Then there's this:
The Company Behind Dungeons & Dragons Grew Online Sales 53% Last Year
Forbes wrote: The publisher's total online sales in both ebooks and print across the May-October period grew 53% from 2017 to 2018, according to data from publishing industry subscription data service Bookstat. It's possible that this metric understates their overall growth, too, as it's only using the comparable six-month periods: Sales across Nov 2017-April 2018 were even higher, up a full 75% from May 2017-Oct 2017.
Their ratio of print sales to ebooks? Nearly 20 to one.
Wizards of the Coast sold over $31 million in print units across the 18-month period between May 2017 and October 2018, according to Bookstat, while selling $1.6 million in ebook units.
These must be good numbers since Forbes is reporting them, right?
Quark Blast wrote: Then there's this:
The Company Behind Dungeons & Dragons Grew Online Sales 53% Last Year
Forbes wrote: The publisher's total online sales in both ebooks and print across the May-October period grew 53% from 2017 to 2018, according to data from publishing industry subscription data service Bookstat. It's possible that this metric understates their overall growth, too, as it's only using the comparable six-month periods: Sales across Nov 2017-April 2018 were even higher, up a full 75% from May 2017-Oct 2017.
Their ratio of print sales to ebooks? Nearly 20 to one.
Wizards of the Coast sold over $31 million in print units across the 18-month period between May 2017 and October 2018, according to Bookstat, while selling $1.6 million in ebook units.
These must be good numbers since Forbes is reporting them, right?
Those numbers include Magic, which is still their biggest seller, I believe. Apparently DnD grew over 30% - though that may have been overall, not online.
Those are definitely good numbers - assuming it doesn't just reflect a switch from traditional to online, which I don't think there's any reason to think it does.
Note that the ratio is in dollars, not units - physical books are more expensive than ebooks.
@Jeff
Good points.
It was 30%+ growth year over year for the last four years running. That's huge considering they were #1 the first year and only started in August to boot.
HOBBY GAME SALES TOTAL $1.5 BILLION IN 2018
Collectible Games Decline, Especially at Mass, Pulls Down Category
ICV2 wrote: Roleplaying Games, the smallest category, had the biggest move, up 18% from $55 million in 2017 to $65 million in 2018. How much of that increase was at WotC? How much was MtG vs 5E?
Quark Blast wrote: HOBBY GAME SALES TOTAL $1.5 BILLION IN 2018
Collectible Games Decline, Especially at Mass, Pulls Down Category
ICV2 wrote: Roleplaying Games, the smallest category, had the biggest move, up 18% from $55 million in 2017 to $65 million in 2018. How much of that increase was at WotC? How much was MtG vs 5E?
I'd guess most of it was at WotC, since they've got the lion's share of the market.
And all of it 5E, since that was in the Roleplaying games category, not the card game category.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: HOBBY GAME SALES TOTAL $1.5 BILLION IN 2018
Collectible Games Decline, Especially at Mass, Pulls Down Category
ICV2 wrote: Roleplaying Games, the smallest category, had the biggest move, up 18% from $55 million in 2017 to $65 million in 2018. How much of that increase was at WotC? How much was MtG vs 5E?
I'd guess most of it was at WotC, since they've got the lion's share of the market.
And all of it 5E, since that was in the Roleplaying games category, not the card game category. Yes, my second question was lacking context. I was wondering out loud, and out of context, what proportion of WotC 5E is. It must be doing quite well though since they are really branching out with the 5E brand, not just producing TTRPG material.
This was an interesting, if a bit odd, article on D&D and popular culture.
Quote: But D&D endured with Hasbro, which purchased the game's developers Wizards of the Coast in 1999, revealing in its annual report, that the game "had its best year ever" in sales in 2018.
Donohoo said interest in his local group reflects this, with membership ramping up in 2018. It's actually been growing since the release of the 5th edition in 2014, with new game rules.
"We saw a massive surge in interest in the months that followed," Donohoo said. "Since then, we have seen a steady and continual rise in interest both in the number of active players and in the number of events."
While this is true in the greater Houston area it also seems to be true around the country and in a number of countries outside the NA market.
See for instance this "reboot" commercial from Brazil.
I think that this is interesting. I wonder how long, if ever, it will take PF2 to match 5E in terms of sales?
