In terms of monetisation, rpgs have a fundamental problem. Once I sell you a game, you can potentially keep playing it with no further purchases for decades.
So, how do I monetise the hobby, assuming I want to?
Well, I could gamble that although the game is complete I can make acessory products which are so attractive in their own right you'll buy them even if you don't need them. That's essentially Chaosium's model with CoC, you only need the core book, but people like the scenarios and supplements so buy them.
I could make the core game incomplete, put enough there you can start play but make it so that to get the full game experience you have to buy additional product. This is the standard rpg business model, and boy it's ugly when you write it down flatly like that.
I could introduce a collectible element, either in terms of splatbooks or booster packs or randomised miniatures packs.
I could keep releasing core books, each with new options and abilities, and craft the game so as to discourage you from creating such things on your own.
Basically, what every option but the first has in common is that in order to work, the core book has not only to be inadequate on its own for extended play but must be incapable of being easily fixed/adapted by the end user. Essentially, to monetise I have to infantilise.
Also, none of these approaches are aimed at helping the end user pretend to be an imaginary person in a shared imaginary space. They're all about mechanics. Because I can sell mechanics, I can't sell imagination.
Where does that take me? If I'm serious about monetising I would de-emphasise the pretending aspect which is of no use to me, I would definitely de-emphasise empowering the group to self-create which is actively against my commercial interests. Instead I'd move users to a game where mechanical mastery was rewarded and prioritised and where individual creativity was driven more by good mechanical choices than decisions within the shared (and therefore unmonetised) imaginary space.
Basically, I'd try to move the game to being about figures, components, modular expansions, modular expandable rulesets, physical components if at all possible (people have to buy replacements for them for a start, they wear out), basically I'd follow a WotC/FFG model.
I might also produce a good game, but my focus would not be on empowering groups to create their own stories at the table, my focus would be on delivering certain types of stories at the table, monetisable ones.
Thoughts?
Edit: To add a small rider, essentially what I'm suggesting is that rpgs are essentially unmonetisable, that every attempt to do so from White Wolf onwards (I'm not that familiar with TSR's efforts) does so at the expense of the potential play experience.
I think the problem you identify: that, correctly designed, an RPG is complete product that can be enjoyed forever with no additional investment, is a real one. I would suggest solving it by simply not trying to monetize an RPG. An RPG is a complete game just like Parcheesi is a complete game. If you want to run a game company you don't sell just Parcheesi, and you certainly don't try to make big bucks off Parcheesi expansions (diminishing returns, for one thing). What you do is make more games. Similarly, I would suggest that the way to make money as an RPG company might be to make more RPGs instead of making one RPG plus an endless line of supplements. Even better, produce a series of RPGs that use the same core mechanical design so players can mix and match material from different games if they feel like it.
Quote from: Balbinus;358782I could gamble that although the game is complete I can make acessory products which are so attractive in their own right you'll buy them even if you don't need them. That's essentially Chaosium's model with CoC, you only need the core book, but people like the scenarios and supplements so buy them.
[...] I can sell mechanics, I can't sell imagination.
These two bits contradict each-other.
World of Greyhawk of
Masks of Nyarlothep and the like were essentially selling imagination. "Here's some stuff to make your campaign more interesting, some stuff you'd never have thought of by yourself."
Not coincidentally, Cthulhu, the game that stuck to selling imagination, is the one with the least mechanical changes of any of the three-decade-old games. No need to mess with the mechanics when you're selling imagination.
It can be done. It's just a lot more difficult than releasing endless rules expansions and the like. It reminds me of something Robert Pirsig said in
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about university papers: imitation got you a definite C, imitation masquerading as originality got you a B, genuine originality might get you anything from an A+ to an F. It's easy to think of the market equivalents.
If I had to make a living out of RPGs I would definitely go the WotC route but futher.
The one element that wasn't raised with the issues of minis props etc was the key thing for all RPGs, participants. That is why I have said a few times that I think WotC could charge for LFR games. You have to an extent already because the DDI becomes the 'Solomon's Key' for LFR players. If you want the latest nick-nack the latest thingie its on the DDI. The subscription model is how to monetise.
Now the alternate idea, that an RPG shop should just churn out more RPGs, is faulted for a couple of reasons. The market for RPGs is limited. That is just reality. There are already RPGs out there that cover most every genre that you can think of and most mechanical options have been explored. There will be new stuff but it will be infrequent. So either you go the Palladium route and release a lot of pretty small games hoping to pick up on a few hundred sales of each or you set your stall against a single big game you then put development into supporting. Neither seems very safe.
