# WotC Replies: Statements by WotC employees regarding Dragon/Dungeon going online



## Doug McCrae (Apr 20, 2007)

Reflections on the D&D magazines

Many people have asked for more of a response from Wizards than Scott Rouse's press release. Here it is.


----------



## jaerdaph (Apr 20, 2007)

Great. Here come twenty more threads.  

 

Seriously though, thanks for the link.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Apr 20, 2007)

It doesn't seem so much like a response to their going online as it does a collection of reminscences by their past employees as to how much they've all enjoyed gaming.

Where, exactly in all that, can I find the explanation for the decision to cancel _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ and possibly even a preview for content-to-be?  This "response" isn't a response at all, it's a haphazard collection of other peoples' fond memories of gaming.

No exactly effective marketing.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Apr 21, 2007)

I'm trying hard not to get caught up in the spin and enthusiasm of this WotC message. Considering the barrage they have received around the traps, I could not conceive of a better response.

I'm devestated at the loss of paizo's Dragon and Dungeon magazines - but equally looking forward to checking out Pathfinder. I'm just hoping now that wizard's can do something right with the license they've brought "home". I suppose only time will tell.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 21, 2007)

Well, the digital download generation and the green environmental groups are getting their wishes.

If wanting print magazine is wrong in this day and age, I don't want to be right.

Save your sympathy, WotC.


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Apr 21, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem so much like a response to their going online as it does a collection of reminscences by their past employees as to how much they've all enjoyed gaming.
> 
> Where, exactly in all that, can I find the explanation for the decision to cancel _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ and possibly even a preview for content-to-be?  This "response" isn't a response at all, it's a haphazard collection of other peoples' fond memories of gaming.
> 
> No exactly effective marketing.




This is WotC's lame attempt at damage control, for what it's worth...


----------



## Michael Dean (Apr 21, 2007)

Wow! You stay away from the internet for one day, and all hell breaks loose.  I feel like I've been punched in the stomach by this news, and yet, I can't really feel angry at anyone.  I hope Pathfinder is good; I bought the first three issues with the rest of my subscription money, so we'll see.

I started collecting Dragon in 1980 until about 1990, and then again about the time 3.0 came out.  It really feels like an old friend just died.  I guess I was hoping for a little more from Wizards by way of explanation as this is a pretty milestone event in the history of gaming.  Dragon survived during some pretty lean times in the 90's, so it's really a shock to see it go away.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 21, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, the digital download generation and the green environmental groups are getting their wishes.
> 
> If wanting print magazine is wrong in this day and age, I don't want to be right.
> 
> Save your sympathy, WotC.




Your political opinions aren't relevant to the matter at hand.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Apr 21, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> No exactly effective marketing.



I disagree.

Most of the posts against WotC's decision have been along the "cold businessmen in black suits making profitable decisions" type. Their message is to remind us that they too are gamers with a love for the magazines. In fact, they make us all aware of how much the majority of them have contributed to these magazines over the years.

They're not ready to reveal their "new" model for the online magazines so they do the next best thing. Having established their credentials (with so much love for the magazines), they insist that if they have enthusiasm for what's coming, then we should too. If they released anything with substance, with the way how people are feeling at the moment, it would be dissolved in a pool of fair/unfair criticism. They're waiting for people to calm down before they reveal a thing.

As far as I can tell, textbook marketing getting them out of an exceptionally poor situation. Of course, if you try to ignore the spin, it just ends up being a hollow message. Still, I couldn't imagine them doing any better at this point in time.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 21, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Your political opinions aren't relevant to the matter at hand.



That's why I put that second.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 21, 2007)

Michael Dean said:
			
		

> It really feels like an old friend just died.




I've read similar statements to this over and over. I enjoyed both Dragon and Dungeon, but man...its just a magazine!

Out of all the gamers I've played with, I've been the ONLY one to buy them...and I've gone through a great many groups in multiple states and countries thanks to lots of moving. The buyers ARE the minority, like it or not, and its almost terrifying to me to see people acting like the end of a magazine is anything comparable to a person's death.

Do we have to get THAT overly dramatic about a collection of paper?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 21, 2007)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> I'm trying hard not to get caught up in the spin and enthusiasm of this WotC message. Considering the barrage they have received around the traps, I could not conceive of a better response.



QFT.

I am leaning toward the idea that they will continue to draw from the "slushpile" and some really great adventures, articles and new series will get published.  Now it will just be done electronically.

Let's all see what happens before we pass judgement. 

Paizo has my business; I'm gonna get Pathfinder, and I'm stoked about it.  Now, let's see what WOTC can do.


----------



## Simplicity (Apr 21, 2007)

To me this just kind of confirms that the license to publish the magazines was killed by Wizards, not surrendered due to lack of business by Paizo.  Paizo worked very hard to bring
Dragon and Dungeon back to life, and I think they were doing a great job (although the latest AP lost my interest). 

Even though Paizo had a reasonable out here (I look forward to Pathfinder), it seems darn sleazy for Wizards to license the brand out to a third party, then discontinue the license so that they can take over the sucker-punched readers.  Yes, it's Wizard's brand but there should be more of an obligation here than a "transition period".

Why license from WotC?  If you fail you lose money.  If you succeed, you lose the license, and Wizards sets up a competing product to take your place.  

On the positive (hah!) side, I think Wizards is in for a rude awakening.  Online may be the way of the future, but it hardly encourages a quality product, and I think quality is one of the reasons that Dragon/Dungeon were doing so well.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Apr 21, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, the digital download generation and the green environmental groups are getting their wishes.
> 
> If wanting print magazine is wrong in this day and age, I don't want to be right.
> 
> Save your sympathy, WotC.




QFT...

