Is the Split a Bad Thing?

[Hussar]

Ok, there's been more than enough pixels spent claiming that the RPG community is split by the existence of competing versions of D&D. I'm going to take it as given that the community is split. How much and what percentage isn't really important.

My question is, is this a bad thing?

From all evidence, Pathfinder is doing very well. Paizo has claimed numerous times and the ICV2 data certainly points to that. Good for them.

As I look, DDI Insider has 66615 members, up from just over 60k when I joined in September (a 10% growth in 4 months isn't bad). And that's just confirmed subs - the actual number could easily be in the 100 k range. Again, a pretty solid base for an RPG company.

My question to everyone is, is the split a bad thing? Have we wound up with two companies making half as much money, or do we have two companies making decent profit, where before we only had one?

Or to put it another way, do we have a situation where we had a sort of asexual reproduction of D&D, fissioning into two entities that are now growing into full size?

 

[steeldragons]

Only if you can't stand back up afterwards.

*C'mon you know someone was gonna go there. Just got it outta the way for ya.*

 

[Nagol]

Do you believe the split has in fact increased the pool of hobbyists playing RPGs?

If yes, then the split may be a good thing.

Now has the growth been sufficient that your preferred game has at least as many players as before?

If no, it is at best neutral as it means the pool of players who want to play the same game as you and that you are willing to play with gets more shallow.

So long as that depth is sufficient to find a group reasonably easily, it is neutral. If it becomes too shallow to find a group with desirable characteristics then it is bad.

 

[Umbran]

Growth in number of players isn't the only thing that is "good" for a particular game or hobby. There's the concept of hybrid vigor to consider - having multiple ways of doing things tends to drive creativity, and that is good for what is, at its root, a creative endeavor.

Of course, if the players are a bunch of acrimonious jerks about it, the value of that creativity will be lost. So, it isn't a sure win - it depends on us.

 

[delericho]

It really depends.

If there are enough sales (not players) for both D&D and Pathfinder to thrive, then the split is a good thing. People can then go and play the game that best suits them, and everyone wins.

However, if there aren't enough sales, we could potentially be in a position where instead of having on monolith that can stand, we have two that both fall. That isn't good for anyone.

At the moment, the evidence seems to point towards the former state of affairs, but whether is actually true remains to be seen.

 

[Morrus]

Depends who you ask!

It's a bad thing for WotC, a good thing for Paizo, a bad thing for small publishers, and I'd say a neutral thing for customers (in that they have more choice, but it's slightly harder to find someone playing the game you like).

 

[Hussar]

delericho - which evidence are you thinking of? As I said in the OP, we've got Paizo talking about strong sales with healthy growth. We have evidence that the DDI is healthy and strong (even going by 65k sub's, we're looking at a steady income of several hundred thousand dollars a month).

What evidence is there that overal sales are falling?

 

[BryonD]

I think the market is healthier now than it was in late 2E.

Which is not to claim it is at any kind of peak. But it also isn't in any dire threat situation.

If anything, it now has two different "flag ships" to rely on.


Also a split market can provide more motivation. I think WotC knew full well they would lose some fans. But I think they took their overall fan base for granted in their presumptions that they would gain more than they would lose. It would be naive to say "that won't happen again." But hopefully it is a lot less likely to happen again.

 

[Nagol]

delericho - which evidence are you thinking of? As I said in the OP, we've got Paizo talking about strong sales with healthy growth. We have evidence that the DDI is healthy and strong (even going by 65k sub's, we're looking at a steady income of several hundred thousand dollars a month).

What evidence is there that overal sales are falling?

Delricho is saying there is evidence points to

... the split is a good thing. People can then go and play the game that best suits them, and everyone wins.

Perhaps you misread?

 

[Argyle King]

Some good; some bad. However -in spite of times when I might complain, I think it's a good thing overall.

I'll go so far as to say I think it would be a good thing if the market split a little bit more and some of the games outside of the D&D/d20 fold got more attention. I think the more flavors there are for potential gamers to try, the healthier the hobby will be. In the same vein; while I do not play Pathfinder, I do applaud them for being able to make the community more aware that there are good games available which do not have the official WoTC stamp of approval.