The fact that people continue to the idea back and forth is evidence that the game is "massively popular". Because if you don't care about the game, there's ZERO reason for you to argue that it's bad. You can just go and play what you do like.
The fact that people are disappointed by their own impression that the game is dying, is indication that those people care about the game suriving.
D&D is the original RPG and as such it is pretty much always going to be the most well known, well established and widely distributed PNP in the market no matter how it's handled by the owners.
The one critical point of weakness of course, is that D&D is owned by WotC who in turn are owned by Hasbro and as such corporate overeach can lead to problems as profit numbers begin to have less and less attachment to reality and force WotC to make more and more desperate attempts at marketing and merchandizing; 4e was particularly hard hit by this as they were expected to pull in vast sums of money at a time when the hobby was at something of a low water mark.
If Hasbro percieves D&D to be too much of a niche product line or unable to recoup the money spent on it it is possible that they simply shut it down which would greatly harm it as a product (and particularly if they go after 3rd parties after the fact).
That having been said... Battletech is a property that has survived the full on collapse of it's parent company and was pushed into a supremely niche position for years only to bounce back to become one of the largest Table top games in the market (to the point where they were actually ahead of Game's workshop's fantasy line "age of sigmar") entirely because the enthusiasts refused to die.
I’m not an expert in this area, but I heard D&D was doing really well in sales, especially compared to Hasbro’s toy line (though maybe not as well as Magic the Gathering).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I’m not an expert in this area, but I heard D&D was doing really well in sales, especially compared to Hasbro’s toy line (though maybe not as well as Magic the Gathering).
Magic requires the majority of the playerbase to all buy in to some degree, whereas with D&D it's much easier for a couple of people to carry the cost for a larger group. Which is why there was that line about further monetization of D&D, which is often demonized as the evil corpos looking to squeeze players in an iron fist just to be able to play the game. Meanwhile in reality, it means trying to create products that are attractive to the players so even those who aren't buying the books are willing to spend money on something for D&D. Sigil was likely one such attempt, albeit one that pretty much failed.
If they'd only offer things from the books for players to build a character they want to play without having to buy the whole book like say classes, subclasses, feats, races, and magic items and the like.
That might spur those looking to spend some money on the hobby a little at a time.
I am shocked no one has thought of this revenue stream 🤯🤑🤣
If they'd only offer things from the books for players to build a character they want to play without having to buy the whole book like say classes, subclasses, feats, races, and magic items and the like.
That might spur those looking to spend some money on the hobby a little at a time.
I am shocked no one has thought of this revenue stream 🤯🤑🤣
If only they had access to all the reports on costs and revenues both historically and since the transition to determine which model is actually more profitable. Again, since this is reality not a Dilbert strip, let’s entertain the idea that a major corporation actually has a large and ongoing interest in market research and doesn’t just change their sales models on a whim.
I've never heard anyone say D&D is dying. I think it's important to remember that there are many people who are simply very dramatic online or just love some drama, or feel strongly so they say strong things that they may not have said in real life. Online its easy to demonize others that you can't see, hear, or meet. I think almost everyone has had themselves gotten bested by the internet once or twice, and perhaps have added an overly angry comment or brash message thing online.
I think there's definitely a lot of players and GM's who have tried more systems in moments where they've lost trust in WOTC, but that doesn't mean D&D is dying. I have no proof of that, but it seems like a logical conclusion, and matches up with what I've experienced in real life. Lets be honest, the average Joe probably isn't even aware that tabletop gaming exists outside of D&D. I myself didn't until at least a year or two after my first D&D session, and that was largely due to the tabletop gaming youtube community. To me, that clearly says something about how popular D&D is
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer came down upon her head Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that she was dead
If only they had access to all the reports on costs and revenues both historically and since the transition to determine which model is actually more profitable. Again, since this is reality not a Dilbert strip, let’s entertain the idea that a major corporation actually has a large and ongoing interest in market research and doesn’t just change their sales models on a whim.
