Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="King of Old School" data-source="post: 2764298" data-attributes="member: 8789">If there were approximately 100,000 RPG sales every month in 1996, and there are approximately 100,000 RPG sales every month in 2005, the hobby isn't doing any better now than it was in 1996.If D&D was making 5,000 in sales every month in 1996 and is making 95,000 in sales every month in 2005, the fortunes of the D&D brand have certainly improved.If every non-D&D game was making 95,000 in sales every month in 1996 and is making 5,000 in sales in 2005, that doesn't speak well of the health of the industry outside of D&D.I've heard that D&D sales are better now than in 1996, as can be evidenced by sales numbers and print runs.  I've also heard, from people who work for and run RPG publishers other than Wizards, that sales numbers and print runs for non-D&D RPG products in 2005 are a shell of what they were in 1996.  I do know that there are fewer companies producing fewer products for the non-D&D segment of the hobby in 2005 than there were in 1996 (I'm only talking print products, not PDFs).  There are reasons for this beyond simple popularity -- WEG's non-RPG related financial problems, the implosion of Wizards Attic and Osseum, etc. -- but Occam's Razor suggests that if there are fewer products being published, it's logical to assume there are fewer consumers buying them.  This state of affairs is just peachy if your interests begin and end with D&D, but for those of us who believe a healthy hobby has to include non-D&D games as more than just an afterthought, it's disheartening.I'm not one of those people suggesting the sky is falling on the hobby, but I'm also not going to buy the propaganda that just because TSR was in trouble in 1996, the entire RPG hobby was on the brink of nonexistence.  There were lots of good, popular games being played in 1996, and a lot of companies making money in 1996 that don't meaningfully exist in 2005.  I'm not saying things are massively worse across the board, but they certainly aren't massively better across the board either.  Better for some, worse for others; or more accurately, much better for one and worse for many others.KoOS</blockquote>

Verification