I'm off to light a candle...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 21, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I've read similar statements to this over and over. I enjoyed both Dragon and Dungeon, but man...its just a magazine!
> 
> Out of all the gamers I've played with, I've been the ONLY one to buy them...and I've gone through a great many groups in multiple states and countries thanks to lots of moving. The buyers ARE the minority, like it or not, and its almost terrifying to me to see people acting like the end of a magazine is anything comparable to a person's death.
> 
> Do we have to get THAT overly dramatic about a collection of paper?



I commented about this in another thread.  The melodramatic hyperbole is nauseating to me.  It sucks that the mags are dying (in their present incarnation). It REALLY sucks.  I have been reading them since the 80's.  But geez... it's a magazine.


----------



## Mycanid (Apr 21, 2007)

Ah well ... some people are attached to such things and associate it somehow with a loss of "the good 'ole days" and with things that are dear to them. There is nothing wrong with being sad with that IMO.


----------



## Simplicity (Apr 21, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I commented about this in another thread.  The melodramatic hyperbole is nauseating to me.  It sucks that the mags are dying (in their present incarnation). It REALLY sucks.  I have been reading them since the 80's.  But geez... it's a magazine.




Well, you know.  If I had to pick between Dragon/Dungeon and my best friend.  I'd keep my best friend.  But if I had to pick between them and say... Bob down the hall.   Well, Bob down the hall.  I wouldn't even notice if he were gone.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 21, 2007)

Mycanid said:
			
		

> Ah well ... some people are attached to such things and associate it somehow with a loss of "the good 'ole days" and with things that are dear to them. There is nothing wrong with being sad with that IMO.



I totally agree, but some of the analogies are overkill.  People saying that it feels like rape, or that a baby has drowned need to be called out.


----------



## Numion (Apr 21, 2007)

Ok, they say they've got the goods. Fine.

Would've avoided a lot of flack if they had told what this newfangled greatness is going to be at the same time when they announced axing Dungeon. If what's coming is really that great, of course.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

Those are some nice testimonials, but the offical response contains little substance about the future.  I'm still pretty PO'd about the cancellation and I'm reserving judgement about the actual electronic content, but I want to know more and my anger is far from assuaged and I reserve the right to remain skeptical until WoTC actually provides real information.


----------



## Qwillion (Apr 21, 2007)

> “It’s exciting because I know something that you don’t know as yet.”- Bill Slavicsek,



I can’t imagine a more insulting taunt, you dropped the ball by not being ready to provide your customer base with an explanation. 



> “What keeps the old girl alive, though, is her never-ending goal of reaching the greatest number of people with the best possible content. Using a new delivery system doesn't have anything to do with compromising that goal.”- Kim Mohan



This is insulting to Piazo Publishing, Dungeon and Dragon magazine were well in the black and the adventure path had made it more popular than at anytime in it’s history. You  eliminated a delivery system., and compromised your customer loyalty. 



> “Nothing this good ever dies.”-Christopher Perkins



If Wotc returns it to their own publishing house and publishes a print magazine fine, if it is just part of their digital initiative it is dead to me as is WotC. 



> “This is a big deal and it is our full intention to continue to deliver the great content that the fans have come to expect from these magazines in a new medium.”- Scott Rouse



These 17 fans do not want your new medium at the expense of our magazines, you have lost 16 fans,  and they will express his displeasure with their wallets. 



> “The magazines mean a lot to me, for both personal and professional reasons, and they will always be a treasured part of my D&D game. I can’t wait to see their next incarnation.”-Jesse Decker



That is the difference a print copy will always be a treasured part of my D&D game, your online content is ephemeral and worthless at the gaming table that does not have online access for everyone!



> “And I still eagerly await each issue that shows up on my desk.”-james wyatt



I doubt I will ever eagerly await an update to a website. 



> “Having worked on the magazines at Paizo, I’m familiar with the passion, dedication, and sacrifice it took to put together every issue every month, and I’m proud of the great work of my friends there.”-Matthew Serrnet




Amen! Thank you, sir. You’re a gentleman and a scholar.



> “Part of me still can’t believe the magazines, in their current format, won’t be around anymore after the summer. But when I look to the future and see what we have planned, I can’t wait. Believe me, sometimes change really is for the best. I’m more excited than ever about the future of these gaming institutions. They’re not really going anywhere; they’re just coming home.”- Chris Thomasson,




Your right I can’t believe it, I probably should have seen it coming with the launch of the digital inititive, but the magazines were doing a better job than you, I thought it’s not broken they wont’ try to fix it.  Sometimes change is bad, New Coke springs to mind. They are going some where their leaving my bookshelf.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

I posted this over on the WoTC thread (where the reaction to the new WoTC release is, unsurprisingly, still negative), but you can tell that WoTC didn't expect a negative reaction of this magnitude.  Nobody normally waits until Friday afternoon/early evening to release information that they want people to pay attention to; its why the government releases bad news on Friday, less people pay attention.  I also get the impression that the R&D people all got corralled into doing this by the Marketing folks.  I hope the Marketing and PR department is buying tonight at happy hour!


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 21, 2007)

They are missing a big point... 

You cant collect web pages.

People have magazine collections that they love and put in plastic bags and fondle them with loving care... others have magazine collections they look at often and the covers are torn off with loving enthusiasm.

people browse websites and do searches... burning time or I need information now sort of thing...

Internet is great for the transfer of information - free information

I cant trade my pdfs
I cant trade my e-zines
I cant put my e-zine collection into my will

it's a website not a magazine

I think most gamers want their cake and eat it... because that is what cake is for.

they would love a e-zine by wizards... in addition to the Magazines.

I dont care if they are publishing it or paizo is publishing it... but people like their magazines.


----------



## Simplicity (Apr 21, 2007)

I find the Perkins quote especially ironic...



> “Nothing this good ever dies.”-Christopher Perkins




...  But we sure can try, huh!  The product line was so good that we had to kill it!
And then cast Reincarnation.  And hope we don't get a badger or duck.

