Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Monte At Home" data-source="post: 93176" data-attributes="member: 1335">What I'd like to see (actually, I don't want to see it) is actual data that supports "things are bad for d20 right now." It would seem to me that the d20 pie is just as big as ever, if not probably bigger. It's just being divided up in smaller ways. I'd wager (but I don't know) that the number of d20 products that are sold now are actually more than a year ago, but the number from an individual publisher is smaller. Some individuals might be hurting, but if d20 were one big company, I think it would still be a huge success story.On this thread's other topic, I believe that what d20 can do, rather than drawing in new customers, is keep current customers playing longer. When I was at WotC and looked at the marketing data, the conclusion that I drew was that retaining customers could grow the market/customer base as much as bringing in new customers (and it's actually probably easier and cheaper to keep a customer playing than to recruit a new one).The math is simple. If 10,000 new players start playing each year, but 10,000 people quit each year (for whatever reason), you could increase the first number or decrease the second for the same effect. (It's more complex than that of course, with other factors, such as the more people you keep from dropping out, the more people they recruit on their own, and the idea that someone who's been playing for longer is more likely to buy a supplement than someone who is brand new, etc. etc. These factors indicate to me, in fact, that decreasing the second number is more important than increasing the first.)That was, in fact, the reason that made me realize that d20 was good for the hobby overall, because it is through d20 that we will keep customers engaged and happy to be gaming--assuming we put out quality products that they want to buy. I say let WotC worry about recruiting new people (so that they can selling them a PH and a DMG). You actually gain more by retention than by recruitment.</blockquote>

Verification