D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Maxperson]

are you sure about that, or are you now trying to emphasize the ‘none’ bit a lot more than previously

Positive. Note the "pretty much" there. That's not 100% AND you can still go out of business courting the people who don't buy as much. Nothing you've quoted or can quote has me saying that they can't buy any books.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps because most of us here are older gamers, and people like to think they matter? I don't have a horse in the money argument really, but that's a pretty bald statement, just casually telling people they don't matter.

Wow.

Way to cherry pick and strip out context. The fact that DnD has never been a game that takes older gamers into consideration isn’t important? Remember when WotC flat out stated that the cut off age for their market research before 3e was what 35?

Remember when they stated that gamers consistently spend less money the longer they are in the hobby?

But sure, take a single sentence out of a complete paragraph and argue against that. That’s a useful thing to do.

 

[Hussar]

And, @Maxperson, if it's older gamers driving sales for WotC, then who do you think are buying the Core 3? After all, the Core 3, especially the PHB, have been in the top 100 on Amazon routinely for the past 8 years. No supplement comes even remotely close to those levels of sales.

Now, I would assume that it's mostly new gamers who buy the Core 3. Some repeat sales, sure, but, most likely it's new gamers. And new gamers are almost always younger than gamers who've been playing for 6+ years.

So, if you think that older gamers, that 75% of your argument, are driving sales, why aren't supplements selling far, far better than they are? If 75% of gamers, gamers who are mostly experienced gamers, are the ones with all the buying power and all the disposable income to spend on D&D, why isn't that reflected in sales? Shouldn't supplements and adventures, whatever the latest book is, be selling FAR more than the Core 3? Other than a couple of months on release when a new supplement sells the most, no supplement comes even remotely close to selling more than the Core 3.

So, who's buying all these PHB's?

 

[Maxperson]

And, @Maxperson, if it's older gamers driving sales for WotC, then who do you think are buying the Core 3? After all, the Core 3, especially the PHB, have been in the top 100 on Amazon routinely for the past 8 years. No supplement comes even remotely close to those levels of sales.

Now, I would assume that it's mostly new gamers who buy the Core 3. Some repeat sales, sure, but, most likely it's new gamers. And new gamers are almost always younger than gamers who've been playing for 6+ years.

Because if you are on very limited income, the core 3 books are the ones you NEED to buy. The rest aren't necessary. That and repeat buys are what keep the core 3 at the top.

So, if you think that older gamers, that 75% of your argument, are driving sales, why aren't supplements selling far, far better than they are? If 75% of gamers, gamers who are mostly experienced gamers, are the ones with all the buying power and all the disposable income to spend on D&D, why isn't that reflected in sales? Shouldn't supplements and adventures, whatever the latest book is, be selling FAR more than the Core 3? Other than a couple of months on release when a new supplement sells the most, no supplement comes even remotely close to selling more than the Core 3.

It is reflected in the sales. It's just that the supplements have limited appeal(that includes the 25% as well). Not everyone is going to want Spelljammer. Not everyone is going to want Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Not everyone is going to want a new monster book. Non-core books will never equal core sales for that reason. It's the ones with the most disposable income, though, who just walk out and buy any book that they want as it comes out. The 75% buy more of the supplements than the 25%.

 

[Parmandur]

Because if you are on very limited income, the core 3 books are the ones you NEED to buy. The rest aren't necessary. That and repeat buys are what keep the core 3 at the top.

It is reflected in the sales. It's just that the supplements have limited appeal(that includes the 25% as well). Not everyone is going to want Spelljammer. Not everyone is going to want Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Not everyone is going to want a new monster book. Non-core books will never equal core sales for that reason. It's the ones with the most disposable income, though, who just walk out and buy any book that they want as it comes out. The 75% buy more of the supplements than the 25%.

A limited income...such as that of a teenager...?

 

[Maxperson]

A limited income...such as that of a teenager...?

Yep! I'm sure they buy the core three. They have to. They still don't buy as many as the rest of us. 25% < 75% and we all need the core three. Or at least all the DMs and a portion of the players and it's those with disposable incomes that will have more groups with multiple copies of the core in them.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the majority of new players are teenagers. Young and middle aged adults are being brought into the hobby by the same things the young people are. Streaming, TV D&D appearances, etc.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yep! I'm sure they buy the core three. They have to. They still don't buy as many as the rest of us. 25% < 75% and we all need the core three. Or at least all the DMs and a portion of the players and it's those with disposable incomes that will have more groups with multiple copies of the core in them.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the majority of new players are teenagers. Young and middle aged adults are being brought into the hobby by the same things the young people are. Streaming, TV D&D appearances, etc.

