharton might have a little something to say about that.

But I'm not a Hasbro shareholder, so I don't really care if Wizards of the Coasts is moving more units of product per quarter than the next five RPG publishers combined - what I care about as a consumer is a product than enhances my gaming experience and good value for my dollar.

No your not – you want a product that you like and if you don’t like it you call it crap; am I missing how many times you refer to your own purchases and tastes here? To quote you:

What I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the gaming books produced by Wizards of the Coast rarely excite me, so my consumer dollar goes elsewhere. (And in that I cannot be disputed! )

And exactly what does this have to do with your claim regarding the overall market”? you are one of millions; your individual purchasing choices are irrelevant to your arguments in any of your posts.