Quote from: Balbinus;358782In terms of monetisation, rpgs have a fundamental problem. Once I sell you a game, you can potentially keep playing it with no further purchases for decades.
That's true of ANY game: board game, card game, rpg, etc. This is why most non-rpg game companies are game publishers selling a wide variety of different games. And these games usually aren't don't have their rules re-written every few years to try to sell them again to those who already bought them, instead the old games stay in print (assuming they are selling) and new, completely unrelated games are produced. Extremely popular games (e.g. Monopoly) may have special printings designed to appeal to special audiences (e.g. Star Wars Monopoly, Monopoly sets with a specific vities streets, etc.), but the original stays in print and the special versions usually have the same rules and play, just special looks).
The was the rpg industry does things is simply designed to fail (trying to milk more money from the same gamers over and over again for basically the same game) -- as it has shown repeatedly over the years. RPGs do provide an additional way to make money that traditional games do not, adventure and campaign supplements can be sold for popular games.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;358786These two bits contradict each-other.
World of Greyhawk of Masks of Nyarlothep and the like were essentially selling imagination. "Here's some stuff to make your campaign more interesting, some stuff you'd never have thought of by yourself."
Not coincidentally, Cthulhu, the game that stuck to selling imagination, is the one with the least mechanical changes of any of the three-decade-old games. No need to mess with the mechanics when you're selling imagination.
It can be done. It's just a lot more difficult than releasing endless rules expansions and the like. It reminds me of something Robert Pirsig said in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about university papers: imitation got you a definite C, imitation masquerading as originality got you a B, genuine originality might get you anything from an A+ to an F. It's easy to think of the market equivalents.
Good spot. I think though that takes us to 837204563's post just before yours (and RandallS), but it's a definite high risk strategy and not one I think a large (in rpg terms, which is still small by most other terms) company could sell to its investors.
But yes, the point I didn't draw out as well as I could have is that there is an alternative, and it's my first example approach para. You make money by adding value, not subtracting value. But it's much less reliable, and as jibbajibba notes it has its own problems.
Quote from: RandallS;358791That's true of ANY game: board game, card game, rpg, etc. This is why most non-rpg game companies are game publishers selling a wide variety of different games. And these games usually aren't don't have their rules re-written every few years to try to sell them again to those who already bought them, instead the old games stay in print (assuming they are selling) and new, completely unrelated games are produced. Extremely popular games (e.g. Monopoly) may have special printings designed to appeal to special audiences (e.g. Star Wars Monopoly, Monopoly sets with a specific vities streets, etc.), but the original stays in print and the special versions usually have the same rules and play, just special looks).
The was the rpg industry does things is simply designed to fail (trying to milk more money from the same gamers over and over again for basically the same game) -- as it has shown repeatedly over the years. RPGs do provide an additional way to make money that traditional games do not, adventure and campaign supplements can be sold for popular games.
I agree largely. I'd note though that adventures don't sell in big numbers as a rule, and campaign supplements only go so far.
FFG have arguably pushed the rpg model into the boardgame space, games come with the expectation of expansions that will fix earlier problems and increase the scope of gameplay. I'm not sure the boardgames (and I love FFG's games) are necessarily better for that approach though.
What is different to rpgs is the tiny height of the barriers to entry. To produce a boardgame isn't easy, the parts cost production money, cheapass games managed it but it's not I suspect an easy market to enter from your garage.
Rpgs, with a computer and an internet connection I can potentially compete with anyone out there, and I may do so without even charging for the result. That's an issue too, and one that's more unique to our market.
Quote from: 837204563;358785I think the problem you identify: that, correctly designed, an RPG is complete product that can be enjoyed forever with no additional investment, is a real one. I would suggest solving it by simply not trying to monetize an RPG. An RPG is a complete game just like Parcheesi is a complete game. If you want to run a game company you don't sell just Parcheesi, and you certainly don't try to make big bucks off Parcheesi expansions (diminishing returns, for one thing). What you do is make more games. Similarly, I would suggest that the way to make money as an RPG company might be to make more RPGs instead of making one RPG plus an endless line of supplements. Even better, produce a series of RPGs that use the same core mechanical design so players can mix and match material from different games if they feel like it.
Quite. There are the issues JibbaJibba notes though with the size of the market you're selling into, but for a few years this was the basic revenue model of the hobby. Sell different games, sell adventures for those which are popular.
Then someone, I think White Wolf but I could be wrong on that, realised that by handicapping the game you could actually increase revenue, you could tap into collector instincts and completism and sell product that was actually less complete than your peers, but which when put with the expansions could become vastly more complete (more complete than most people actually using it to game could use I suspect).
