The market dying?

[Turjan]

As I mentioned earlier, you have an issue with an interpretation of Amazon rankings that has pretty much nothing to do with anything I actually said.

Also, Mike actually agreed with me, with the proviso that D&D could still grow while the rest of the industry shrank. And of course, two other people who worked in thsi industry chimed in to agree with me as well.

So, Turjan, when everyone agrees on a particular statement, what's the precentage involved? You'll have to help my poor, slow self figure that out.

Perhaps your reading comprehension doesn't equal your alleged statistical acumen.

Then let me help your "poor, slow self" ! Your interpretation of the amazon sales ranks was as follows:

Obviously, I was not arguing that other games consistently outsell D&D. The fact is, though that if there was *as* massive a difference as some claim, this situation would be impossible. It would never happen. As a matter of fact, though, these spikes are regular things. In other words: It's what you get when one company has about 45% of the market.

That's a non sequitur. The comparison of hourly calculated sales ranks of a freshly released title with a different one with simlar rank that has been out for several years doesn't tell you much, except that the one that has been out for years sells remarkably better. If you generally look at the more relevant long term titles, then you will see the nWoD core book at roughly 8 times lower sales rank than the Player's Handbook for amazon, somewhere in the range of the D&D Monster Manuals, but decidedly behind titles like the Complete series.

The specific statement that you agreed on with Mike, Tim and Gareth was that the non-D&D RPG market seems to shrink. If, in turn, you train your reading skill a bit, you will see that I never challenged this statement but said

I don't deny the possibility that the market is shrinking. I don't deny that this is even likely.

It seems that that shot went into the void .

 

[Rasyr]

which would account for Eyebeams, Rasy's and Gareth's moaning and groaning about how the industry is about to fail soon

Just a point of correction. I have never said (nor moaned and groaned) that I thought that the industry was dying or "going to fail soon". I did, however, say that I thought that is IS shrinking. IMO, we are not getting enough new gamers to replace those that are leaving the hobby for various reasons.

I am not talking about any specific companies, but just overall trends, so yes, there can be companies that are growing and companies that are having problems within the over trend.

IIRC, eyebeamz never said it was dying either. He said it was shrinking as well. And GMS agreed with him.

There is a difference between failing and shrinking. Perhaps you should go back and reread the posts made.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Please play nice everybody. We particularly don't want to see anybody belittling other people for their views - that isn't on. Debate the issues as much as you like but avoid making snide comments about other posters intellectual abilities.

Regards,

 

[Maggan]

Just a point of correction. I have never said (nor moaned and groaned) that I thought that the industry was dying or "going to fail soon". I did, however, say that I thought that is IS shrinking. IMO, we are not getting enough new gamers to replace those that are leaving the hobby for various reasons.

I am not talking about any specific companies, but just overall trends, so yes, there can be companies that are growing and companies that are having problems within the over trend.

IIRC, eyebeamz never said it was dying either. He said it was shrinking as well. And GMS agreed with him.

There is a difference between failing and shrinking. Perhaps you should go back and reread the posts made.

Well, I for one is arguing that it isn't dying, and being told by eyebeams (he painted with a very broad brush and I feel particularilu vulnerable today ) that I'm in denial kinda makes me ... I don't know ... want to argue a little about it.



I believe (without any statistical fact) that there are several others posting in this thread who don't think the market is dying, who do believe that the market probably is shrinking, but who hasn't seen the spectacular drops that eyebeams referred to, and who does not like to be characterised as being in denial over the state of their hobby.

Meanwhile, I believe eyebeams, GMSskarka, and maybe even you, feel a bit frustrated that everyone else is so adamant in claiming good health for the market, or at least not as bad as you are seeing it, and are hoping that if you repeat your statements over the state of the market, somehow everyone else will come to their senses, and realise that the market is not doing well at all.

Add to that the fact that we all have different definitions of the market, and we're really not likely to get far.