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote: I think that this is interesting. I wonder how long, if ever, it will take PF2 to match 5E in terms of sales? There's an open secret that the 5e PHB has outsold all four previous editions combined. So in answer to your question:
It's a non-zero chance but you might need to break out your microscope to get a proper view of the odds. Less obtusely, you'll need scientific notation to display the result.
BTW - Did you like the commercial from Brazil?
I doubt that WotC will be able to duplicate the combined set of bad decisions that let PF1 beat out D&D 4E any time soon. I seem to recall that that event came as a surprise to both companies.
Yeah, 5e seems to have all the fantasy adventure TTRPG bases covered. That and they're investing significantly in other mediums. Except the next D&D movie. That just seems to keep getting kicked back a couple of years every couple of years.
I bought the Core stuff when it came out (PHB, Monster Manual and DMG) and the modules. However, I did not start playing until like 2 weeks ago. I am loving it and am happy to play 5e rather than PF2.
The D and D commercial with Venger and Tiamat was Brazilian? Loved it!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think PF2 will double down on the crunch. D&D 3.PF is already pretty darned crunchy and with 5e it has left them no place else to go. PF2 seems to be a better presentation of that form of the game, based on play-testing and public feedback. Most players by far are not into the crunch and 5e lets one play a game as crunchy as you like so they won't gain much ground there.
Fun thing is we'll know the answer to the OP before Christmas this year.
:D
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: 5e lets one play a game as crunchy as you like so they won't gain much ground there.
It's 2019 and 5e still hasn't given me a proper urban druid, a psionic, a firearm dedicated class, a hybrid divine/arcane caster, an alchemist and about a dozen other things I'd like to see but WotC is too afraid of evoking nightmares of 3.5/PF1 bloat to move away from their glacial pace of printing player-side options.
Which is absolutely fine with many people, but I'd have my game of choice sit somewhere between the baroque splurge of PF1 and the monastic asceticism of 5e. There's a reneassaince-sized hole between the two and I'm looking forward to Paizo exploiting it.
Mystic there is one of my favorite then, PRCs, but I have only been able to play one in PF1 a few times in PFS. He is fun though.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Gorbacz wrote: Quark Blast wrote: 5e lets one play a game as crunchy as you like so they won't gain much ground there. It's 2019 and 5e still hasn't given me a proper urban druid, a psionic, a firearm dedicated class, a hybrid divine/arcane caster, an alchemist and about a dozen other things I'd like to see but WotC is too afraid of evoking nightmares of 3.5/PF1 bloat to move away from their glacial pace of printing player-side options.
Which is absolutely fine with many people, but I'd have my game of choice sit somewhere between the baroque splurge of PF1 and the monastic asceticism of 5e. There's a reneassaince-sized hole between the two and I'm looking forward to Paizo exploiting it. :D
I laugh because "urban druid".
The PF2 CRB is 640 pages! That plus the Bestiary is 1,000 pages just to get started. That's pretty darned crunchy. They will retain PF1 aficionados but recruiting new players, genuinely new players, is a little tough with a 1,000 page learning curve. Just say'n.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: Gorbacz wrote: Quark Blast wrote: 5e lets one play a game as crunchy as you like so they won't gain much ground there. It's 2019 and 5e still hasn't given me a proper urban druid, a psionic, a firearm dedicated class, a hybrid divine/arcane caster, an alchemist and about a dozen other things I'd like to see but WotC is too afraid of evoking nightmares of 3.5/PF1 bloat to move away from their glacial pace of printing player-side options.
Which is absolutely fine with many people, but I'd have my game of choice sit somewhere between the baroque splurge of PF1 and the monastic asceticism of 5e. There's a reneassaince-sized hole between the two and I'm looking forward to Paizo exploiting it. :D
I laugh because "urban druid".
The PF2 CRB is 640 pages! That plus the Bestiary is 1,000 pages just to get started. That's pretty darned crunchy. They will retain PF1 aficionados but recruiting new players, genuinely new players, is a little tough with a 1,000 page learning curve. Just say'n. 5e PHB+DMG+CRB is 992 pages, which the CRB+B is equivalent to. Try harder.
