• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Decline of RPG sales

Moderator note: Just a polite reminder to keep cool, and while discussing issues remember that there are no points for attempting to provoke anyone else. Don't read more into someone's posts than they have written, and assume that they have the best possible motives in writing as they do. Much less likely to run into problems that way!

Regards,
 

log in or register to remove this ad

eyebeams said:
True enough, but it is certainly possible to weigh how likely it is for a statement to be actionable.

On thing that seems to have been forgotten here is that I *don't* think Charles Ryan is lying. I have no explanation for the assumption that I said he was, given that I do not make that statement.
You've made a very good point. I think that tempers always tend to get a little hot on these kinds of topics. I don't think that anyone is "lying" here, it's just that the industry is a very big place, and one where the big players don't always live in the same world as everyone else. It's quite possible that WotC is having a great year, but that doesn't mean that John and Atlas aren't seeing a lot less orders overall. I guess it's all a matter of perspective or something like that. I don't know how many people really understand how small a business RPGs are for everyone but the big guys...
 

eyebeams said:
All the same, people don't get GURPS just because they want to replicate the D&D experience, and claiming that they do is self-evidently shallow analysis.

And, once again, you're attempting to define "competition" in a way that renders it a meaningless term.

Nice strawman, BTW, since absolutely no one is arguing that people use GURPS to "replicate the D&D experience".

Of course, by the standard you put forth, comic books and, er, bacon both compete with RPGs.

And this was a very nice example of a slippery slope fallacy. And another strawman.

The only real question left here is a simple one: Are you choosing to be intellectually dishonest or are you just incapable of participating in a discussion in any other fashion?

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net
 

Just a note:

In 2004, the C&GR figures that Ken Hite use put Wizards at about 43% of the RPG market. (or thereabouts). White Wolf was 22%, Steve Jackson Games at 5%, with everyone else below that.

Because online and book trade figures are not included in those figures, Wizards could well be somewhat *higher* than that percentage. Charles Ryan claimed last year that Wizards was about 2/3rds of the industry. That might be a little high, but otoh... hmm.

I'd love to know how White Wolf are doing. They're in a state analogous to that of Wizards in 2000-2001, with the major revision of their core brand having occurred recently.

The bit-player stakes of everyone else is really represented by that 5% SJG figure. It's not an insignficant portion by any means, but it's much lower.

(Lovely quote from an anonymous, probably unreliable distributor: "Dungeons & Dragons sells four times World of Darkness and World of Darkness sells four times everything else.")

http://www.gamingreport.com/modules...Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=133

Cheers!
 

MerricB said:
In 2004, the C&GR figures that Ken Hite use put Wizards at about 43% of the RPG market. (or thereabouts). White Wolf was 22%, Steve Jackson Games at 5%, with everyone else below that.

Because online and book trade figures are not included in those figures, Wizards could well be somewhat *higher* than that percentage. Charles Ryan claimed last year that Wizards was about 2/3rds of the industry. That might be a little high, but otoh... hmm.
In 2004, WotC sold roughly 50% of their RPG books outside of the game and hobby market, tendency increasing. From what I see, White Wolf and SJG are reasonably well represented in that market segment, too, though to much lesser extent, and there are areas where WotC has a 100% share. If we take these numbers into account, all reported figures might fit together.
 

eybeams
Of course, by the standard you put forth, comic books and, er, bacon both compete with RPGs. People make choices between many things because they only have so much money. It does not necessarily follow that these things are in any meaningful competition with each other.

Of course, you could talk about how other media competes with RPGs, and the funny thing is, of course, that you must if claiming that the top few systems are in meaningful competition. What I mean is that you can argue that D&D competes with WoW at least as much as it does with the World of Darkness.

The trouble is that discussion on this scale is not actually the same as talking about whether major *roleplaying* games compete with each other. They don't. At least, they don't compete with each other much more significantly than with other media. As I noted (in what I actually wrote, mind. I have no idea what you *read*), there are exceptions where the leading systems do compete, such as in genre books. All the same, people don't get GURPS just because they want to replicate the D&D experience, and claiming that they do is self-evidently shallow analysis. This is true even though the system has a supported fantasy setting.

Plus, of course, there are second and third tier systems that want a slice of what WoD or whatever has, but, as what I wrote made abundantly clear, I wasn't talking about them.

Justin Bacon
And, once again, you're attempting to define "competition" in a way that renders it a meaningless term.

Nice strawman, BTW, since absolutely no one is arguing that people use GURPS to "replicate the D&D experience".

Technically speaking, any luxury (i.e. non-neccessity) good "competes" with any other good since both leisure time and non-allocated money are both finite resources.

However, those would only be competition in the broadest sense.

True competition for a given RPG would be limited to 2 product categories: CRPGs (any platform) and traditional RPGs. Either can be used to experience the same kind of entertainment.

MerricB
In 2004, the C&GR figures that Ken Hite use put Wizards at about 43% of the RPG market. (or thereabouts). White Wolf was 22%, Steve Jackson Games at 5%, with everyone else below that.

Turjan
In 2004, WotC sold roughly 50% of their RPG books outside of the game and hobby market, tendency increasing. From what I see, White Wolf and SJG are reasonably well represented in that market segment, too, though to much lesser extent, and there are areas where WotC has a 100% share. If we take these numbers into account, all reported figures might fit together.

Careful, Turjan...I believe that MerricB was talking about total sales of RPGs, not RPG sales outlets, which is what you're describing.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
Careful, Turjan...I believe that MerricB was talking about total sales of RPGs, not RPG sales outlets, which is what you're describing.

No, Turjan's right. The C&GR figures are based only on traditional distributor/FLGS figures, as I understand it. Turjan has merely clarified where Wizards sell 50%+ of their books: outside the FLGS!

Cheers!
 


eyebeams said:
True enough, but it is certainly possible to weigh how likely it is for a statement to be actionable.

On thing that seems to have been forgotten here is that I *don't* think Charles Ryan is lying. I have no explanation for the assumption that I said he was, given that I do not make that statement.

I never made that assumption. My position, and that of some others, was that we can probably trust Ryan's statements because he's unlikely to say anything that could get Hasbro sued, as falsely representing their business success in a public forum could. If he says it's the best year ever, then he's been given the green light to say so by a Hasbro lawyer. Otherwise that same lawyer will read him the riot act. The reason we're arguing is that you disagree with the reason why we can trust Ryan.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Awkward said:
I never made that assumption. My position, and that of some others, was that we can probably trust Ryan's statements because he's unlikely to say anything that could get Hasbro sued, as falsely representing their business success in a public forum could. If he says it's the best year ever, then he's been given the green light to say so by a Hasbro lawyer. Otherwise that same lawyer will read him the riot act. The reason we're arguing is that you disagree with the reason why we can trust Ryan.

Well, to be frank, if you place your trust in corporate officers for that reason in general, I would say your trust is wildly misplaced. If this is specific to Charles Ryan, I'd be interested in knowing why.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top