Decline of RPG sales

[Mark CMG]

If we are to believe the words of Charles Ryan (indeed, a risky proposition given attitudes in this thread), the number of people regularly gaming has been increasing.

I choose to believe.

 

[buzz]

* Remember that every time a topic like this comes up, it devolves into an ultimately pointless argument because of the previous two points.

And unfortunately, much liek car wrecks, many of us have a hard time pulling ourselves away from them.

I only wish there were some accurate data available, if only so problems could be identified and solved, rather than debated and speculated upon.

 

[buzz]

I choose to believe.

As it mirrors my personal experience, I choose to believe as well.

 

[Mark CMG]

As it mirrors my personal experience, I choose to believe as well.

Perhaps we can car pool in the ideal lane . . ?

 

[MerricB]

As it mirrors my personal experience, I choose to believe as well.

As Charles has been so insistent that D&D has been doing well, I really have to believe him. (Along the same way that I believe that we're not going to see 4e any time soon).

I mean, this hasn't been one off-the-cuff remark we're talking about. Charles has repeated it in various sources (and in news interviews), and although he's been very careful to not give away sales data, I think there's no way you could interpret "best year ever" to not include increased sales.

Charles said that he thinks the numbers of people playing D&D are a little high - but that the trend has been upwards. Fascinating.

Does that mean that RPGs (in general) are doing well? Of course not. (It does mean the one I really care about is doing well, though )

Cheers!

 

[Monte At Home]

You know, I believe Charles too. But not because he said it over and over.

There are a LOT of things I hear said over and over by people in this industry that I know not to be true.

 

[MerricB]

We still have an industry?

Cheers!

 

[GMSkarka]

I only wish there were some accurate data available, if only so problems could be identified and solved, rather than debated and speculated upon.

You clearly underestimate the propensity of gamers to debate and speculate, even when provided with accurate data.

 

[SBMC]

Amature vs. Professional

OK. Some companies are in litigation for some things. It amazes me that anyone would believe this magically ensures their honesty,

err...excuse me; exactly what are laws by the way; and why is it that people obey them most of the time. Oh ya I forgot! Because there is a consequence AFTER the law is broken.

In your logic we should assume all business are always guilty and thus levy punishments prior to the crime being committed. You talk as if Corps all over the world are all dishonest – horse crap. You have offered no tangible proof of any statement you have made at all – not a single shred. You simply make a statement as if it is true with zero backup or references.

unless of course, they were ideologically devoted to corporations. Hm -- and it's your job, you say?

Of course I am devoted – devoted to an open economy that allows things…such as the internet to be invented and created. I am a business person. You know; the type of people that help keep the economy moving along and such - the kind you work for or will at some point. The kind that will run the companies that sustain your retirement account and currently sustain your parents, uncles etc. Ya I am one of those radicals.

Hypocrite.

You're speaking from a position of incredible optimism, in my view.

An opinion – relevance? Position of optimism; that MOST people are honest most of the time? Hmmm seems so silly to me. After all we all know that on a daily basis 99% of all stop signs on the road are ignored and that people murder everyone all the time for the smallest slight…since of course you accuse corporations as a whole of such liberties.

The fact is that post-Enron accountability measures are aimed mostly as boards and financial statements, such as the rules for outside board members and the cooling of period to ensure independence. Charles Ryan is not making a financial statement beyond saying that the D&D brand is driving more profit than it did before.

LOL (x100) [let me pick myself up off the floor – this is really pathetic]: this statement simply shows your complete (and I do mean complete) lack of knowledge regarding the subject you are arguing about. A company IS its financial statements! Everything it does comes out there! If Charles Ryan is talking about anything financial, even eluding to it – it is on the financials. If he is talking about anything the company does it is on the financials.

Sure. That's why energy companies are testifying under oath right n . . . oh, wait, they aren't. Oops!

Oh ya I forgot; everyone guilty of a crime always tells the truth on the stand...silly me. Oh ya and those that are actually innocent actually say they are guilty – silly me. Oh ya and prosecutors always take every case even with near zero evidence to the grand jury – just to waste everyone’s time for fun. I forgot about that. Oh and don’t forget that most corporations steal millions from everyone and are evil so we must prosecute them first.

Charles Ryan cannot be fudging sales numbers because his statements say nothing of how many SKUs ae being moved. Making money hat can be categorized under a brand is not the same as moving SKUs. In fact, it is difficult to construct a scenario in which he might be lying, because his statements are materially vague.

And exactly where does this SKU thing come from? That is not even a term; SKU is a bar code system; UNITS are what is used per product and per product line, and per brand name.

