Predictions of the d20/gaming Industry

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

a note about the computer game industry

The computer game industry pays rather poorly too, just in case those of you in the PnP industry are envying those on the other side of the fence. The typical programmer in the computer game industry gets hired out of high school, gets paid no more than $18,000, and works 100 hour weeks. 5 years later, he's burnt out, and if he's smart, he'll quit the game industry and go into a more lucrative field. The John Carmacks who are multi-millionaires and own their own game companies are the exception, not the rule. I wonder how many of the PnP designers who moved on to computer games really made it rich. I know Sandy Petersen did, by hooking up with the right people, but Greg Costikyan? I looked at his web page and it didn't seem like his projects were doing that well.

Why don't you see game programmers complain about their industry? It's because they know they can drop out any time and make more money elsewhere. They also know that if they wanted to, they could start their own company, release a hot game and make millions. In fact, that's why there are many new game studios that open every year. (A few make it, more struggle along, and many many more just fold)

I suspect that the PnP RPG industry, now that there's a common platform (d20) to build and sell on, will move towards that model --- a few star designers will get rich, a few more will struggle along, and the remainders will flame out after no more than one or two products. Prices will eventually stabilize (I suspect the $50 that the computer game industry charges will be about right --- and certainly, "starving students" don't seem to have any trouble coming up with $50 to buy a computer game). The top 10 games will make 80% of the money, and the others get remainered.

Anyway... I take my hats off to those of you who work in the industry. I won't. I've been in the computer game industry (as a semi-outsider), and I wouldn't go back to it. If you make it in this industry, it'll be a long hard road, and I hope the rewards are rich.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

My previous post was meant much more mildly than some may have taken it. It was meant to be a ribbing of both designers and fans.

 

[Umbran]

Corinth and Thorin Stoutfoot:

You need to read more carefully, and not take steps of false logic. I said that low-income gamers were usually students. That is not equivalent to my saying that all students are poor. There are students who can spend their entertainment money like water.

That being said, I think you underestimate how many student gamers are strapped for cash. And, given current trends in tuition, they aren't going to be getting richer over the next decade.

I'm not suggesting that the gaming industry be altruistic. I don't think the industry can afford that, honestly. I'm suggesting they might want to be longer-sighted. Poor students generally don't stay poor, but they will tend to follow the habits set in youth. Everyone's really interested in what happens next year. I'm suggesting that what happens next year may have a significant impact on spending patterns five years from now.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Look, I want people to make a living. I also want the hobby I enjoy to survive as more than a pursuit of those with the cash available.

The RPG industry is, really, part of the entertainment industry. People come and go all the time in entertainment and the arts. How many artistic painters are making a living from their work? How many writers? Actors? Sculptors? Writers? Not many. Most do it for love of the art form.

When I was in film school, they told us, flat out - "don't expect to make a living from this. Do it because you love it, or leave it. You'll never get monetary rewards out of it to compensate for the work you put into it."

My point is that an appallingly low number of people will ever make any money at all doing what they love. No matter how they try, it just won't happen. Sadly, artistic endeavors are simply seen as not worthwhile in today's world, except on a very limited scale. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.

The RPG industry will try to maximize profits, as any industry does. However, if it charges too little for its product, it loses both money and talent. If it charges too much, it risks alienating its consumer base. If higher prices are the future, then RPGs will eventually become even more rare than they are now, and eventually dwindle to a tiny niche, to ultimately wink out of existence.

Comparing RPG prices to Playstation prices or movie prices ignores an important point: RPGs are books, and books as a whole don't even come close to being as lucrative as electronics and movies and TV. The book industry has been increasingly hampered by the fact that people just don't read as much anymore as they did in the past. They watch TV and movies, and play video and computer games. Comparing RPGs to any of these is comparing apples to oranges. I agree that books in general are a great deal, comparatively speaking, but that's just not how society in general sees it. If prices increase for something that is already waning in popularity, then it's doubtful that its popularity will increase. Sure, the company gets some financial breathing room - for a while. But as the public becomes increasingly averse to books in general, and by extension RPGs, new readers and gamers won't appear to renew the ranks.