I would not overestimate how much market research they did, but presumably they know how much the feature was making, and it wasn't enough for them to feel compelled to keep it.
Personally though. I am concerned about the future of the game. I enjoy 5e, but I never really got behind the newest edition, and though I wasn't engaged in all of them, D&D has had a lot of controversies over the past couple years. Its especially distressful because D&D is currently the go to TTRPG for beginners, and they may just blindly buy a lot of new content without looking into what people think of it, because, "its the most famous brand, it must be the good, right?"
Personally though. I am concerned about the future of the game. I enjoy 5e, but I never really got behind the newest edition, and though I wasn't engaged in all of them, D&D has had a lot of controversies over the past couple years. Its especially distressful because D&D is currently the go to TTRPG for beginners, and they may just blindly buy a lot of new content without looking into what people think of it, because if its the leading brand, it must be good? Right?
For qualitative value, buy in is pretty much the only metric of how “good” something is within the market as a whole, so by definition if it continues to dominate the market then it’s effectively filling the niche.
I suspect D&D has declined since a peak (probably around 2022), but I don't think it has a lot to do with Hasbro (sure, they had a few terrible products, such as Spelljammer, but expecting zero duds is unrealistic) and a lot more to do with the progress of COVID.
If only they had access to all the reports on costs and revenues both historically and since the transition to determine which model is actually more profitable. Again, since this is reality not a Dilbert strip, let’s entertain the idea that a major corporation actually has a large and ongoing interest in market research and doesn’t just change their sales models on a whim.
I would not overestimate how much market research they did, but presumably they know how much the feature was making, and it wasn't enough for them to feel compelled to keep it.
Fair; I’m not saying they dialed this in like it was a moon launch, but someone had to put together a convincing pitch for taking the time and effort to rework Beyond in a way that wasn’t exactly going to thrill the fanbase, and they would definitely be tracking the shifts in sales for the next few quarters.
Fair; I’m not saying they dialed this in like it was a moon launch, but someone had to put together a convincing pitch for taking the time and effort to rework Beyond in a way that wasn’t exactly going to thrill the fanbase, and they would definitely be tracking the shifts in sales for the next few quarters.
Pretty sure the pitch was "we need to replace the store and we can save $X by not re-implementing this feature".
Fair; I’m not saying they dialed this in like it was a moon launch, but someone had to put together a convincing pitch for taking the time and effort to rework Beyond in a way that wasn’t exactly going to thrill the fanbase, and they would definitely be tracking the shifts in sales for the next few quarters.
Pretty sure the pitch was "we need to replace the store and we can save $X by not re-implementing this feature".
And then they need to justify that they’re saving more than they’re losing in revenue by taking the option down, given that a store rework shows they view the market as a whole as a significant source of revenue.
If only they had access to all the reports on costs and revenues both historically and since the transition to determine which model is actually more profitable. Again, since this is reality not a Dilbert strip, let’s entertain the idea that a major corporation actually has a large and ongoing interest in market research and doesn’t just change their sales models on a whim.
I would not overestimate how much market research they did, but presumably they know how much the feature was making, and it wasn't enough for them to feel compelled to keep it.
Fair; I’m not saying they dialed this in like it was a moon launch, but someone had to put together a convincing pitch for taking the time and effort to rework Beyond in a way that wasn’t exactly going to thrill the fanbase, and they would definitely be tracking the shifts in sales for the next few quarters.
Being this is reality, let's not pretend that research can't be done with a specific output baked into how and what data is collected.
When ALC was removed and customers were complaining this is how they decided to track those complaints.
Being this is reality, let's not pretend that research can't be done with a specific output baked into how and what data is collected.
Sure, but the raw numbers of "this is how much we sold" is just simple fact -- the debatable part is how removing the option affects sales of other products.