Hence the current model. I'd say the basic model of rpg revenue today is the selling of incomplete games with reliance on the collector instinct and brand loyalty to get consumers (and I use that term intentionally) to catch them all.
Trouble is, while that does make more money, I think it raises barriers to entry for new hobbyists. I never got into 7th Seas or Lo5R because I went to my gamestore and there were tens of books, I didn't know which I needed and if I needed more than a handful the price was prohibitive. Long game lines appeal to the hardcore existing gamer, they're very offputting to new gamers (with the possible sole exception of D&D, for a range of reasons).
More importantly, it works against what's unique to the hobby. The shared creation at a game table by a group of people of a fiction which is genuinely theirs, an experience which they created and nobody else did. The more you seek to prepackage and predefine the more you work against what makes our hobby better than computer gaming (there are things of course for which computer gaming is better, but so too are there areas potentially unique to rpgs where they excel).
WotC and FFG are smart folk, they're aware that you can go bust chasing the same shrinking hardcore market, but they're not in the business of selling complete games and then selling more complete games to make further revenue, instead they're looking to bolt-on products and game lines which reward a consumer model of play over a hobbyist model of play.
That doesn't make them bad games, 4e apparently is very good, but it does mean they're helping create an infantilised user base who consume prepackaged product. Of course, the street finds its own uses as it were, so plenty of folk will run games with 4e or whatever which are as creative as anything else one can imagine with any system, but that's not what the game or production model is about supporting.
4e's just an example, for me FFG, White Wolf and several much smaller companies are also going down this road, WotC's just doing it more effectively than the competition.
Quote from: Balbinus;358794FFG have arguably pushed the rpg model into the boardgame space, games come with the expectation of expansions that will fix earlier problems and increase the scope of gameplay. I'm not sure the boardgames (and I love FFG's games) are necessarily better for that approach though.
I will not buy them. That's not what I want from an RPG. They may develop their own market over time, but probably only if FFG gets a game into some mass market channel.
QuoteWhat is different to rpgs is the tiny height of the barriers to entry. To produce a boardgame isn't easy, the parts cost production money, cheapass games managed it but it's not I suspect an easy market to enter from your garage.
True. Anyone can publish an RPG, just like anyone can publish rules for a card game or a game that uses a checkers or chess set. Very low barrier to entry which means a lot of competition if one is charging for the product.
QuoteRpgs, with a computer and an internet connection I can potentially compete with anyone out there, and I may do so without even charging for the result. That's an issue too, and one that's more unique to our market.
It's not as unique as one might think. The ease of making (and printing) PDF files has allowed a number of free board games to be published. People just have to print them out and put them together. There is a huge list of such games on boardgamegeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/7603/the-canonical-list-of-free-print-and-play-games-0), for example.
There is a break here. the idea that baordgames companies put out loads of boardgames that are all difference is not the case.
What usually happens is either that a top company like Milton Bradley that really makes money from a huge range of toys commissions a game to fill a recognised niche - HeroQuest produced because of the popularity of D&D for example - or a new game come a long such as Trivial Pursit its produced by one company that just do that when it gets a big eonough market chare it sells out to a large company. There are exeptions FFG now and Games workshop in the 1980s.
Trivial Persuit is a great example. A bunch of Canadians on a fishing trip come up with an idea for a game cos they are all general knowledge quiz fans. They try to sell to just about every game company but no interest. So they set up their own fimr. Produce the game and then it takes off and they cream it for all its worth. Expansions , new versions, new lists of questions. Then they sell out to a big multinational (Parker then Hasbro) and kick back on the beach. The multinational then do a variety of other expansions that the orignal guys didn't think of or could't do for logiistical reasons, like Travel trivial Pursuit or DVD versions or whatever. If you look at that story and replace Trivial Pursuit with D&D its basically the same except that the D&D guys stayed on their own longer because the market was new and they had 80% share.
Monopoly is the same story so is Scrabble. Those three are the most popular board games in the world. You can add Magic the Gathering as well as it's a pretty similar pitch.
So there seems to be a lot more similarity to baordgames than is thought and there seem to be 2 development methodologies.
i) The Great Games - created as a one off through an inspiration by a single designer small company produces and later gets bought up by a 'toy' company. Game keeps on selling becuase its a great game. Many variations and editions are released.
ii) The other games - a company that make games decides to make a baord game they send out some guys to find out what is currently 'hot' then a game is knowcked up on that theme. the comnpany sells lots of games each one has a low life expenctancy and the designers move ontot eh next game. This would cover everything from Cranium to Moustrap or from whatever Palladium have produced this week to the latest GURPS source book or all those 100s of CCGs that came out after Magic.
