How to measure a game success ?

[silva]

Looking at the recent D&D 5e discussions, I see people arguing that it has failed. This made me wonder:

How can we measure if a RPG has failed or succeeded in the industry ? What are the indicators ? Is it popularity ? Critical acclaims ? Making money ? Abit of each ? Another factor entirely ?

Just curious here.

[Whipstitch]

The biggest metric is probably whether it's a sustainable money maker. Critical acclaim is hardly worth mentioning given that virtually anyone can get a few cheerleaders to praise their ideas just long enough to slap up a positive review up somewhere. The industry award scene in particular is a sad, sad joke. I'm pretty sure I could shit in a box and get an Origin award or an ENnie as long as I showed up to Gen Con with a pair of kneepads.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Pop cultural penetration, especially of non-TTRPG adaptations, is my favorite metric for judging a game's success. It gets a bit murky when we're talking about TTRPGs that are themselves adaptations of existing properties, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider Star Wars d20 a success given that the system was more-or-less used in two video games.

So you have blockbusters like D&D, big fish like WH40K and Shadowrun and WoD, and properties that do okay for themselves like HERO and Call of Cthulhu. Everything else is a small fry.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Well, there's three failure states that you can use to define it:

1. Bleeds money - The line gets discontinued because it costs too much to publish. The most objective failure state, as history tells the tale. 4e and White Wolf being notable examples.

2. Fails to meet design goals - 4e and its skill challenges are a good example. Some might say Pathfinder "failed" to clean up 3e, but this is likely, to some degree, avoiding #1 via fanservice.

2a. Unambitious design goals - Avoiding the pitfalls of #2 by not having any mechanics of worth whatsoever, shunting all the work onto the GM, who paid good money to have someone do the math for them in the first place.

3. Ludonarrative Dissonance - The square peg of the fluff doesn't fit in the round hole of the mechanics. d20 Modern says a current day firearm is efficient and deadly, but in d20 Modern, real world guns are actually reskinned Magic Missiles.

#1 isn't a big deal for indies who rely on PDF and PoD sales. 5e's controversy mostly stems from 2a, as we've yet to see its financial performance truly measured.

[nikita]

How can we measure if a RPG has failed or succeeded in the industry ? What are the indicators ? Is it popularity ? Critical acclaims ? Making money ? Abit of each ? Another factor entirely ?

Ultimately any company exists to make profit for its owners. This means that monetary success is the core component of product's success.

As I look at the D&D 5th edition and writing about it in serious commercial press, it is obvious that the key aspect here is branding. They do not sell game, they sell D&D as a brand. This means that whatever is being put out as a product (from coffee mugs to campaign modules) should be looked as part of brand rather than as a game.

[Chamomile]

Whether or not an RPG is successful depends principally on what you expect it to succeed at. Profitability is a nice easy metric to measure, but a snazzy advertising campaign does more for profitability than good design.

[Whipstitch]

That's true to a degree, but I'd argue that having a good pitch at the heart of your game is an integral part of RPG design to begin with. RPG systems are ultimately just building blocks and much like with Legos they do a better job of catching fire to the imagination when you've got a sweet example of what those bricks can do right on the front. We have literally thousands of pages worth of threads bitching about the systems underpinning D&D, Shadowrun and Vampire but those games are still industry high water marks in large part because dragons, under-dressed goth chicks vampires and Snake Plissken expies are all totally sweet and people want to play games that involve them.

[Ghremdal]

I would measure the success of a product by its ability to license its IP to other stuff. Ie, how much other companies want in on the action. Essentially citations for non academia. Or a successful diversification of the IP from the parent company.

So stuff like 40K is obviously successful. You have GW miniatures base business, then in house spin offs (via Black Library) of novel. Then you have IP licensing for video games, TTRPG's, boardgames, films. Fuck it, I bet you can probably buy GW tshirts. And I bet you that more people have heard of DnD then about Warhammer, even though Warhammer (GW) is much more successful then DnD in the last 10-15 years. Its not hard to check out since GW is a publicly traded company.

[nikita]

And I bet you that more people have heard of DnD then about Warhammer, even though Warhammer (GW) is much more successful then DnD in the last 10-15 years.

D&D has suffered dearly from the problem that its movie rights are contested (and probably will be for few more years as the related court case is a landmark case in entertainment business).

[Ghremdal]

40K only has one movie that I am aware of, which is in the category of not very terrible, at least IMO.

What they do have (and had) a bevy of quality computer games. Fuck, I got into the hobby because of Dark Omen.

