Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 2729781" data-attributes="member: 33060">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.</blockquote>

Verification