Quote from: RandallS;358796I will not buy them. That's not what I want from an RPG. They may develop their own market over time, but probably only if FFG gets a game into some mass market channel.
True. Anyone can publish an RPG, just like anyone can publish rules for a card game or a game that uses a checkers or chess set. Very low barrier to entry which means a lot of competition if one is charging for the product.
It's not as unique as one might think. The ease of making (and printing) PDF files has allowed a number of free board games to be published. People just have to print them out and put them together. There is a huge list of such games on boardgamegeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/7603/the-canonical-list-of-free-print-and-play-games-0), for example.
there is a break here which is artwork. to produce a card game or a board game with cards you might need 100 peices of artwork. An RPG book can be done with 4 -5 decent images and some clip art and still look 'professional'
Very interesting post.
But you can't publish a "complete" rpg in a reasonable way. It would take several years to write and it would be an encyclopedia. For some people a rules-lite system that they can customize will work. But for most, they want that option, but they also want the game designers to develop those customized options. Many want a setting in the core product. Many of those people won't like the default setting and want a different one. People will want to adapt the game to a different time period/tech level.
The option you left out for monetizing it is to take it all on-line and charge a subscription. The new WOTC model. So they can publish the core rules in print and make money, publish those on-line for subscribers and make money. Then they also publish updates online (to gain more subscribers), and package up those newly published rules for people who want it in print and make more money.
I think that for the reasons you point out and for reasons that everyone who has ever bought the D&D license has found out, role-playing games are at their heart a hobby market. People that play them are hobbyists, tinkering and collecting, but not needing a steady influx of your product in order to continue that hobby. If all the big names left tomorrow, the hobby would remain, tinkering, and, thanks to the amateurization of publishing, still churning out new games at profit scales that won't let any one quit their day job.
I'm interested to see how the latest iterations over the product fare, but I don't see any sustainability in the market except where they accidentally open new markets on the side (like, say, big box boardgamers buying into the latest WFRP release through familiarity in appeal). These still seem to be largely in conflict with the core of the hobby, though, which doesn't strike me as all that exploitable any more, except for beer money.
Quote from: SowelBlack;358806Very interesting post.
But you can't publish a "complete" rpg in a reasonable way. It would take several years to write and it would be an encyclopedia. For some people a rules-lite system that they can customize will work. But for most, they want that option, but they also want the game designers to develop those customized options. Many want a setting in the core product. Many of those people won't like the default setting and want a different one. People will want to adapt the game to a different time period/tech level.
Well, no rpg will ever be wholly complete I grant. But tons of games over the years had all you needed for play in one book. Call of Cthulhu, Space 1889 (lousy rules, but they were all there...), Bushido, D&D Cyclopedia (or if we permit the three book model, AD&D and earlier), Champions, Gurps 3e, Hero, Cyborg Commando god help us. A complete core book used to be the norm, quality obviously varied but they weren't all rules-lite by any means.
Quote from: SowelBlack;358806The option you left out for monetizing it is to take it all on-line and charge a subscription. The new WOTC model. So they can publish the core rules in print and make money, publish those on-line for subscribers and make money. Then they also publish updates online (to gain more subscribers), and package up those newly published rules for people who want it in print and make more money.
I only left it out because I didn't think of it :-)
Yes, good point. Of course, query why you need the updates? That said, my impression is much of DDI is genuinely added value, not missing value at an additional price. Do you know if that's true?
Quote from: Halfjack;358810I think that for the reasons you point out and for reasons that everyone who has ever bought the D&D license has found out, role-playing games are at their heart a hobby market. People that play them are hobbyists, tinkering and collecting, but not needing a steady influx of your product in order to continue that hobby. If all the big names left tomorrow, the hobby would remain, tinkering, and, thanks to the amateurization of publishing, still churning out new games at profit scales that won't let any one quit their day job.
I'm interested to see how the latest iterations over the product fare, but I don't see any sustainability in the market except where they accidentally open new markets on the side (like, say, big box boardgamers buying into the latest WFRP release through familiarity in appeal). These still seem to be largely in conflict with the core of the hobby, though, which doesn't strike me as all that exploitable any more, except for beer money.
Precisely. For me the only viable future the hobby has is the same future it's always had. Some hobbyists getting excited enough to create their own new game, and either publishing it themselves or selling it as freelancers to a gaming company.
So, for me the future is some guys in a garage deciding they have a take on, say, hard sf gaming and producing that to the best of their ability, and then others taking it up (hopefully) and playing it. That's viable, and that's the core of the hobby.
The reason I like the indie scene isn't because I like the games, generally I don't, it's because I wholly approve of the attitude. Make it yourself, make it your own, if the market isn't giving you what you want make what you want yourself.
