| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drizzt, for one. As I said, it makes no sense to judge their branding a failure by first excluding all of the widely known, commercially successful products. However, you're the one making the claim. How about advancing some evidence beyond opinion and speculation about goals that you have no knowledge of?Being inconsistent and being a failure are two different things. One or two amazing products surrounded by a sea of mediocrity very definitely makes the brand inconsistent. As for being a failure, at some level, it clearly is, or we wouldn't be having more or less the same conversation right after the release of 5E that people had after the release of 4E.
What you havent established but just keep repeating as fact is that putting out a new edition of the RPG is symptomatic of a failure of the brand overall. I provided a counterexample to that in Colgate continually re-defining what "toothbrush technology" entails - the fact they keep re-inventing their core product is not a sign that things are bad in Colgate-land nor that "the brand is obviously in trouble". Similarly, the edition treadmill is not indicative of a decline in the D&D brand (outside of the TTRPG market - there's clearly been a denigration of the brand there since WotC moved on from 3.5).
Honestly, the concept "D&D is not a successful, long term brand" is such a weird position to adopt. The only reason I'm continuing to beat the issue to death is that I cant understand how anyone can think that. It seems to me that we must be talking at cross purposes.
People with no idea of what an RPG is have often heard of D&D - that's a remarkable thing and points to a hugely successful brand. Even moreso if (as you repeatedly claim) they havent had any success in the last few years.
Whether the computer games are any good, whether 5E is going to survive for very long, whether you personally think they've achieved their revenue goals with the boardgames (!) are all irrelevant to the strength of the brand.
What you havent established but just keep repeating as fact is that putting out a new edition of the RPG is symptomatic of a failure of the brand overall.
It's more that the same arguments of how the rpg doesn't matter and they are trying to branch out tend to get highlighted at the launch of new editions. The new editions themselves aren't really the issue; they just tend to highlight how much progress really hasn't been made in other areas since the last edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more that the same arguments of how the rpg doesn't matter and they are trying to branch out tend to get highlighted at the launch of new editions. The new editions themselves aren't really the issue; they just tend to highlight how much progress really hasn't been made in other areas since the last edition.
What you havent established but just keep repeating as fact is that putting out a new edition of the RPG is symptomatic of a failure of the brand overall.
Okay. I have no idea how you can continue to hold the view that D&D is a weak, failed or inconsistent brand. I don't have anything further to say though.
Brand strength doesn't equal critical acclaim, nor does "consistent success" mean "no failures".
It has been out 6 years and is the number one Pathfinder book. That is one of my points. The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is in the top 5 on Paizo's own website. It is quite often near the top on Paizo's own site.Yup, that is because core books are what sells the most. To be expected since it is the first thing (and only one) you need to play.
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?Nope.
Do you think it is a lot more than a site like Amazon?Yes. I mentioned the advantages of using the Paizo store. I forgot to mention the cheaper PDFs they sell. As you pointed out, some of PF's books rank higher than the core book on the Paizo store's top 10 seller list. We can infer that more are sold from the Paizo store than amazon (where they never go above the corebook).
PDFs are not quite necessary when you have an online DB of all the rules anyway.We do not get fluff and art from the free online database. PDFs have a higher value. Besides, by your logic we do not need to buy any books either, since everything is free on the net (d20PFSRD).
I personallyPersonal anecdotes are not interesting data points. Sorry.
My point is that 5th edition sales will settle at some level and that level might still be more than Pathfinder.Maybe. Maybe not.
Most of the sales seem to come from core books.Strange business move, no?I originally kind of responded to your post about the drop in 5th edition Player's Handbooks sales and how it is not surprising, "For March, the projected sales of the PHB are 216 books!". I think your exclamation mark is used to show the sadness of how low it is going to go. You used data from novelrank.
Take any book of a similar rank. It has a similar drop in sales for March. Here is the psychiatric manual that was in a similar position as the PHB when it came out...
My guess about the drop in sales in February and March is the post holiday period. People are paying their credit cards. The release of the core books in autumn was to boost sells with the holidays coming. It will be interesting to see if they go up later on.
As for the paizo store, my point is that the pathfinder books would have a higher ranking on amazon if the paizo store didn't exist since it divides online sales. Higher than D&D? No way to know. As I said, amazon numbers can only be used to estimate D&D sales.
People with no idea of what an RPG is have often heard of D&D - that's a remarkable thing and points to a hugely successful brand. Even moreso if (as you repeatedly claim) they haven't had any success in the last few years.
Heard of, but often can't even remotely define what it is; even most people who know it well can't agree on a common definition. It's all pretty much generic fantasy. Even if you take out the different rule sets, you get people picturing everything from Conan and Middle Earth, very low magic settings, to Forgotten Realms and similar high magic worlds, as well as everything in between, with many including steampunk and/or sci-fi elements in their understanding of the brand. That makes it hard to market anything under it, because people won't have enough of an idea of what it is to really know whether or not they should be interested enough to look at it again. The emergence of Game of Thrones and other successful novels turned movies or tv shows muddy the water even more. There is plenty to define what D&D was in the 80s, and even the 90s, but very little to define precisely what it is today, so name recognition is not as much of a help as you think it is.
