Is the RPG Industry on Life Support? (Merged w/"Nothing Dies")

[kenobi65]

A news source quoting WotC's own numbers doesn't independently verify. Independent verification comes from research by an outside source with no vested interest in the results.

I have no doubt that the number of people who play D&D has risen. I'm just interested in a figure that doesn't come from the company that produces the product in question. And, personally, I would hope the number would be even bigger.

Such studies are not cheap (trust me on this one, I work in market research), which is why WotC is likely the only entity in the industry doing them. I simply can't see there being any "outside source" that'd have the money for, and the interest in, doing such a study.

Sorry, but WotC's numbers are likely to be the only ones that exist.

 

[Thorntangle]

Sorry, but WotC's numbers are likely to be the only ones that exist.

I know and recognized this in my previous post:

However I am only cautiously optimistic about these numbers. I'd like to see this confirmed by some independent verification <---- not likely.

Maybe you could do a little freelance market research on the side, kenobi65 and nail this thing down to +/- 2 points.

 

[Umbran]

It depends. Gygax's old book Role-Playing Mastery quotes market research of the time (late 80s) that is about three times that number (IIRC), so taking the long view it underwhelms me.

It is possible to take a view that is of too long to be useful. Perhaps gaming is not now what it was in the 80s. A great many things aren't as they were in the 80s. Right now, we have a growth trend that seems to have been lasting for half a decade. Comparison to half a lifetime ago isn't necessarily constructive or meaningful in the now.

I must admit, I stand amazed at people who believe that company representatives will tell them the truth without at least giving it a good spin. It's not their job to do otherwise.

As I understand it, it is not the job of the Brand Manager himself to tell the public anything. That's normally a job for the PR and marketing people. It is the job of the Brand Manager to know the truth of the situation - he cannot properly manage the brand without knowing the market. So presumably he knows the truth. The question you must then ask is if he's telling it to you. Is he a liar or not?

Frankly, if Charles Ryan ever said D&D was struggling, he should be reprimanded or fired , *no mattter what the truth is.* It's goes against the basic nature of his job to say anything that could be seen in a negative light and it certainly does no harm.

Hold on a second. The fact that he should not tell us bad news does not in and of itself imply that he's dissembling when he gives good news. For the past 5 years, WotC has not told us anyhthing at all. There is no known reason for them to now deviate from that policy and feed us false information. They have little to gain from lying.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It depends. Gygax's old book Role-Playing Mastery quotes market research of the time (late 80s) that is about three times that number (IIRC), so taking the long view it underwhelms me.

From Role-Playing Mastery:

Knowledgeable estimates place the number of avid players of role games [sic] in the neighbourhood of three and one-half million in North America, five million worldwide.

Gygax goes on to say that he believes the total number who have played a rpg at least once is probably double those figures. I'm not sure that his 'knowledgeable estimates' actually count as market research though.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Charles confirmed at the Wizards boards that the 4 million regular players estimate applies only to the U.S. If, as I've heard estimated, the number of players overseas is equal to half that in the States - not far from Gygax's figures - that would imply six million worldwide.

 

[Henry]

For the past 5 years, WotC has not told us anyhthing at all. There is no known reason for them to now deviate from that policy and feed us false information. They have little to gain from lying.

In fact, Charles would have more to gain BY lying around here. If D&D was hurting that badly, knowing the generosity of ENWorlders as a whole, we'd probably start buying even more product.

 

[eyebeams]

In fact, Charles would have more to gain BY lying around here. If D&D was hurting that badly, knowing the generosity of ENWorlders as a whole, we'd probably start buying even more product.

It's more like Charles Ryan knows that ENWorlders have far less access to independent anecdotal or semi-anectodal (store sales, etc) than anybody else and are inclined to believe him for ideological reasons. Hell, apparently a bunch of you believe him without question when he says a panel of very knowledgable industry people's opinions are irrelevant. But a bunch of you *did* believe that Ryan Dancey would make a million bucks off of organized RPGs.

 

[eyebeams]

It is possible to take a view that is of too long to be useful. Perhaps gaming is not now what it was in the 80s. A great many things aren't as they were in the 80s. Right now, we have a growth trend that seems to have been lasting for half a decade. Comparison to half a lifetime ago isn't necessarily constructive or meaningful in the now.

What kind of growth trend involves two waves of layoffs and departmental downsizing, pray tell? Or is, "since 3e was released," still to long view? And that's just at WotC.

As I understand it, it is not the job of the Brand Manager himself to tell the public anything. That's normally a job for the PR and marketing people.

Come now; of course it's his job. I note that there is no D&D public relation title distinct from brand management. If Charles is the only person representing D&D to poke his head in, then it's his job.

It is the job of the Brand Manager to know the truth of the situation - he cannot properly manage the brand without knowing the market. So presumably he knows the truth. The question you must then ask is if he's telling it to you. Is he a liar or not?

It's his job to present figures as favourably as possible. I'll give you an example: WotC is not 60-70% of the RPG industry by marketshare. It just isn't. It *might* have hit 50% at some point. The best estimates I've read put it at 45%.

Where did that extra 15%+ come from? He used the most favourable figures, which say that 2/3rd of gamers (non-exclusively) play D&D. But saying that doesn't sound as zesty as "2/3rds of the industry." What he says is no lie, but should you take it on face value? Of course not.

Hold on a second. The fact that he should not tell us bad news does not in and of itself imply that he's dissembling when he gives good news. For the past 5 years, WotC has not told us anyhthing at all. There is no known reason for them to now deviate from that policy and feed us false information. They have little to gain from lying.

They've told you plenty, continuously, through informal channels. How true is any of it? Again, I'm sure everything you've heard can be justified by *some* chain of reasoning.

 

[Monte At Home]

I think it's really wise to always question information you read, and the source of that information. However, regarding this:

What kind of growth trend involves two waves of layoffs and departmental downsizing, pray tell?

That's not entirely fair or accurate. Even though I had left before most of this stuff happened, I know that the layoffs were company-wide and not based on the success or failure of D&D. In fact, it's one of the things I resent most about the Hasbro buyout. Some really great people in the rpg department lost their jobs at a time when they should have been getting big bonuses for the success of their department's products. It was hard to watch from the inside or the outside.

If D&D were it's own company, those people would have been flying high rather than collecting unemployment. On the other hand, would D&D have had the success it had in the first place if it wasn't run by a larger company? It's a complicated issue.

 

[eyebeams]

That's not entirely fair or accurate. Even though I had left before most of this stuff happened, I know that the layoffs were company-wide and not based on the success or failure of D&D. In fact, it's one of the things I resent most about the Hasbro buyout. Some really great people in the rpg department lost their jobs at a time when they should have been getting big bonuses for the success of their department's products. It was hard to watch from the inside or the outside.

If D&D were it's own company, those people would have been flying high rather than collecting unemployment. On the other hand, would D&D have had the success it had in the first place if it wasn't run by a larger company? It's a complicated issue.

Please don't get the idea that I'm implying that WotC's RPG folks were being punished for their failures. It's just that many people are interpreting the stuff from Charles Ryan as being a truly extraordinary claim: a wave of growth unprecedented in the history of RPGs even above and beyond the D&D fad of the 80s("best year ever," et al). That's bigger than reinvigorating a flagging and directionless game and renewing a common set of interests in RPGs, which I don't think anyone will dispute happened.