D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Imaro]

It is worth noting, of course, that the "size of the market" figures that have been cited are also raw numbers, and so they also don't reflect inflation - if the RPG market was doing $30M in 1999 and is doing $30M in 2016, that's not actually all that healthy a sign.

Without context sure... but we know that the market after the 3e era dropped to around $12M...I don't see how bringing that back up to the level of $30M with a slower release schedule (than either 3e or 4e) is anything but a healthy sign... that's more than doubling it in 2-3 years. I think it's more accurate to cite the drop in the market size after the 3e era as an unhealthy sign.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Without context sure... but we know that the market after the 3e era dropped to around $12M...I don't see how bringing that back up to the level of $30M with a slower release schedule (than either 3e or 4e) is anything but a healthy sign... that's more than doubling it in 2-3 years. I think it's more accurate to cite the drop in the market size after the 3e era as an unhealthy sign.

Here's the problem.

There is no evidence that a slow release schedule is what brought the figure back up. What would that figure be like had the 4th edition CB never came out, or the rules themselves were different.

 

[delericho]

Without context sure... but we know that the market after the 3e era dropped to around $12M...I don't see how bringing that back up to the level of $30M with a slower release schedule (than either 3e or 4e) is anything but a healthy sign... that's more than doubling it in 2-3 years. I think it's more accurate to cite the drop in the market size after the 3e era wasn't all that healthy a sign.

It depends how you view it: is a good thing that the market has moved from a bit less than 1/3rd of its previous level up to a little more than 2/3rds of that level; or is it a bad thing that the net effect is a drop to a little more than 2/3rds?

I'll certainly agree that the drop was unhealthy, and I'll also agree that 5e adding $15M to the market was impressive. But over the piece, I'm not convinced that's a good picture.

 

[Imaro]

It depends how you view it: is a good thing that the market has moved from a bit less than 1/3rd of its previous level up to a little more than 2/3rds of that level; or is it a bad thing that the net effect is a drop to a little more than 2/3rds?

I'll certainly agree that the drop was unhealthy, and I'll also agree that 5e adding $15M to the market was impressive. But over the piece, I'm not convinced that's a good picture.

So outside of adding $15M (with what I assume is lower overhead) what would 5e have had to accomplish in the first 2 years it has been out for you to agree that the picture is/has been good since it's release?

 

[delericho]

Here's the problem.

There is no evidence that a slow release schedule is what brought the figure back up. What would that figure be like had the 4th edition CB never came out, or the rules themselves were different.

Honestly, the single biggest factor in the numbers coming back up is simple: WotC published some books. Between 2012 and 2014 they'd more or less put D&D on hiatus while they developed the new edition, so of course there was a big hit. And when they then published a new edition, of course the numbers bounced.

What's more surprising is that the numbers have stayed high - that D&D continues to do well in the Amazon charts, that the market continues to be at that $30M level, and that there seems to be no obvious drop in either sales or interest.

And since that's not consistent with what we saw with 3.0e, 3.5e, 4e, or Essentials, that strongly suggests that whatever they're doing differently is the thing that's making the difference. And, as far as I can tell, the main thing they're doing differently is that much slower release schedule.

I don't particularly like it, but it's kind of hard for me to argue against it. WotC have a strategy that is working for them (for now) and that they're happy with (for now), so [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s right - it doesn't make sense for them to significantly change (for now).

And since I don't say it enough: congratulations to WotC on their success.

 

[delericho]

So outside of adding $15M (with what I assume is lower overhead) what would 5e have had to accomplish in the first 2 years it has been out for you to agree that the picture is/has been good since it's release?

For it to be a good picture overall, the RPG market (not necessarily WotC/5e) would have to be doing approx $43M.

But that distinction is important: if we're talking about the size of the market, then the responsibility isn't all on WotC. They're the biggest player, sure, but hardly the only one.

Edit: what we have now feels to me like managed decline. We have the occasional bounce as new editions/new games are released, but the overall trend year on year is that the market gets just a bit smaller (in real if not absolute terms), a few more designers decide the work/reward in the industry just isn't good enough, the range of truly new products decreases (though we keep getting new editions, licensed products, and star vehicles), and things grow ever so slightly worse. Which is really depressing, so maybe we should instead enjoy it while this period of relative prosperity persists?

 

[Imaro]

Here's the problem.

There is no evidence that a slow release schedule is what brought the figure back up.

You're right correlation doesn't necessarily map to causation... but the fact that they did this with a lower release schedule can't be denied. In order to change such there would have to be proof that an increased schedule would somehow increase the market more... do you have that proof? Traditionally the splatbook treadmill has led to smaller and smaller RoI, why do you suddenly think that trend would change?

What would that figure be like had the 4th edition CB never came out, or the rules themselves were different.

That's neither here nor there... the past is the past. Also this isn't a one edition thing, the RoI as more and more splats are released diminishes... the only question is how fast in diminishes in relationship to how much you have to invest on each splat.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Honestly, the single biggest factor in the numbers coming back up is simple: WotC published some books. Between 2012 and 2014 they'd more or less put D&D on hiatus while they developed the new edition, so of course there was a big hit. And when they then published a new edition, of course the numbers bounced.

What's more surprising is that the numbers have stayed high - that D&D continues to do well in the Amazon charts, that the market continues to be at that $30M level, and that there seems to be no obvious drop in either sales or interest.

And since that's not consistent with what we saw with 3.0e, 3.5e, 4e, or Essentials, that strongly suggests that whatever they're doing differently is the thing that's making the difference. And, as far as I can tell, the main thing they're doing differently is that much slower release schedule.

I don't particularly like it, but it's kind of hard for me to argue against it. WotC have a strategy that is working for them (for now) and that they're happy with (for now), so @Hussar's right - it doesn't make sense for them to significantly change (for now).

And since I don't say it enough: congratulations to WotC on their success.

It's coincedence.

There is just no way that we can take all the factors into the equation from 2000 up until now. so much has changed and so much has come into existence.

The problem I see is too many people are ignoring the much bigger factors that are at play and trying to instead focus on the release schedule.

1. Brand name - This always brings in the crowd.
2. People that were displeased with 4th edition's rules. - The rules of 5th edition have brought things more around to where they were from editions past which brought back older fans.
3. No online CB.
4. Adventurer's League.
5. Amazon discounts.
6. Obscene promises weren't made and not delivered. - 4th edition promised loads but ended up falling on it's face only to recover when it was too late.
7. No competition. - They are essentially in a one person race where their only competitor is their 16+ old edition.

I see release schedule getting way too much credit here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1. Brand name - This always brings in the crowd.

Since you guys are trying to compare a brand to itself.... doesn't this kind of cancel out?

I mean, if we say that Pepsi is selling 3 times what it used to, we can't say that the difference is that we are talking about a brand name. They were a brand name back then too.

D&D isn't selling better because D&D is a brand name as compared to... D&D....

If you meant something else, I apologize, but it just makes no sense.

1. Adventurer's League.

Didn't D&D have something like this before though? I thought AL was essentially like the "Living" worlds that had events in various stores.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is bigger than that used to be, but since I never participated in those (I was too young) I don't know how different the two are. I also never participate in AL, to be honest (too busy)

1. No competition. - They are essentially in a one person race where their only competitor is their 16+ old edition.

They are not in a 1-person race. They are the 600 lb gorilla in the room to be sure, but there are plenty of other systems that people buy and play and being the biggest doesn't protect you if you are releasing crap and your competitors are releasing gold.

Their only close competitor may be PAthfinder, but it isn't their only competitor in existence.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Hey Jeff Albertson

Instead of laughing at everything, how about you actually give an opinion?