As for your counterexample, Colgate may reformulate aspects of their toothbrushes, but the basic function and product is still the same. It still has a handle and bristles; people still use it to apply toothpaste to their teeth. Making it battery powered or changing the length of some of the bristles doesn't change the basic concept behind it. There is virtually no debate over what is or is not a toothbrush. Even amongst most rpgs, these kinds of debates are rare; you say Shadowrun or Vampire, and most people know almost exactly what you are talking about. Same for novels, movies, and games in general. The only time you really see these debates and see the base question of what is the brand really supposed to be is D&D and anything derived from it. It's not a difficulty unique to WotC, as Paizo has basically skirted around it by clearly defining their brand around their world, and the rules are there as a supplement, but WotC seems to be one of the few that can't solve it. New editions at this point mean nothing precisely because the brand already has so vague of a definition that nobody notices yet another layer of confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People with no idea of what an RPG is have often heard of D&D - that's a remarkable thing and points to a hugely successful brand. Even moreso if (as you repeatedly claim) they haven't had any success in the last few years.Heard of, but often can't even remotely define what it is; even most people who know it well can't agree on a common definition. It's all pretty much generic fantasy. Even if you take out the different rule sets, you get people picturing everything from Conan and Middle Earth, very low magic settings, to Forgotten Realms and similar high magic worlds, as well as everything in between, with many including steampunk and/or sci-fi elements in their understanding of the brand. That makes it hard to market anything under it, because people won't have enough of an idea of what it is to really know whether or not they should be interested enough to look at it again. The emergence of Game of Thrones and other successful novels turned movies or tv shows muddy the water even more. There is plenty to define what D&D was in the 80s, and even the 90s, but very little to define precisely what it is today, so name recognition is not as much of a help as you think it is.
This seems counterintuitive. Forgotten Realms was '87, Spelljammer was '89, Dark Sun was '91. So during the age of 'easily defined' the genres and themes were MORE numerous...
D&D has the same problem as Pathfinder really. It wants to be a generic rule system with the 'option' to play in an established setting. When describing what D&D is... the only thing anyone really says is to describe THEIR home game. maybe it's like Conan, maybe it's Forgotten Realms... but that's the same issue with this game. There are a lot of threads where people bicker about things that have no business in THEIIIIR games.
Honestly, I've NOT found Game of Thrones and the novel/movies to muddy anything. I've found that it HELPS things quite a bit. I can now describe my games as 'like Game of Thrones' or 'Like Fellowship of the Ring'.
Back in the day, anything revolving around wizards or elves was 'nerd stuff'... It was hard to explain AND be taken seriously. Nowdays? Fantasy dominates and people look at things with a more open mind. Shows that Support the genre, support the Genre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brand seems okay to me. It may not be dominating in all arenas, but it's still out there and with more things coming down the line. If it was all that bad, I think Hasbro would have shelfed it already.
|
I cannot understand how anyone can, with a straight face, say D&D doesnt have a strong brand in the wider non-gamer communtiy. It's pretty much the definition of a strong, persistent brand - it invented an industry and is still going strong thirty/forty years later despite all the evolutions of gaming culture in that time. How well the RPG does is a tiny component of that - no matter how excited we get about where advantage/disadvantage sits on the 'dumbed down to brilliant' scale or what we personally think is an ideal rate of sourcebook production.
Yeah. If D&D is a weak brand, then Pathfinder is a goddamn non-existent brand. To the average non-gamer, if D&D is Coke, Pathfinder is NOT Pepsi, it's Leninade.
I don't think they "have it" at all. I think they lost it when they launched 4E and pathfinder (and, to a lesser extent the OSRIC movement) rose up in response.
The OSR stuff started during 3.5.
People with no idea of what an RPG is have often heard of D&D - that's a remarkable thing and points to a hugely successful brand. Even moreso if (as you repeatedly claim) they haven't had any success in the last few years.Heard of, but often can't even remotely define what it is; even most people who know it well can't agree on a common definition.
Multiply that 1000-fold for "Pathfinder".
Actually, I take that back. More people will be able to dive you a solid definition of what "Pathfinder" is. It's just that that definition will involve the initials SUV.
The movie about the Viking raised by Native Americans will probably also get more people mentioning it than people who talk about Pathfinder, the D&D knock-off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they "have it" at all. I think they lost it when they launched 4E and pathfinder (and, to a lesser extent the OSRIC movement) rose up in response.The OSR stuff started during 3.5.
I wasn't speaking of its genesis, but I think it gained a significant amount of traction after 4E's release.
I think market dominance was WotC's to lose and I think they gave up some of the "genuine article" brand power to Pathfinder and the OSRIC movement - both of whom grabbed some of the "torchbearer" status amongst different segments of the market.
I cannot understand how anyone can, with a straight face, say D&D doesnt have a strong brand in the wider non-gamer communtiy. It's pretty much the definition of a strong, persistent brand - it invented an industry and is still going strong thirty/forty years later despite all the evolutions of gaming culture in that time. How well the RPG does is a tiny component of that - no matter how excited we get about where advantage/disadvantage sits on the 'dumbed down to brilliant' scale or what we personally think is an ideal rate of sourcebook production.Yeah. If D&D is a weak brand, then Pathfinder is a g#*!+!n non-existent brand. To the average non-gamer, if D&D is Coke, Pathfinder is NOT Pepsi, it's Leninade.
