The market dying?

[Turjan]

I assume that you're joking, right? The estimates I've heard range around 1.7 million.

No, I'm not joking. And the number was for the US alone. Note, though, that this number most probably counted people who picked up D&D 3.x at some time and may have left active gaming again. I suppose there were also some other creative assumptions involved, like the number of people who never bought anything but played in a group, nevertheless. I also think that the constantly active gamer core is more like the number you mentioned.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Would you believe that there's a precise answer for this?

Computer games, console games and films don't count. WotC no longer has software licensing rights and never had film rights (TSR sold those).

Miniatures apparently don't figure into the "best year ever," claim, according to Charles Ryan. That leaves books, some of which do extraordinarily well.

But what does that have to do with popularity? Are you saying that because they had a carton back in the 80's that was a better indicator of their popularity than numerous companies coming out with computer games and console games that cost millions of dollars to produce?

 

[Turjan]

Computer games, console games and films don't count. WotC no longer has software licensing rights and never had film rights (TSR sold those).

Well, but is this relevant for the question at hand? If somebody sees the D&D brand as valuable enough to base computer games, console games and films on this brand, that's some kind of advertisement even if WotC doesn't get any royalties from those endeavours.


Edit: I just looked at some games from 2002/2003 that I have. They contain this information:

"Neverwinter Nights, Forgotten Realms, the Forgotten Realms logo, Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. and are used by Infogrames Entertainment, S.A. under license. All Rights Reserved."

Wouldn't this point to a different company if the license wasn't given out by Hasbro?

 

[Numion]

Would you believe that there's a precise answer for this?

Computer games, console games and films don't count. WotC no longer has software licensing rights and never had film rights (TSR sold those).

Miniatures apparently don't figure into the "best year ever," claim, according to Charles Ryan. That leaves books, some of which do extraordinarily well.

Why do the 80's wacky stuff include in your estimation of D&D popularity?

Besides, were they some extraordinary cash cow for the TSR?

 

[eyebeams]

Well, but is this relevant for the question at hand? If somebody sees the D&D brand as valuable enough to base computer games, console games and films on this brand, that's some kind of advertisement even if WotC doesn't get any royalties from those endeavours.

To a certain extent it is, but the maddening thing about the D&D brand is its relative distance from the actual D&D game. TSR built a hugely successful book publishing arm that WotC inherited, but it doesn't seem to have helped D&D sales. D&D-based computer games have done quite well, but have not necessarily brought people into D&D. In fact, many non-gamers I meet assume D&D is a genre with wizards and fighters and monsters, and not a specific RPG.

R.A. Slavatore novels set in the Forgotten Realms are NYT Bestsellers. D&D, not so much.

This isn't something exclusive to D&D. Comic books are getting turned into very successful films, while comics themselves are not doing so great. In the early 90s I filled store orders of 100 to 200 copies per store, per title, for titles that now have total runs of around 5,000 or less.

 

[DaveMage]

No, I'm not joking. And the number was for the US alone. Note, though, that this number most probably counted people who picked up D&D 3.x at some time and may have left active gaming again. I suppose there were also some other creative assumptions involved, like the number of people who never bought anything but played in a group, nevertheless. I also think that the constantly active gamer core is more like the number you mentioned.

3 million according to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3655627.stm

(27th or so paragraph.)

 

[eyebeams]

But what does that have to do with popularity? Are you saying that because they had a carton back in the 80's that was a better indicator of their popularity than numerous companies coming out with computer games and console games that cost millions of dollars to produce?

The cartoon made money that actually went to the company.

 

[eyebeams]

Well, but is this relevant for the question at hand? If somebody sees the D&D brand as valuable enough to base computer games, console games and films on this brand, that's some kind of advertisement even if WotC doesn't get any royalties from those endeavours.


Edit: I just looked at some games from 2002/2003 that I have. They contain this information:

"Neverwinter Nights, Forgotten Realms, the Forgotten Realms logo, Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. and are used by Infogrames Entertainment, S.A. under license. All Rights Reserved."

Wouldn't this point to a different company if the license wasn't given out by Hasbro?

Inforgrames/Atari has the exclusive license for a decade more, at least, after having had it practicallyever since Hasbro bought WotC. In fact, Hasbro paid big money to get back rights for almost everything *but* D&D and a couple of other things. This is why the E-Tools software project was virtually stillborn.

 

[turbo]

Wizards estimates that three million people play [Dungeons and Dragons] in the US each month.

That's coy: play what Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[JoeGKushner]

The cartoon made money that actually went to the company.

But what does that actually have to do with the market dying or the D&D brand name itself being viable? As we saw, TSR couldn't manage it's money so that carton really didn't do a whole lot.