(Edit -- oops...  Reincarnation not Raise Dead.  My bad.)


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 21, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I find the Perkins quote especially ironic...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's _Reincarnation_!


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 21, 2007)

I should add that this is what probably should have been available yesterday.  We needed this to be a big deal, not a "this was a no-brainer" type quote.  Those names (with the exception of the brand manager's) carry weight with me, as they have a long history with the game and particularly with the magazines.    I don't necessarily have great faith that it will be pulled off but I appreciate the sentiments.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 21, 2007)

So, basically, I take from this that they're continuing Dragon and Dungeon in some sort of electronic form.

Oooo-kay.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I should add that this is what probably should have been available yesterday.  We needed this to be a big deal, not a "this was a no-brainer" type quote.  Those names (with the exception of the brand manager's) carry weight with me, as they have a long history with the game and particularly with the magazines.    I don't necessarily have great faith that it will be pulled off but I appreciate the sentiments.




Agreed.  Actually, this is probably the bare minimum of what should have been done.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 21, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> So, basically, I take from this that they're continuing Dragon and Dungeon in some sort of electronic form.
> 
> Oooo-kay.




Wait, that's it? They're taking the magazines and making them online?

I thought surely, judging from the reaction, that they had drug EGG from his house, burned it down and publically pantsed him. 

Then went and kicked the dog and/or child of every D&D player in the worldwide database.

Chuck


----------



## (contact) (Apr 21, 2007)

Taking Dragon and Dungeon online might turn out to be a great idea once all the smoke clears, but WotC really blew the announcement.  

"Hey, we're canceling 2 magazines and are going to publish more content online (presumably next to the existing underwhelming content).  Aaaaand, that's all we're telling you."

WTF?

Paizo, however, showed up to the party *prepared*, were immediately and directly responsive to the fans, and had a tasty alternative to offer.  They got more business from me today.

WotC will have to show and prove before I buy in; this deal smells a bit like yesterday's fish, and they look lost.


----------



## Enforcer (Apr 21, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I've read similar statements to this over and over. I enjoyed both Dragon and Dungeon, but man...its just a magazine!



Hear hear! People comparing Paizo's loss of their magazine licenses to friends and family dying need to put their priorities in order. What would your friends and family do if they knew that you'd take their death just as hard as the loss of a D&D magazine? Can we all dispense with the melodramatic hyperbole, please?


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Wait, that's it? They're taking the magazines and making them online?




That's the problem, nobody knows what they are doing.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 21, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> That's the problem, nobody knows what they are doing.




And so you want blood?

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And so you want blood?
> 
> Makes sense to me.




Nope, I just want answers.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 21, 2007)

For me, it's not about losing the magazines. It's about losing hardcopies of what was good. 

Reading online content is not the same as holding a book/magazine in your hands. I'm sure they will charge close to the same price for the online content as we would've paid for a printed version. The new content might be just as good or better, but paying full price for an online download without having a hardcopy is a deal breaker for me  :\


----------



## CaptainChaos (Apr 21, 2007)

I'm certainly not going to be the guy to argue with Kim Mohan about how much he's loved Dragon Magazine. This is a pretty ham-fisted attempt at damage control though.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 21, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Nope, I just want answers.




Good things come to those who wait.

Keep in mind, the magazines are still being printed for a little bit. They probably plan to let us know what they're doing over time, with more details coming out closer to the end of the runs of the magazines.

You know, like how Wotc announces and markets every OTHER product? And that folks seem happy with?

As opposed to people shouting for answers.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 21, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> They are missing a big point...
> 
> You cant collect web pages.



You don't believe how friggin' true that is. Seriously, I liked Paizo a lot until now, but I liked Dragon and Dungeon much more than Paizo. And liked to have the magazine in Real Matter(TM). 

I'm a student. I'm flying home every holiday, bringing my magazines with me to have something to read and share with my group at home. For the flights. I've done so every friggin' flight. The summer flight is probably the last time I'm doing this. Sad.

And the D&D target group *is a collecting lot* - otherwise you can't explain why WotC gets so many, often very narrow, sourcebooks sold, if not for the collecting vibe.

And to close my argumentation: I liked Paizo, but the magazines more, and if WotC has just overtaken them, I'd be fine - I know it's business, and yeah. But WotC are not doing some business stuff. They're pulling a collector's hobby away, without any replacement.

But Paizo... gives me a replacement. Guess why I liked Paizo. Guess why I know *love* 'em.

____________________________________________

On topic:
I don't really know why they're that ecletic. And why they can't tell. It just sounds like some damage control, harping on the "we're-all-gaming-buddies"-vibe. I've seen too much advertisment, marketing scams, and rose-tinted glasses to buy that stuff.

Seriously, don't tell me, that you think it's great. Of course you guys think it, otherwise _you wouldn't have done it!_ Give me something I can judge, something to convince me, something I can see and think the same.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Good things come to those who wait.
> 
> Keep in mind, the magazines are still being printed for a little bit. They probably plan to let us know what they're doing over time, with more details coming out closer to the end of the runs of the magazines.
> 
> ...




Um, we learn about WoTC releases months in advance.  However, I don't think this is a perfect analogy, because WoTC is effectively cancelling two well-known, high quality products (YIMMV) and replacing it with an unknown product.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2007)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> Most of the posts against WotC's decision have been along the "cold businessmen in black suits making profitable decisions" type. Their message is to remind us that they too are gamers with a love for the magazines.





Well that's one view.  The other view was that in amongst trotting out Kim Mohan, Chris Perkins and Chris Thomasson  to mumble some words during this wake for their former children, the most senior guy in the lot  - the guy who was _responsible_ for this decision on his watch - says this:



> Unlike many people at Wizards of the Coast, I am not a life-long gamer. I came to Wizards in 2000 by way of the snowboard industry and discovered gaming for the second time in my life.
> 
> —Scott Rouse, Senior Brand Manager, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS




Do you really need to ask if that had anything to do with what has happened?