The old school renaissance and the indie movement have this in common, they're both about fans taking ownership of the hobby, about beer money sales rather than a dream of abandoning the day job.
I don't get it. Why would we want RPGs to be more like Monet?
(http://sarafryd.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/monet.jpg)
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;358818I don't get it. Why would we want RPGs to be more like Monet?
(http://sarafryd.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/monet.jpg)
Damn I wish I could afford that painting. I'd put it on the cover of a game and sell it for eight bucks.
Quote from: 837204563;358785I think the problem you identify: that, correctly designed, an RPG is complete product that can be enjoyed forever with no additional investment, is a real one. I would suggest solving it by simply not trying to monetize an RPG. An RPG is a complete game just like Parcheesi is a complete game. If you want to run a game company you don't sell just Parcheesi, and you certainly don't try to make big bucks off Parcheesi expansions (diminishing returns, for one thing). What you do is make more games. Similarly, I would suggest that the way to make money as an RPG company might be to make more RPGs instead of making one RPG plus an endless line of supplements. Even better, produce a series of RPGs that use the same core mechanical design so players can mix and match material from different games if they feel like it.
Damn, this sounds familiar... Where have I seen it before?
-clash
The underlying asumption here is - as always - that the market is shrinking, dying, fading slowly into the West and remaining Galadriel. This has been the mantra of gamers since the heady early days, yet when I go to Cons - including GenCon - I see tons of kids. My own gaming group is mostly in their teens and early twenties. most of the people I talk to online were not even born when I started play. If this is the case in an atmosphere where everyone has given up expanding the market, what would happen if we actively try to grow it? The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;358842...The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.
-clash
And the RPGA.
I think the Indie guys have it right. They tend to make complete games, though they are tightly focused on one particular thing. Dogs is about moral authority, etc. No one plays such a game expecting to continue it for years and years. Play out a storyline, or even a single session, then move onto something else.
Quote from: flyingmice;358841Damn, this sounds familiar... Where have I seen it before?
-clash
Yeah, I always find it a bit disheartening when the great revelation on a way to approach something is what I already do. I am with you again on this but I would go one step further. Most folks just assume you cannot make money at RPGs. This is wrong. You can. You have things that work against you much like Balb points out but it is not quite as bleak as it is painted. Essentially, to make money, you need to run a business. I know, sacrilege!!!11231! I am a game designer, I must be doing it for the love of the game!!!11!2 Now, there is nothing wrong with running you business as a hobby or just having your hobby that you print out books you wrote about or whatever but to then jump to the assumption that you cannot make money on it seems odd to me.
For instance, far bigger issue than "Buy once, play forever" (not as big a problem as you might think) is the Buy one, everybody int he group reads it. Essentially, your market is reduced to about 1/5 of the total game population. Again, not the end of the world but it then influences how you build your products. No, nothing nefarious like cripple-ware but you might take the angle of building more towards player utility or group utility than just game.
For instance, why are squirrel books so damn successful? There are many reasons but focus in on the one that applies to the above point is general appeal. I sell a lot of books to folks who do not even game because they like the art or are squirrel fans or find the concept funny. It is a broad appeal and a way to address the issue.
In general, and Clash, I suspect you know this, a way to address the points Balb brings up include dedicated management to profit margins and that means managing all aspects of risk and production expense. Also, utilize techniques and technologies that work like POD, e-books and varied distribution channels. I mean, I could probably write a book about it (but you know how long-winded I am). ;)
The problem with indie games of the tightly-focused variety is that they have very limited appeal and limited replay value. Less than boardgames (in spite of point 1 below).
I think more comparison with board games is needed in this analysis. Let's see where it takes us.
You know, there are a huge number of board games, quite a few of them "evergreen", from Monopoly to Settlers of Catan. Buy one and you've got a lifetime of enjoyment, yes? So how do the companies make out?
1. There's more to life than Monopoly. People buy multiple games because they offer different experiences.
1a. But that still doesn't explain why Monopoly is evergreen.
2. The barrier to play is low. The evergreen games are easy to pick up. Nobody is really scared to buy one or to give it as a gift. This feeds into network effects in terms of both having people to play with and name recognition.
3. Cost is limited, which is another form of low barrier to play. Ditto on "space required for one game".
So far I don't think any of these reasons is all that special. Here's where things get interesting:
4. A large amount of the value of the game is bound up in tangible bits. A well-used but complete copy of Monopoly isn't very attractive. An incomplete copy of Monopoly is somewhere between a PITA and unplayable. You can replace a property card, or a token, with a handmade copy. A missing Chance or Community Chest card can't be easily replaced without affecting the game. Result: you not only get your copy of Monopoly at Target, not eBay, but you quite possibly go through several copies in a lifetime.
