The problem of one-shot customers

[Kastil]

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.

Don't knock it until you try it. My core "round table" D&D buds stopped playing so my husband and I tried a new route. On-line gaming. No more driving thiry minutes to play or hoping you don't fall alseep behind the wheel after a marathlon session.

As far as faceless? We've meet some of the people we've gamed with and have become good friends with most of them. Hell, I talk to them more than I talk to some of my local pals.

Although I wish our old group would get back together, I don't see it happening. Besides, where else could you play D&D in your 'birthday suit"?

 

[TiQuinn]

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

Not that I'm saying WotC has the perfect stategy or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that the single-purchase customer is capable of supporting other areas of commerce. I'm no expert on economics or business theory, and I agree with you that D&D probably works differently, thus my original question - how is this different to those other products?

One thing that has been pointed out before is that the bulk of D&D products are geared towards the DM. A group of 6 players will have 5 players who each have a PHB, and 1 DM who has the DMG, MM, various splatbooks, and some modules. So for every person who plays D&D, the majority of products are probably being purchase by only 1 out of every 4 of them. I know this is a generalization, and I'm sure there are plenty of players that also buy splatbooks for themselves as well, but I would guess that for the most part the above is true.

I'm curious as to how profitable licensing the various campaign settings they've had over the years is for WotC. Perhaps another idea is for WotC to focus on creating new settings, releasing the setting book or box set, and then licensing it out to other companies. This allows the smaller companies to produce modules, and accessories for the setting, which as I understand it, are less profitable for WotC.

 

[WizarDru]

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

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.

[Looks down at his copy of NWN]

Umm, we've got an online but non-MM version now.

I enjoyed AC1 for almost 3 years, but it was an altogether different game from PnP D&D. 'City of Heroes', the superhero MMORPG is doing the 'virtual dungeon' gig That is to say, your group gets a mission, and a dungeon ONLY FOR YOUR GROUP is created. You go there and experience the mission, supposedly.

The problem is that a MMORPG tends to attract the kind of people who don't really enjoy the kind of RPing that PnP can offer. Lord knows I tried carrying on IC conversations in AC, but the system simply didn't encourage or support such behaviors. I don't really see how they can make a game that appeals to RPers that can be financially viable.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Re: Re: The problem of one-shot customers

I'm not too confident this will work. They're trying to make their RPG customer pay for the miniatures many times over with the random packaging. Instead they should be trying to market those to a whole new customer segment.

Um, WotC that's exactly what WotC is doing. The new D&D Miniatures game is being marketed to a whole new customer segment: collectable miniatures game players. Sure, they're trying to interest RPG players too, but the D&D Miniatures game is specifically designed to get a piece of Mage Knight's very large pie.

There just isn't enough incentive for DMs to buy loads of random minis to get the ones they need for their adventure. Mt:G is different. Each player gets his own cards in a competitive environment, where everyone gets the cards to play. In D&D the DM buys minis (ok, players may buy one or two for their own char), and he isn't competiting with the minis (hopefully).

This is all well and good, but the D&D Miniatures game is not designed with DM's in mind. Which makes sense, since the D&D Miniatures game is designed for D&D Miniatures players, not D&D RPG players.

But I digress.

-z

 

[Fast Learner]

You use the EQ model: some servers (the vast minority in the case of EQ) are labeled as roleplaying servers. Those who dig the RP side play on those servers. The RP servers in EQ work just fine, as most people work fairly hard to stay in character, even when it comes to trying to discuss game effects that don't have a clearl RP element but have to be discussed anyway.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Re: Re: The problem of one-shot customers

But how is that different to any product other than regular necessities (food, fuel etc.?). Vast numbers of companies survive on exactly that model.

Interesting point. And I think they solve the "single use customer" problem the same ways: they release new versions on a regular basis, and hope that the flood of revenue from the latest revision will float them until the next revision. They release supporting products. They look for alternative forms of revenue.

Example: Microsoft. One way MS makes money is new versions of Windows. They release a new version every few years. Meanwhile, they also sell other kinds of software, have a subscription service (MSN), hardware, and so on. Of course, Microsoft's main source of income is licensing to hardware makers--MS is able to make cash from licensing because MS cleverly positioned itself as the default universal operating system for computers. WotC duplicated this strategy with the d20 system, but instead of charging for the "game operating system" license, they made it open-source in the hopes that it will sell more PHBs. Smart move.

Example: Sony. Sure, you buy one TV from them and that's it. But they've got tons of other products in tons of other categories. They're hugely diversified.

Example: Ford. You buy one car, and they hope that years later you buy another car. Meanwhile they sell you parts, warranties, and auto repair service.

WotC is nowhere near the behemeth size of these major corporations and thus can't get into as many diverse businesses. But they have a similar strategy: sell you one PHB (or set of books), then offer supplements and related recurring revenue products such as the D&D Miniatures game and D&D Online.

What I'm saying is that many other companies do indeed face the same "single use customer" problem, and they attempt to solve the problem in similar ways.

-z

 

[drothgery]

Morrus - sorry for misreading you above.

Anyway, other industries don't have the same problem with single-shot customers for a lot of reasons, but mostly because of...

1) Much larger markets. The RPG market is a very small niche market, and it's important to remember this. When the top-end products sell tens of thousands of copies, not hundreds of thousands or millions, the tail-end sales are nearly meaningless instead of being quite significant.

2) Faster cycling. A good RPG book will be used until you abandon the underlying system or the pages wear out. Other entertainment products, which are far less customizable, tend to be replaced far more frequently.

3) Higher price points.

 

[2d6]

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

[Looks down at his copy of NWN]

Umm, we've got an online but non-MM version now.

I could never get into NWN, the camara angles were wonky and like the persistance that a game like EQ has.

I enjoyed AC1 for almost 3 years, but it was an altogether different game from PnP D&D. 'City of Heroes', the superhero MMORPG is doing the 'virtual dungeon' gig That is to say, your group gets a mission, and a dungeon ONLY FOR YOUR GROUP is created. You go there and experience the mission, supposedly.

A recent issue of PC Gamer ran a story about this game, it has changed since it was announced, tho I think this feature may still be in.

The problem is that a MMORPG tends to attract the kind of people who don't really enjoy the kind of RPing that PnP can offer. Lord knows I tried carrying on IC conversations in AC, but the system simply didn't encourage or support such behaviors. I don't really see how they can make a game that appeals to RPers that can be financially viable.

You can find RPers if you look, especially on dedicated RP servers, It can be frustrating I know. I'm also intrested in gameplay. I want a game that doesn't require you gather 300 of your closest friends to defeat the local drgon.

 

[Emiricol]

NWN has dedicated, persistent-world servers.

 

[2d6]

NWN has dedicated, persistent-world servers.

I did not know that.

I still don't care for the game tho.