----------



## Prophet2b (Apr 21, 2007)

For what it's worth, I can actually kind of understand why WotC hasn't released any information, yet.  Considering how big this news is and how upset so many people were over the who whole ordeal, if they were to release their future planes _right this moment_ they'd get shredded by the "angry mob" and spit back out to WotC in tiny, tiny pieces.  In other words, _nothing_ at the moment could possibly be good enough to take the place of _Dungeon_ or _Dragon_, and people would make sure WotC knew it.  It would forever taint people's perspective on the new product.

As it is, yeah, perspectives are tainted, but we don't even know what it is, yet.  So once the big hooplah dies down a bit, people might react quite a bit differently to the new product when it's finally revealed what that's going to be.  As it stands, anything new would not be "good enough" and many people would probably cement their current feelings on the project once and for all.

I'm *not* saying that those upset are a problem or anything like that.  No way!  I'm not pointing fingers at anybody - nothing like that at all.  Just want to clarify that.  All I'm saying is... I can kind of see why Wizards wouldn't release their plans just yet, especially so soon after this news broke.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Well that's one view.  The other view was that in amongst trotting out Kim Mohan, Chris Perkins and Chris Thomasson at the wake of their former children, the most senior guy in the lot  - the guy who was _responsible_ for this decision on his watch - says this:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need to ask if that had anything to do with what has happened?




So now its a crime not to have been a life-long gamer?

I love the rational ideas being thrown around today.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Well that's one view.  The other view was that in amongst trotting out Kim Mohan, Chris Perkins and Chris Thomasson at the wake of their former children, the most senior guy in the lot  - the guy who was _responsible_ for this decision on his watch - says this:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need to ask if that had anything to do with what has happened?




Yeah, personally, I don't care how he came to game or when he started playing, but when I was reading that I thought to myself "That's not going to go over well in some quarters!"  The guy has already been raked over the coals.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Most of the posts against WotC's decision have been along the "cold businessmen in black suits making profitable decisions" type. Their message is to remind us that they too are gamers with a love for the magazines. In fact, they make us all aware of how much the majority of them have contributed to these magazines over the years.
> . . .
> As far as I can tell, textbook marketing getting them out of an exceptionally poor situation. Of course, if you try to ignore the spin, it just ends up being a hollow message. Still, I couldn't imagine them doing any better at this point in time.




Precisely.  It's just like the ads where BP pretends they care about the environment and care what consumers think, after having a refinery blow up and having a pipeline in Alaska fail for lack of maintenance and dump tons of oil (tagline: "It's a start" and "Beyond Petroleum").  Or the old ad campaign where WalMart had happy employees telling you how great it is to work there, after they got busted the umpteenth time for wage & hour violations and lost a discrimination lawsuit.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> So now its a crime not to have been a life-long gamer?
> 
> I love the rational ideas being thrown around today.




I personally don't think it really had much to do with the situation, but I think it is fair to ask whether or not a lack of longterm connection to the magazines had some impact on the decision.  I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it from Scott Rouse in the next few days.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> So now its a crime not to have been a life-long gamer?
> 
> I love the rational ideas being thrown around today.




o_0

No.  But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.

Answer? * Clearly Not.*

Which is so patently obvious a point - I cannot believe you genuinely missed it. I must conclude that you are trolling.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I should add that this is what probably should have been available yesterday.  We needed this to be a big deal, not a "this was a no-brainer" type quote.  Those names (with the exception of the brand manager's) carry weight with me, as they have a long history with the game and particularly with the magazines.    I don't necessarily have great faith that it will be pulled off but I appreciate the sentiments.




They definately blew the announcement and should give an extra thanks to the folks at Paizo, who are not only handling their own PR, but doing their best to help WotC's PR too.

While both parties have been gracious, WotC fumbled with respects to the fans, by now you'd think they'd remember that 24-hours, on the net, is a freakin' lifetime.

If they would have done this at the same time Paizo did, I doubt we'd have a 26+ and growing page debate on e-zines, what they're doing, and whether or not we can blame WotC for it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> o_0
> 
> No.  But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.
> 
> ...



 The entire customer base of D&D has not been playing for 30 odd years.

The entire customer base of D&D does not read Dungeon or Dragon.

MOST of the customer base of D&D is much more likely to be like Mr. Rouse, either returned to it after time away or new to it and young(yes, they exist). Just because they don't whine and complain and scream at every little change doesn't mean they aren't there.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> o_0
> 
> No.  But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.
> 
> Answer? * Clearly Not.*




You assume we, and other long-time pre-3E gamers, comprise the "base."  Maybe we don't.  Maybe the majority of their customers are relatively new gamers.  I'm not sure how we would know one way or the other.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> You assume we, and other long-time pre-3E gamers, comprise the "base."  Maybe we don't.  Maybe the majority of their customers are relatively new gamers.  I'm not sure how we would know one way or the other.




No. I assume the "lifestyle gamers" are the ones who buy a *lot* of product overall and have great attachment to the magazines. They also tend the be the ones who subscribe to one or both.

We're not talking about who might buy a D&D mini or a PhB - we're talking about who regularly buys the magazines.  That's the base I meant. Those people, in my submission, tend to be hardcore gamers.

The base WotC is chasing with this decision is somebody else.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> o_0
> 
> No.  But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.
> 
> ...




Hey, I love Dragon and Dungeon as much as the next guy.  But, OTOH, I hadn't bought a Dragon from about 1985 to 2003.  Does that mean tha t I have no connection to the brand?  That someone who hasn't been reading and collecting the magazine since its inception cannot have the same connection to the brand that the consumer base does?

