78 replies to this topic

[kristof65]

I started a new conversation here about this, rather than derail another thread.

I think the emphasis is appropriate. By Wizards own admittance, over half the people who started playing D&D 3.x are no longer playing it anymore. WotC though is after something different (something which I don't think they can get at...). They want the fat kid who plays the PS3 everyday. It is easier to sell to them than it is to sell to others. By recycling the rules every couple years, they can take better control over the small resale market of the books. By using this sales strategy, they can be certain that when the fat kid gets bored with the archaic PnP games and goes back to killing hookers in the streets of Liberty City...they don't have to worry about him selling his books to the next door neighbor.

Wizards problem with us old farts is we like the games we play and are not normally impressed with the shiny new stuff. They actually have to work a bit harder to provide content in order to get our dollars. As opposed to reformatting the same rules...again...they might have to use a creative team (or one hell of a guy) to produce a product which enhances the games we enjoy playing - that costs more, takes more time and ultimately is more risky...plus they can't charge a monthly fee (did away with Dragon and Dungeon magazines and are replacing them with something which costs more than both of them together and you don't actually get anything tangible for when in a years time WotC hack that bit out due to lost profits).

This is exactly the same pattern that GW has taken. It seemed to work - for awhile, at least. However, GW's been suffering lately. So is it really a tactic that works?

I contend that it doesn't - at least not in the long haul. I accept that companies need to re-do the rules every now and then to re-vitalize sales, however, I think it's possible to do so in a manner which doesn't alienate long time players. And I think that it's important that a company doesn't completely alienate it's long time players.

I think this is a bit easier to do for miniatures companies than rpg companies, though. All a miniatures company has to do is make sure that they don't completely invalidate the armies long time players have built by doing stupid things like changing basing standards, or eliminating certain model types from a given army list. From an RPG standpoint, how do you re-do the rules without invalidating large portions of the previous game? Depends on the system, nad what design compromises you're willing to make.

But back to why I think it's important for a game company to recognize its long time players, despite the fact that they aren't spending as much money as the new player - because they're the best advocate of the game to new players. They're the ones who are going to get the new guy excited, give them the advice on what to buy and build, and keep the game moving forward. Their word of mouth has a powerful impact on your sales.

But word of mouth goes both ways. Piss off too many of the old-timers, and your reputation will suffer. Maybe not at first, but over time, as you piss off the "next generation" you suckered in, you gain an ever growing number of disgruntled ex-players.

I also contend that hurts the hobby overall, as well. The guy who doesn't buy into the next version of the game is just as likely to move onto another hobby instead. I mean, why bother to invest in yet another game system when you can get into something else - be it something more consistent like model railroading or mountain climbing(for those looking for long term) or just different, like video gaming.

I don't know the answer, nor where the balance is between old and new, but I definitely think that GW blew it, and WotC seems to be headed down the same path.

So what are your thoughts?

[joshuaslater]

While I agree completely with you Kristof, we are both dead wrong.

A corporate entity with stock holders needs to make quick and dirty cash. End of story.

[anvil]

I have seen several discussions of old versus new on the web recently. If nothing else, 4ed is making waves through the whole gaming community. I think that the coming apocalypse, as predicted by some, is over stated. Some people will change, and some people won't. Some will love it, some won't. In the long run, quality tells. I doubt that it will chase many people away from the hobby who weren't going to leave eventually. If anything, all the "obsolete" rules will get picked up cheap in a bargain bin somewhere and played by the "cost conscious" gamers. If I were to post a sign at my FLGS for players for a basic D&D campaign (red and blue books only), I'm sure I'd get some hits.

[Joe Kutz]

Yeppers. Needed to get some things done and drying before I made a comment (in case you haven't noticed...I tend to ramble a bit).

Publicly traded companies have a different set of problems when compared to privately held ones - one of those happen to be overeducated marketing types who develop strategies for product development. The strategy which Hasbro (and to a lesser extent GW) have latched onto is what worked for the CCG and CMG games - sell as much crap as possible and change the rules often. They are not interested in building a long term customer base...it doesn't work with their strategy. What they want is people who come strong and buy everything and the kitchen sink. Those who get bored or burned out in a month or year - no loss...got there money already. Those who become fan-boys, unintended benefits.

Every few years, they will change the versions so that those who burn out are less able to sell off products to the secondary market (and cut potential sales from the hive queen). The fan-boys will ultimately follow suit no matter what - that is what fan boys do, much like other religious zealots.

