4e underselling 3e

KenHR · December 03, 2008, 01:25:26 PM

Oh, and I also ran an online 2e campaign with the old WebRPG app around the same time. My players ranged in age from 12 to 16, plus one of the kids' fathers (an old school guy who was jazzed by 3e), and were from various parts of the country. The kids all got their start with 3e.

(They were okay with 2e, but it wasn't their cuppa...they liked the campaign enough to stick with it, though!)

Ian Absentia · December 03, 2008, 01:32:37 PM

Quote from: Haffrung;270881I think the folks at WotC/Hasbro have a pretty good sense of their market, and their market loves the chrome. Production values are hugely important to selling stuff to the younger gaming crowd.

You may have noticed that recently the "market" has been taking nasty kick to the nuts. The consumer's love of "chrome" is born out of a thriving economy with an excess of expendable income. People's standards for bare minimum production levels may be realigned somewhat in the next couple of years.

I think that you're right that Hasbro has a pretty good feel for the market that will support high-end gaming products, but if the cost-benefit ratio drops too low to make glossy RPGs profitable to produce and sell, if fewer people can buy them and in lesser quantities, then they'll give 'em the axe, just like they do with other popular but unprofitable toys and games.

QuoteSorry, frugal older gamers will never be the target for a mainstream commercial RPG. It's over. You're part of a small, amateur, micro-niche hobby.

Aw, now you're just being mean.

!i!

Haffrung · December 03, 2008, 01:49:36 PM

Quote from: Ian Absentia;270946I think that you're right that Hasbro has a pretty good feel for the market that will support high-end gaming products, but if the cost-benefit ratio drops too low to make glossy RPGs profitable to produce and sell, if fewer people can buy them and in lesser quantities, then they'll give 'em the axe, just like they do with other popular but unprofitable toys and games.

Well, I think they'll stop producing a paper RPG altogether before they'll turn to a cheap and austere format.

Ian Absentia · December 03, 2008, 01:58:51 PM

Quote from: Haffrung;270952Well, I think they'll stop producing a paper RPG altogether before they'll turn to a cheap and austere format.

Agreed. Which is why, perhaps, the big corporate model is ultimately the wrong model for what is really a hobby, not an industry.

Then again, how on earth do they manage to keep the boardgame market afloat?

!i!

James J Skach · December 03, 2008, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: Ian Absentia;270956Then again, how on earth do they manage to keep the boardgame market afloat?

Because a shit ton of people have Monopoly (or two - I think I have four different versions in the house that the kids play alot), Candyland, Life, Clue, and even Scrabble sitting on a shelf. There's a core there that continue to pass these on from generation to generation. The pool from which this process draws is far larger than anything RPG's could even dream of. So even though someone like me passes on D&D to my kids (so far, so good!), the number of us doing so is far smaller - and might not be enough to perpetuate the market.

James J Skach · December 03, 2008, 02:21:18 PM

Addendum: I just took a glance at my kids' lists - each have at least four boardgames with Operation (seemingly) the only overlap...

Funny - neither asked for anything D&D...hmmm...

Balbinus · December 03, 2008, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Ian Absentia;270956Agreed. Which is why, perhaps, the big corporate model is ultimately the wrong model for what is really a hobby, not an industry.

Then again, how on earth do they manage to keep the boardgame market afloat?

!i!

Boardgames cost a ton. £40 to £50 for the core game, then £20 to £30 per supplement. They're luxury products, which is fine by me because I like good components in my boardgames, but that's how they manage it. The price increase you can charge for including good components is I suspect much greater than the actual increased cost of those components.

RPGs, that logic doesn't really hold, though plenty of customers have tried to make it do so and I think Hasbro is trying to make it hold with D&D right now.

jeff37923 · December 03, 2008, 03:26:11 PM

Quote from: James J Skach;270961Funny - neither asked for anything D&D...hmmm...

Are you sure you've got the right kids?

King of Old School · December 03, 2008, 05:01:22 PM

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;270848Another catch: Folks are figuring out that MMOs provide far superior value for their cash than TRPGs due to the vastly increased time spent actually playing the game.

Of course, that only applies if MMOs also provide the kind of play experience you derive from TRPGs. And frankly, if you can get the same kind of experience from WoW that you get from D&D, I'm even more glad that I don't game with you than I was before...

KoOS

StormBringer · December 03, 2008, 05:10:39 PM

Quote from: King of Old School;271013Of course, that only applies if MMOs also provide the kind of play experience you derive from TRPGs. And frankly, if you can get the same kind of experience from WoW that you get from D&D, I'm even more glad that I don't game with you than I was before...

KoOS

That assumes that the premium standard for entertainment is interacting with other people face to face. Just about every other form of entertainment is ultimately a solo activity, aside from many - but not all - types of games. With 10mil or more WoW players alone, it is fairly evident that direct social interaction is not what people are necessarily looking for.

Haffrung · December 03, 2008, 05:22:05 PM

Quote from: Ian Absentia;270956Then again, how on earth do they manage to keep the boardgame market afloat?

Their business model relies on millions of people buying a game every two or three years, rather than thousands of people buying a half-dozen books a year. People will pay $60 for Axis and Allies if they know they're going to play it even a couple times a year for the next five years.

Furthermore, the target audience of young males who Hasbro and Fantasy Flight aim their war and fantasy boardgames at are a lot more impressed by all the cool bits in Descent or Axis and Allies than they are by a book - no matter how pretty the book is. They can see the value right on the table.

StormBringer · December 03, 2008, 05:27:05 PM

Quote from: Haffrung;271020Their business model relies on millions of people buying a game every two or three years, rather than thousands of people buying a half-dozen books a year. People will pay $60 for Axis and Allies if they know they're going to play it even a couple times a year for the next five years.

Furthermore, the target audience of young males who Hasbro and Fantasy Flight aim their war and fantasy boardgames at are a lot more impressed by all the cool bits in Descent or Axis and Allies than they are by a book - no matter how pretty the book is. They can see the value right on the table.

A non-rpg gamer friend has that Call of Cthulhu board-game, and it has about the same layout. Three different tokens, several types and sizes of cards, tonnes of cardboard punchouts, lavish playing board. Granted, it takes up the whole table when you lay it out like your pic, but it has lots of shinies.

As slick as the pieces are, I seriously doubt the whole set up for even games like that runs more than about $20 for the parts. Getting the box or internal dividers made probably costs about $10 of that.

Seanchai · December 03, 2008, 05:53:31 PM

Mongoose Matt has clarified his statement: "To quantify; the comment was regarding 4e in the hobby trade. What we _don't_ know is how well it is doing in the book trade (one has to presume relatively well - relative to other RPGs in that arena)."

Seanchai

noisms · December 04, 2008, 05:16:40 AM

Quote from: Seanchai;271026Mongoose Matt has clarified his statement: "To quantify; the comment was regarding 4e in the hobby trade. What we _don't_ know is how well it is doing in the book trade (one has to presume relatively well - relative to other RPGs in that arena)."

Seanchai

Do you understand what in God's name that actually means? Because I don't.

Ned the Lonely Donkey · December 04, 2008, 05:29:09 AM

My feeling is that they are somewhat hamstrung by the fact that 3e was a pretty solid game that delivers a good play experience (in the "sweet spot", at least, it's a bit of beast at high levels) without too much tweaking or head scratching.

If you're happy with 3e, I can't see a reason to "trade up". The same could be said of 2e, obviously, but I think 3e is a much, much better game, and thus there are more significant reasons to not change than exist for 3e to 4e.

Ned