Prefer Vimto, TYVM. And before you ask, no I'm not one of those johnnies-come-lately who started drinking it when they read A Small Killing by Moore and Zarate. My parents used to by for me at Job Lot when I was a tyke!
. . .
Yes, I have played the Elfquest RPG, why do you ask?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep...at this point I am completely unclear what is being meant by brand.
Paizo has done a great job with the RPG, but even Pathfinder players refer to it as DnD. Outside of the roleplaying games fanbase, Pathfinder is basically complete unknown. We don't get jokes about Pathfinder on the Colbert Report, Community, or Big Bang Theory. So the brand name is still visible and marketable.
That they are going slow on the marketing of DnD doesn't surprise me. WoTC doesn't rely on DnD for money...Magic is their breadwinner. Hasbro is obviously pursuing the movie option, otherwise they wouldn't be going through a legal battle over it. The Brand still carries weight
Also don't undersell the Nostalgia factor. A large chunk of movies produced by major studios in the last several decades solely exist because of nostalgia. Hasbro could very well bin active support of 5E and still make money off of DnD.
|
Like I said before, 5E is a placeholder produced so that WotC execs have an answer to the "oh but you do still produce the original thing, right?" question from video game/movie makers.
Selling licenses off a brand when you don't put out the base product is hard, notwithstanding the paradox that the base product is a niche of a niche offering with a tiny target, while the licensed stuff has potentially zillion times bigger reach.
And before Kthulhu starts losing his temper - 5E is a perfectly fine *game*. However, as a *product* I think it's just there to make licensing easier. Sound strategy from WotC there - if the licensed stuff will be any good, that is. I guess that somebody at Hasbro looked hard into ROI of M:tG and D&D and told the latter "look, figure out some way of getting expense to return ratio better or we're replacing you with My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic RPG".
Which, come to think of, would be something I would gladly give them money for :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling it a placeholder seems a bit off. 5E seems, to me, like a genuine attempt to reconnect with a largely divided fanbase. While I agree that D&D as an RPG is not the strongest means of generating revenue with the brand (given where Marvel is today, it's easy to see why a company would be chomping at the bit to wade back into films) that's not the same as existing solely to justify other ventures. Hasbro's checks probably aren't as blank as they once were.
In short, I think it's less of a "get something new out there so we can build on it" and more of a "how can we capitalize/expand on this?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep...at this point I am completely unclear what is being meant by brand.
What I mean is the associations with the name of a product which differentiate it from a generic version, in the eyes of the public*. One of the reasons I think D&D has an undeniably strong brand is that it is regarded as the only example.
I eventually got sick of typing it out, but I've been referring to D&D's brand strength in the wider community, not in the gaming subculture. I think it's definitely declined in power in the latter group, however I don't think that matters.
|
I cannot understand how anyone can, with a straight face, say D&D doesnt have a strong brand in the wider non-gamer communtiy. It's pretty much the definition of a strong, persistent brand - it invented an industry and is still going strong thirty/forty years later despite all the evolutions of gaming culture in that time. How well the RPG does is a tiny component of that - no matter how excited we get about where advantage/disadvantage sits on the 'dumbed down to brilliant' scale or what we personally think is an ideal rate of sourcebook production.Yeah. If D&D is a weak brand, then Pathfinder is a g#*!+!n non-existent brand. To the average non-gamer, if D&D is Coke, Pathfinder is NOT Pepsi, it's Leninade.Prefer Vimto, TYVM. And before you ask, no I'm not one of those johnnies-come-lately who started drinking it when they read A Small Killing by Moore and Zarate. My parents used to by for me at Job Lot when I was a tyke!
. . .
Yes, I have played the Elfquest RPG, why do you ask?
Not only did we play the Elfquest RPG, I still have on my shelf right now :)
Not only did we play the Elfquest RPG, I still have on my shelf right now :)I cannot understand how anyone can, with a straight face, say D&D doesnt have a strong brand in the wider non-gamer communtiy. It's pretty much the definition of a strong, persistent brand - it invented an industry and is still going strong thirty/forty years later despite all the evolutions of gaming culture in that time. How well the RPG does is a tiny component of that - no matter how excited we get about where advantage/disadvantage sits on the 'dumbed down to brilliant' scale or what we personally think is an ideal rate of sourcebook production.Yeah. If D&D is a weak brand, then Pathfinder is a g#*!+!n non-existent brand. To the average non-gamer, if D&D is Coke, Pathfinder is NOT Pepsi, it's Leninade.Prefer Vimto, TYVM. And before you ask, no I'm not one of those johnnies-come-lately who started drinking it when they read A Small Killing by Moore and Zarate. My parents used to by for me at Job Lot when I was a tyke!
. . .
Yes, I have played the Elfquest RPG, why do you ask?