Actually, this guy sounds a whole lot like me.  While I did continue playing throughout the 80's and 90's, it wasn't until very recently that I got into Dragon again.  

Kim Mohan hasn't had much to do with the magazine for over a decade.  Surely the views espoused there have no bearing on the issue.  After all, if he truly had a connection to the magazine, he wouldn't be doing anything else.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No. I assume the "lifestyle gamers" are the ones who buy a *lot* of product overall and have great attachment to the magazines. They also tend the be the ones who subscribe to one or both.
> 
> We're not talking about who might buy a D&D mini or a PhB - we're talking about who regularly buys the magazines.  That's the base I meant. Those people, in my submission, tend to be hardcore gamers.
> 
> The base WotC is chasing with this decision is somebody else.



 But that's not the customer base. That's a PORTION of them.

While many of us may not like this decision, there is NO reason to claim this is the end of the world, comparable to a person's death, or that this is even a decision that hurts D&D players as a whole.

Liking Dungeon and Dragon is one thing, but its the melodrama and the doomsaying going along with all of this that's infuriating. No matter what WotC does, they're screamed at as evil...and yet...all these years later, I see the same people screaming the same things about never buying this or that again. Its tiring.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 21, 2007)

Kim's a he.  Not that it matters.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

*WOTC suits = Cylons, according to WOTC's Bill Slavicsek*

This makes me laugh.  Is Bill Slavicsek mocking WOTC's suits with a secret "yup, we are evil for doing this" comment, has he just been watching too much Battlestar Galactica, or is it a coinkydink?  You be the judge.      

Bill Slavicsek, in the lead off marketing essay in WOTC's wake for Dungeon and Dragon:
<<This ending isn’t an execution—it’s an evolution. Now comes the next era. We have a plan.>>

Intro voiceover to (2004+) Battlestar Galactica, all seasons after season 1:
<<The Cylons were created by man
    They evolved
    They rebelled
    There are many copies
    And they have a plan>>

If you don't believe me: 
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070420a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 21, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> They are missing a big point...
> 
> You cant collect web pages.




That's an argument *for* online distribution. I've got a bunch of old Dragons. Some are in boxes, some are in bookshelves. I keep them because, I don't know, I guess I sometimes think I'll want to read them again. Guess what? I never have. Never. Even if I recall some feat or article that was interesting, and want to find it again, I consider the giant pile of magazines and it's just not worth sorting through them all.

Compare to the old Dragon archive CD. Instantly searchable. Always available. Portable. Clean and as clutter-free as a single silver platter can be. Put all the goodness online, and you can even toss the silver platter (and access the info from home, work, at a buddy's house, on your phone, etc.).

Don't get me wrong: I loved Dragon. Each issue was fun to read. Fun to read _once_. Magazines are supposed to be disposable; it's why descriptions of crazy people tend to include overflowing stacks of National Geographic and other periodicals.  

I kid, but I'm also really, really glad that all that rich content will be presented online, where it's actually usable and archivable. I'll finally be able to pull up all those feats, articles, and other content in a practical way. And clean out my den.

-z


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No. I assume the "lifestyle gamers" are the ones who buy a *lot* of product overall and have great attachment to the magazines. They also tend the be the ones who subscribe to one or both.
> 
> We're not talking about who might buy a D&D mini or a PhB - we're talking about who regularly buys the magazines.  That's the base I meant. Those people, in my submission, tend to be hardcore gamers.
> 
> The base WotC is chasing with this decision is somebody else.




OTOH, I've been a Dragon subscriber for almost three years (would have been four), and a recent Dungeon subscriber.  Yet, I haven't bought a WOTC book, or even a gaming book in general, since PHB2.  

Please stop trying to universalize your experience.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Kim's a he.  Not that it matters.




Fixed.  Honestly wasn't sure.  :/


----------



## crazy_cat (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Well that's one view.  The other view was that in amongst trotting out Kim Mohan, Chris Perkins and Chris Thomasson  to mumble some words during this wake for their former children, the most senior guy in the lot  - the guy who was _responsible_ for this decision on his watch - says this:
> 
> _Unlike many people at Wizards of the Coast, I am not a life-long gamer. I came to Wizards in 2000 by way of the snowboard industry and discovered gaming for the second time in my life.
> 
> ...



QFT. 

Dragon - RIP 2007
Dungeon - RIP 2007

Damn shame


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2007)

Yeah, there's a lot of chicken-little-ism going around, but that is to be understood. People want their magazines.

I have every confidence that this online format will be amazing, but this sudden, abrupt change wasn't the best way to go about it. Show us what we're going to get before you take away what we already have.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 21, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I kid, but I'm also really, really glad that all that rich content will be presented online, where it's actually usable and archivable. I'll finally be able to pull up all those feats, articles, and other content in a practical way. And clean out my den.




Your mistake is in assuming it has to be one or the other.  No one bemoans Wizards wanting to do stuff on-line, we're annoyed that not only did they drag their feet in letting Paizo do stuff electronically, they now kill the paper product in favor of a pure-digital play, which *no one* has manged to do successfully yet.

They could have chosen to keep both going in such a way that they complemented each other.  This path is short-sighted and greedy, and I have yet to see any persuasive argument otherwise.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, there's a lot of chicken-little-ism going around, but that is to be understood. People want their magazines.
> 
> I have every confidence that this online format will be amazing, but this sudden, abrupt change wasn't the best way to go about it. Show us what we're going to get before you take away what we already have.




Most definately, I mean, that's how they handled the 3e notification once the time came, we had about a year or so to prepare.

Well, some of us had more, either through reading Eric's stuff, or having been a playtester; Although I was the later, I also read Eric's stuff, too, just because I could. 

Heck, one of my old e-mail archives still have the acceptance e-mail from Kim Mohan letting me know that my gaming group had been selected for the playtest.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 21, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> So now its a crime not to have been a life-long gamer?
> 
> I love the rational ideas being thrown around today.




