'Dungeons & Dragons' fights for its future

[jasonbostwick]

That article grossly misrepresents the subscription data for D&D Online.
According to VOIG D&D Online at max had 90,000 subscribers at launch, and has since dwindled to 20,000.

 

[MaelStorm]

Wow.
MSNBC is just as biased and inaccurate with this as they are with, well... everything else. :\

I agree. That's why I try to avoid listening as much as possible the news from *official lamestream media*.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. Might we be seeing further marketing efforts for 4E with this article? Lancing some information towards different media to get some coverage?

If it is, I think it would be a bit better to ensure that the coverage is a little more optimistic/positive. Though the points "The Rouse" made towards the DDI were good, I think...

 

[hennebeck]

Totally Off-topic, except as a link for Moon-Lancer, regarding D&D Cult Propaganda.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

 

[xechnao]

The wierd thing about this is that the MMRPG D&D Online, which everyone I know considers to be a complete flop, must pull in about a million dollars a month if it has 100,000 customers. 12 million a year must be getting into the zone of the money that WoTC makes off of D&D. I mean, it's probably less, but the fact that it's even in the same ballpark is amazing.

QFT. Why is that do you think?

 

[xechnao]

I didn't find the article to be biased at all. You're not going to see a mainstream mag saying that people sitting around a table playing characters and talking in funny voices is cool. I liked how the article emphasized how the pen and paper game had social aspects that computer games lacked.

What I find weird is that D&DOnline is not competing with WoW even if the same media. People claim that WoW has allienated the market due to a media advantage. But I do not believe it is only because of this. It is because it appeals for various reasons. IMO a tabletop could evolve to appealing too. You have to find the right formula. Harry Potter for example found it. Tabletops could find it too.

 

[VannATLC]

What I find weird is that D&DOnline is not competing with WoW even if the same media. People claim that WoW has allienated the market due to a media advantage. But I do not believe it is only because of this. It is because it appeals for various reasons. IMO a tabletop could evolve to appealing too. You have to find the right formula. Harry Potter for example found it. Tabletops could find it too.

Harry Potter had little pre-existing stigmata to overcome.

I used to work in, and eventually managed, a Games Workship store.

I established dress codes, language codes, exhibition games, training sessions, music codes, etc.

I succeded in increasing the traffic by 15%, because I actively worked on overcoming the tabletop gaming/dnd/nerd stigmata, and encouraging people who many have been interested, but not willing to take the social risk.

While I understand what you are saying, and it is relatively valid, I think the overall market for something like DND is very small.

IMO, to really enjoy DND, you have to be relatively smart.
Enjoyment of the game is heavily dependant on finding a group suited to your playstyle, and a consistent DM.

The games attracted rules-lawyers. Some ruleslawyers are palatable. Most, in my 20 years of experience with them, are not. 1 person can bring down a gaming group, for many reasons, and if that person is a normal part of the groups social circle, things get messy.

Things like WoW help avoid a lot of this, which, as I mentioned earlier, DDI may also be able to.

Unfortunately, unlike WoW, DDI has the expectations of DND PnP to deal with.

 

[xechnao]

Harry Potter had little pre-existing stigmata to overcome.

I used to work in, and eventually managed, a Games Workship store.

I established dress codes, language codes, exhibition games, training sessions, music codes, etc.

I succeded in increasing the traffic by 15%, because I actively worked on overcoming the tabletop gaming/dnd/nerd stigmata, and encouraging people who many have been interested, but not willing to take the social risk.

This is key for tabletops too.

While I understand what you are saying, and it is relatively valid, I think the overall market for something like DND is very small.

IMO, to really enjoy DND, you have to be relatively smart.
Enjoyment of the game is heavily dependant on finding a group suited to your playstyle, and a consistent DM.

The games attracted rules-lawyers. Some ruleslawyers are palatable. Most, in my 20 years of experience with them, are not. 1 person can bring down a gaming group, for many reasons, and if that person is a normal part of the groups social circle, things get messy.

Things like WoW help avoid a lot of this, which, as I mentioned earlier, DDI may also be able to.

Unfortunately, unlike WoW, DDI has the expectations of DND PnP to deal with.

IMO this is a problem not of the nature or limits of tabletops but of the commercial tabletops so far. 3e was a bubble that boomed. It was appealing at first but in the long run the system with its limited style was not so good to sustain the market share it was claiming. 4e perhaps will be a bit different. But they are also making the smart move IMO to close it so that what bubble happened in the past does not happen again. IMO if it happens again it could seriously hurt the hobby.

 

[Elsenrail]

Look at the newest report from icv2.

It really doesn't look good. 4th edition may be the last (because if it's good, many people won't buy the 5th ed. stuff; a lot will play 3.5 still). The rpg industry is a tiny piece of the hobby market cake (15-17 million $ a year). Compare it to CCG and miniatures - 600 million and 150 respectively. If I was a Hasbro CEO I would say "concentrate on CCG market and miniatures". To sum it up, if DDI is a success, we can smile, if it doesn't... it can really be the end. The costs of producing a D&D book (with plenty of art) are higher than the costs of cards or miniatures. It takes also quite a lot of time to write the fluff, test the rules (if they are tested )etc.

I'm switching to 4th ed., but I will probably buy only the corebooks and a setting. I know a lot folks who will do the same.

 

[xechnao]

Look at the newest report from icv2.

It really doesn't look good. 4th edition may be the last (because if it's good, many people won't buy the 5th ed. stuff; a lot will play 3.5 still). The rpg industry is a tiny piece of the hobby market cake (15-17 million $ a year). Compare it to CCG and miniatures - 600 million and 150 respectively. If I was a Hasbro CEO I would say "concentrate on CCG market and miniatures". To sum it up, if DDI is a success, we can smile, if it doesn't... it can really be the end. The costs of producing a D&D book (with plenty of art) are higher than the costs of cards or miniatures. It takes also quite a lot of time to write the fluff, test the rules (if they are tested )etc.

I'm switching to 4th ed., but I will probably buy only the corebooks and a setting. I know a lot folks who will do the same.

Just for info I would personally buy books about tabletop gaming even with significantly less art. I know art is important and helps promote the product by making it more attractive but I understand and actually was thinking about the problem you are talking about. I actually made a thread in this forum asking about it but not many replied -just one