Second; Charles Ryan stated that sales are positive; he will have to prove that – period. Say what you will – you are flat wrong.

Nobody really seems to want to find this out s much as believe that it means that more PHBs are selling than ever.

Because one cannot know the details until the financials are produced.

Actually, it is relevant to us, because details about what it means help determine why things are in their current shape.

Then the entire thread is moot.

You don't know anything about the business of gaming outside of what a layperson would. It seems we're even, except of course that it's easier to educate yourself about corporate governance than the business of a specialized niche hobby.

LOL again…

Now lets just take the whole concept and abort it from the conversation since I am being constantly proven wrong. LOL

I forgot; we are talking about something unrelated to corporate governance…then why the focus on ethical issues in a corp? Silly statement you made.

It has nothing to do with that. Licensors are a special case because they rely on the value of somebody else's property. This means that false representation of the property can damage them (i.e. Activision vs, Viacom).

Then let them get lawyers; and if Charles Ryan is full of it I assure you they will; whether it is made public or not. Not to mention that that is indeed a business risk of anyone licensing a product including the Windows software on your PC that you are using right now.

That is not really an ethical position beyond basic egoism.

How can one discuss ethics within and between organizations without discussing law??? You can but it is pointless. Ethics discussion without law are not ethics; that is a discussion regarding morals (I don’t want to have to dig up the old college textbooks to find the exact book and such (which is a Harvard product BTW)).

You are arguing that the equivalent of these things in corporate governance will always work now. That's . . . super.

They do – and when someone finds a loophole (and they will – just like any other criminal) another law will have to fill it. And if not then when it happens again and again the public gets wind and things change; life is not fair, neither is anything else. The nation runs on voters and money. When the voters outweigh the money things happen.

No, they haven't. The idea of hand-off market correction is a joke. Exxon never suffered a year where they lost money do to the Valdez. From LTCM to the less-known companies involved in Enron (RBC conspired with them to conceal losses and were not punished), the trend has been that only massive malfeasance can have consequences for individuals. And that's without getting into the Butcher of Bhopal . . . yet somehow, you think that a bank (RBC) that concealed billions in losses for Enron can get off scot-free while talking about D&D cannot even be phrased to put a company in the best light. This defies credulity.

LOL! Once again; re read your history.

RBC – you have proof that they actually assisted in this fiasco? Funny that the FBI, SEC, NASD…need I go on…did not. Boy you must really be a good investigator to come up with that with no actual evidence in your own hands. RBC actually did not; they executed instructions on accounts owned by the company in question; that is it. If anyone says different they are a flat out liar.

And where is RBC located?

Well, no, they don't, because the cost isn't high enough. That speaks directly to the issue, really.

LOL once again – so that fact that any material error, intentional of not on any financial statement of any U.S. company will put the CFO behind bars and have his professional licenses revoked for life is certainly not an incentive to ensure what they sign off on is good. The fact that companies can face MILLIONS in fines for the slightest error; really come on now you again show that you know zilch about this.

You misread. You are saying that it would be impossible for Charles Ryan to say anoytjing without spinning it to look good. You are simultaneously asking for an unwarranted degree of trust and, of course, denying that companies should actually have to be any more trustworthy than the letter of the law defines. This is a contradiction.

How in the hell is that a contradiction? Un warranted? That my expectations match that of the law? That their sales via reputation suffer with bad press? (Been proven hundreds upon hundreds of times – say it ain’t true; you would be a liar)

Lets start off with exactly what the %$# do you want someone to say in his position?

Nothing of the sort. I'm talking about making the most positive statements possible without drawing legal penalties. It is not "circumventing" anything to present those in the best light, even if it means not discussing certain particulars.

LOL once again – when you meet someone do you not put on your best face; this is laughable.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Most customers who go to a shop in order to find a product do that exactly once. If the product isn't there, they go somewhere else. With less copies ordered, even product that would normally sell did not have any customers, because the latter used other channels to get it. This means: no reorders. Distributors didn't get rid of the stuff and didn't want to order much from RPG companies anymore. The main distributor of a big number of small to medium companies finally got bankrupt, not paying said RPG companies. For many RPG companies, this was the end.

When I went to buy Magic of Incarnum, the shop got it on Friday, I went on Saturday. When I got there, they had sold out, which is fine, I can accept it...
Except, they had only gotten TWO copies in.

I mean, seriously, they stock the book, so they'd keep one copy on the shelf anyway, did they only expect to sell one of them? So, I bought MoI online, and also Heroes of Horror.

I have also gotten the vibe that the distributor often sends stuff that they want to, rather than what's ordered.