I'm not sure what exactly it says about D&D as a strong brand, but Elfquest is the only D100 system I've played aside from CoC, and I was playing D&D before I before I read the comic. Nothing against Runequest, but if the plan was to ensnare the dozens and dozens of Elfquest fans who also played RPGs, it didn't work on me.
What I mean is the associations with the name of a product which differentiate it from a generic version, in the eyes of the public*. One of the reasons I think D&D has an undeniably strong brand is that it is regarded as the only example.
Name recognition by itself doesn't mean much in this case. What matters is WotC's ability to translate it to making money for them and not somebody else, and that is where they have generally fallen well short. Even with the successes in the other markets, they probably haven't seen that much of the profits. It's almost like there is two D&D brands. One is the formal brand controlled by WotC (and TSR before that), and one is the overarching fantasy generic brand that covers not only most tabletop games, but a fair number of different novel writers as well. The latter is extremely strong; the former has never done nearly as well. That's the factor that most of the comparisons to Marvel doesn't take into account. For most comics, there is virtually no gap between the popular usage of the brand and the actual formal brand. For D&D, that gap is huge.
WotC has virtually no control over and makes virtually no money off of the more generic version of the brand, and it's strong enough that they can't squash it either. That makes it harder for them to sell licenses to the formal brand. There's little incentive to pay for a license from WotC when one get most of the elements from other sources and put together something that is visibly indistinguishable from D&D, but legally and financially is very, very different. For the cost of what they would have paid for the license, many companies can mount an effective PR campaign to overcome the lack of name recognition, breaking even in the short run and ending up with an IP they have full control over in the long run. Add in a history of being a difficult business to partner with, and WotC has even less clout to sell formal licenses.
In the tabletop market, they could get away with writing licenses that don't give everything away if they took the time to build good relationships; the indy publishers can easily create sellable content at a low cost, so they can get away with more limited returns. With movies or video games, it's a different story; a lot more money can be made, but they also take a lot more money to create in the first place, which the licensee is going to expect to make back and then some in equally large proportions, so WotC isn't actually going to make that much more than if they spent the money directly on their own product.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before, 5E is a placeholder produced so that WotC execs have an answer to the "oh but you do still produce the original thing, right?" question from video game/movie makers.
I doubt the movie studios care. An active and in print RPG line won't increae ticket sales. Marvel Studios does't consult the comic company to see what they're doing. Instead, the comics leap to accommodate what the movies are doing in the hopes it boosts their sales.
I don't see a huge release schedule as a good thing or even desirable. Monthly books proved to be detrimental to 3e and 4e, leading to bloat and a short edition.
I've been thinking of RPGs in terms of board games more at the moment. Board game expansions are released few in number, when something large and noteworthy can be added to the game. But games only require a handful and then stop doing accessories. It's not a continual stream of products.
The game doesn't *need* constant sourcebooks. And neither do game stores or players. Or even the publisher, as the best selling books are the core books, which can generate a sustained profit. Accessories are great revenue in the short term, but quickly exhaust the edition. Constant accessories really benefit the game designers who write the product and are kept in work.
D&D is a big brand. There's nothing to be gained by focusing on the single audience of tabletop RPGers. Spreading out products to board gamers, miniature gamers, video gamers opens up more wallets. Profits don't rely on a single group.
And it's not like they're not releasing any product. Assuming they don't release anything before July 2015 other than the Elemental Evil book, they'll have released seven products over a year, almost one every other month. That's really not slow. It's far more than 13th Age or Numerera.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before, 5E is a placeholder produced so that WotC execs have an answer to the "oh but you do still produce the original thing, right?" question from video game/movie makers.I doubt the movie studios care. An active and in print RPG line won't increae ticket sales. Marvel Studios does't consult the comic company to see what they're doing. Instead, the comics leap to accommodate what the movies are doing in the hopes it boosts their sales.
I don't see a huge release schedule as a good thing or even desirable. Monthly books proved to be detrimental to 3e and 4e, leading to bloat and a short edition.
I've been thinking of RPGs in terms of board games more at the moment. Board game expansions are released few in number, when something large and noteworthy can be added to the game. But games only require a handful and then stop doing accessories. It's not a continual stream of products.
The game doesn't *need* constant sourcebooks. And neither do game stores or players. Or even the publisher, as the best selling books are the core books, which can generate a sustained profit. Accessories are great revenue in the short term, but quickly exhaust the edition. Constant accessories really benefit the game designers who write the product and are kept in work.
D&D is a big brand. There's nothing to be gained by focusing on the single audience of tabletop RPGers. Spreading out products to board gamers, miniature gamers, video gamers opens up more wallets. Profits don't rely on a single group.
And it's not like they're not releasing any product. Assuming they don't release anything before July 2015 other than the Elemental Evil book, they'll have released seven products over a year, almost one every other month. That's really not slow. It's far more than 13th Age or Numerera.
Your first point isn't really accurate. The Marvel movies and TV shows do follow what happens in the comics much of the time and not the other way around nearly at all. The Marvel movies and shows are using recent comic book events. Guardians of the Galaxy is a good example. The movie was based off of the 2008 comic series.
