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

[Hussar]

Where you go wrong is in assuming that 30 million = identical sales. It doesn't. Of those 30 million 5e players, only DMs really need the MM and DMG. Some players will buy them, but you only need one book each per 4-5 players. With all the splat books in 3e, players had a lot more to spend money on.

That's really missing the point. It IS identical value of sales. The difference being that 5e is making those sales with 11 products instead of investing hundreds of thousands of dollars on splats.

If the supplements make no money and have no real impact on core sales, why would they make them? Where's the upside?

Ahh reread this. The market is 30 million DOLLARS not players. In its wildest dream DND has never come close to 30 million current players.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Because one person on a forum keeps saying they should.

Again.

And again...

And again...


/s

I can see maths isn't your best subject.

 

[JonnyP71]

I can see 'having a sense of humour' is not yours....

 

[Maxperson]

That's really missing the point. It IS identical value of sales. The difference being that 5e is making those sales with 11 products instead of investing hundreds of thousands of dollars on splats.

If the supplements make no money and have no real impact on core sales, why would they make them? Where's the upside?

Ahh reread this. The market is 30 million DOLLARS not players. In its wildest dream DND has never come close to 30 million current players.

My bad. I misread that. Still, they are selling at 40% higher cost to consumers, so they haven't sold what the numbers of books that they did in 3e. If they had sold the same numbers, they would have much higher than 30m in sales so far. It's as if they are saying they are content with mediocrity, since mediocrity has given them what they made 10 years ago.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Don't forget that a lot of these sales come from Amazon's ridiculous discount rates.

 

[Imaro]

Don't forget that a lot of these sales come from Amazon's ridiculous discount rates.

I could have sworn I got my 3e books off amazon...at a discount. Am I mistaken about that?

EDIT: Also weren't the first round of 3.0 books sold as loss leaders for $19.95?

 

[Imaro]

My bad. I misread that. Still, they are selling at 40% higher cost to consumers, so they haven't sold what the numbers of books that they did in 3e. If they had sold the same numbers, they would have much higher than 30m in sales so far. It's as if they are saying they are content with mediocrity, since mediocrity has given them what they made 10 years ago.

Does that 40% figure take into account inflation between 2003 and 2016? Does it take into consideration rising costs of printed books?

 

[Corpsetaker]

I could have sworn I got my 3e books off amazon...at a discount. Am I mistaken about that?

You might have but I can promise you that online purchases were no where near as big as they are now.

 

[Imaro]

You might have but I can promise you that online purchases were no where near as big as they are now.

Also weren't the first round of 3.0 books sold as loss leaders for $19.95... I'm just saying if we're looking at extenuating factors for one we should be looking at factors for both.

 

[delericho]

Also weren't the first round of 3.0 books sold as loss leaders for $19.95... I'm just saying if we're looking at extenuating factors for one we should be looking at factors for both.

The first print of 3.0e books were indeed sold for $20. Apparently, that represented a very small profit for WotC.

Does that 40% figure take into account inflation between 2003 and 2016? Does it take into consideration rising costs of printed books?

To an extent - the 5e PHB has an above-inflation price increase compared to the (full price) 3e PHB, and indeed other editions. Though that may well be considered a correction for too-low prices for other editions... I'm not sure if, or to what extent, printed books have increased in price over and above the general rate of inflation.

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.