One other tactic that they will use is to toss the tag "collectible" on everything. This works well with the market who has action figures still carded and boxes of unopened Magic cards. Anything that is called collectible they will buy - for them it is the same as investing in a 401K (misguided as they might be). To me though, it is a lot like the "pro-painted" tag on auction sites. As soon as I see it - I move on.

But back to why I think it's important for a game company to recognize its long time players, despite the fact that they aren't spending as much money as the new player - because they're the best advocate of the game to new players. They're the ones who are going to get the new guy excited, give them the advice on what to buy and build, and keep the game moving forward. Their word of mouth has a powerful impact on your sales.

I think you miss what the game companies don't like about long term players - they actually care. Your average target audience gamer doesn't pick a character due to the CHARACTER, they pick it for the power. While stopping at the local store this morning looking for a product for a customer, I overheard the resident fan-boy explaining why such and such class was the best since it could fart fireballs or some such non-sense (warlock I think...normally I try to filter them out). Long term players prefer a bit more depth and that requires more work on the part of the manufacturer/publisher.

By never having to provide depth, they can recycle the same garbage without having to get into the more complicated story lines and settings. Change a few modifiers, add some new art and call it a new addition - that part is easy now.

[Lars Porsenna]

I also contend that hurts the hobby overall, as well. The guy who doesn't buy into the next version of the game is just as likely to move onto another hobby instead. I mean, why bother to invest in yet another game system when you can get into something else - be it something more consistent like model railroading or mountain climbing(for those looking for long term) or just different, like video gaming.

One point I'd like to make for extra consideration: in my other hobby (plastic model building), whenever the web forum question comes up "How did you start in the hobby" possibly one of the most common responses are: "I started as a kid building Airfix planes and tanks; then came cars, booze and women. But now I'm back and more enthusiastic than ever!" The point being that kid that gets introduced to RPGs may drop it for girls after a few years (or not), but when he becomes an adult he may look back at the fun he had and decide to get back into it. While RPGs have more of a stigma than models do (though I've seen models demeaned as being toys as well), I think the perspective of my generation, and the follow-up generations are changing. Same thing may happen here too...

Damon.

[Rastl]

I've said it from the original announcement. This is a blatant money-grab on the part of Hasbro. Invalidate everything that came before and make them buy new.

All the points I've made in previous points are in this thread.

If they had called it anything but D&D there wouldn't be this outcry. But D&D is a known brand name and they weren't about to give that up.

Couple this with the online subscription service they're starting up and they've tried to make themselves an income that can be depended upon quarterly.

I'll continue to pick up my 3.5 books at the half price book store as more people ditch them. I've barely scratched the surface of the possibilities playing this version.

[yani]

The loudest and only voices I hear are the people who don't like it and haven't even played it yet.


I bet the vast majority of players are adopting a wait-and-see approach before making a judgement on a change. They're staying quiet for a good reason.

[Joe Kutz]

I'll continue to pick up my 3.5 books at the half price book store as more people ditch them. I've barely scratched the surface of the possibilities playing this version.

Heck - I haven't even scratched the surface of 2nd edition (or AD&D or the original...).

One point I'd like to make for extra consideration: in my other hobby (plastic model building), whenever the web forum question comes up "How did you start in the hobby" possibly one of the most common responses are: "I started as a kid building Airfix planes and tanks; then came cars, booze and women. But now I'm back and more enthusiastic than ever!" The point being that kid that gets introduced to RPGs may drop it for girls after a few years (or not), but when he becomes an adult he may look back at the fun he had and decide to get back into it. While RPGs have more of a stigma than models do (though I've seen models demeaned as being toys as well), I think the perspective of my generation, and the follow-up generations are changing. Same thing may happen here too...

There is a bit of a difference though between fad hobbies (like WotC/Hasbro's marketing plan) and models/RPGs/wargames. Somehow I doubt anyone will be playing pogs (I think that was the name of the game with the little plastic/cardboard chips) in 20 years - but you might have someone blow the dust off a copy of Savage Worlds (most likely the pogs will have long since became landfill flotsam). In 20 years time, the DDM miniatures (as well as most of the LE and other PPP) will be in the landfill with them. I would guess several edition of D&D will be with them too.

[joshuaslater]

We're loving Savage Worlds. I think there will be a core of people playing this game for a long time. Ain't no dust on our SW books!!

We switched to Savage Worlds because D&D wasn't what we remembered from our adolescence anymore, and wanted a change. By all the preview accounts, this fourth edition sounds like SW in a lot of ways, and may even be good.