Creative people at Marvel Comics are writers, producers and creative consultants on many of these movies and shows.
Yeah, but the guardians if the galaxy movie wasn't premised on a big comic book following to sell tickets was it? IMO It was just a story turned into a film - using a bit of goodwill from Marvel, from space films etc
I would have thought getting the D&D brand a bit of a spit & polish would be all that Hasbro would need ( I certainly wouldn't think the rpg was anymore than a small plank in their intellectual property plan) then they could make a Drizzt movie riffing off the books, the recent warm fuzziness toward the game ( including cprg's , board games etc ) and 'magic/fantasy' films like LOTR, hobbit, harry potter. They could then see if they have got the Marvel style movie franchise they dream of.
( of course this means they need some sort of control of the D&D film licence - what happened to that?)
much of the last iron man movie was based on the extremis storyline. They will do Civil War in the next Captain America. There are many more examples. The comics are mined for stories for the movies and shows all the time and the continuing existence of the comics is a constant source of new stories and writing talent to develop.
|
|
Your first point isn't really accurate. The Marvel movies and TV shows do follow what happens in the comics much of the time and not the other way around nearly at all. The Marvel movies and shows are using recent comic book events. Guardians of the Galaxy is a good example. The movie was based off of the 2008 comic series.
Creative people at Marvel Comics are writers, producers and creative consultants on many of these movies and shows.
much of the last iron man movie was based on the extremis storyline. They will do Civil War in the next Captain America. There are many more examples. The comics are mined for stories for the movies and shows all the time and the continuing existence of the comics is a constant source of new stories and writing talent to develop.
The movies haven't pulled a story seed or character newer than 2006. Marvel could have cancelled all its books almost a decade ago and the movies wouldn't have noticed. And even if the comic industry did fold, there'd be half a century of stories to mine for ideas.
Much amounts to just name dropping, easter eggs slipped in for the comic fans.The cinematic universe doesn't depend on the health of the comics. They use whatever seems good, be it recent (Extremis) or older (the origins) or in the middle (Thanos and the Infinity Gems).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass, Kingsmen. These all came out after 2006. It takes years to turn these stories into movies, so you shouldn't usually see things that current anyway. The "cinematic universe" may not depend on the comics, but like I said, their continuing gives the movies and shows a constant source of stories and writing talent. A healthy comics industry means more stories, characters, and hopefully good writers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt the movie studios care. An active and in print RPG line won't increae ticket sales. Marvel Studios does't consult the comic company to see what they're doing. Instead, the comics leap to accommodate what the movies are doing in the hopes it boosts their sales.
I have to disagree with you here...having a active game helps tremendously to assure the Movie Studios there is a built in audience for the movie. That is why you are seeing popular books getting turned into books.
Hasbro/WotC issue with getting a movie made would more have to do with that offer 'movie' that was made.
Also Marvel Studios is now a bad example of this as right now they have gained a life of it is own but if Iron Man did not exist as a comic before the first movie I doubt they would have gotten the finical backing to make the movie. D&D does not have even close to the history the Marvel studios has now.
Also on another topic a minor point about comparing PF hardcover sales vs D&D hardcover sales...I think that the fact that you can find all the hardcover rule books online might have a effect on those sales numbers.
Anyway ultimately I think after another 5 years we'll see D&D 6th ed as well you don't want to exhaust players with options you do want to present new option to keep the game fresh.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway ultimately I think after another 5 years we'll see D&D 6th ed as well you don't want to exhaust players with options you do want to present new option to keep the game fresh.
Mike Mearls said that the important thing for the RPG long term is not the initial sales, but how it's performing in a year. I also think it will depend on the success (or lack therof) of the licensing.
I think they are looking at 5E through a much longer lens than 5 years. They lost a lot of people with 4E - some of which they got back with 5E. Why risk splitting your fan base *again* with yet another edition?
They want you to play the D&D RPG *and* the D&D board games *and* go see the D&D movie(s) *and* buy the D&D computer games. These other things are now filling the role of the "splats" (but they probably expect/hope they will make more money doing this than they did on the RPG splats as time goes on).
Paizo is actually doing the same thing (albeit while continuing the RPG splats as well while they build the brand).
Yep...at this point I am completely unclear what is being meant by brand.What I mean is the associations with the name of a product which differentiate it from a generic version, in the eyes of the public*. One of the reasons I think D&D has an undeniably strong brand is that it is regarded as the only example.
I eventually got sick of typing it out, but I've been referring to D&D's brand strength in the wider community, not in the gaming subculture. I think it's definitely declined in power in the latter group, however I don't think that matters.
** spoiler omitted **
Oh I agree with you, my confusion stems from Sunshadow.
|
|
Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass, Kingsmen. These all came out after 2006. It takes years to turn these stories into movies, so you shouldn't usually see things that current anyway. The "cinematic universe" may not depend on the comics, but like I said, their continuing gives the movies and shows a constant source of stories and writing talent. A healthy comics industry means more stories, characters, and hopefully good writers.
More is better, but there's no lack of existing content. A continuing comic industry helps, in the same way an ongoing book series is handy in terms of continually inspiring content. But a finished book series is still workable.