If so, then I'll just have to head off to prison.....  :\ 


Not thrilled to hear the demise of Dragon (the one I get of the two). At least I got this before I sent off the check for my renewal. I'll just have to get them in the store until the run ends. Then see what else is out there, I guess. Dunno if I'd want electronic format of them as I find it alot easier to flip thru a book or magazine than flipping thru a pdf file.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Your mistake is in assuming it has to be one or the other.  No one bemoans Wizards wanting to do stuff on-line, we're annoyed that not only did they drag their feet in letting Paizo do stuff electronically, they now kill the paper product in favor of a pure-digital play, which *no one* has manged to do successfully yet.
> 
> They could have chosen to keep both going in such a way that they complemented each other.  This path is short-sighted and greedy, and I have yet to see any persuasive argument otherwise.




I don't know if I'd say, or agree to that part that no one has been able to do it, yet.

Steve Jackson Games has, not only do they have, seemingly, the oldest blog known to date, but they have had three e-zines total (Pyramid, Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society, and d20 Weekly), with only one of them having been folded down into the other (d20 Weekly was ended and folded into Pyramid).

Not only is Pyramid, I think, pretty successful, they do have a good working model in that you have access to ALL articles, past, present, and future (as they're published) when you have a membership.

My only complaint, ever, about their model is that when your membership expires, you loose access to everything that came out while you had said membership, BUT if you just renew, it's all there, so it's not much of a complaint.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 21, 2007)

Oh for the love of Pete!  Rarely have I seen such an embarrassing display of drama queenery and hyperbole.

It's just a couple of magazines, and they will continue to be published online rather than on paper.  A press released was issued explaining it by both companies, who both agree it was amicably done.  A follow-up long explanation press release was then issued by WOTC while Paizo came on the boards to directly explain that everything is fine, both companies have good plans for the future, and nothing is being killed or ditched, and now we will have twice as much material being published in the future.

And yet many of you sound like you want to commit Seppuku, describe feelings of physical pain and mourning like someone important to you has died, and want to string up some fellow gamers who work for Wizards no matter what they say or how they say it.

Some of y'all need to chill out and stop being such narcissists and drama queens.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 21, 2007)

I can't believe Kim Mohan, of all people, would be so non-chalant about it.

The thing with Dragon is, even for those like me who didn't read its modern incarnation, it has a continuity going all the way back to the birth of role-playing games, and that means something, no matter what RPG you play. Maybe I'm being too sentimental.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Oh for the love of Pete!  Rarely have I seen such an embarrassing display of drama queenery and hyperbole.
> 
> *clipped out the important and on topic pieces so as to make humoristic point*
> 
> Some of y'all need to chill out and stop being such narcissists and drama queens.




*grins*

Thank goodness, Mistwell, for your level-headed and even keeled approuch.   

I'm just teasing, it's just funny to read it, the opening and closing, given the context, that's all, hopefully you can see the humor of it.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Some of y'all need to chill out and stop being such narcissists and drama queens.




Uh, bite me?  While there have been over the top statements, for the most part things have been pretty rational.  Compare to the 4th Ed rumours just prior to GenCon last year.  

And if this doesn't affect you, stay out of the threads.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 21, 2007)

Friadoc said:
			
		

> *grins*
> 
> Thank goodness, Mistwell, for your level-headed and even keeled approuch.
> 
> I'm just teasing, it's just funny to read it, the opening and closing, given the context, that's all, hopefully you can see the humor of it.




I gotcha


----------



## BryonD (Apr 21, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Uh, bite me?  While there have been over the top statements, for the most part things have been pretty rational.  Compare to the 4th Ed rumours just prior to GenCon last year.
> 
> And if this doesn't affect you, stay out of the threads.



"Pretty rational"?????

...goes back to yesterday's mega-thread......

Sorry, but Mistwell's got the right of this one.

I'm bummed to see the end of a physical Dragon magazine and I doubt that WotC can improve on the product Paizo is making.  But as yesterday became ever more hysterical I found those details harder and harder to keep in mind.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> A press released was issued explaining it by both companies, who both agree it was amicably done.  A follow-up long explanation press release was then issued by WOTC while Paizo came on the boards to directly explain that everything is fine, both companies have good plans for the future, and nothing is being killed or ditched, and now we will have twice as much material being published in the future.
> . . .
> Some of y'all need to chill out and stop being such narcissists and drama queens.




It's obvious you've never worked for a large organization.

When the division exec of my division at a LARGE corporation got fired for sleeping with two subordinates (warned off the first time by the CEO, his wife went to Board of Directors the second time telling them how embarrassing it would be for this to come out, much like the Boeing CEO being fired a few months earlier for sleeping with one of his married subordinates), miserably failing to deliver results, got us sued for sexual harassment, and doubling the employee turnover (that would be number of people quitting) in his division in just a year of mismanagement, do you know what the press release said?

It said:  <<exec name redacted for legal reasons>> and <<company name redacted for legal reasons>> have decided to part ways.  We wish him well.

That fact that didn't give the usual platitudes when an exec or politician is fired ("He's decided to spend more time with his family" and/or "We wish him well in his new ventures") made it the rudest exec-firing letter me or my co-workers had ever seen.

There's zero reason to assume Paizo is happy about this.  Corporations don't ever say when they are pissed off.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 21, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Uh, bite me?  While there have been over the top statements, for the most part things have been pretty rational.  Compare to the 4th Ed rumours just prior to GenCon last year.
> 
> And if this doesn't affect you, stay out of the threads.




Rational?  I feel like my best friend died? I feel like they just drowned my two babies? Will never buy another WOTC product again? Suits? 

It does impact me.  I just want to try and talk about what's coming up, rather than feed this teeth gnashing.


