The market dying?

[Turjan]

I'm more of a stats guy; the trend isn't statistically significant (and anyways wasn't there a lot of talk about how the C&GR numbers were meaningless a few pages ago?)

You are right, the C&CR data are next to meaningless. The sample is self-selected, which doesn't allow for statistically relevant conclusions. Additionally, the data contain only an increasingly unimportant sector of the RPG market, completely ignoring those parts where the sales continually shift to.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm more of a stats guy; the trend isn't statistically significant (and anyways wasn't there a lot of talk about how the C&GR numbers were meaningless a few pages ago?)

They're meaningless because they're a self-selecting survey.

Which, if you ask Akrasia, is the reason you can't trust messageboard polls - not even for general trend detection, and certainly not for anything like actual numbers.

It's interesting to see that the only hard numbers available are ones which, according to that side's supporters, anyway, you can't trust.

 

[GMSkarka]

Yes, it's just a recent slump. If you cared to look at the data, you would see it. For illustration, I'll show the seven months averages for those data, including all months suitable for full 7 months averages. You will note that the market pointed upwards for a long period of time after the D&D 3.5 release. It shows a sharp decline for the last months.

Wow. You've got a near-evangelical need to be right, don't you?

OK, sure. Fine. You win!

Yes...if you cook the numbers of a single-issue report, without knowledge of the previous decade's sales figures, and average them, and put them in a nifty graph, then yes: it's just a recent slump. Kudos. Everything's fine. You have Saved The Hobby. Laurels and rose petals all around.

 

[GVDammerung]

Huh? Are you reading the same numbers? Month by month, over the last four years, the numbers show a lousy second quarter in 2005, but the 1st quarter is virtually identical to the previous three years.

. . .

But it isn't clear from this whether the second quarter 2005 is a trend, or just a temporary drop.

I agree entirely that 2005 data is incomplete and drawing conclusions is then speculative. Comparing year over year data for the same months and between months, however, 2005 is shaping up/trending to be noticeably worse than prior years, particularly 2004 but maybe not as bad as 2003. Only time will tell, as you note, whether this is true. I imagine this subject will not go away if matters do get worse and we would then see Mr. Skarka or someone else post numbers for the latter part of 2005.

I think, however, rather than heavily engage numbers agreed to be still forming, it is still possible to note longer term trends as I (unscientifically) and others have, above. IMO, this is not a 5 year thing or even a 10 year thing, necessarily. The sky is not falling. But the clouds are lowering. The decline, as I percieve it, is playing out over the life of the game. From an initial spurt of enthusiasm and regular, active participation in the game in the 80s by large numbers of people, it is my perception that such has declined. Calling it the "graying" of the hobby or whathave you. That some d20 publishers are apparently feeling a squeeze makes matters more immediate but the trend, I believe, is slower and long term. I think it not helpful to imagine everything is rosy simply because the sky is not falling. No one wants the sky to fall. Trying to reverse or slow the decline would be, I think, a place to start to ensure the sky never falls and, in fact, rises to new heights. But no one starts to think seriously about improving matters if no one sees a need to do so because everything is seen as unfailingly rosy.

 

[Turjan]

Wow. You've got a near-evangelical need to be right, don't you?

OK, sure. Fine. You win!

Yes...if you cook the numbers of a single-issue report, without knowledge of the previous decade's sales figures, and average them, and put them in a nifty graph, then yes: it's just a recent slump. Kudos. Everything's fine. You have Saved The Hobby. Laurels and rose petals all around.

All your snarkiness aside, those are figures that contain data for several years! They show several years of increasing sales prior to the recent slump! You think that, because the numbers don't really support your statement, you can win the upper side with some verbal manoeuvres? Where's the rolleyes smily when you need it?

Edit: The other thing is that, I suppose, nobody thinks that the game shop will survive. In principle, I expect those numbers to hit zero at some time in the future. But not because the RPG hobby vanishes. Those numbers have only a very loose relation to the state of RPGs.

 

[WayneLigon]

Believe me, I'm not saying there are no clueless retailers. One visit to Fantastic Games & Toys in Lynnwood will dispel that, though Scott turned a corner last year after he got spiritual.

I bet that's a fascinating story. What did he do to turn his business around and 'buy a clue'? What's his business like? Is he purely an RPG games retailer or does he have things like boardgames, darts, chess, etc in the mix?

 

[BryonD]

Please pardon me, but NO ONE I see is claiming "the sky is falling" except those erecting strawmen that they then proceed to knock over. What is being said is that there is a DECLINE. A DECLINE is _not_ the same as "the sky is falling." If one cannot discuss matters without unfairly categorizing the statements of others using such hyperbole . . . well, you may draw you own conclusions about they and their position.

Well, I'll also join in pointing back to the title of the thread. I think one can just as well draw conclusions regarding thew biases of someone who would require others to pretend such statements are non-existant. But maybe it be better if we both didn't go there, eh?

Please target your frustration at those on your side making excessive statments, rather than those who point them out.

But that aside, this is all a temptest in a teapot. Slumps happen. The data presented isn't even that big a deal. Get over it.

 

[GVDammerung]

You are right, the C&CR data are next to meaningless. The sample is self-selected, which doesn't allow for statistically relevant conclusions. Additionally, the data contain only an increasingly unimportant sector of the RPG market, completely ignoring those parts where the sales continually shift to.

I think we, non-insiders, must make do as best we can with what data is available. Everything is then relevant but the degree of relevance will vary. Which lets us keep talking.

The "increasingly unimportant sector of the RPG market" comment, I think, represents a ENWorld on online bias. First, I do not know of any quantitative numbers that are available that demonstrate that brick and mortar sales are not still dominate and by a more than fair margin. Second, assuming that online sales are more significant, that says nothing about the "incubator" effect brick and mortar stores have on the hobby, particularly as relates to cross-game migration, say from cards to rpgs or from miniatures to rpgs. It is an online conceit, I think, that online is the big show.

 

[GMSkarka]

For the reasonable people who have participated in this thread: Thanks for your interest, but I think you can see from this thread why, generally, most industry folks avoid discussing the state of the business on internet fora.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It'd be interesting if you could find out how many RPG units that places like Amazon, Wallmart.com, and other online vendors like Buy.com and Overstock.com are moving. You could add those numbers to those already provided and get a slightly "bigger" picture.

Do any game companies provide numbers? I know I've seen more than a few complain that they aren't getting visibility to how much they're selling, but I also don't recall seeing a lot of data coming out from them either. It was more of a pie in the sky thing like Mike's OGL Wikki.