I appreciate all input, and put equal faith in everything said here, ie, very little. It'll be interesting in a year to see what has happened, and then I can remember this thread, and think "hey those guys really were right, and knew what they were talking about"!

Who it'll be, I don't know. But as I said in another thread related to the "Phantom 4e", in a couple of years, we're gonna have a lot of peopla saying "I told you so". Probably from both sides of the argument, if I know how gamers react.

Cheers!

/Maggan

 

[Psion]

Goodness gracious.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the comic shop numbers aren't irrelvant, but don't tell the whole story, thus the true state of the market is best arrived at by examining other figures (where available) and considering them in their totality?

Don't get stuck in black-and-white thinking.

Yeah, claiming Palladium is the #3 company in the industry is the most implausible and outrageous claim made in the entire thread.

Yeah, well, I don't think you'll find any recent numbers to back that one up. Anecdotally, I have seen palladium on the decline for a long time; I beleive that the comic shop numbers that show a decline of that line are on target.

 

[philreed]

PDF sales are a new market. The PDF segment could still be adversly affected by the RPG downturn and set records anyhow.

Absolutely. And while overall sales are growing sales of a lot of individual PDFs are decreasing. A combination of how easy it is to create a PDF with a lack of serious quality control at the major sales sites has led to an increase in garbage. Unlike the print distribution network, where each product is work for the retailers and distributors, each PDF release is practically no work for the PDF sales sites to offer.

 

[Akrasia]

.... 3e empowers players. It gives them tons of options. It gives rules that force the DM to "play fair" (CRs, treasure by level, etc) ...

My comment is somewhat tangential to the main topic of this thread, but I think that your comment here touches on one of the main reasons why I will not DM 3e anymore (having run two successful, year-long campaigns in the past).

While a plethora of options for players is a good thing for players, it places a great burden on the DM -- or at least those DMs who prefer to use all the options and rules available, as well as design their own adventures (as opposed to those DMs who wish to simply 'hand-wave' things during play, or are willing to rely exclusively on published adventures). Being a DM should not feel like a 'job', yet for myself (and many other DMs and ex-DMs that I know) prepping for 3e feels that way.

Designing a way to both: (a.) provide an adequate variety of options and variants for players; and (b.) accomplish (a.), while providing the DM with tools to minimize prep time (plus stat blocks, etc.) is important (IMO). WotC has focused on (a.), and done very little about (b.). Since DMs are essential to the success of table-top RPGs (no DMs = no games), more attention to (b.) would make sense.

 

[Turjan]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the comic shop numbers aren't irrelvant, but don't tell the whole story, thus the true state of the market is best arrived at by examining other figures (where available) and considering them in their totality?

Exactly . The game and comic shop numbers are only irrelevant for calculating a market share based on these numbers alone. If you take them for what they are (a self-polled sample from one group of outlets for RPGs that accounts for roughly between 50% of sales for some companies and nearly 100% for others) and integrate the other relevant numbers, where WotC shares alone can make up to 100%, you're fine.

 

[Belen]

My comment is somewhat tangential to the main topic of this thread, but I think that your comment here touches on one of the main reasons why I will not DM 3e anymore (having run two successful, year-long campaigns in the past).

While a plethora of options for players is a good thing for players, it places a great burden on the DM -- or at least those DMs who prefer to use all the options and rules available, as well as design their own adventures (as opposed to those DMs who wish to simply 'hand-wave' things during play, or are willing to rely exclusively on published adventures). Being a DM should not feel like a 'job', yet for myself (and many other DMs and ex-DMs that I know) prepping for 3e feels that way.

Designing a way to both: (a.) provide an adequate variety of options and variants for players; and (b.) accomplish (a.), while providing the DM with tools to minimize prep time (plus stat blocks, etc.) is important (IMO). WotC has focused on (a.), and done very little about (b.). Since DMs are essential to the success of table-top RPGs (no DMs = no games), more attention to (b.) would make sense.