If only they had access to all the reports on costs and revenues both historically and since the transition to determine which model is actually more profitable. Again, since this is reality not a Dilbert strip, let’s entertain the idea that a major corporation actually has a large and ongoing interest in market research and doesn’t just change their sales models on a whim.
I would not overestimate how much market research they did, but presumably they know how much the feature was making, and it wasn't enough for them to feel compelled to keep it.
Fair; I’m not saying they dialed this in like it was a moon launch, but someone had to put together a convincing pitch for taking the time and effort to rework Beyond in a way that wasn’t exactly going to thrill the fanbase, and they would definitely be tracking the shifts in sales for the next few quarters.
Being this is reality, let's not pretend that research can't be done with a specific output baked into how and what data is collected.
When ALC was removed and customers were complaining this is how they decided to track those complaints.
Can someone cook the books? Sure. Realistically, even if they fudged the numbers to push the change through, can they actually cover up a sizeable shortfall in revenues in the wake of a major change to the sales model in the face of internal and external audits? Probably not. I can't guarantee what the thought process is behind the decision, but logic indicates that a for profit business is motivated to make changes that increase profits, and will compare performance before and after a change to judge the impact. If they don't reverse the change, we can reasonably infer that it either resulted in a net gain or the loss was not significant- likely accounted for when they made the change- and is judged to be less than what it would take to reimplement and maintain the system. You can keep trying for a grassroots push to get it back if you like, but I'd be surprised if it's a driving force behind their decisions on the matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am afraid that "massively increasing the popularity of D&D" is not the same thing as "killing D&D".
It's quite the opposite, in fact.
The fact that people continue to the idea back and forth is evidence that the game is "massively popular". Because if you don't care about the game, there's ZERO reason for you to argue that it's bad. You can just go and play what you do like.
The fact that people are disappointed by their own impression that the game is dying, is indication that those people care about the game suriving.
D&D is the original RPG and as such it is pretty much always going to be the most well known, well established and widely distributed PNP in the market no matter how it's handled by the owners.
The one critical point of weakness of course, is that D&D is owned by WotC who in turn are owned by Hasbro and as such corporate overeach can lead to problems as profit numbers begin to have less and less attachment to reality and force WotC to make more and more desperate attempts at marketing and merchandizing; 4e was particularly hard hit by this as they were expected to pull in vast sums of money at a time when the hobby was at something of a low water mark.
If Hasbro percieves D&D to be too much of a niche product line or unable to recoup the money spent on it it is possible that they simply shut it down which would greatly harm it as a product (and particularly if they go after 3rd parties after the fact).
That having been said... Battletech is a property that has survived the full on collapse of it's parent company and was pushed into a supremely niche position for years only to bounce back to become one of the largest Table top games in the market (to the point where they were actually ahead of Game's workshop's fantasy line "age of sigmar") entirely because the enthusiasts refused to die.
I’m not an expert in this area, but I heard D&D was doing really well in sales, especially compared to Hasbro’s toy line (though maybe not as well as Magic the Gathering).
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
Magic requires the majority of the playerbase to all buy in to some degree, whereas with D&D it's much easier for a couple of people to carry the cost for a larger group. Which is why there was that line about further monetization of D&D, which is often demonized as the evil corpos looking to squeeze players in an iron fist just to be able to play the game. Meanwhile in reality, it means trying to create products that are attractive to the players so even those who aren't buying the books are willing to spend money on something for D&D. Sigil was likely one such attempt, albeit one that pretty much failed.
If they'd only offer things from the books for players to build a character they want to play without having to buy the whole book like say classes, subclasses, feats, races, and magic items and the like.
That might spur those looking to spend some money on the hobby a little at a time.
I am shocked no one has thought of this revenue stream 🤯🤑🤣
If only they had access to all the reports on costs and revenues both historically and since the transition to determine which model is actually more profitable. Again, since this is reality not a Dilbert strip, let’s entertain the idea that a major corporation actually has a large and ongoing interest in market research and doesn’t just change their sales models on a whim.