DnD used to have good computer games under its belt. The best of which came out slightly before, or during 3e. Don't you think there can be a correlation between 3e's popularity and the success of Baldurs gate and Neverwinter series?

When was the last game under the DnD brand released? What was the last successful one?

[ACOS]

Whether or not an RPG is successful depends principally on what you expect it to succeed at.

This.

"Profit" is all fine and well; but we don't know where they set the bar for this - I'm sure it sits somewhere between "don't lose money" and "3e-level". Given how fast 4e dropped off the relevancy tracks, all of their other goals will still be pointed at something related to "sustained sales" or something.
Just looking at what's promised for the Hackers Guide DMG, with the mountain of retro-hacks, they have an obvious goal of "unify the fan base"; but they've done it in an insulting manner. "Hey, pay us another $150 to make this new game look/play like your favorite previous addition" - this hair-brained idea has just got to be a last-ditch effort from Mearls to pacify Hasbro long enough so that his kids get to enjoy at least 1 more Christmas.
The problem with this scheme is that not all markets are the same. This hobby, and especially this particular game/brand, isn't just a matter of functionality for most people. There is a level of emotional attachment that people just don't have towards smart phones (it's there, but not to the same magnitude). And to make matters more complicated, this hobby has a disproportionately large share of maladjusted geekboys (and I promise, I use that term in the most endearing manner possible); meaning that we, as a demographic, don't necessarily behave in the same way that you might expect from the general public.

[brized]

this hair-brained idea has just got to be a last-ditch effort from Mearls to pacify Hasbro long enough so that his kids get to enjoy at least 1 more Christmas.

That guy bred?

Fuck.

[ACOS]

this hair-brained idea has just got to be a last-ditch effort from Mearls to pacify Hasbro long enough so that his kids get to enjoy at least 1 more Christmas.

That guy bred?

Fuck.

Well, I guess I should say "to enjoy his FIRST Christmas".

But yes, it appears so.

[silva]

Whether or not an RPG is successful depends principally on what you expect it to succeed at. Profitability is a nice easy metric to measure, but a snazzy advertising campaign does more for profitability than good design.

Yeah, I tend to agree with this too. If profitability was the only drive behind game design, indie games would not exist (and here I use the term in its broader/correct definition, not the Ron Edwards lead movement from a decade ago).

In fact, in the ideal world profitability should be a secondary priority. Succeeding at your intended design goals and pleasing your target crowd should get priority over everything else.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Why can't indie RPGs be measured by profit? With digital distribution cutting a huge swath out of publishing costs, and the ability to perform much of the labor while simultaneously working a desk job, they could have significant percentile based ROI. And selling at least enough copies for that would show that they're exploiting a niche that wanted and intends to use the product, regardless of how small it is.

[ACOS]

If profitability was the only drive behind game design, indie games would not exist

Different organizations will prioritize things differently. However, Hasbro is a giant mega-corp who happens to be the largest seller of games and toys in the world - and money makes the world go 'round.

In fact, in the ideal world profitability should be a secondary priority. Succeeding at your intended design goals and pleasing your target crowd should get priority over everything else.

Capitalism is a thing. If sales/profit is not a primary goal, then you're not doing that thing as the primary means of feeding/clothing/sheltering yourself - aka, "side project" and/or "hobby".

[Kaelik]

Why can't indie RPGs be measured by profit? With digital distribution cutting a huge swath out of publishing costs, and the ability to perform much of the labor while simultaneously working a desk job, they could have significant percentile based ROI. And selling at least enough copies for that would show that they're exploiting a niche that wanted and intends to use the product, regardless of how small it is.

Because Ass world doesn't make much profit (or any at all at this point) so it is an unfair bad measurement system to use. But subjective "do I personally feel satisfied by this product" bullshit allows silva to talk about how Ass World makes him happy, and therefore is a success.

When in doubt, assume literally every single thing silva ever types is an extremely transparent extremely dishonest step 1 to getting to step 3: Talk about how great Ass World is that is modeled 100% off Christian Preachers telling you that you are a bad person who need Jesus.

1) have you ever lied?
2) Doesn't that make you a liar?
3) Therefore don't you need Jesus because you are a bad person?

Replace Jesus with Ass World and 1) with literally anything out of Silva's mouth or off his fingers.

[silva]

Why can't indie RPGs be measured by profit?

They can, as with every game. But profit is not the only indicator in this case, perhaps not even the primary one, depending on the authors goals.