Now to an extent point #4 has been touched on as why some RPGs have been moving toward a more bits-intensive approach. However there's another way of looking at things, which is instead of looking at bits as a way of monetizing games, look at games as a way of pushing bits. That is arguably what we see in the historical miniatures wargaming market--there are companies that make miniatures, and there are many different ways to play with them. Hobbyists and small publishers supply the rules, while big(ish) companies supply the miniatures.
They're pretty smart IMO: they've found a way to sell toys to adults, and the market is never saturated since we're talking about a self-justifying product anyway. (I mean, if you make a nice mini, people will want it.)
So my conclusion is that RPGs can certainly go the route of walled markets analogous to GW, where one company provides not only the rules but also the pieces. But you can also monetize the hobby by focusing on the parts that hobbyists appreciate but really can't easily produce for themselves.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;358786These two bits contradict each-other.
World of Greyhawk of Masks of Nyarlothep and the like were essentially selling imagination. "Here's some stuff to make your campaign more interesting, some stuff you'd never have thought of by yourself."
Not coincidentally, Cthulhu, the game that stuck to selling imagination, is the one with the least mechanical changes of any of the three-decade-old games. No need to mess with the mechanics when you're selling imagination.
It can be done. It's just a lot more difficult than releasing endless rules expansions and the like. It reminds me of something Robert Pirsig said in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about university papers: imitation got you a definite C, imitation masquerading as originality got you a B, genuine originality might get you anything from an A+ to an F. It's easy to think of the market equivalents.
I think this is fundamentally right. Think of it like selling books: if you have an editorial process that publishes good-stuff -- stuff people will buy because it stimulates their imagination -- you'll make money.
I'd add that some of the highly successful CoC books (and others) are -- essentially -- art books. I think that's a huge appeal of the Warhammer stuff, also.
And I think it's also correct that quality is difficult to maintain and requires consistent vision, vigilance, an editor with a good filter, etc.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;358843And the RPGA.
Sorry, AM - I have no idea what the RPGA does as it holds no interest for me personally. If they are out there recruiting, that's awesome! I didn't mean to slight there.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;358842The underlying asumption here is - as always - that the market is shrinking, dying, fading slowly into the West and remaining Galadriel. This has been the mantra of gamers since the heady early days, yet when I go to Cons - including GenCon - I see tons of kids. My own gaming group is mostly in their teens and early twenties. most of the people I talk to online were not even born when I started play. If this is the case in an atmosphere where everyone has given up expanding the market, what would happen if we actively try to grow it? The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.
-clash
I'm not assuming the industry is failing, I'm just arguing there is a conflict between monetisation and delivery of what's core to the hobby.
That said, I should have talked about the small press. But then again, there are others here far better qualified than I am to do just that...
Quote from: Balbinus;358853I'm not assuming the industry is failing, I'm just arguing there is a conflict between monetisation and delivery of what's core to the hobby.
That said, I should have talked about the small press. But then again, there are others here far better qualified than I am to do just that...
I didn't say
you were making that assumption, Balb, but if you look at the responses, most of them
do make it. Hinterwelt, for one, is growing the market. I see the appeal of his silly little squirrel games to non-gamers - I mean that in a
good way, Bill - being silly and little
add to their appeal.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;358852Sorry, AM - I have no idea what the RPGA does as it holds no interest for me personally. If they are out there recruiting, that's awesome! I didn't mean to slight there.
-clash
Oh I didn't think you did, but I thought I should point it out. There are going to be 4 or 5 Gameday events just this year, (nearly everytime there is a major book release- so for example, PHB3 and Dark Sun, and I am pretty sure I saw a gameday for Gamma World, as well as Weekend in the Realms and possibly one other). So every couple of months you probably have a customer-oriented gameday event taking place near you, and many/most towns ALSO have an active weekly or monthly Living Realms meetup that is just an open invite going on as well.
I know it's been discussed before, but that's the tangible benefit of treating gaming as something you can do with fellow enthusiasts (who might end up as your 3 closest friends) rather than "only my 3 closest friends."
And once again, it's a soft sell- Nobody charges for LFR. It gets people playing by merit alone.
Quote from: flyingmice;358855I didn't say you were making that assumption, Balb, but if you look at the responses, most of them do make it. Hinterwelt, for one, is growing the market. I see the appeal of his silly little squirrel games to non-gamers - I mean that in a good way, Bill - being silly and little add to their appeal.