Seriously, too much reading?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Gorbacz wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Gorbacz wrote: Quark Blast wrote: 5e lets one play a game as crunchy as you like so they won't gain much ground there. It's 2019 and 5e still hasn't given me a proper urban druid, a psionic, a firearm dedicated class, a hybrid divine/arcane caster, an alchemist and about a dozen other things I'd like to see but WotC is too afraid of evoking nightmares of 3.5/PF1 bloat to move away from their glacial pace of printing player-side options.
Which is absolutely fine with many people, but I'd have my game of choice sit somewhere between the baroque splurge of PF1 and the monastic asceticism of 5e. There's a reneassaince-sized hole between the two and I'm looking forward to Paizo exploiting it. :D
I laugh because "urban druid".
The PF2 CRB is 640 pages! That plus the Bestiary is 1,000 pages just to get started. That's pretty darned crunchy. They will retain PF1 aficionados but recruiting new players, genuinely new players, is a little tough with a 1,000 page learning curve. Just say'n. 5e PHB+DMG+CRB is 992 pages, which the CRB+B is equivalent to. Try harder. Orville Redenbacher wrote: Seriously, too much reading? As a 5e player I need the PHB at 320 pages, or really just the boxed set to get started at 32 pages! A $60.00 640 page "starter" book is not an insignificant barrier. Not many n00bs will take that leap. It is a minority of TTRPG players that like the ultra crunchy. Always has been/will be.
And all I can say is that PF2 (or P2) had better be slick as a biscuit in order to make the transition from 3.PF over to P2.
Back to the OP. As I type this Amazon wrote: PHB 5e is #79 in Books
CRB P2 is #9,023 in Books
Quark Blast wrote: It is a minority of TTRPG players that like the ultra crunchy. Always has been/will be. This seems to have become conventional wisdom since 5E came out, but I don't think it bears any real examination.
3.x (and d20 in general) dominated for well over a decade, if you include Pathfinder. 4E wasn't a huge success, but it still split the market with PF. Even AD&D wasn't exactly non-crunchy, though it lacked the chargen complexity until near the end of 2E.
There are plenty of much simpler rules lite games out there that have never touched the popularity of the crunchy versions of D&D - next to some 5E would be ultra crunchy.
If anything the simplest rule is that a minority of TTRPG players will play anything other than the current version of D&D - the only exceptions are when D&D itself is struggling - near the end of AD&D2E and later in 4E.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: If anything the simplest rule is that a minority of TTRPG players will play anything other than the current version of D&D - the only exceptions are when D&D itself is struggling - near the end of AD&D2E and later in 4E. I think this is right.
The popularity of D&D overall determines the health of the overall market, the relationship D&D has with the hardcore gamer market determines the health of the other publishers.
The dominance of 3.5, decline of 4E and resurgence of 5E shows the extraordinary power of brand, in my opinion.
Good points but it overlooks the fact that the pie has grown considerably with the introduction of 5e. The other (post-AD&D) D&D editions/d20 clones didn't really do that.
So I guess I need to restate my point, altered for clarity given by the most recent posts:
"Presently a minority of TTRPG players like the ultra crunchy. It seems likely that it was always this way and always will be."
I've read a metric #### ton of grognard reminiscences. Not a scientific sample I know but one lesson I got from that was that homebrew rules to make things simpler/slicker/quicker is/was the norm, with those groups going in the crunchy/er direction few and far between.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Good points but it overlooks the fact that the pie has grown considerably with the introduction of 5e. The other (post-AD&D) D&D editions/d20 clones didn't really do that.
So I guess I need to restate my point, altered for clarity given by the most recent posts:
"Presently a minority of TTRPG players like the ultra crunchy. It seems likely that it was always this way and always will be."
I've read a metric #### ton of grognard reminiscences. Not a scientific sample I know but one lesson I got from that was that homebrew rules to make things simpler/slicker/quicker is/was the norm, with those groups going in the crunchy/er direction few and far between.
Not my recollection, but the world was a different more isolated place back then. There were house rules aplenty but they were mostly to cover unclear or missing rules. Other house rules went in both directions.
But even putting AD&D aside, I think it's really hard to say that in 2007 for example near the height of 3.5's popularity that the majority of TTRPG players preferred a less crunchy game. Or that Pathfinder's success was despite its crunch. There were less crunchy games around then. There have been since the early days. They've never been as popular as whatever the current version of D&D is.
