Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

[bento]

That's the real question I guess I'm wondering. Why don't other companies sell in the market as well as D&D?

Access to the market through various distribution channels. The better your distribution channel, the better your exposure, the more likely your game will sell. Also having a product that's fairly open-ended and can appeal to a wide variety of people. You can play many different "stories" with D&D and still be playing D&D. Hence the large number of D&D books in the market.

IS it just because of all the publicity D&D has had (good or bad) over the years, that makes it recognizable, so people start playing it more often then others? ("Hey, I've heard of that game... lemme check it out...")

Buzz is always important for market acceptance. Enough buzz and you're bound to get people tangentally interested to try it. How many people own a gaming console (XBox/PS2/GC) and aren't really HC gamers? Quite a few. And as you mention, most people try D&D first and either stay with it, get hooked on another system, or leave gaming.

If D&D disappeared next year, you'd still have a strong core of players, and products coming out from other companies because of the OGL. The biggest problem would be that the hobby would have to run on "word-of-mouth" and grass-roots marketing. No more corporate dollars spent on advertising or getting movies made or books written. There would be a dip, no doubt, but it would be interesting to see what direction RPing would go into.

I really think the direction is the one that RPing has gone for the last six or so years with MMORPGs. Like it or not, MMORPGs are the RPs most people today cut their teeth on. Today I play with a generation (18 to early 20s) who know all the concepts of D&D (HP, AC, etc.) from the computer games they play.

 

[el-remmen]

D&D games I have both run and played in have lasted a lot longer than any other system I have tried to run or played in - and thus I have purchased more D&D stuff than any other game.

I don't know why that is. . .

Also, there is a lot more D&D stuff to buy - even Palladium or GURPs at their height never had as many books and accessories to be purchased as D&D.

 

[DaveMage]

Reasons why other games don't match up?

1. Brand awareness/Marketing
2. Solid ruleset (with 3.0 - 2.0 drove people away).

 

[Jdvn1]

I think "it was the first" was the reason why it sold so much originally. There were just no other options.

Then, over time, people just stuck with it. They liked D&D, so they kept playing D&D. When other games came out, people looked at them and thought, "Well, everyone's playing D&D. I could play (new game) and rarely be able to play, or I could play D&D and play with my other friends that play D&D." People are slow to change.

Not an extremely tough choice.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So, apparently D&D is a huge force in the RPG market. It's the big seller, and other games just sell less... Why is this? What gives D&D such a huge spot in the market? Is it just because it was first? Because of its history?

Yes.

Would the RPG "industry" exist if D&D stopped existing?

Yes.

Would it have died out altogether if WOTC had not purchased D&D back in 96, and TSR went under?

No.

 

[Jupp]

I'm of the opinion that the industry, as it once existed, is already dead. We're in a transitional period and it's only a matter of time before all mid-sized RPG companies no longer exist (or, no longer produce RPG products).

Add this to your sentence: no longer exist....in the US market.

If you look at Europe, D&D and D20 are not the biggest players in the house. Depending on country they are sometimes perhaps third place or even less. Since we didn't have that huge exposure to D&D in the 80's and 90's, the European market is fragemented with dozens of different systems. And each country has its own big player in their own RPG market. Even if D&D should die one day there would still be enough alternatives to choose from over here. It would hurt a bit, but not too much.

 

[Roger]

In my opinion, the continuing popularity of D&D is a great example of Metcalfe's Law in action.

In this sense, I consider RPG systems as essentially specialized communication protocols, which I think is not as terribly outlandish as it first may seem.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Turjan]

If you look at Europe, D&D and D20 are not the biggest players in the house. Depending on country they are sometimes perhaps third place or even less.

Like in Germany, where The Dark Eye is number one and Shadowrun is number two. It's remarkable though that The Dark Eye was not the first RPG in Germany, but it's relatively similar to D&D in its tropes.

The main difference of The Dark Eye to other RPGs though was that a major board game company put quite a lot of funds in advertising the game upon its release. That gave the game a popularity headstart that no other game has been able to reach up to now.

 

[Umbran]

In this sense, I consider RPG systems as essentially specialized communication protocols, which I think is not as terribly outlandish as it first may seem.

*nod*. Various folks have said as much, when noting that the success of D&D was partly based on "network externalities". But I think the communication protocol (or other standardization, like VHS/Betamax) analogy is somewhat more clear.

However, I think all that misses something - prior popularity probably is not the sole support of D&D's current popularity. Recall, the heyday of D&D was two decades ago. That's a long pair of coattails to try to ride.

Even if a lot of people use it, if a given protocol or standard really stinks compared to the alternatives, folks will leave. They'll start slowly, but once a certain minimum of adopters take on the technically better standard, folks will rush out of the old standard in droves. That has apparently never happened to D&D.

So, there's a second part to the story - it is actually a pretty good game. Much as we chew over it's faults a lot here, it also has a great deal of merit in and of itself, both in terms of current structure and long-term style.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Even if a lot of people use it, if a given protocol or standard really stinks compared to the alternatives, folks will leave. They'll start slowly, but once a certain minimum of adopters take on the technically better standard, folks will rush out of the old standard in droves. That has apparently never happened to D&D.

So, there's a second part to the story - it is actually a pretty good game. Much as we chew over it's faults a lot here, it also has a great deal of merit in and of itself, both in terms of current structure and long-term style.

Yes. A product that is in some obvious way truly inadequate to the needs of the bulk of the market will inevitably get pushed out, in spite of externalities. That D&D has not been pushed out means that all editions were "pretty good" by some reasonable definition.