-clash
No offense taken. Those were two of the design/production goals for the game.
Quote from: flyingmice;358842The underlying asumption here is - as always - that the market is shrinking, dying, fading slowly into the West and remaining Galadriel. This has been the mantra of gamers since the heady early days, yet when I go to Cons - including GenCon - I see tons of kids. My own gaming group is mostly in their teens and early twenties. most of the people I talk to online were not even born when I started play. If this is the case in an atmosphere where everyone has given up expanding the market, what would happen if we actively try to grow it? The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.
-clash
Clash has got a good point here.
I'd like to know why the long tail of selling used games has not been brought up. The monetization of RPGs is affected when the value of out-of-print games has increased beyond their own cover value. Case in point is the D&D 3.5 PHB which is going for an average of about 50% over its own cover value now.
Quote from: jeff37923;358861Clash has got a good point here.
I'd like to know why the long tail of selling used games has not been brought up. The monetization of RPGs is affected when the value of out-of-print games has increased beyond their own cover value. Case in point is the D&D 3.5 PHB which is going for an average of about 50% over its own cover value now.
If I were WotC or FFG, I wouldn't be keen to support the second hand market. Arguably, every second hand purchase is a purchase that could have been of my products.
It's not a good argument, but it's one that persuades people who take economic decisions.
Hell, if I were really paranoid, I'd even pull pdfs of OOP games I had rights to, to prevent the possibility of competition.
How would I stop second hand sales? Hard to say, but if I build bits into the game, components, that may help as components wear out.
Is it even possible to stop second-hand game sales?
I have not checked it out, but I'd venture to say that even the removal of WotC PDFs did nothing but increase the value of the printed books of the same games and not stop second-hand game sales.
Hi Jeff:
The 3.5 books selling over their cover price used is a classic demonstration of unmet demand. This isn't like Privateers and Gentlemen or Ringworld selling for 100s of dollars - there it's obviously collectors driving the price up for fairly rare books. 3.5 D&D is far from rare, but most of the available pool of used books is still being used and not for sale, so 3.5 books go up in price.
Look - Most 3.5 books are being locked up in group use and so used prices go up, 4.0 seems to be a fair success (at least) as does Pathfinder. That doesn't look like a shrinking market to me. There's 3 games serving the same market segment all being successful.
I think what the mid tier of game companies sees as a shrinking market is really a market that increasingly prefers First Tier or Small Press offerings to Mid Tier offerings. I think that Small Press in aggregate is approaching the numbers of the Mid Tier in aggregate, while First Tier - mainly D&D & clones - expands from the top.
-clash
Clash, I am not saying that it is a shrinking market but an expanding demand when compared to supply. The market itself may be static. But I doubt that as well, because there would not be the demand that there is without some market expansion (no matter how small).
Quote from: jeff37923;358865Is it even possible to stop second-hand game sales?
I have not checked it out, but I'd venture to say that even the removal of WotC PDFs did nothing but increase the value of the printed books of the same games and not stop second-hand game sales.
Stop them entirely? Probably not.
Discourage? Sure.
That said, if you move to a DDI subscription model for release of content, then you can pretty much stop them dead.
Quote from: jeff37923;358874Clash, I am not saying that it is a shrinking market but an expanding demand when compared to supply. The market itself may be static. But I doubt that as well, because there would not be the demand that there is without some market expansion (no matter how small).
Oh, Jeff, I was agreeing with you! :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;358876Oh, Jeff, I was agreeing with you! :D
-clash
Sorry, I was distracted by reading that RPGPundit is getting married (http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/).
Quote from: jeff37923;358877Sorry, I was distracted by reading that RPGPundit is getting married (http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/).
Awesome! I'm happy as hell for him! :D
-clash
Quote from: jeff37923;358877Sorry, I was distracted by reading that RPGPundit is getting married (http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/).
Awsome, congratulations Pundy! :D
Absolutely, congratulations to the pundit.
Just to throw in a point for consideration, the DDI thing appears to me to be a paradigm shift in business model for WoTC/Hasbro. Or rather a toe-in-the-water shift, rather like what the software business started a few years ago. It is shifting from game-as-a-product to game-as-a-service.
After all, that is really the business model of MMOs.
Quote from: HinterWelt;358847For instance, far bigger issue than "Buy once, play forever" (not as big a problem as you might think) is the Buy one, everybody int he group reads it. Essentially, your market is reduced to about 1/5 of the total game population.
How is this different from boardgames or non-collectible card games. When I was a kid, my friends played my boardgames (sorry, etc.) -- they did not each buy a copy. Our (wife and me) friends play Rook and Uno with us, but none of them own a copy of either. Etc. Games that require everyone to own a copy just make it harder to find people to play with.