It's possible that 5e is just a good game and the level of crunch isn't that relevant. Or that these things go in cycles and that level of crunch is on the upswing.
Gorbacz wrote: Quark Blast wrote: 5e lets one play a game as crunchy as you like so they won't gain much ground there.
It's 2019 and 5e still hasn't given me a proper urban druid, a psionic, a firearm dedicated class, a hybrid divine/arcane caster, an alchemist and about a dozen other things I'd like to see but WotC is too afraid of evoking nightmares of 3.5/PF1 bloat to move away from their glacial pace of printing player-side options.
Which is absolutely fine with many people, but I'd have my game of choice sit somewhere between the baroque splurge of PF1 and the monastic asceticism of 5e. There's a reneassaince-sized hole between the two and I'm looking forward to Paizo exploiting it. PF2 is on the way and you're still waiting for Paizo to produce a psionic class as well.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Psychic from Occult Adventures exists :)
To be fair, occult classes were developed in PF 1.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I am really liking 5E D and D. I played every edition from the blue box set up to a few games of 4E. I like 5E. Adventure League is getting some use to especially since treasure tends to be almost non existent and gained only at level, at least for this season.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Good points but it overlooks the fact that the pie has grown considerably with the introduction of 5e. The other (post-AD&D) D&D editions/d20 clones didn't really do that.
So I guess I need to restate my point, altered for clarity given by the most recent posts:
"Presently a minority of TTRPG players like the ultra crunchy. It seems likely that it was always this way and always will be."
I've read a metric #### ton of grognard reminiscences. Not a scientific sample I know but one lesson I got from that was that homebrew rules to make things simpler/slicker/quicker is/was the norm, with those groups going in the crunchy/er direction few and far between.
Not my recollection, but the world was a different more isolated place back then. There were house rules aplenty but they were mostly to cover unclear or missing rules. Other house rules went in both directions.
But even putting AD&D aside, I think it's really hard to say that in 2007 for example near the height of 3.5's popularity that the majority of TTRPG players preferred a less crunchy game. Or that Pathfinder's success was despite its crunch. There were less crunchy games around then. There have been since the early days. They've never been as popular as whatever the current version of D&D is.
It's possible that 5e is just a good game and the level of crunch isn't that relevant. Or that these things go in cycles and that level of crunch is on the upswing. Mainly replying to your laast sentence here.
I've taught people to play 3.PF and 5e and it is both my experience and observation that 5e was much easier to get across to the n00bs. I think that explains the bulk of the difference.
I don't really know about AD&D (though I own a few free-to-me modules etc.) but I'm thinking it was more of it being the hot new thing. And it being pre-Internet so new things lasted more than a week back then.
:D
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Every version of D and D I have played, I have enjoyed, save for 4th edition.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I even enjoyed 4th edition -- but it is not a game that holds up well when the company that makes it is no longer supporting it -- and that happened well before WotC officially gave up on it.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote: Every version of D and D I have played, I have enjoyed, save for 4th edition. I enjoyed the one campaign of 4E we played, but we all agreed that while we managed to have fun with it, it wasn't as much to our tastes as some other systems. Can't actually remember what we went to after that. Might have been a Cthulhu campaign? Eventually picked up PF some years later.
A good group and GM can make nearly any system work, but that doesn't mean some aren't better suited for their tastes than others.
4e was the first real game of D&D that I played as a full fledged member of a gaming group. Maybe because of the change in status I enjoyed it quite a bit. Never played it again though because I could never find anyone else who did.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote: To be fair, occult classes were developed in PF 1. People who want Psionics in PF1 are usually asking for D&D 3e style Psionics rather than slightly-tweaked arcane casting. Dreamscarred Press brought it to PF1 of course, but not everyone has the option of using third-party material.
I liked the eladrin warlock I made in 4th edition. I was only able to play him like 1 or 2 times. Maybe I will remake him in 5E.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well it looks like the answer to the OP is now 20 quarters at least.
'MAGIC' SALES DRIVE HASBRO Q2 GROWTH
Hasbro's Total Gaming Up 26%
ICv2" wrote: Hasbro Gaming sales were down 8% to $123.4 million for the quarter from $134.3 million in the year ago period. Increases in sales of Dungeons & Dragons, Yahtzee, and Connect 4 were not enough to offset declines in other brands, including Pie Face and Duel Masters. The big test will be the quarter that starts here in a week.
