Decline of RPG sales

[Warbringer]

I think this is because that while CRPGs can easily replace tabletop RPGs (for most people and, in fact, draw a crowd that would never touch a tabletop rpg), the computer still can't defeat the joy of playing with a well-produced boardgame. I mean, boardgames are social, some of the best are packed with fun toys, and pretty much everyone in the US has played a boardgame at least once in their life.

True. I've found myself palying more board games just for the fun of playing. Also helps that some of the new board games have tons of cool minis aw well, re- Descent.

I wonder if GW will wake upto the massive demand that a heroscape has and re-release Hero Quest... dare I say even Talisman (and not for $150)

 

[frankthedm]

The economy sucks, nerds are losing their cushy tech jobs due to bean counters & automation and money is getting tighter all around.

 

[GVDammerung]

Incredible. About all the points about what's going wrong are pretty much what Wizards is *not* doing.

Cheers!

Rhetorically speaking, do you _ever_ come up for air?

Rant On:

More to the topic of the thread, like some others have said, I have found my game purchases dropping off sharply this year, although they decreased in 2004 as well. (My wife is good enough to track my game expenditures and at periodic intervals confront me with what I have spent. Bless her heart. ) In both years, I have simply found less to buy that grabbed my attention. I also noticed just less product on offer (John Nephew's point). If there is a glut of print products, I am not seeing it.

It seems to me, rather, that too much of the product on offer is a rerun of ideas that have already been around the block. E.g., Heroes of Horror? Been there done that. Forgotten Realms? The proverbial dead horse now being beaten for the umpteenth time and beyond recognition. Stormwrack? Let's see. How many sea supplements do I have/need? Only Eberron holds out any promise for something new/different.

While the examples I use are from Wotc, much the same goes for d20 publishers, albeit to a much lesser degree. D20 products are, in fact, one of the few bright spots.

Northern Crown (the first book anyway) was great. Liber Mechanus for IK was good to see. Legends of the Samurai is awesome beyond words.

It seems d20 publishers can still turn out top notch products not thematically done to death already, while Wotc hasn't had an original thought since Eberron. Oh, wait! Wotc had to get that idea off someone not at the time working for Wotc. Oh wait! Incarnum! Oh wait! Incarnum sucks beyond words! (See reviews of Incarnum, this site, for details)

If there is a downturn in the market, I blame Wotc as industry leader for not leading with better, more imaginative products. Spell Compendium? Yawn. Pact/True Name/Shadow Magic? Yawn. "More of the same only different!" That should be Wotc's moto.

Part of the problem, IMO, is Wotc's blind adherence to the "too many settings killed TSR so we offer you Eberron and the moldy oldy Forgotten Realms." This is a large load of bilge trowelled out by persons desparate to keep the spotlight on their fading place in the RPG universe and Wotc fellow travellers for whom it seems from outward appearances that "good enough" is "good enough" so long as they continue in their employment. TSR did not fail because it fractured its market with too many settings; it failed because it did not grow its market with those settings. With no growth, then, and only then, did all those settings fracture the market in a way that hurt the company. Wotc is correct not to follow suit only if they admit of no ability to grow their market with a new setting. That would be a sorry admission for a company that trades in the imagination.

New settings spur new ideas - E.g., Birthright, Darksun, Ravenloft etc.. By eschewing new settings, and unable to otherwise match the innovation of the d20 publishers, Wotc lowers the creative and imaginative bar with a desultory effect on the market. Like 'em or not, agree with 'em or not, Wotc is the market leader; they shape the market. And they are, IMO, boring the market to death.

I do not mean to dismiss all the posts that look to various socio-economic data to explain why there is a bit of a malaise. I think there are valid points there and there are certainly multiple factors at work. One of those factors I believe to be Wotc's hyper-conservatism as regards the imagination and the trickle down effect when its widely marketed products suggest same old, same old.