Example: Planescape Torment is considered by most specialized critics one of the best - if not the best - electronic RPGs ever created. And its profit was null. Zero. Nada.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Planescape Torment was a critical success, in a time where game reviewers didn't have an intravenous feed of Mountain Dew going into them at all times, so this actually meant something.

Tabletop games have never had such a golden era of criticism. Any RPG can get enough koolaid drinkers for a few choice quotes on the product listing and an RPG.net hype thread.

Of course, you could define success as the game being a genuine auteur product of your personal vision. But that is a goalpost that's impossible to fall short of! I assumed by posting this thread, you wanted a benchmark that actually might draw a line that not all products cross.

[Koumei]

Sakuya: that is a terrible assumption. By posting this thread, silva wanted to tell us all how much he loves Bear World and how we all have bad opinions and are stupid poopy heads. Much like all of his threads ever. See: Kaelik's post.

So stuff like 40K is obviously successful.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh boy, that was a good one.

Are you aware that in the last financial year, GW pulled out all the stops by releasing a new edition of 40K, a new SPESS MEHRINS Codex, the fucking Imperial Knights (which basically sold out instantly for the first run) and a new edition of Apocalypse, along with some other big cool things that sold well (to the point that people no longer go to tournaments saying "I need to take on Space Marines". You actually see enough Necrons, Tau and Eldar that each has about as much table space as the Marines, if not more).

And they still lost heaps of money. Not just because they handed millions of dollars to the CEO's spouse to do the webpage for them, not just because they launch all these stupid court cases (that they then lose when a lawyer tells a small company "Sure I'll do this one for free. Fetch me a tin opener, I have a can of whupass here"). Their actual sales are down. Every year in fact, sales have been going down, the playerbase has been waning. And this was with them at their absolute strongest.

The company might do better on paper next year - by not having to spend so much overhead. But they don't have any secret weapons left so their actual sales will go down (and you can't actually make up for this by just doing more price rises). 40k is not a success. It was once successful, but now it is a rotting hulk, sitting in Britain even as zealots all around worship it without realising it is dead, and more and more people turn apostate. 40k is in fact its own Emperor.

[hogarth]

As a player: A successful game is one where I have an easy time finding groups because lots of people are playing it.

As a game designer (hypothetically): A successful game is one that pays me a good salary for a long period of time.

[Ravengm]

"Success" in most cases is "didn't lose money", but there are some people willing to take a financial hit in order to gain traction. People give out free samples and/or release works for free. If an author releases a series of books, it's not uncommon for them to distribute a shitton of free copies of the first book to get interest (See: the OGL).

Then again, "success" could just mean "proving we can actually make a professional product and get it to consumers", if the company/creator is new.

If we're talking about D&D specifically, the measure of "success" is probably either of two things:
1.) Sweet, sweet cash.
2.) Pulling people back lost to competitor's products.

...GW pulled out all the stops by releasing a new edition of 40K, a new SPESS MEHRINS Codex, the fucking Imperial Knights (which basically sold out instantly for the first run) and a new edition of Apocalypse, along with some other big cool things that sold well...

So, just pointing out for the sake of "GW is desperate" and for lulz, they recently did another print run of the Space Hulk board game, which before was branded as "LAST, SUPER ULTRA LIMITED EDITION NEVER TO BE REPRINTED AGAIN EVER EVER EVER". Old copies were selling on eBay north of $300.

[Koumei]

Yeah, I should recommend PL's rant on the whole Space Hulk limited edition thing, but it's even funnier now that they re-released it just three years later. Limited Edition apparently means "we do one production run every few years". Also it contains some stuff that the previous one didn't, apparently. Presumably it's just a print-out of extra missions.

[Occluded Sun]

As a money-making project, the profitability of a game is paramount.

From an artistic perspective, if the game is interesting and fun to play... which is so subjective that little can be said about it.

Whether design goals were met is generally easier to evaluate. But does it make sense to say that designers who aimed low and hit their target are a greater success than people who aimed at the stars and fell somewhat short?

If the people the game is aimed at enjoy it, I'd say that's a success. So a niche game whose absolute numbers are quite small can still be a smashing success... and a game that sells well, but is terrible, is a failure.

(I'm thinking of Spore here. It made a reasonable profit for EA, when they forced Will Wright to release it early... but it can only be considered a failure, made all the worse by the suggestions within the game itself of what it was originally intended to be like. The complete sections are excellent.)

So is a game like Kult a success? It's a very niche product, but is intellectually quite interesting and I'm told it's fun to play with the right group.

[momothefiddler]

As a money-making project, the profitability of a game is paramount.

The second rule of tautology club is the tautology club rule that comes immediately after the first one.