Another little blurb pointing in the same direction by ROLLING FOR INITIATIVE -- A LOOK AT GAMING INDUSTRY NUMBERS
Column by Scott Thorne
ICv2" wrote: ...roleplaying games increased 18%, still overwhelmingly driven by sales of Dungeons & Dragons. However, at less than 10% of the overall market, RPG sales account for a fraction of the amount generated by trading card games or even miniatures games.
As expected: ICv2 - Top 5 Roleplaying Games
Rank, Franchise, Publisher
1 - Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards of the Coast
2 - Starfinder, Paizo Publishing
3 - Star Wars RPG, Fantasy Flight Games
4 - Vampire, White Wolf Publishing
5 - Pathfinder, Paizo Publishing
Though does anyone know anyone who plays Vampire? I use to know one person who said he used to play but that was years ago now.
They relaunched the game after a hiatus - that generally results in something of a spike. (Similarly, there's a good chance Shadowrun will make it into the top five in coming quarters, imo).
If PF1 is still in the top 5 while about to relaunch in a new edition, it'll almost certainly jump to the number 2 spot at launch.
I'd say number one, but I'm pretty sure there's a huge gap between D&D and everything else.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Didn’t PF1 drop out of the top five the quarter before this?
I had the resurgence due to a kind of “better get what I need now” mentality, even though it may not be a sensible course of action from a financial perspective.
Steve Geddes wrote: They relaunched the game after a hiatus - that generally results in something of a spike. (Similarly, there's a good chance Shadowrun will make it into the top five in coming quarters, imo). I'm willing to bet that some of it is because Critical Role have a Vampire game running on Twitch and Youtube right now. Other games that have been on regularly have appeared in the 'quarter' after CR started running them.
I heard that. I’d presumed it was part of the launch. They certainly have a lot of clout marketing wise.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: If PF1 is still in the top 5 while about to relaunch in a new edition, it'll almost certainly jump to the number 2 spot at launch.
I'd say number one, but I'm pretty sure there's a huge gap between D&D and everything else.
I would assume it will rather split and fragment the pathfinder fan base and hurt the statistics. According to Roll20, 5e has ~50%of active campaigns and PF1 has around ~7%. Considering even D&D 3.5 still has 1.5%, that's .. not so good. Warhammer and Vampire are also around 1.5%, and Starfinder is below 1%.
Source: https://blog.roll20.net/post/186546450860/the-orr-group-industry-report-q2- 2019-back-and
Of course, the launch will have a sales peak where everyone buys the new core books, but in the mid- and longterm I think it will be more difficult to sustain PF's position.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Because it's the 3rd quarter of the year with nothing major being launched for 5e (just the usual roll-out that's been going on since late 2014), and I have no idea what Paizo marketing is doing for PF2, and because Starfinder already occupies the #2 spot, there is no chance PF2 will be less than #2 in this quarter.
Will it take the top spot? If it does Paizo marketing gets all the credit imo.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's a bit worrisome that even with a 40% discount on release the PF2 core rulebook doesn't outsell the 5 year old 5e PHB on amazon.
Amzon.com Fantasy Gaming Bestsellers
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Joana wrote: It did on the day after release. for about an hour (actually if memory serves they kinda kept switching places with each other for a lttle while)
Kevin Mack wrote: Joana wrote: It did on the day after release. for about an hour (actually if memory serves they kinda kept switching places with each other for a lttle while) Oooo... yeah, that's not great. Guess we'll see what the numbers say in another 3 months.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The idea that Paizo were going to outsell D&D was a pipedream of the fans. I don't find the fact it didn't eventuate as worrying at all, it's entirely expected.
Outselling D&D at the tail end of 4E's run was extraordinary circumstances, not a new normal.
Paizo aren't aiming for that - they have totally different goals than "win ICv2", "Rank higher than the Player's Handbook on Amazon" (or any other league table). They want to pay their staff, make the games they like and put a little aside for the future.
Also neither ICv2 nor Amazon count their subscription numbers or what was sold at GenCon (ICv2 might count GenCon, but definitely not subscriptions) so 2nd edition might be crushing D&D and we don't know it.
|