Yeah, no on the bold part.

I have to admit, I was NOT expecting this when I read back through the thread. How does disintegrate interact with wildshape?

Anyway, this seems like a quixotic hill to die on, given that we see this same debate endlessly replayed in all sorts of markets. For all sorts of reasons, teens and young adults are much more desirable than older consumers. Sure, older consumers have money ... well, some of them do, and the ones that do often have a lot. But most older consumers already have strong preferences that have been locked-in from their youth and are extremely hard to change. It doesn't mean that there aren't companies and industries that target the older consumer- you don't see Rolex or Philppe Patek overly concerned with tweens. Heck, CBS and (ugh) Fox News rely on the older consumer ... you can look at their ads if you still have access to them to see the types of ads- but there's also a reason that they always break down both total viewership and viewership by demographic, and there is a premium for appealing to certain demographics ... like teens and young adults.

But no, there aren't a lot of middle-aged adults who have never played before entering the hobby. If you have data on this, I'd love to be corrected. But I certainly haven't seen it, and would be beyond shocked if that were the case. I have seen middle-aged adults who haven't played in a long time, but did play as teens and/or young adults, return. But that just goes back to the whole reason that D&D (and brands in general) try so hard to "lock in" preferences when people are young.

Yeah, it's really frustrating when you hit a certain age and look around and realize that the culture no longer caters to you, with all your money. It's usually the same time when you realize that you probably don't know all the music that's hip to the youth of today, and that you hear people talking about X person and you're like, "Who?" And that's okay! It's the circle of life! Instead, you'll just have to console yourself with expensive spirits, and trips to foreign countries, and a very expensive lawn that you won't allow the youth upon.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, no on the bold part.

I have to admit, I was NOT expecting this when I read back through the thread. How does disintegrate interact with wildshape?

Anyway, this seems like a quixotic hill to die on, given that we see this same debate endlessly replayed in all sorts of markets. For all sorts of reasons, teens and young adults are much more desirable than older consumers. Sure, older consumers have money ... well, some of them do, and the ones that do often have a lot. But most older consumers already have strong preferences that have been locked-in from their youth and are extremely hard to change. It doesn't mean that there aren't companies and industries that target the older consumer- you don't see Rolex or Philppe Patek overly concerned with tweens. Heck, CBS and (ugh) Fox News rely on the older consumer ... you can look at their ads if you still have access to them to see the types of ads- but there's also a reason that they always break down both total viewership and viewership by demographic, and there is a premium for appealing to certain demographics ... like teens and young adults.

But no, there aren't a lot of middle-aged adults who have never played before entering the hobby. If you have data on this, I'd love to be corrected. But I certainly haven't seen it, and would be beyond shocked if that were the case. I have seen middle-aged adults who haven't played in a long time, but did play as teens and/or young adults, return. But that just goes back to the whole reason that D&D (and brands in general) try so hard to "lock in" preferences when people are young.

Yeah, it's really frustrating when you hit a certain age and look around and realize that the culture no longer caters to you, with all your money. It's usually the same time when you realize that you probably don't know all the music that's hip to the youth of today, and that you hear people talking about X person and you're like, "Who?" And that's okay! It's the circle of life! Instead, you'll just have to console yourself with expensive spirits, and trips to foreign countries, and a very expensive lawn that you won't allow the youth upon.

First, thanks for the response. As usually it's well written and well thought out.

I'm not suggesting that lots of middle-aged adults are entering the hobby, but given the mainstream acceptance and prevalence of D&D being shown/mentioned in media, some have to be curious enough to try out the hobby for the first time. And then there are the parents of kids new to the hobby that try it and are brought in that way. I also think there are a significant number of people in the 18-30 range that brought into the hobby as well.

The WoTC demographics released recently show that 60% of those that play D&D right now are 25+ in age, so the minority of players are in the 13-24 range where money is also as a whole the tightest. The majority of D&D players are also in the age groups with greatest disposable income.