Thank you.
Quote from: Balbinus;358794Rpgs, with a computer and an internet connection I can potentially compete with anyone out there, and I may do so without even charging for the result. That's an issue too, and one that's more unique to our market.
It's not unique to the rpg market. People write novels and short stories and publish them online, some of them for free.
Random House hasn't collapsed just yet. In fact Penguin publishes a lot of public domain work, stuff freely available on Project Gutenberg, stuff
anyone can publish - and they still make money from it.
So let's not overstate the effects of the low threshold to publishing stuff. Having the greater resources still matters the most.
Being a large company with the resources to make attractive printed works is a strong advantage in the publishing market. There's a reason the pdf rpg companies are all one-man operations, or adjuncts to printed work companies, with just the occasional freelancer hired.
Oh, and mazeltov to Pundit!
Quote from: RandallS;358888How is this different from boardgames or non-collectible card games. When I was a kid, my friends played my boardgames (sorry, etc.) -- they did not each buy a copy. Our (wife and me) friends play Rook and Uno with us, but none of them own a copy of either. Etc. Games that require everyone to own a copy just make it harder to find people to play with.
O.k. I will try to explain this but chances are, the inter-tubes will jack with it. That is kind of taken out of context or at least you seem to be presenting it in such a way. What I was trying to say was, compared to the buy once, play forever, the decrease of your market by 4/5 is far more vital a thing. Not the whole picture. Not every possible factor. But, when comparing beans to beans,i.e. BOPF to 1/5 Buy, more relevant. Games wear out. Books get spilt on. Dice get lost. Replacements will be bought. This does not mean that I am saying no one, ever in all the creation has ever had anyone but a GM buy a book. Some groups, usually with games with heavy player options and tactical play, will have everyone owning a book, possibly several (as in a PHB, DMG, MM stuff like that). This was one of the solutions I mentioned. And don't think board game companies don't try and find ways around it either.
So, REQUIRE no (I don't know, some sort of interlocking rules books...I can't really see it). Encourage, yes. Build a game where people WANT to own their own copy. Look, when I print a million Roma, get them for under $1 a piece, and turn them around in mass and see them selling a nigh 85% gross, then all other factors begin to lessen including BOPF.
And, just in case it was not clear, that was not a valuation. I do not think people are "cheating" or "stealing" or some such. It merely is a reality of the market that is far more pronounced in the small press than in the WotCs. People tend to purchase one (usually the GM but sometimes an alpha player) and they try it out. If they like it, it becomes a gap filler. Seldom do you get dedicated groups of small press game players.
I certainly believe that WotC and some of the other "bigs" have an easier time getting multiple copies sold into each group, but as Randall suggests, this makes them more of an anomaly.
Or should I say, the intertubes are messing with things for sure. Bill, surely it's not so much that one-copy-per-group is a "problem" as that if you can somehow sell multiple copies to a group, it's one solution to the general issue, and possibly a better solution than selling multiple books to the same person.
It's at times like this though that I want to go back to the original post and see what it is we're really discussing. And that is: how do you make a buck in this hobby/industry?
Obviously this is influenced by the scale of the hobby as it stands. Balbinus's question is relevant today. I don't think it would have been asked back in the 80's, because it's undeniable that the hobby and the market have shrunk & transformed since then.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;358901I certainly believe that WotC and some of the other "bigs" have an easier time getting multiple copies sold into each group, but as Randall suggests, this makes them more of an anomaly.
Or should I say, the intertubes are messing with things for sure. Bill, surely it's not so much that one-copy-per-group is a "problem" as that if you can somehow sell multiple copies to a group, it's one solution to the general issue, and possibly a better solution than selling multiple books to the same person.
Yes, Elliot, perhaps a better phrasing is "a more pertinent issue" rather than "problem". In my experience, selling more copies to the group is a more pertinent issue than selling multiple copies to an individual. We are selling books not board games. It takes a different approach.
And before anyone jumps on that, yes, we can learn from board games. I learned and used a lot of BG concepts with SA! I am actually rather proud of the marketing side of that.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;358901It's at times like this though that I want to go back to the original post and see what it is we're really discussing. And that is: how do you make a buck in this hobby/industry?
Obviously this is influenced by the scale of the hobby as it stands. Balbinus's question is relevant today. I don't think it would have been asked back in the 80's, because it's undeniable that the hobby and the market have shrunk & transformed since then.
I will say it has changed and some interpret that change as shrinking. I suspect, but have no proof, that it is actually more a transformation and many many publishers are seeing their sales lost to other factors but assume it is a shrinking of the market.