The X-Men movies are doing fine despite relying on stories from as recent as the '80s, Marvel comics deliberately not creating new mutants/X-Men characters, and generally not working with Fox.I have to disagree with you here...having a active game helps tremendously to assure the Movie Studios there is a built in audience for the movie. That is why you are seeing popular books getting turned into books.
If every single D&D player went on opening weekend to see the D&D movie twice that'd generate enough money to almost hit #20 on the box office chart.
An active fanbase helps, but a much bigger name and player base didn't help, say, Battleship. D&D the RPG is small potatoes.
Also Marvel Studios is now a bad example of this as right now they have gained a life of it is own but if Iron Man did not exist as a comic before the first movie I doubt they would have gotten the finical backing to make the movie. D&D does not have even close to the history the Marvel studios has now.
Iron Man wasn't exactly a popular Marvel character prior to the movie. Neither was Thor.
The movies succeeded despite the comics rather than because of them.Anyway ultimately I think after another 5 years we'll see D&D 6th ed as well you don't want to exhaust players with options you do want to present new option to keep the game fresh.
Given how expensive making a new edition is, if 5e doesn't last more than 5 years, they won't bother with a 6e. D&D the RPG will join KaiJudo, HeroScape, Dreamscape, and others in the catalogue of cancelled games.
And they can continue to licence out the brand to make board games, mini games, video games, and the like to keep making money on D&D.
Any plans for a swedish translation?To the best of my knowledge, we have not been approached by a professional Swedish publisher, but we'd certainly be open to talking to one!
Any plans for a swedish translation?To the best of my knowledge, we have not been approached by a professional Swedish publisher, but we'd certainly be open to talking to one!
Probably a bad business decision since most of us understand English
…. As pointed out by Gorbacz in his own kind of peculiar manner ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The movies haven't pulled a story seed or character newer than 2006. Marvel could have cancelled all its books almost a decade ago and the movies wouldn't have noticed.
. . well, actually, the Guardians of the Galaxy movie is based on a version of the team created by Dan Abnett that started in 2008 . .
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the best of my knowledge, no large-scale study of the general non-gaming public's D&D brand view has been undertaken since shortly after Wizards purchased TSR. (It's very possible that Wizards has done one I don't know about, but I'd be very surprised to learn any reputable third-party has done one that I haven't heard about.)
At that time, D&D had pretty good brand recognition, but the perception of the brand among non-gamers was not without problems. Even in the late '90s, the brand was still associated by many with nerds, satanism, and people disappearing in steam tunnels. When D&D was referenced on TV, it was usually as the butt of the joke (remember the Jesse episode "The Mischevious Elf"?). Even into the 21st century, Walmart apparently wouldn't carry anything with the D&D brand. I don't know for sure, but I like to think that the increasing dominance of "nerd culture" and the decline of groups putting forth the "D&D is evil" message have improved things since then, but I can tell you that over the years, Pathfinder has certainly reaped some benefits from *not* being D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know for sure, but I like to think that the increasing dominance of "nerd culture" and the decline of groups putting forth the "D&D is evil" message have improved things since then, but I can tell you that over the years, Pathfinder has certainly reaped some benefits from *not* being D&D.
Cheers, I hadnt thought of that. The devil-worshipping bit was pretty mild down here and had definitely fizzled out by the 90s - you americans are a funny bunch. :p
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll tell you what - during the 90s, it was impossible to sell an RPG here if it wasn't translated into Polish. English books were freaking hard to come by, and I've actually had to smuggle quite a few from the Sauerkrautland.
Fast forward to 2015? A respected company tries to crowdfund translations of Shadowrun and Earthdawn, fails miserably, nobody needs a Polish translation any more. English proficiency is rising at rates which will soon overtake the Nordics. TAKE THAT, SWEDES!
I believe the same holds true for most areas of this planet where RPGs are being played to some degree.
Except for the crazy Japanese, who did a full fan translation of the entire open material for Pathfinder, and the French, because they get cooties every time they read something in a foreign language.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll tell you what - during the 90s, it was impossible to sell an RPG here if it wasn't translated into Polish. English books were freaking hard to come by, and I've actually had to smuggle quite a few from the Sauerkrautland.
Language was a bit of an issue, but primarily it was the simple fact that prior to ca. 1996 price of imported rulebook was insanely prohibitive comparing to earnings late elementary/high school student allowance and money that was available to college students that were majority of the gamers.
EDIT: A number of photocopies of copies of copies of English rpgs circulating on conventions would be a primary proof that it wasn't an issue with language but with availability (which was quite poor) and affordability (which was again terrible because of very low purchasing power—it got better but still pricing of books in Poland is an issue).
Around 96 this changed (at least in Kraków) with growing number of gaming shops that could import a big box of partly random rulebooks and sell them to students. In a city of almost 1 million we had (at best) three or four gaming shops at the same time. Still they made most of their money out of card games and miniatures. Primary English rpg product? World of darkness (at times over half of the rpg products available in my favorite shop in 1997). Even, or maybe thanks to core rulebooks of Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage being translated to Polish.