My contention in this thread is that the game should not be aimed at the 13-24 crowd and that is born out by both that group being smaller than the 25+ crowd, but also by the larger group having the most money with which to buy the books and merchandise. I have also said that the smaller group should not be ignored, but rather should have a very significant portion of the game aimed there way. The larger group with the most income to purchase the products should have more than that aimed their way. It should be a mix that takes both groups into consideration, but leans towards 25+.

I just found this paper that is an interesting read. The accuracy is a little suspect, given that more than 60% of the responses were from the 24 and under crowd, but the demographic breakdowns are interesting to look at.

https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1435&context=studentengagement-honorscapstones

 

[Reef]

But again, how is this being aimed at the 18-24 crowd? I haven’t seen one change that made me go “Ick! Only someone 30 years younger would want that!”. I mean, I haven’t liked all the proposed changes, but none of them felt ageist.

Is it the VTT? That’s surely not uncommon. My group has been using a VTT since 2008 due to geography issues. Or is it just that old folk are just upset at any change at all?

I’m not trying to be facetious, I’m genuinely baffled by the constant claims that they are tossing us out with the trash.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

First, thanks for the response. As usually it's well written and well thought out.

I'm not suggesting that lots of middle-aged adults are entering the hobby, but given the mainstream acceptance and prevalence of D&D being shown/mentioned in media, some have to be curious enough to try out the hobby for the first time. And then there are the parents of kids new to the hobby that try it and are brought in that way. I also think there are a significant number of people in the 18-30 range that brought into the hobby as well.

The WoTC demographics released recently show that 60% of those that play D&D right now are 25+ in age, so the minority of players are in the 13-24 range where money is also as a whole the tightest. The majority of D&D players are also in the age groups with greatest disposable income.

My contention in this thread is that the game should not be aimed at the 13-24 crowd and that is born out by both that group being smaller than the 25+ crowd, but also by the larger group having the most money with which to buy the books and merchandise. I have also said that the smaller group should not be ignored, but rather should have a very significant portion of the game aimed there way. The larger group with the most income to purchase the products should have more than that aimed their way. It should be a mix that takes both groups into consideration, but leans towards 25+.

I just found this paper that is an interesting read. The accuracy is a little suspect, given that more than 60% of the responses were from the 24 and under crowd, but the demographic breakdowns are interesting to look at.

https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1435&context=studentengagement-honorscapstones

Thank you, and you as well.

That said, I'm going to respond in a few ways. The first is by noting something that you haven't really grappled with- time. Regardless of the amount of disposable income you might have, it's practically a truism that, until retirement, must people have declining available time after they are young adults. Little things like "work," and "family," and "oh my god I have to do something about the plumbing before my house floats away," tend to interfere. And this is compounded by the social nature of the game- you're not just dealing with your middle aged schedule, but multiple middle aged schedules. Put another way, the amount of time that I had to play in my teens and early adulthood (junior high, high school, college, graduate school and post-college working) dwarf the amount of time I have to play now.

Next, while you have done a great job of generally supporting the idea that older people have more money than young people (which I personally call the "olds rule, young whippersnappers drool" law) that doesn't really apply to most cases. I can't speak for you, but I managed to get hold of a LOT more playing materials in my youth than I do today. Sure, I can afford more, I guess. Mortgages don't need to be paid, right? But back then, I didn't have to worry about paying for my food, shelter, and so on- it was all discretionary. Yes, I understand that I was privileged, but this is true for a lot of kids- basic needs are being met, so their money is for the things they want, not the things that they need. Not to mention studies of teen income don't take into account other "wealth transfers," like gifts- "Sure, Timmy, we'll get you some D&D stuff for your birthday."

Finally, I will point out that I deal a lot with high school kids. And while they don't all come from the same socio-economic backgrounds, I am constantly amazed at what they can afford with their income. Based on your surveys, none of them would have phones. Or cars. Or videogames. Or go out to eat. Or, for that matter, none of them would go to the movies- and yet, if it wasn't for the teens that go there to "hang out," (ahem), our local movie theater would have gone out of business.

Again, I appreciate what you're saying- I want stuff that's made for me, too! But the last time D&D was truly marketed for an adult audience was, well, the 70s. I think there's a section in Game Wizards when it's disclosed that TSR learned that a year or so after the Egbert incident, the majority of their sales were to the youth demographic. And it's been like that ever since. If anything, we've been fortunate that a lot of D&D products haven't been catering too extensively to that market, although they have been leaning pretty heavily into the PG-13/PG direction for a while.

IMO, YMMV, etc.