----------



## Simplicity (Apr 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Oh for the love of Pete!  Rarely have I seen such an embarrassing display of drama queenery and hyperbole.
> 
> It's just a couple of magazines, and they will continue to be published online rather than on paper.  A press released was issued explaining it by both companies, who both agree it was amicably done.  A follow-up long explanation press release was then issued by WOTC while Paizo came on the boards to directly explain that everything is fine, both companies have good plans for the future, and nothing is being killed or ditched, and now we will have twice as much material being published in the future.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but that's not an fair summation at all.  Dragon and Dungeon are finished.  They will not be moving to an online format.  The name will not be used, and the content will not be the same.  A magazine that I've read off and on since the 80s (most of my life) is finishing.  Why shouldn't that hold serious emotional significance for me?  People whine when their Battlestar episodes suck.  That shows been around for what, 3 years?  Ha!

Trial of Champions?  No more.
Demonomicon?  Nope.
Ecology of Monsters?  Uh-uh.
Nodwick?  Nope.
Dork Tower? Gone.

These magazines had a big impact on the hobby.

Wizards will be releasing online material which is not written or edited by current Dragon/Dungeon staff.  Some would say that the current Wizards material doesn't hold a candle to what Paizo's been doing lately.

So, I'm not seeing this as a positive change.  I don't think that makes me a narcissist.  I think it makes me a realist.


----------



## ssampier (Apr 21, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Your mistake is in assuming it has to be one or the other.  No one bemoans Wizards wanting to do stuff on-line, we're annoyed that not only did they drag their feet in letting Paizo do stuff electronically, they now kill the paper product in favor of a pure-digital play, which *no one* has manged to do successfully yet.
> 
> They could have chosen to keep both going in such a way that they complemented each other.  This path is short-sighted and greedy, and I have yet to see any persuasive argument otherwise.




QFT.

This isn't a stinkin' a MMORPG or Magic Online.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 21, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> They could have chosen to keep both going in such a way that they complemented each other.  This path is short-sighted and greedy, and I have yet to see any persuasive argument otherwise.




How about this? In order to launch a successful subscription model you need A) content, and B) subscribers. By moving the content of Dragon and Dungeon online you simultaneously create A as well as a pool of people who are demonstrably willing to pay for A--in other words, potential B. 

If you keep the magazine and just reprint the stuff online, it's a mess. Who is responsible for formatting the content for the web? For maintaining the online structure? For editing? For archiving, hosting fees, customer service? For paying the freelancers for the creation of the content in the first place? 

What about the customer? They want Dragon content--content from a magazine published by Paizo--and yet that content is available online only at WotC's site? That's confusing.

Remember that Dragon and Dungeon content are just one component of WotC's DI. As of now, it's the only component of DI that we're aware of--everything else is unannounced. So Dragon and Dungeon content is a perfect introduction to the DI. Even though a fraction of D&D players read those magazines, every player knows about them, and so every player will potentially be curious to check out the DI, if only to browse the portions of Dragon and Dungeon content that will be free. That's a terrific, natural intro to the rest of the DI.

Keeping both delivery mechanisms going simultaneously would be short-sighted, and dilute the value of the DI. By making the WotC DI the sole source of that content, they focus customer interest and create a one-stop shop for all things D&D. That's a long-term view, and it's smart. 

-z

PS: As for greedy, I don't understand how that word applies. WotC is a corporation. It exists by providing products and services that people want to buy. Any pricing is determined by demand; they'll charge exactly as much as the most people are willing to pay that results in the greatest amount of profit. Not a penny more or a penny less. Whether that'll be 1,000,000 people willing to pay $5/month, or 500,000 people willing to pay $10/month, well, that's up to WotC's market research company to help determine.  

But that's not greed. That's a purely mechanical function of economics. 

PSS: Given the figure I saw earlier of 4 million D&D players, I bet they're hoping 5% will pay at least $10/month, resulting in a minimum $2 million bucks a month in subscriptions. That's a nice round number, and enough so that one month of revenue will cover the annual salaries of twenty full-time programmers, leaving the other 11 months to cover other costs and maybe even return a bit of profit. If more people like it, they can charge less. If fewer people like it, they'll have to charge more (and hope to avoid a death spiral). Given that Netflix, Blockbuster Online, etc. have subscriptions of $5-$25 a month, MMORPGs run $10-$20 a month, and Dragon & Dungeon ran a total of $6/month, I bet they'll settle in the $5-$15 range. Maybe five bucks for basic "Player" access, and a higher amount for full-featured "DM" access.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> OTOH, I've been a Dragon subscriber for almost three years (would have been four), and a recent Dungeon subscriber.  Yet, I haven't bought a WOTC book, or even a gaming book in general, since PHB2.
> 
> Please stop trying to universalize your experience.




Please read what I actually wrote - not what you _think_ I wrote: 



> They also *tend* the be the ones who subscribe to one or both.
> 
> We're not talking about who might buy a D&D mini or a PhB - we're talking about who regularly buys the magazines. That's the base I meant. Those people, in my submission, *tend* to be hardcore gamers.




_I did not say: _to be a hardcore gamer, you must buy Dragon or Dungeon regularly. 

_I did not say:_ Only hardcore gamers buy Dungeon or Dragon regularly.

*I said: *The base of customers who regularly buy the magazines tend to be hardcore gamers. 

That is, in my opinion, an accurate statement.  If you disagree with it -  feel free to do so.  But using the word "tend" is hardly universalizing my experience and projecting it onto the whole.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 21, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Trial of Champions?  No more.
> Demonomicon?  Nope.
> Ecology of Monsters?  Uh-uh.
> Nodwick?  Nope.
> ...




Er, Dork Tower (http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/) and Nodwick (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/gamespyarchive/index.php) are online. Right now. How, exactly, are they "gone"?