I've never heard anyone say D&D is dying. I think it's important to remember that there are many people who are simply very dramatic online or just love some drama, or feel strongly so they say strong things that they may not have said in real life. Online its easy to demonize others that you can't see, hear, or meet. I think almost everyone has had themselves gotten bested by the internet once or twice, and perhaps have added an overly angry comment or brash message thing online.
I think there's definitely a lot of players and GM's who have tried more systems in moments where they've lost trust in WOTC, but that doesn't mean D&D is dying. I have no proof of that, but it seems like a logical conclusion, and matches up with what I've experienced in real life. Lets be honest, the average Joe probably isn't even aware that tabletop gaming exists outside of D&D. I myself didn't until at least a year or two after my first D&D session, and that was largely due to the tabletop gaming youtube community. To me, that clearly says something about how popular D&D is
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer came down upon her head
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that she was dead
I would not overestimate how much market research they did, but presumably they know how much the feature was making, and it wasn't enough for them to feel compelled to keep it.
Personally though. I am concerned about the future of the game. I enjoy 5e, but I never really got behind the newest edition, and though I wasn't engaged in all of them, D&D has had a lot of controversies over the past couple years.
Its especially distressful because D&D is currently the go to TTRPG for beginners, and they may just blindly buy a lot of new content without looking into what people think of it, because, "its the most famous brand, it must be the good, right?"
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer came down upon her head
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that she was dead
For qualitative value, buy in is pretty much the only metric of how “good” something is within the market as a whole, so by definition if it continues to dominate the market then it’s effectively filling the niche.
I suspect D&D has declined since a peak (probably around 2022), but I don't think it has a lot to do with Hasbro (sure, they had a few terrible products, such as Spelljammer, but expecting zero duds is unrealistic) and a lot more to do with the progress of COVID.
Fair; I’m not saying they dialed this in like it was a moon launch, but someone had to put together a convincing pitch for taking the time and effort to rework Beyond in a way that wasn’t exactly going to thrill the fanbase, and they would definitely be tracking the shifts in sales for the next few quarters.
Pretty sure the pitch was "we need to replace the store and we can save $X by not re-implementing this feature".
And then they need to justify that they’re saving more than they’re losing in revenue by taking the option down, given that a store rework shows they view the market as a whole as a significant source of revenue.
Being this is reality, let's not pretend that research can't be done with a specific output baked into how and what data is collected.
When ALC was removed and customers were complaining this is how they decided to track those complaints.
LINK to original post
"
Quote from kayakingpoodle >>
@LaTiaJacquise
Do you know if anyone is tracking the join date and post count of the members dissenting these changes?
It seems like a large portion of them are long time members that do not post often, many of them didn't post during the OGL issue.
that would be meeeeee~
I'm not tracking that granularly, but I do note the amount of individual commenters. "
Sure, but the raw numbers of "this is how much we sold" is just simple fact -- the debatable part is how removing the option affects sales of other products.
All this is saying upfront is that the numbers are being tracked.
Again, please clarify what your point is by stating it upfront.
Are you saying the numbers are fudged? Are you saying there needs to be more 1-post, single issue posts in order to get A La Carte back?
Because I'm confused.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Can someone cook the books? Sure. Realistically, even if they fudged the numbers to push the change through, can they actually cover up a sizeable shortfall in revenues in the wake of a major change to the sales model in the face of internal and external audits? Probably not. I can't guarantee what the thought process is behind the decision, but logic indicates that a for profit business is motivated to make changes that increase profits, and will compare performance before and after a change to judge the impact. If they don't reverse the change, we can reasonably infer that it either resulted in a net gain or the loss was not significant- likely accounted for when they made the change- and is judged to be less than what it would take to reimplement and maintain the system. You can keep trying for a grassroots push to get it back if you like, but I'd be surprised if it's a driving force behind their decisions on the matter.