thread on WotC D&D pricing strategies

[BiggusGeekus]

Actually, using the same kind of rationalization, no they aren't. Movies cost millions of dollars to produce; they cost that much again to promote, for the most part. Around my neck of the woods, it costs about $8 to go to the movies. If you want to buy the DVD of a movie, you can generally find it for less than $30 bucks.

Well, the RPG dollar/hour ratio still beats the theater. $4/hour for a movie and assuming you play three four-hour sessions using a given RPG product that's $40/12hours = $3.33/hour. I realize the RPG use isn't that simple, but I'm sure you see what I am saying. But you raise a good point with the DVDs. I have about a dozen videocasettes that I tend to watch over and over. Assuming I've watched Black Adder: Season 2 10 times that's about $1/hour.

However, RPGs are still a very good entertainment buy ... providing the product doesn't suck of course. But then you could make the same argument about movies and cable TV.

 

[Pielorinho]

Saying RPGs are infintely variable and provide many more hours of entertainment than an individual movie disregards the fact that many people find repeated viewings of a film, and detailed study of same, to be as endlessly fascinating as many of us find RPGs to be.

Would you agree with him, then, if he says that RPGs are a far better value than movies in the theater?

If you consider all entertainment to be of equal quality, then theater movies have a much lower value-per-dollar-spent than do rented videos. Compare $8.00 per person to a $400 setup fee and then $3 per watching occasion.

But if you watch movies repeatedly, and you buy the movies, the value proposition will be different.

I think his comparison works for movies viewed in theaters.

Daniel

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Would you agree with him, then, if he says that RPGs are a far better value than movies in the theater?

If you consider all entertainment to be of equal quality, then theater movies have a much lower value-per-dollar-spent than do rented videos. Compare $8.00 per person to a $400 setup fee and then $3 per watching occasion.

But if you watch movies repeatedly, and you buy the movies, the value proposition will be different.

I think his comparison works for movies viewed in theaters.

Daniel

To some extent, I have to disagree. It depends on who is going to the theater. Let me simply post what I posted at RPGnet:

"While I see where you're coming from for the most part, the problem here is that you're presupposing that someone is simply going to watch a movie in the theater and walk out, without discussing the film afterwards.

A lot of people find movies as entertaining to analyze and discuss as we find RPGs to be to play. In addition, many also find that repeated viewings of a film on DVD or VHS to be as entertaining as RPGs are to gamers.

The point is that comparing the two should begin with the assumption that the person playing the RPG will be as interested in his pursuit as the movie viewer is in viewing a film. Obviously a devoted gamer will find playing RPGs to be a better value than a casual player; so too will a film buff get more for his money out of a film than someone who simply goes to the theater occasionally.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the discussion is about whether D&D is underpriced in general, not simply to RPG fans. Would the average person, whose hobby is not playing RPGs, find the books to be better than a movie's value, again supposing that he or she is not a film buff? What we find endlessly fascinating about RPGs - and which make them a good value to us - may be as lost on the average person as really getting into movies is lost on some of us gamers."

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, using the same kind of rationalization, no they aren't. Movies cost millions of dollars to produce; they cost that much again to promote, for the most part.

First here is a basic economic fact that most people have a hard time dealing with. The market value of a product has almost no relationship whatsoever to the cost of producing it. This is so universally misunderstood that professional sport team owners exploit this misunderstanding to try to rally fans behind ideas like salary caps by arguing that this will reduce the cost of tickets to see games.

It won't. You could reduce the costs of putting on a professional baseball game to nothing and ticket prices will be unaffected. Similarly, if a movie cost zero to make and market, the cost of a ticket to see that movie will probably not be changed. Why? Because the price of a commodity in the market is primarily set by demand for the product. Hence, saying movies are expensive to make has no bearing on the market value of the movie.

Around my neck of the woods, it costs about $8 to go to the movies. If you want to buy the DVD of a movie, you can generally find it for less than $30 bucks.

But here is the real point: that movie ticket earned you about two hours of enjoyment, a value of about $4.00 per hour. How many hours of enjoyment do you get for your PHB? It cost you $20.00 or so, so if you get more than five hours of use out of your PHB, then it is a better value for you than the movie was. You derived more hours of enjoyment for your dollar with the PHB than you did with the movie.

For example, I game about twice a month right now, each session lasting about 5-6 hours. Since the PHB came out in August 2000, I have played consistently. That means I've had 32 or more gaming sessions at 5-6 hours each, for a rough estimate of between 180-200 hours of gaming. Even factoring in the cost of the DMG and MM, that is an incredibly good value for my money.