Fast forward to 2015? A respected company tries to crowdfund translations of Shadowrun and Earthdawn, fails miserably, nobody needs a Polish translation any more. English proficiency is rising at rates which will soon overtake the Nordics. TAKE THAT, SWEDES!
Myself, I am quite strongly in "why the heck I would want Polish translation of an rpg over English original?!" group. I went that way over fifteen years ago when I started to discover how terribly crappy Polish rpg translations are.
Earthdawn crowdfunding might have failed less because of language issues, and more because it wasn't as appealing to wider group of potential customers, though. I am not sure.
How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.Tracking down the exact answer would take a bit, but I know that we had announced French and German even before we released the English version and I believe both of those languages had their versions of the Core Rulebook out quickly. We released in August 2009, and I'm pretty sure French was out before year end, and German was pretty close to French.
(Also, I've learned that Lisa has already revealed that Chinese and Hebrew translations are in progress, and there are still others to be announced.)
I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public.
There are a LOT of Spanish speaking countries out there and a lot of Spanish speaking people in the US. Surely there must be a marked for a Spanish translation. For some reason the Spanish speaking community seems to be ignored. It’s not only Paizo, but trying to find a DVD in Sweden with Spanish subs is almost impossible, but they often have Spanish as spoken language even though all of my Spanish speaking friends read fluently.There seem to be the misconception among in the US (and in some parts of Europe) that those that speak Spanish are illiterate. This is simply not true. Especially not among the target group that Paizo would be interested in.
Also, wouldn’t it be cool if Paizo could support gaming in certain none democratic countries?
BTW, a Beginner Box part 2 would really help those not so fluent in English and I also think it would generally spread the interest in Pathfinder.
@Keichiku: Keep gaming alive in Cuba!! Have you checked out the Beginner Box? I suggest you check it out (if you can). Can you buy dice in Cuba?
Fast forward to 2015? A respected company tries to crowdfund translations of Shadowrun and Earthdawn, fails miserably, nobody needs a Polish translation any more. English proficiency is rising at rates which will soon overtake the Nordics. TAKE THAT, SWEDES!
off topic/
You wish. I meet polish at work almost every day, and most of them don’t know any English or their English is so poor a 10 year old in Sweden could out do them. ;P
Seriously, a vastly improved English proficiency in Poland sounds great. I actually plan to visit Poland within a couple of years, possibly next year.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public.
There are a LOT of Spanish speaking countries out there and a lot of Spanish speaking people in the US. Surely there must be a marked for a Spanish translation.
We have a Spanish-language license with Devir, and the Core Rulebook is available right here on paizo.com.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's just not room for much profit as number two (or even a hotly contested number one) roleplaying game. The total market for RPGs in North America was recently estimated at $15m - half of that is a relative pittance when you could rather be competing for a slice of the hundreds of millions of dollars available in board games, miniatures, computer games and other such markets.
Just interupting this conversation to say that the fact that, given this estimate, my personal annual spending at Paizo represents 0.01% of the total North American RPG market may be one of the most sobering things I've heard in a while.
Granted, that's with some slight rounding. But still. And please don't tell my spouse. :)
Also, let's not forget that the pnp RPG market is 70-80% US+Canada, 20-30% ROW - and ROW includes Kiwis, Kangaroos, Brits and other English-speaking areas where RPGs are quite popular.
I'm not so certain on that. It's just the demographics being measured.
Japan has a HUGE RPG base, perhaps bigger than the US (and that's with less people in Japan too!) and NA.
However, Japanese are VERY nationalistic in many ways. It's like the Xbox vs. PS/Wii scenario, Xbox would be as the Western RPG's...it has almost no presence, and even less so in regards to the Playstation, Wii, or the handhelds (DS mostly).
In the same sense, the Japanese RPGs are consumed in massive quantities (both in paper form and video game form) as LONG AS THEY ARE STRICTLY JAPANESE games. I don't think anyone in the West actually looks at the stats or measures the Japanese audience of Japanese only RPGs. I think they normally are trying to measure how many Japanese are playing Western RPGs.
It's akin to looking at Xbox sales and ignoring the PS and Nintendo sales in Japan and concluding that there is a very LOW number of gamers in Japan.
Of course the problem, as I stated before, are Japanese seem extremely nationalistic. If it isn't Japanese, good luck at cracking into the arena over there. In many ways, for western RPGs it's an untapped market overall, but that's because it's almost impossible to get into it.
That said, even with several million players in Japan, comparatively to the rest of the population, it's not huge (if there are around 3 million players...that's just around 2-3% which still is incredibly small) with many crossed over with other elements as manga, computers, and other elements considered childish (ironically it's more a childish pursuit than nerdish pursuit if I remember some articles on this portion of the population correctly).
I believe D&D started to have inroads, and AD&D had the best chance (with some shows even based on it), but then Japanese RPGs (some would call them direct copycats in some instances...BUT, they were Japanese and not western games) came in and stole the show.
CRPGs are probably bigger though, and I don't think the West has any idea just how big that market is in Japan. That said, even with that market, I believe they are still seen as somewhat childish pursuits to be done away with when one becomes and adult (I suppose the Japanese forumites on these boards would be able to say more on that light). I think many of the pnp stuff sometimes are actually connected to the CRPG crowd as well, so it's also possible that many buy it as a collectible or something and never play the CRPG paper versions?
