Dragon Con: A Sight of the Schism in action

[Wicht]

Couple of points. This was market research that was done before 3e came out, not 4e. This was what they based 3e on. IIRC, there are a few threads here floating around that complained about that fact at the time. But, I've also heard Ryan Dancy talk about this same fact and he was pretty emphatic about it. Role playing game buyers (not players) tended to be very heavily surburban and under 35.

If that is what their research said before 3e then I believe it. But I also still would have a harder time believing it today. That was over 9 years ago the research would have been done. I was younger than 27 then myself and I recognize that there were a lot of us introduced to the game as kids in the 80s which would have been in our mid twenties right about then. The bulk of D&D players in fact. But as time progresses, those of us who picked up the game in the 80s continue to age and the fact that we were 25 10 years ago does not mean we are necessarily dropping the game.

Furthermore, 10 years ago, those who would have been 35 and gamers would likely have been learning the game in the 70s when it just wasn't as popular and there would consequently be less of them.

I guess I just can't see a study 10 years ago as particularly relevant to the age of gamers today. D&D has been around a short enough period of time that 10 years is a fairly significant piece of time.

 

[Imban]

In fact, some of the things about previous editions are incorrect, too! Summoning a mount (or any other summon) in midair was not a loophole in 3.5, it was against the rules.

It was not against the rules in 3.0. This was explicitly changed in 3.5e because people were summoning Earth Elementals in midair.

 

[Reigan]

I suppose some people will be disappointed to find out that what will probably happen is both 4e & PF will be very successful and provide many years of entertainment to their respective fans.

I've also been listening to the latest Penny Arcade/pvp podcasts. For the first two session you would be hard pressed to tell which edition of D&D they're playing. There's also a lot of messing around and banter, pretty much like at my game table, it reminds me that having a good time with your friends is far more important than the rules.

 

[billd91]

If that is what their research said before 3e then I believe it. But I also still would have a harder time believing it today. That was over 9 years ago the research would have been done. I was younger than 27 then myself and I recognize that there were a lot of us introduced to the game as kids in the 80s which would have been in our mid twenties right about then. The bulk of D&D players in fact. But as time progresses, those of us who picked up the game in the 80s continue to age and the fact that we were 25 10 years ago does not mean we are necessarily dropping the game.

Furthermore, 10 years ago, those who would have been 35 and gamers would likely have been learning the game in the 70s when it just wasn't as popular and there would consequently be less of them.

I guess I just can't see a study 10 years ago as particularly relevant to the age of gamers today. D&D has been around a short enough period of time that 10 years is a fairly significant piece of time.

That's an interesting point. The market study done in early WotC D&D days would be a good snapshot of the time, but if it's not updated you really wouldn't have much of a clue how different cohorts behave over time. The big influx of players in the early 1980s, now that we're over 35, may serve to push that buying bubble into older territory.

 

[Hussar]

That, however, doesn't explain the Dragon readership polls, which are only a couple of years old and line up pretty well with the WOTC figures.

In the late 90's, when WOTC was doing the research, that would make the largest bubble of gamers (those that started in 1980-83) in their mid 30's. I'm not really sure why buying habits would really change. They might. For all I know it's shifted ten years older. It could be.

But, those who were in their mid 30's when 3e came out probably outnumbers considerably those in their mid 30's when 4e came out. 2e wasn't a major influx of new gamers, rather it was a pretty serious downturn in numbers.

Meh, it's all back of the envelope anyway. Until I see something different, I'll stick with the over 35's don't buy as much which, in my mind anyway, goes a long way towards explaining a lot of WOTC's actions.

 

[Shemeska]

That's an interesting point. The market study done in early WotC D&D days would be a good snapshot of the time, but if it's not updated you really wouldn't have much of a clue how different cohorts behave over time. The big influx of players in the early 1980s, now that we're over 35, may serve to push that buying bubble into older territory.

Very true. There's also the generation of folks who got into D&D with 3e, who (myself included) were in highschool or college back in 2000, but in the decade since we now have incomes to spend. That's got to be a big bracket of potential sales that's WotC's (and othes') to gain or lose.

Speaking for myself and most of my gaming group who are part of that same market segment, we get into the game, we enjoy it, we finally have money to spend on it, and then a new edition comes out and the marketing tells us that the edition that brought us into the game was poorly made, things we liked about it are bad, etc. I do have to wonder if they managed to alienate much of the generation they had just finished gaining in 3e, with 4e.

 

[ferratus]

I've generally found that the ones who have been most vehemently opposed to 4e to the point of passionate hatred have been those who were brought in to the game with 3e. I'm sure there are a people who liked both 2e and 3e who hate 4e too, they just seem fewer in number and less passionate about their dislike of the new system.

People who didn't like 3e but still play 2e or earlier seem to have largely stayed out of this edition war. Sure they can act like condescending jerks about the new edition on their own blogs and on dragonsfoot, but that is in their "own house" where I think it should be allowed.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm 37 and I grew up on videogames. I had videogames in my home since I was 8 years old. I played D&D inspired video games on the C64 and probably the Vic 20 as well. I'm willing to bet that just about everyone here under the age of 40 grew up with video games.

What is this "younger generation" you speak of?

I agree. I was playing Hunt the Wumpus on a home built computer lacking both a screen and keyboard (actual switches and lights) before AD&D existed (and it's a game that first came out in University computers before Gary and Dave even published D&D). I was playing Adventure on my Atari 2600, and then was loving Temple of Apshai on my Commodore 64, while learning AD&D for the first time. What "younger generation" grew up on video games? Fantasy video games and D&D developed simultaneously.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Meh, it's all back of the envelope anyway. Until I see something different, I'll stick with the over 35's don't buy as much which, in my mind anyway, goes a long way towards explaining a lot of WOTC's actions.

I think you have it backwards. WOTC's actions explain why the over 35s don't buy product.

 

[Mistwell]

I think you have it backwards. WOTC's actions explain why the over 35s don't buy product.

It's information WOTC said they were reacting to during 3e by the way (that's when the survey was done, during the 3e prep era). I might be mistaken, but I thought you were a fan of 3e?