And that's just actual game time. I've spent I don't know how many hours reading the books, fiddling with stuff from them, referencing them and so on out of session.

At $60.00 for the set, I'm paying about $0.33 an hour for my entertainment. By comparison, I'd have to watch that $30.00 DVD of the two hour movie 45 times to get similar value. I know some people watch a single movie 45 times, but there aren't many.

The reason I quibble about this is that I've seen this rationalization before from WotC folk, or those who defend the prices, and it seems that the criteria used to rationalize why RPGs - specifically D&D - should cost more always includes an explanation of how expensive they are to make. If that is part of the criteria, then I don't see how movies don't outstrip RPGs as a value. Saying RPGs are infintely variable and provide many more hours of entertainment than an individual movie disregards the fact that many people find repeated viewings of a film, and detailed study of same, to be as endlessly fascinating as many of us find RPGs to be. It strikes me that such an attitude towards movies isn't too far removed from the attitude others have towards RPGs - that it's all just a big waste of time.

The reason that the explanation of how expensive they are to make does not reflect on what their market price should be is that it isnt the point of that argument. That argument runs towards why game companies should want to raise prices, not towards why you should pay more for the product. The simple fact of the matter is that all the economic data we have indicates that gamers would pay more for most products, since we have examples of many very low cost games being ignored in favor of better produced more expensive items. Bringing up the cost of producing RPGs is just an acknowledgement that RPG companies should raise their prices. Not a justification for why. The why is that you'd probably buy the stuff anyway even if it were $10.00 more per book.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Please note that Ryan dancey brought up the issue concerning how expensive it was to produce RPGs, and then he mentioned how much more of a value RPGs were than movies; the purpose of my posts was to specifically address that point. If he is going to use production costs as a reason why RPGs are a good value, then production costs for movies are fair game also.

My previous post addresses the issue of whether movies are as good a value hour-wise as RPGs.

 

[EricNoah]

Someone did make an interesting point regarding RPG product value over in the original thread, that being that buing an RPG product is actually kind of a gamble.

With a movie or a video game, you buy the product and you're virtually guaranteed instant entertainment. You use it or experience it, and there's basically no chance that you won't get some gratification from it.

With an RPG, you buy the product and then ... you have to do some hard work. You have to round up some people to play it. You have to learn rules. One person has to do the very hard work of being the DM, prepare adventures, referee the game with some amount of expertise for it to be fun. And if you don't already have these things in place, the act of buying an RPG is kind of a gamble. There's a chance it won't pay off. So maybe that has an impact on perceived value as well?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I know some people watch a single movie 45 times, but there aren't many.

How many people play Pen & Paper RPGs as much as you? Or any of us who post here? We're not a very large segment of the population. Again, comparing the two is more fair if one compares fans who are as into the subject as each other; casual movie-goer vs. casual RPG player, or fanatics for both. Comparing RPG fans to casual movie-goers/viewers seems skewed, to me.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Someone did make an interesting point regarding RPG product value over in the original thread, that being that buing an RPG product is actually kind of a gamble.

With a movie or a video game, you buy the product and you're virtually guaranteed instant entertainment. You use it or experience it, and there's basically no chance that you won't get some gratification from it.

With an RPG, you buy the product and then ... you have to do some hard work. You have to round up some people to play it. You have to learn rules. One person has to do the very hard work of being the DM, prepare adventures, referee the game with some amount of expertise for it to be fun. And if you don't already have these things in place, the act of buying an RPG is kind of a gamble. There's a chance it won't pay off. So maybe that has an impact on perceived value as well?

Wouldn't that tend to make movies a better value, then? The hard work has already been done for you.

Not arguing; I find this point very interesting. What do you think, Eric?

 

[Wolfspider]

RPG.net can be very, very hostile to people, newbies, regulars and professionals alike. And it has more than it's fair share of rabid dogs who just chew and rend and bite and aren't really there to do anything else.

Tell me about it! Recently I was torn to pieces because I took a stand against a thread in which participants were describing graphic and disturbing tortures with very little if any relevance to gaming. Since then I have found myself going to RPG.net more and more infrequently. Let them tear at each other like wild animals; I certainly don't have to jump in the pit....

 

[EricNoah]

Wouldn't that tend to make movies a better value, then? The hard work has already been done for you.

Yeah, that was the point, and I kind of agree with it. At the very least it makes the comparison with other forms of entertainment a little more complicated.