What I'm getting at is, yeah, many of us will continue to buy RPG stuff for the time being, despite price hikes. D&D/d20 has shot new life into the RPG industry - for now. What will the long term view be like? I don't know. But if the book industry in general is any indication, it doesn't bode well.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't appreciate being called "naive" and "blind" when you don't even bother to check your own biases - maybe the media hype surrounding online gaming has coloured your perceptions just as it did mine.

Remember, I made the same mistake as you in the past in assuming (naturally) that online gaming was bigger the P&P gaming. Ryan corrected me, I was surprised, and rethought my assumptions because I took him at his word.

I agreed with you that it is surprising that there are indications that P&P gaming is bigger than MMORPG gaming, whereas you are attempting to paint me as some sort of bigot with a bias against online gaming. Thanks a lot.

Go check this thread and my enthusiasm for NWN, then consider - "Is rounser really likely to be biased against online gaming, or in fact almost the exact opposite?"

First, let me apologise for saying that you were one of the people that cited the 3 Million copies statistic. You didn't, my mistake.

However, what you did say was this:

I'd judge that Ryan is in a position to compare, having seen the figures.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It just seems to me that it would be unwise to underestimate the power of online gaming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No offence intended, but...as opposed to, say, underestimating the popularity of P&P D&D, such as you seem to be doing?

I agree with you that it's surprising, but someone's buying those PHBs.

I was not underestimating the popularity of P&P. Ryan was WRONG, however, and you were backing him to me, by telling me he was in a position to know, having seen the numbers. You also ended with "someone is buying those PHB's". But look at the facts, which Ryan was unaware of when he told you about D&D popularity...the PHB is YEARS behind EQ in sales at this point. He thought it had sold more...not significantly less, when he "corrected" you. That's what I mean by underestimating.

I didn't call you a bigot. That's a loaded word, and I don't think it's fair to go throwing it around. I did say you were naive about the online gaming industry, and suggested you were biased, and I am sorry if that offended you. I meant that the claim about online gaming (made by anyone) is naive, and that some of the people making that claim might not be considering the impact of online games simply because they didn't like them. If that isn't you, then I am sorry for suggesting it was.

The person you were getting your "facts" from has already admitted he might have been wrong on those "facts". I doubt I've been impacted by media hype about online gaming, since I have never seen any media hype about any of it. All I did was look at the numbers, and I found that 1) EQ is making more money than D&D, despite having been around for a significantly shorter period of time, and 2) The primary online game product, EQ (the original), sold more units than the primary RPG product (the PHB). Yes, there might (and I really stress might, since it's a suspect claim at best) be more actual players of D&D than online games, but that does not mean much if they money isn't following, or if the trend is against the RPGs.

Online games are worth paying attention to, as a market. That was all I was really trying to get across.

 

[Erik Mona]

>>>
and ryan, i don't think it's your place to tell any independent company what to do with their money. what if D20 company X wants to raise prices because the owner wants to buy a jaguar? i
>>>

What difference does it make what they do with the money? If they raise prices high enough that people no longer buy the products, they will go out of business. Ryan believes, as do I, that prices could go up with a small effect on sales, and very possibly higher profit margins for companies, which means more profit. Aside from a few small boutiques, everyone in business is in business to make money.

That's business, folks. Game publishing is a business. If the FRCS is worth $50 to you, it's worth fifty bucks whether that money pays for a designer's food or pays for new rims on his shiny Jag.

That's capitalism. You raise prices until they are high enough to negatively impact profits. Raise prices too high and no one buys the product. If no one buys the product, you go out of business.

--Erik

 

[Erik Mona]

>>>
asking us to overpay so some RPG freelancer
>>>

I'm not trying to be flip about this, but I honestly don't believe such a creature exists in this industry.

--Erik

 

[Erik Mona]

>>>
Now the question to Ryan, Monte, Erik, etc. is, what do you believe is the extranality that causes publishers to not make the 'rational' pricing choice?
>>>

This might make me seem like a dick, but I'd say fear.

Fear of being the guy who pushes things too far and worrying about the folks who cry havoc every time the topic is brought up.

I'm not discounting that fear. If you push prices too high and tank your business, that's havoc indeed.

