The problem of one-shot customers

[Zaruthustran]

Going off a post by Flexor in the "Magic/miniatures" thread:

Originally posted by Flexor the Mighty!
I bet D&D 4.0 being an actual RPG depends on how well this mini game does.

I strongly suspect that D&D 4.0 will closely integrate miniatures, packaged adventures, or some other recurring revenue model. It's one solution to the old problem of "sell the customer the core books and then he's gone".

Right now the majority of D&D players own only the PHB. Some also own the DMG. Some more own all three core books. Relatively tiny numbers of gamers buy supplements and expansions.

D&D has one big problem: a giant customer base that buys exactly once, then vanishes.

One way to solve that problem is to spam tons of questionable-quality product onto your customers. TSR tried that.

Another way to solve the problem is to release splat books at regular intervals, then an entire "new" version. WotC is trying this solution now.

Yet another way to solve the problem is to transfer your customers to a "collectable" game model. WotC is exploring this idea with D&D Miniatures.

And still another way is to take your game online and charge a monthly subscription fee. WotC and Atari will try this in 2004/2005 with D&D Online.

-z, who thinks that that last way is the best way, for both customers and WotC.

 

[Christian Walker]

D&D has one big problem: a giant customer base that buys exactly once, then vanishes.

I don't see this as a problem, because the alternative seems to be an attempt to squeeze evey last dollar from a niche hobby. I am plagued with a fragmentation of the market (waaaay too many games), frequent revisions, and bargain bins full of supplements I didn't feel like paying $25 for.

I like your idea, though, of a steady revenue stream for online D&D.

 

[Emiricol]

I doubt the core D&D pen-and-paper game will go the collectable route. There's no real demand for that, and it would leave the primary RPG market vacant (which some folks would argue is a good thing, but not from WotC's perspective when they can do both, better.)

I believe the current expanded branding and diversification of product line - that's D&D and SW as always, but also Wiz-Kids like miniatures, MMORPG, increased CRPG licensing - will be a much more likely course.

I could see aspects of the RPG being introduced into the miniatures game, a way to cross-pollenate customer base and get more money from each group. It could also be a shot in the arm for D&D the RPG.

Of course, I'm not a WotC insider...

 

[2d6]

Going off a post by Flexor in the "Magic/miniatures" thread:

snip..snip..


And still another way is to take your game online and charge a monthly subscription fee. WotC and Atari will try this in 2004/2005 with D&D Online.

-z, who thinks that that last way is the best way, for both customers and WotC.

The problem with the last way is that your likely to end up with an Everquest-me too clone that appeals to the PvP/counterstrike audience but is left lacking in the RP department.

First thing you know, you and your brave band are delving in to the depths only to be stopped short by BubbaBigGuns who is keeping the camp waiting list.

 

[Treebore]

I will never play D&D on-line. I play the game to socialize with people in a face to face atmosphere, not a faceless to faceless.

 

[(contact)]

If I recall correctly, the market research that WotC did prior to the 3.0 release indicated that the miniatures, tabletop and online/computer segments didn't really impact one another-- in other words, buying the 3.5 hardbacks won't prevent or predispose a customer from buying the online subscription (beyond issues like brand-recognition, etc.).

Personally, I think they blew it by not making the D&D branded games cross-applicable (*coughIcan'tuseChainmailinmytable-topgamecough*), but then again, nobody asked me.

I think the point is that the revenue stream from an online service won't *replace* the revenue stream from the TTRPG products, so we'll probably see the TTRPG, the collectable gaming and the online gaming continuing as seperate entities in the future, each with their own market strategy.

-----

That said, the single best way for WotC to make money is to grow the gamer base. I know that was a huge focus of 3.0 (and the d20 movement), and it seems like it's still a priority for 3.5

Of course, the crappy DnD-lite boxed sets didn't really get the job done, but we the proseletyzing hardcore *do* have an easier game to teach, and that is a Good Thing. [/Martha Stewart]

 

[Henry]

I will be honest about something. I have been a proponent of 3E revised for several months now, despite many peoples' frustrations, and the claims that it has become "miniatures-essential." However, if any version of D&D ever became such that its focus was solely on miniatures, it would cease being an RPG, simply, and that version would no longer interest me. In other words, if it were to change in such a way that I could not play its current version without some sort of "sanctioned" miniature, a la Warhammer, then I would not play that version. I simply do not have the desire to keep THAT current.

Similarly, a solely electronic version, while interesting, would not hold my interest. D&D is a social game, and the social dynamic is altered in a negative way with online RPG's in my opinion. No interest there, either - and in fact, stifling to creativity, unless technology gets "Vanilla Sky" good really fast.

As it is, it looks no easier or harder to use D&D without minis than before. But a threshold change like making specific miniatures essential, or making it electronic only, would lose my support faster than a quickling's flatulence.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Re: Re: The problem of one-shot customers

The problem with the last way is that your likely to end up with an Everquest-me too clone that appeals to the PvP/counterstrike audience but is left lacking in the RP department.

Just because the current crop of MMORPGs lack in the RP department doesn't mean that they have to.

First thing you know, you and your brave band are delving in to the depths only to be stopped short by BubbaBigGuns who is keeping the camp waiting list.

Camping doesn't necessarily have to be a part of it. For instance, they could set it up so that when you and your group of friends enter a dungeon, a seperate instance of that dungeon is created just for your group. If you then progressed through such an area in standard dungeon-crawl fashion (i.e., the monsters don't respawn and such) I see no reason why it should be much different than pen and paper.

Now let's take this one step further - imagine if for your monthly fee, you essentially paid someone on the server side to take the role of a DM. He could control various NPCs, adjust encounters to particular groups, and so forth. Granted, it's a far cry from where MMORPGs are at currently, but it could be possible.

 

[2d6]

Re: Re: Re: The problem of one-shot customers

Just because the current crop of MMORPGs lack in the RP department doesn't mean that they have to.



Camping doesn't necessarily have to be a part of it. For instance, they could set it up so that when you and your group of friends enter a dungeon, a seperate instance of that dungeon is created just for your group. If you then progressed through such an area in standard dungeon-crawl fashion (i.e., the monsters don't respawn and such) I see no reason why it should be much different than pen and paper.

Now let's take this one step further - imagine if for your monthly fee, you essentially paid someone on the server side to take the role of a DM. He could control various NPCs, adjust encounters to particular groups, and so forth. Granted, it's a far cry from where MMORPGs are at currently, but it could be possible.

That's damn near the Holy Grail of MMORPGs, and has in fact been proposed before, I believe ShadowBane was going to do something along these lines before thet decided that thier customer base didn't really want content.

If a company like Turbine, who did a real good job with AC1, can resist the urge to center the gameplay around things like large guild PvP battles and stick to small groups killing monsters and taking thier loot, I think things will be good.

 

[baradtgnome]

only my vote

seems to me they need brand that covers the segments and products that 'could' be used together. the overall brand could draw people across the products.

this consumer is NOT interested in collectable miniatures. we use minatures sparingly, and buy the ones we want. I may not spend tons of $ on rpg products but I have been buying since 1980. I am feeling a little alienated by the way 3.5 is going.

Note to WOTC: I bought no TSR 2E products. We bought many 3E products. Our gut feeling is that we will be buying d20 products that are NOT WOTC to house rule our 3E game.
Let the marketing gurus figure out what to do with that.

BTW... unlike many who have been playing for over 20 years, my group didn't start until our early 20's. our issue is not disposable income, but our ability to absorb because of other time constraints.

end of rant/marketing survey