That Wotc is enjoying "record sales" with its strategy says nothing at all contrary to my point. The market leader is leading the market. Duh! Rather, Wotc's success butresses my point - they are shaping the market - with same old, same old conservative imaginings and wringing the excitement and energy out of consumers thereby. They are literally depressing the market for other than their cookie cutter, retreads of the imagination. Works for them as a business. Okay. For the market . . . As Wotc might say to the d20 market (has said with its eternal sunshine of the spotless mind posts) - "It must suck to be you."

Rant off.

 

[WizarDru]

New settings spur new ideas - E.g., Birthright, Darksun, Ravenloft etc.. By eschewing new settings, and unable to otherwise match the innovation of the d20 publishers, Wotc lowers the creative and imaginative bar with a desultory effect on the market. Like 'em or not, agree with 'em or not, Wotc is the market leader; they shape the market. And they are, IMO, boring the market to death.

But do new ideas spur new sales? Apparently not as strongly as you seem to imply, or else much of the d20 market would be thriving much more than it currently is. You seem to imply that WotC has some duty to prop up the market, though I'm not sure how I see what benefit that strategy offers them. Is Ravenloft only good if WotC, and not S&S, publishes it? Is Dragonlance only a proven seller if Wotc, not Soverign Stone, sells it? That seems to imply that the ideas aren't important, but the publisher.

Northern Crown certainly sounds like a great idea (clearly inspired by series like Alvin Maker and Newton's Cannon)...but sales are good, not amazing, from what John reports to us. And you seem to be limiting the discussion purely to d20 games; isn't the market larger than that? GURPS just came out with a new edition, for example....do they count towards the industry's condition? I mean let's be honest here, the different D&D settings you named aren't really all that different from core D&D in the grand scheme of things. A game like Northern Crown, Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds is much more removed than they are. I'm just not sure I take it as fact that more settings support would somehow alleviate any declining sales in the market...and especially not for other publishers.

 

[buzz]

...while Wotc hasn't had an original thought since Eberron. Oh, wait! Wotc had to get that idea off someone not at the time working for Wotc. Oh wait! Incarnum! Oh wait! Incarnum sucks beyond words! (See reviews of Incarnum, this site, for details)

I think juxtaposing those two specific products is unfair. WotC produces consistently good, if not always great, products. Not to mention, all of the Eberron content has been designed and developed with the involvement of the WotC R&D staff.

And despite possible failings in implementation, I don't see how, e.g., Incarnum, the environment books, or the upcoming alternate magic system products are any less innovative than most third-party products.

Spell Compendium? Yawn.

This was one of the products everyone at the D&D sneak-peek seminar at GenCon were most excited about. Buying it is a no-brainer for me, while I'd have next to no interest in yet another campiagn setting. Heck, I want a feat compendium, too.

Good thing WotC cares about making products people actually want to buy.

Part of the problem, IMO, is Wotc's blind adherence to the "too many settings killed TSR so we offer you Eberron and the moldy oldy Forgotten Realms." This is a large load of bilge trowelled out by persons desparate to keep the spotlight on their fading place in the RPG universe...

It's well documented by people actually invovled with TSR at the time that, while not the only reason, the glut of settings being cranked out for D&D back then was indeed among the reasons for their financial problems. Saying that repeating these mistakes is a good idea for WotC is nonsensical.

The fundamental problem with your rant is that it ignores d20 publishers. WotC does what it does best, and what makes good business sense: "core" products and two key settings (one of them the most popular RPG setting on earth). They may play it a little safer than d20 publishers becasue they have the integrity of the D&D brand riding on them. Thankfully, they do a very good job.

If you want campiagn settings and adventurous, risky d20-bending products, head on over to Amazon.com, RPGnow, or the ENWorld gameStore and you'll find 1,058 of them.

 

[GVDammerung]

But do new ideas spur new sales? Apparently not as strongly as you seem to imply, or else much of the d20 market would be thriving much more than it currently is. You seem to imply that WotC has some duty to prop up the market, though I'm not sure how I see what benefit that strategy offers them. Is Ravenloft only good if WotC, and not S&S, publishes it? Is Dragonlance only a proven seller if Wotc, not Soverign Stone, sells it? That seems to imply that the ideas aren't important, but the publisher.