I'm in the wait and see camp, but even if it's incredible, I'll never spend as much coin on RPG books as I do pewter!!

An orc model will still have the same relative usefulness from here to eternity.

[Doug's Workshop]

Let me start by saying that while I have my problems with big corporations, I believe they do much more good than harm. Okay, that's out of the way . . . .

I don't see "normal" corporate strategy working with gamers, much like I don't see "normal" corporate strategy working in the field of "green" energy. There's just too much cynicism from the target audience for a traditional "big" corporation to overcome. It seems like the successful game companies are privately held, because the owners are passionate about their product. Chaosium, for instance. They've been around for a loooong time, and still have a devoted fan base. They still manage to make a profit out of their line, and have successfully diversified into fiction. They have their target audience, and rely on a good game and devoted players to spread the message.

For the most part, while every department store has a toy department with some board games, the games we play are predominantly "niche." Hasbro, ExxonMobile, Pfizer, and GM don't do well with "niche" products. That's where small businesses come in. Fantasy Flight does stuff that won't provide an appropriate return for Hasbro, and the aftermarket provides performance auto parts for cars that are too costly for GM to produce.

Every company needs long-term customers, because eventually there won't be any new customers left. Corporations aren't evil for wanting to make a profit. They just have dimwit marketing weasels who don't really understand what's happening in the game world. Marketing weasels don't usually have new ideas, they just take what worked elsewhere and apply a new label. "Collectible" and "Special Edition" are examples. I hope real weasels don't take offense. You have a fantastic species; I'm particularly fond of your sable cousins.

I hope Hasbro (and WoTC) does well with the 4th ed, and I hope their prepainted figures do well. I think it will help the hobby to get more people into the hobby, even if they start off as fanboys. I'll be off painting pewter, so hopefully I won't have to listen to their latest adventure with a half-fiend assimar ranger/ninja PC.

To Joe: Pogs, wow. Now I feel old.

[psyberwolfe1]

It is funny how this summer is going to see two major game companies release new editions of their major bread winning games. In WotC’s case I think it has to do with Dreamblade tanking. For GW it can be anything from their lowered stock price to JJ’s retarded son not understanding math. Needless to say, it is happening.

For D&D I am in the wait and see camp. I think that WotC has done a wonderful job with D&D and I have been pleased with what they have done with D&D. They changed it in my opinion for the better. I think the online stuff will be cool because that means that I will be able to game with my high school buddies in Colorado. My major hope is that the disparity in classes will be addressed in this new edition.

As for 5th ed 40K from what I have seen it will be a vast improvement. Hooray! Yes they are nerfing certain army builds. Good! I hear the argument that ruins certain styles of army collection. Let’s be specific. It is turning on the tournament only player who collects the uber army and nothing else. The long time players, like myself, who are spoiled for choice and have 10k+ in points of their favorite army won’t even be phased. The players who will be affected are those who collected their forces to exploit weaknesses in the rule set. For them, I have no pity.

I don't see this "ignoring the long term customer" phenomenon that is being referenced. In fact I think it is quite the opposite. They are coming for my long term customer dollar. I say this because I have not bought an RPG book in a dogs age. I bought the core books and mm2 and some setting books and called it an RPG library in '04. Now they are looking at getting some of my gaming dollar back. Do I blame them? No. I'm not even angry. If it is something I am not willing to buy into I won't. I think in the end it is all about what you are willing to do. I want Reaper to be around for awhile so I buy their figs, and if they would release a new Warlord Rulebook I would buy that to. /nudge.

[Joe Kutz]

Let me start by saying that while I have my problems with big corporations, I believe they do much more good than harm. Okay, that's out of the way . . . .

I don't see "normal" corporate strategy working with gamers, much like I don't see "normal" corporate strategy working in the field of "green" energy. There's just too much cynicism from the target audience for a traditional "big" corporation to overcome. It seems like the successful game companies are privately held, because the owners are passionate about their product. Chaosium, for instance. They've been around for a loooong time, and still have a devoted fan base. They still manage to make a profit out of their line, and have successfully diversified into fiction. They have their target audience, and rely on a good game and devoted players to spread the message.

For the most part, while every department store has a toy department with some board games, the games we play are predominantly "niche." Hasbro, ExxonMobile, Pfizer, and GM don't do well with "niche" products. That's where small businesses come in. Fantasy Flight does stuff that won't provide an appropriate return for Hasbro, and the aftermarket provides performance auto parts for cars that are too costly for GM to produce.