--Erik

 

[Sulimo]

In fact, I'll make a prediction. Soon we'll see d20 only stores. Or at least, RPG-only stores with much larger sections devoted to d20. That way they can service the (growing) number of d20 players in ways current game stores can't. I can't walk into any local game store and say "I need a good 8th level module" and get a decent answer. Because the sheer volume of d20 products they all stock makes it impossible for them to keep track of it unless they *stop* keeping track of the rest of the industry.

I just hope we dont see an end to non-D20 gaming. It will be a very sad day if this comes to pass imo.

Supplements as well. Writing needs to be punched up, made tighter *and* more accessible, which is difficult. Usually 'more accessible' means 'longer.' If I can pick up a 96 supplement and read through in a couple of hours, that company will sell more books to me. Time is not what it was, the customer base is expanding, and the end user's willingness to spend a week reading something before he uses it (and often end up doing a lot of work after that to *use* the stuff) is shrinking. I think.

Really? when I first read that, seeing 'more accessable' I immeditately thought of dumbing down the language even more to cater to the people who have gone through the less than stellar literacy programs thats are around these days.

 

[rounser]

I was not underestimating the popularity of P&P. Ryan was WRONG, however, and you were backing him to me, by telling me he was in a position to know, having seen the numbers.

I said that he was in a position to compare, and he was. Can I guarantee he was correct? No. I can say I believe he was in a position to compare and that I believe his word, though.

Apparently that's not good enough for you, and you want blood for my having faith in what Ryan said by saying that he was in a position to compare. Given his past position at WotC I don't think that's unreasonable.

You also ended with "someone is buying those PHB's". But look at the facts, which Ryan was unaware of when he told you about D&D popularity...the PHB is YEARS behind EQ in sales at this point. He thought it had sold more...not significantly less, when he "corrected" you. That's what I mean by underestimating.

I didn't believe Ryan was unaware at that point, and had no reason to. To state my assumptions, yes, I trust his statements on statistics more than a random internet denizen such as yourself, and consider it rational to do so, since I'd be surprised if he didn't have access to information on the WotC end that most people aren't privy to.

I didn't call you a bigot. That's a loaded word, and I don't think it's fair to go throwing it around.

I'm amused and incredulous that that's coming from someone who accuses others of being naive, blind and biased.

You didn't, but you sure implied it by stating your assumptions about my biases as if they were fact. I'm not at all sorry that you find my summation of your aggressive assumptions offensive. You're effectively complaining about my objection to an inaccurate and offensive assumption you made about me.

I did say you were naive about the online gaming industry,

Which I'm not, because if anything I overestimate it's capabilities and popularity, as seen in this thread. I do admit that my assumptions are wrong if corrected by someone who has facts. In this case I assumed Ryan did.

and suggested you were biased, and I am sorry if that offended you.

How very patronising of you. I think I'll be rejecting that "apology".

I meant that the claim about online gaming (made by anyone) is naive,

No, holding onto assumptions after you've been corrected by a reputable source who, odds are, has access to the facts - is naive.

and that some of the people making that claim might not be considering the impact of online games simply because they didn't like them. If that isn't you, then I am sorry for suggesting it was.

Fine, that's an apology I can accept.

The person you were getting your "facts" from has already admitted he might have been wrong on those "facts".

Yes. I see you're attempting to rub my face in that when it is irrelevant to the opinion I had that Ryan was a reputable source on such matters.

I doubt I've been impacted by media hype about online gaming, since I have never seen any media hype about any of it. All I did was look at the numbers, and I found that 1) EQ is making more money than D&D, despite having been around for a significantly shorter period of time,

Given that the business models are completely different (and pricing is a topic of this very thread) and you're comparing them directly, you need to pay much more attention to your own naivety than calling others on it, Mistwell.

Yes, there might (and I really stress might, since it's a suspect claim at best) be more actual players of D&D than online games, but that does not mean much if they money isn't following, or if the trend is against the RPGs.

I already said that you might be underestimating the popularity of P&P D&D, just as I did before you.

Online games are worth paying attention to, as a market. That was all I was really trying to get across.

And I was trying to get across, just perhaps you were underestimating the popularity of P&P D&D just as I did, based on being corrected by what I consider a reputable source. For that I got called blind, naive, biased and dragged across the coals when my source was wrong. Never mind that I agree with your "point" from the start - I don't care what it was anymore, because of the rude and arrogant behaviour of the person it's coming from. Grrr.