Northern Crown certainly sounds like a great idea (clearly inspired by series like Alvin Maker and Newton's Cannon)...but sales are good, not amazing, from what John reports to us. And you seem to be limiting the discussion purely to d20 games; isn't the market larger than that? GURPS just came out with a new edition, for example....do they count towards the industry's condition? I mean let's be honest here, the different D&D settings you named aren't really all that different from core D&D in the grand scheme of things. A game like Northern Crown, Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds is much more removed than they are. I'm just not sure I take it as fact that more settings support would somehow alleviate any declining sales in the market...and especially not for other publishers.

New settings spur new ideas. At TSR, they did not spur new sales. Hence, the proliferation of settings that did not equally spur sales fractured the market, the error not being in creating new settings but in creating settings that could not be leveraged to increase the number of gamers playing in and buying those settings.

We need to differentiate between (1) new ideas, (2) new sales and (3) an expanded market, ie new gamers.

New settings spur new ideas. While Birthright, Ravenloft and Dark Sun may seem old hat now, at the time, they shed new light on the possibilities of the game - new ideas.

New settings should spur new sales. Obviously, that is what any producer will be looking for. How do they do that? There are two choices. Sell to those already playing - which risks fracture of the market. Or. Use the setting to try to expand the number of gamers - in other words attracting new gamers.

TSR failed with its proliferation of settings not because they merely existed but because they both failed to sell to the converted without fracturing the market and failed to bring in new gamers.

The size and resources of the publisher cannot be ignored in this calculus. Wotc, with Hasbro’s backing and previously powered by Pokemon money, has a unique ability to promote its products. If we assume that imagination is equal among all producers, d20 publishers will never be able to have a market effect with a new setting comparable to Wotc’s. An idea can be equally good in a d20 publisher and Wotc’s hands but only Wotc has the ability to shape the market with the setting because it enjoys comparatively unequaled resources.

Wotc obviously owes no duty to the d20 market, hence my last paragraph (Wotc to the d20 market - “It must suck to be you.”). Nonetheless, their actions will inevitably impact the d20 market. As a consumer, however, I think I can fairly note when I perceive Wotc’s impact as negative - and without thereby implying that Wotc owes the d20 market any duty. They are simply having a noticeable effect, without any consideration of a duty.

With respect to other, nond20 or D&D games, you are correct, I think, that they factor in. However, their impact is negligible overall, IMO. While the RPG market is gradually emerging from being d20ed some years ago, the gaming market is still predominantly d20 dominated. This limits but does exclude the impact of nond20 games. Overtime, I think nond20 games will play a greater role in defining the market and at that time Wotc’s impact will still be the strongest but not as strong as presently. In this way, I am rather positive about the future. The sky is not falling; the clouds are simply lowering at this time. The d20 market outside Wotc may, however, be seriously hurt even under a lowering sky, and that concerns me, even if Wotc owes them no duty.

 

[GVDammerung]

I think juxtaposing those two specific products is unfair. WotC produces consistently good, if not always great, products. Not to mention, all of the Eberron content has been designed and developed with the involvement of the WotC R&D staff.

And despite possible failings in implementation, I don't see how, e.g., Incarnum, the environment books, or the upcoming alternate magic system products are any less innovative than most third-party products.

It is a marketplace of ideas kind of thing. Wotc is not innovating IMO in the marketplace as much as they are sticking to well worn paths that they know they can sell. There is nothing wrong with this from a business standpoint and it makes for good business from what we hear. It is, however, not a triumph of innovation but of market shaping power.

You are correct that some d20 publishers are following Wotc's lead. This is a testament to Wotc's ability to shape the market, IMO. Without Wotc's ability in that respect, however, we will see how this works out for the d20 publishers trying the "more of the same only different" or "everything old is new again" approach. With Wotc shaping the market toward "more of the same only different," they are levraging their marketing strength that that the d20 publishers do not enjoy to an equal degree. I imagine this is putting d20 publishers in something of a quandry of how best to respond beyond following suit.