It is all about the amount of work you are willing to put into the game. I used to feel the same way that you feel. I had a very hard time running a 3e game. I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.

A player that intends to get the most bang out of the options will place great strain on the DM. This requires a DM to understand the rules and how the rules interact to a far greater degree than is required to actually run or play the game.

The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core. This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.

This is not the case. The DM can specify the defaults. A simple "You may use the core options found in the Player's Handbook. Anything out side the PHB will require permission on a case by case basis" will solve a majority of the "DM empowerment" or lack thereof issues found in 3e.

The real problem with the rules lies in the plethora of temporary or conditional modifications and the inconsistency within the advanced combat options found in the game.

 

[Rasyr]

Well, I for one is arguing that it isn't dying, and being told by eyebeams (he painted with a very broad brush and I feel particularilu vulnerable today ) that I'm in denial kinda makes me ... I don't know ... want to argue a little about it.

Well, I don't htink that anybody is really arguing that it is "dying", I think it coming down to is it healthy and growing, or is it shrinking.

And it is quite possible for companies to grow as the overall market shrinks. Heck, ICE is growing. It is a slow growth, but relatively steady overall.

I believe (without any statistical fact) that there are several others posting in this thread who don't think the market is dying, who do believe that the market probably is shrinking, but who hasn't seen the spectacular drops that eyebeams referred to, and who does not like to be characterised as being in denial over the state of their hobby.

Eyebeamz is referring to drops over several years time, I think.

Meanwhile, I believe eyebeams, GMSskarka, and maybe even you, feel a bit frustrated that everyone else is so adamant in claiming good health for the market, or at least not as bad as you are seeing it, and are hoping that if you repeat your statements over the state of the market, somehow everyone else will come to their senses, and realise that the market is not doing well at all.

Who knows? That may be part of it. Perhaps we do see disaster in the future and are trying to warn folks. Not to be raining on anybody's parade, but just out some misguided impulse to help (i.e. you cannot fix what may be wrong if nobody will acknowledge that there is something wrong). Please take that into consideration as well.

Add to that the fact that we all have different definitions of the market, and we're really not likely to get far.

Nail on the head! In order to have any sort of meaningful discussion, you have to have common definitions for certain words and terms.

For example, when I refer to the rpg market, I am talking only about rpgs, not minis, not CCGs, not CRPGs, just table-top roleplaying games, all table-top roleplaying games. Mearls on the other hand has pretty much made it clear that when he says "market" he is referring to D&D only, as he sees everything else as inconsequential (which seems to be a common viewpoint for those working at WotC). To him, this is his definition and it is a valid one, but it is not the one that others are currently using.

I appreciate all input, and put equal faith in everything said here, ie, very little. It'll be interesting in a year to see what has happened, and then I can remember this thread, and think "hey those guys really were right, and knew what they were talking about"!

Well, if you go back a couple of pages, that is pretty much all I asked folks to do, to be skeptical of everything, including what the folks at WotC are saying. Everybody has a tendency to spin things their own way (yes, even me, though I do try to avoid that when possible but it is somewhat of an ingrained thing). What Mearls or Charles Ryan says about the "industry" should be given just as much weight as what GMS, Eyebeamz, Psion, Crothian, Joe Kushner, or anybody else has to say about it. Not more, not less.

A year? That would be too soon. Now it is possible that something within that time frame may result in a resurgence of rpgs, but it is doubtful. The trend that I am seeing is more of a slow trend, something that will continue on for several years, perhaps a decade at least.

Again, I do not think that the industry is dying, but I do think that it is shrinking. Certain events may increase or slow this shrinkage rate (the fact that the distribution system is currently a total mess and appears to be falling apart does not help things), but it would take something truly massive to reverse it.

Who it'll be, I don't know. But as I said in another thread related to the "Phantom 4e", in a couple of years, we're gonna have a lot of peopla saying "I told you so". Probably from both sides of the argument, if I know how gamers react.

Again, quite possible (though I will try to refrain myself heheh).