Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I think TSR was right to publish so much material
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5307850" data-attributes="member: 55271"><p>That certainly sounds like a more believable figure. Thanks for issuing a correction. That cite on Acaeum gets trotted out way too much and it's nice to have it debunked.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Possibly. But hindsight is 20-20.</p><p></p><p>The real question would be what the sales on the Expert, Companion, and Master sets looked like in 1989. If the sales on those products were flagging to a point where reprinting them was beginning to look like a questionable proposition, then TSR's decision to switch to a rebooted Basic + Cyclopedia model makes sense.</p><p></p><p>I think the root of their mistake remains the pay-for-preview nature of the post-1991 Basic Sets: Pay us $20 or $30 for a product which is designed to sell you a different product. And once you buy that product, the Basic Set will never be used again.</p><p></p><p>This has three effects:</p><p></p><p>(1) When a new player joins an existing group, that group is not going to be using the <em>Basic Set</em> and the new player is probably going to be told to skip buying it. This means that you're creating a segment of your potential audience which is skipping the product.</p><p></p><p>(2) Savvy customers are going to skip the pay-to-preview product and just buy the full rules. At best they will feel like the company was trying to pull a fast one on them. At worst, this will sour them on the idea of trying the game and/or confuse them so that they end up not making the purchase.</p><p></p><p>(3) Customers who end up buying the pay-to-preview product had a high probability of feeling like they got ripped off when they figure out that they bought the "wrong" book.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, long tangent short: D&D experienced its largest success when it had an accessible, all-in-one box that <em>wasn't</em> a pay-to-preview product. It would be nice if WotC seriously considered marketing the game that way again.</p><p></p><p>(The Essentials line arguably makes it all worse. You now have three different entry points to the game all labeled with an identical trademark: The Basic Set, the Essentials Compendium + Heroes trilogy, and the core rulebook trilogy. For a product line which is ostensibly about making it clearer to the consumer what books they're supposed to be buying, this looks like a complete failure to my eye.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 5307850, member: 55271"] That certainly sounds like a more believable figure. Thanks for issuing a correction. That cite on Acaeum gets trotted out way too much and it's nice to have it debunked. Possibly. But hindsight is 20-20. The real question would be what the sales on the Expert, Companion, and Master sets looked like in 1989. If the sales on those products were flagging to a point where reprinting them was beginning to look like a questionable proposition, then TSR's decision to switch to a rebooted Basic + Cyclopedia model makes sense. I think the root of their mistake remains the pay-for-preview nature of the post-1991 Basic Sets: Pay us $20 or $30 for a product which is designed to sell you a different product. And once you buy that product, the Basic Set will never be used again. This has three effects: (1) When a new player joins an existing group, that group is not going to be using the [i]Basic Set[/i] and the new player is probably going to be told to skip buying it. This means that you're creating a segment of your potential audience which is skipping the product. (2) Savvy customers are going to skip the pay-to-preview product and just buy the full rules. At best they will feel like the company was trying to pull a fast one on them. At worst, this will sour them on the idea of trying the game and/or confuse them so that they end up not making the purchase. (3) Customers who end up buying the pay-to-preview product had a high probability of feeling like they got ripped off when they figure out that they bought the "wrong" book. Anyway, long tangent short: D&D experienced its largest success when it had an accessible, all-in-one box that [i]wasn't[/i] a pay-to-preview product. It would be nice if WotC seriously considered marketing the game that way again. (The Essentials line arguably makes it all worse. You now have three different entry points to the game all labeled with an identical trademark: The Basic Set, the Essentials Compendium + Heroes trilogy, and the core rulebook trilogy. For a product line which is ostensibly about making it clearer to the consumer what books they're supposed to be buying, this looks like a complete failure to my eye.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I think TSR was right to publish so much material
Top