This was one of the products everyone at the D&D sneak-peek seminar at GenCon were most excited about. Buying it is a no-brainer for me, while I'd have next to no interest in yet another campiagn setting. Heck, I want a feat compendium, too.

Good thing WotC cares about making products people actually want to buy.

LOL! Of course people will want to buy this! That hardly makes it innovative, which then side slips my point. I'm not saying Wotc is practicing bad business, quite the opposite! "The same only different" sells. If you like macaroni and cheese last night, you will probably buy it again in the future. Wotc has no need to innovate if mac and cheese continues to sell out the doors. Great business! Not innovative. You missed my point.

It's well documented by people actually invovled with TSR at the time that, while not the only reason, the glut of settings being cranked out for D&D back then was indeed among the reasons for their financial problems. Saying that repeating these mistakes is a good idea for WotC is nonsensical.

Again. You miss my point. The "glut of settings" is the most obvious symptom but it is not the cause. Over simplification, which seems to have a universal appeal, stops the thought process right there. When you asl why the "glut" fractured the market, you get to the next layer of the onion - the "glut" fractured the market not simply because it was a "glut" but because it failed to either (1) sell without fracture to existing gamers or, and to my point, (2) failed to attract new gamers to the settings. I will postulate - a new setting, beyond those settings already doing well, to be justified should be believed to hold the realizable potential to attract new players to the game.

The fundamental problem with your rant is that it ignores d20 publishers. WotC does what it does best, and what makes good business sense: "core" products and two key settings (one of them the most popular RPG setting on earth). They may play it a little safer than d20 publishers becasue they have the integrity of the D&D brand riding on them. Thankfully, they do a very good job.

If you want campiagn settings and adventurous, risky d20-bending products, head on over to Amazon.com, RPGnow, or the ENWorld gameStore and you'll find 1,058 of them.

Begging your pardon, I do not ignore d20 publishers. To the contrary, I note them as a bright spot for innovation. What I do is grant Wotc its due - it is the market shaper and only Wotc presently enjoys that ability.

You seem, as far as I can tell, to be pleased with what Wotc has on offer. I have no problem with that. It is irrelevant to my point. Wotc material is predominantly "more of the same only different." If you like that, more power to you and Wotc as a business. For me whoever, I see a negative market shaping effect that is negatively impacting other d20 publishers. While Wotc owes these folks no duty, that does nothing to negate the negative impact of shaping the market to expect and accept but "more of the same only different."

 

[Glyfair]

When you asl why the "glut" fractured the market, you get to the next layer of the onion - the "glut" fractured the market not simply because it was a "glut" but because it failed to either (1) sell without fracture to existing gamers or, and to my point, (2) failed to attract new gamers to the settings.

Honestly, I think it's being overly optimistic to believe that a new setting will attract new gamers. I just don't see it.

It's possible that a licensed setting might possibly attract new gamers. However, these will be gamers already attached to the setting, being brought into gaming. It would also have to be something that already had an "RPG ready" audience, too. Star Wars was a good example of that.

 

[buzz]

You seem, as far as I can tell, to be pleased with what Wotc has on offer. I have no problem with that. It is irrelevant to my point. Wotc material is predominantly "more of the same only different." If you like that, more power to you and Wotc as a business. For me whoever, I see a negative market shaping effect that is negatively impacting other d20 publishers. While Wotc owes these folks no duty, that does nothing to negate the negative impact of shaping the market to expect and accept but "more of the same only different."

The point is that I don't agree with your point. I neither think that WotC is exclusively about "more of the same, only different" (no more so than any other d20 company, much less RPG publishers in general), and I don't think they are having any demonstrable negative impact on the d20 market as a whole, especially considering they are the primary dirver of that market. You're basically asserting your opinion of their products as irrefutable, and then making an inexplicable leap to citing it as the reason for some perceived qualitative malaise in the d20 market.