Every company needs long-term customers, because eventually there won't be any new customers left. Corporations aren't evil for wanting to make a profit. They just have dimwit marketing weasels who don't really understand what's happening in the game world. Marketing weasels don't usually have new ideas, they just take what worked elsewhere and apply a new label. "Collectible" and "Special Edition" are examples. I hope real weasels don't take offense. You have a fantastic species; I'm particularly fond of your sable cousins.

I hope Hasbro (and WoTC) does well with the 4th ed, and I hope their prepainted figures do well. I think it will help the hobby to get more people into the hobby, even if they start off as fanboys. I'll be off painting pewter, so hopefully I won't have to listen to their latest adventure with a half-fiend assimar ranger/ninja PC.

To Joe: Pogs, wow. Now I feel old.

Just to make things clear - I do not think corporations are evil, I do not even fault them for wanting to make a profit. When corporations make a profit I get a dividend check, and that allows me to continue my somewhat relaxed lifestyle. However if you get into the message behind their SEC filings (long boring reports of numbers and project goals filed by Hasbro for investors) you will see that their goal is not to get back or keep old customers, but it is to capture dollars from computer game market and MMORPGs.

While they have already lost me as a customer (if I want to play a video game - I will play a video game...not a PnP game that uses video game mechanics), I hope that Hasbro manages to be successful with the endeavor overall - for my money though their success comes at the expense of the Dungeons and Dragons brand. Out of the 2 dozen or so 3.x books which I have flipped through, I haven't seen anything new that wasn't already covered in 20 some odd years of Dragon Magazine and 3 book shelves worth of TSR books (yes - three 6 foot tall book shelves worth...plus another shelf worth of books from other companies).

[Doug's Workshop]

Joe - thanks for the info on Hasbro. I had guessed that (based on their current business model), but didn't want to torture myself by actually reading the reports!

Most of us realize that computer games aren't the same as RPGs. Hasbro doesn't seem to understand that yet. Marketing weasels think the things are the same. Marketing weasels also tend to get into positions of power in big corporations. The people who might make a difference aren't weasels, and so aren't invited to the weasel meetings. And then, the corporation releases the Edsel with New Coke flavoring! Oops.

Okay, with that I'm gonna sign off for the night. My posts are going downhill fast.

Goodnight, and happy gaming!

[Madog Barfog]

I think there is a fundamental flaw built into the RPG market, one that makes it hard to run a business based on it.

Many people, myself included, don't want a new edition every 2 years. I would like to game with a really good system for a number of years and become very familiar with the rules. I really don't play that often, so it will take me a while to even become proficient. Then I would like to find a wide variety of modules and a setting or 3. Every now and then, a new monster book or book of spells would be cool.

However, any ex-TSR employee will tell you that doesn't make money.

What does make money in RPGs are very easy, shallow-learning-curve computer games that you can play with little preparation. Simply coordinating a game time for our group is a challenge - no worries like that from a jump-in frag-fest.

Wizards lost me when they went from what seemed to me to be a medieval-style game rooted in mythology and Tolkien and moved it to a planet that makes Pern seem normal. History is boring, and swords are only cool if they have more than one blade, right? Never mind that if such a weapon worked better, we'd see historical examples. Maybe it's just me, but I can't ignore reality and physics. WotC obviously care little for their existing base - I really hope I never see one more negative comment about how dumb the previous version (you know, the one they were responsible for and made a lot of money from) was.

Other methods of being successful in gaming include overcharging for your products (GW) or having a very diversified product line (SJ Games)

TLDR summary: the nature of gaming makes it nearly impossible to make money AND keep current fans happy.

[smokingwreckage]

While I agree completely with you Kristof, we are both dead wrong.

A corporate entity with stock holders needs to make quick and dirty cash. End of story.

Well- that really depends. I could go on at some length, but the short version is yes, share price can pressure companies into "quick cash" approaches, but it is perfectly possible to build a strong reputation and excellent shareholder value on a history of modest but consistent growth and dividend returns. For example, there are many investors who upon reading that the company (as GW has been accused of doing) revised RRP on existing stock up and then simply increased their $ sales expectations to match, would run screaming.

All said, I'd rather be selling miniatures than RPG's. I'd never ever invest in an RPG company, but would readily stick some long term cash into a company like Reaper. If they were floated. Which they aren't. Worse luck.