I think it was said that PF was being translated into Japanese, which is great as that's an inroad into that nation for Western RPGs, but it still probably is going to be tough to get anywhere close in competition to the other Japanese RPGs that are there I think.
Just my thoughts and opinion formed on a very limited information base.
There's just not room for much profit as number two (or even a hotly contested number one) roleplaying game. The total market for RPGs in North America was recently estimated at $15m - half of that is a relative pittance when you could rather be competing for a slice of the hundreds of millions of dollars available in board games, miniatures, computer games and other such markets.Just interupting this conversation to say that the fact that, given this estimate, my personal annual spending at Paizo represents 0.01% of the total North American RPG market may be one of the most sobering things I've heard in a while.
Granted, that's with some slight rounding. But still. And please don't tell my spouse. :)
I know what you mean. Totalling my annual spend at paizo.com gave me a similar moment.
Although I'm personally quite skeptical of that number, I have to concede that skepticism is based purely on my own RPG budget (which is outside of the US market, anyhow) and I cant think of anyone better placed than ICv2 to take a stab at guessing the total market size. It's the best estimate we have, no matter how surprising.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's just not room for much profit as number two (or even a hotly contested number one) roleplaying game. The total market for RPGs in North America was recently estimated at $15m - half of that is a relative pittance when you could rather be competing for a slice of the hundreds of millions of dollars available in board games, miniatures, computer games and other such markets.Just interupting this conversation to say that the fact that, given this estimate, my personal annual spending at Paizo represents 0.01% of the total North American RPG market may be one of the most sobering things I've heard in a while.
Granted, that's with some slight rounding. But still. And please don't tell my spouse. :)
We won't. Anyway the actual number is bigger. Those $15m estimate was actually estimate of brick and mortar game stores IIRC, not the whole pen and paper RPG. So after adding digital products, bookstores (which I think weren't part of the survey), and other venues that might have rpgs it should be probably a significantly bigger number (and by significantly I mean a few millions more).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway the actual number is bigger. Those $15m estimate was actually estimate of brick and mortar game stores IIRC, not the whole pen and paper RPG. So after adding digital products, bookstores (which I think weren't part of the survey), and other venues that might have rpgs it should be probably a significantly bigger number (and by significantly I mean a few millions more).
According to the report, it was an estimate of all markets, not just those from game stores.
Having said that, it was predominantly based on interviews with game stores and distributors. Whether they have many contacts within other markets and whether they did a good job extrapolating to the bigger picture is a moot point, but it's still the best we've got available.
We have a Spanish-language license with Devir, and the Core Rulebook is available right here on paizo.com.
I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public.
There are a LOT of Spanish speaking countries out there and a lot of Spanish speaking people in the US. Surely there must be a marked for a Spanish translation.
Very Nice! Any plans of release of the APG in Spanish?
|
We won't. Anyway the actual number is bigger. Those $15m estimate was actually estimate of brick and mortar game stores IIRC, not the whole pen and paper RPG. So after adding digital products, bookstores (which I think weren't part of the survey), and other venues that might have rpgs it should be probably a significantly bigger number (and by significantly I mean a few millions more).
Perhaps I'm a fool to think this, or they if my thought is true, but perhaps they decided to sell only in physical copies to gauge sales by this metric, rather than have to guess how much they might have sold otherwise. Maybe this is (one of) the reason for the delay. Not a good reason, mind you, but one that I could see their corporate structure uphold. What I do wish is that we would hear about any plans for a pdf, though the lack of such information makes me wary.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.Tracking down the exact answer would take a bit, but I know that we had announced French and German even before we released the English version and I believe both of those languages had their versions of the Core Rulebook out quickly. We released in August 2009, and I'm pretty sure French was out before year end, and German was pretty close to French.
(Also, I've learned that Lisa has already revealed that Chinese and Hebrew translations are in progress, and there are still others to be announced.)
I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public. ...
A couple things:
As Erik has already mentioned, we do have a Spanish publishing partner. The bit you quoted wasn't a complete list of our translation partners—the first paragraph of mine that you quoted was answering houstonderek's question, so I listed only the ones that released Core Rulebooks within six months of the English release. And the second paragraph you quoted was me updating the list that I'd given out earlier in the thread, which, for easy reference, is this:
Out now:
•French (Black Book Editions)
•German (Ulisses Spiele)
•Italian (Giochi Uniti)
•Portuguese (Devir)
•Spanish (Devir)
Coming Soon:
•Chinese
•Hebrew
•TBA (and this isn't just a "someday there will hopefully be more" thing, it's a "contracts are currently in process" thing).
Also, it's important to note that the absence of any given language on the list does not mean that Paizo is ignoring that language. We are not in the business of publishing and selling in other languages; instead, we are looking to partner with experienced local publishers who already know how to sell and support games in their native languages. If a language isn't on that list, it means that we have not yet been approached by an experience publisher that we've deemed up to the task (or perhaps that we have been, and they're one of the "TBA"s).