Unfortunately, this doesn't really make any sense. The "decline" being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the quality of products being produced, but the sales of the products being produced. If anything, there's moire amazing product out there than anyone knows what to do with!

The time when third-party d20 publishers were aping the choices of WotC and producing derivative drivel that was "more of the same only different" is long past. The oceans of class splats, settings, and umpteen new feats and PrCs are gathering dust in discount bins. If d20 and OGL material is doing anything, it's straying further from the "baseline" of WotC. What we're seeing are d20 games going OGL, and publishers trying to supply what they specifically know WotC will not. At least, the companies that aren't actively trying to go out of business are doing so.

TSR failed with its proliferation of settings not because they merely existed but because they both failed to sell to the converted without fracturing the market and failed to bring in new gamers.

The size and resources of the publisher cannot be ignored in this calculus. Wotc, with Hasbro’s backing and previously powered by Pokemon money, has a unique ability to promote its products. If we assume that imagination is equal among all producers, d20 publishers will never be able to have a market effect with a new setting comparable to Wotc’s. An idea can be equally good in a d20 publisher and Wotc’s hands but only Wotc has the ability to shape the market with the setting because it enjoys comparatively unequaled resources.

TSR failed with its proliferation of settings because it's a flawed business practice. Like adventures, settings have a limited appeal, i.e., to DMs who use published settings and who are not currently satisfied using an existing one. I.e., a tiny slice of their fanbase. An even tinier slice is going to want to actively consume more than one.

The quality of the setting is irrelevant (unless you want to argue that Greyhawk, FR, Planescape, DL, Brithright, Dark Sun, Mystara, and Spelljammer were "more of the same, only different").

On top of this, creating a setting whole cloth, and then supporting it, requires a great deal of development resources. WotC learned from TSR that they cannot viably sustain 7-10 campiagn settings. To do so would be idiotic. Were WotC to announce yet another campiagn setting, with Eberron out only a few years now, the reaction would likely be a collective groan. No one is interested.

Whatever the reason for the current state of the industry, the lack of settings from WotC is not it.

 

[GVDammerung]

Honestly, I think it's being overly optimistic to believe that a new setting will attract new gamers. I just don't see it.

It's possible that a licensed setting might possibly attract new gamers. However, these will be gamers already attached to the setting, being brought into gaming. It would also have to be something that already had an "RPG ready" audience, too. Star Wars was a good example of that.

I agree on both counts. It would be necessary to do more than role out the setting and say "Here it is. Come get it." TSR basically did little more and paid for their sloth. Wotc has demonstrated that when they want to they can "push" a setting with tie-ins etc. Eberron has been pushed pretty well. I do not know how well it is doing but my sense is it is doing fairly well. How much of this is due to it being the only "official" alternative to the Forgotten Realms and how much is do to its own merits that are being pushed, I do not know. I like Eberron for what that may be worth. I firmly believe that if Wotc got serious about growing their business beyond FR and Eberron, they could do so and do so well. But if mac and cheese is selling reliably, no need to risk a new receipe from a business standpoint. Thus, I imagine, what I see as their conservatism.

I definitely agree with your second point. Hence, my interest in another thread where
someone speculated that the Magic the Gathering Worlds might be somehow tied into a 4E (not necessarily making 4E card based but just using the settings). Now, _that_ seems like a way to grow the business with a new setting attracting new gamers if ever there was one. Someone else said the MtG business unit nixed plans to hook up the two titles in the past; I hope that is no longer the case, if it ever was.

People complain about there not being enough new players coming into the hobby. I don't see that changing by "playing it safe" with the Realms Mk6 or whatever iteration it is in, etc. nor with simply more "marketing," whatever that means. I think to get new gamers you need to offer them something aimed squarely at them that you have reason to believe will prove attractive - a setting that speaks to them. And only Wotc has the power and it _is_ in their business interest to have more customers. But I'm roaming off topic here.