Those other features are also easily publishable online. And there's no reason why the freelancers who wrote those articles couldn't continue to write them. 

Plus, Pathfinder will have Ecology articles (titled something else, no doubt, but the articles will still be about the lives and habits of D&D critters) and other great features, again written by the best contributors to Dragon and Dungeon.

All the meat will still be there, just under a different format / name. 

I guess I don't understand what the problem is. 

-z


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> People whine when their Battlestar episodes suck.




I had to quote you to try out my new sig (and thereby see if anybody notices/cares about the funny thing I found).


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Apr 21, 2007)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> This makes me laugh.  Is Bill Slavicsek mocking WOTC's suits with a secret "yup, we are evil for doing this" comment, has he just been watching too much Battlestar Galactica, or is it a coinkydink?




You beat me to it.












Just a joke, Bill!


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 21, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that's not an fair summation at all.  Dragon and Dungeon are finished.  They will not be moving to an online format.  The name will not be used, and the content will not be the same.




I think you might want to read more of the two WOTC press releases again, as I think you are wrong and also that you have no actual idea what is upcoming from them.  Every indication is that the magazines are just moving to a different medium of communication, and are coming back to WOTC where they were before Paizo took over...you know, back when you were also apparently reading and enjoying it.



> A magazine that I've read off and on since the 80s (most of my life) is finishing.  Why shouldn't that hold serious emotional significance for me?




Because it's a *magazine*.



> People whine when their Battlestar episodes suck.  That shows been around for what, 3 years?  Ha!




If this were just whining, you would have a good point.  This is quite far beyond whining.



> Trial of Champions?  No more.
> Demonomicon?  Nope.
> Ecology of Monsters?  Uh-uh.
> Nodwick?  Nope.
> Dork Tower? Gone.




Wanna bet? 



> These magazines had a big impact on the hobby.
> 
> Wizards will be releasing online material which is not written or edited by current Dragon/Dungeon staff.  Some would say that the current Wizards material doesn't hold a candle to what Paizo's been doing lately.
> 
> So, I'm not seeing this as a positive change.  I don't think that makes me a narcissist.  I think it makes me a realist.




You not seeing it as a positive change is a different matter than people throwing a drama queen tantrum and throwing around conspiracy theories and outright hate while comparing this event to children dying and physical assaults.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> You beat me to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Biggus, you're my hero for knowing how to do graphics, finding a good jpeg, and spotting the same geeky thing I spotted!  And after me!  Ah, I could ask for nothing more from the geek universe today, but nonetheless, I think I'll go see if I "Hot Fuzz" is playing around here.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You not seeing it as a positive change is a different matter than people throwing a drama queen tantrum and throwing around conspiracy theories and outright hate while comparing this event to children dying and physical assaults.




Well, remember John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory. 

ALERT! ALERT!: contains PG-13 words.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Not casting judgement on those expressing anger at the cancellation of the mag's; just pointing out that boards, by their nature, are dramatic.

-z


----------



## Vanuslux (Apr 21, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Well, remember John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory.
> 
> ALERT! ALERT!: contains PG-13 words.
> http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
> ...




You seem pretty heavily invested in making those upset about the situation out to be irrational idiots.  So pot...meet kettle.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> You seem pretty heavily invested in making those upset about the situation out to be irrational idiots.  So pot...meet kettle.




If you're hinting that as a Seattleite, he's a WOTC plant, I doubt it.  

More likely works for Penny Arcade, which I believe is also a Seattle publisher (like Paizo and WOTC).


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> That's an argument *for* online distribution. I've got a bunch of old Dragons. Some are in boxes, some are in bookshelves. I keep them because, I don't know, I guess I sometimes think I'll want to read them again. Guess what? I never have. Never. Even if I recall some feat or article that was interesting, and want to find it again, I consider the giant pile of magazines and it's just not worth sorting through them all.
> 
> Compare to the old Dragon archive CD. Instantly searchable. Always available. Portable. Clean and as clutter-free as a single silver platter can be. Put all the goodness online, and you can even toss the silver platter (and access the info from home, work, at a buddy's house, on your phone, etc.).
> 
> ...




That is what searchable PDF copies of the magazine are for. Provide both to subscribers for a bit more money.

online only? you are buying something and getting nothing for it. What if you dont have access to a computer? Lots of games are run at conventions... not everyone has a laptop and not all conventions have free wifi.

The CD is a better deal. Why? cause it is worth something. You could sell it. Give it to a friend or keep it forever.

What if the website goes down? You dont have access. Oh and if you stop paying the services fees... you dont have access.

Magazine - you paid for it. You own it. You have it. If you dont read it... well that is your fault. You shouldnt have bought it. You should have borrowed it from a friend or you should have sold them to someone who would use them.

I am fine will cool online stuff... but I wont BOTH. I dont want one popular gaming staple to be replaced with something that frankly isnt as valuable to me.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 21, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> You seem pretty heavily invested in making those upset about the situation out to be irrational idiots.  So pot...meet kettle.




Well played.  As I mentioned in that quote, the theory applies to all message board posters--including me.

I do take umbrage with the bit about making others out to be idiots. That's not my intent. I just see a lot of what look like misinformed reactions, and so have made a few posts showcasing the positive impacts of the DI in general, and the mag cancellation in particular. 

I'm an optimist by nature and honestly think this is all very, very positive for both WotC (yay! online information and tools!) and Paizo (yay! released from the burden of producing a monthly magazine for a third party and can now focus on cool, new products and initiatives!). 

Again: I don't think _anyone_ on ENworld is an idiot. I consider this place the ivory tower of message boards. But it's still a message board. 

-z

PS in reply to haakon1: yes, like my profile says, I work at Penny Arcade.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> PS in reply to haakon1: yes, like my profile says, I work at Penny Arcade.




Umm, yes, that's a good point you make there.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Apr 21, 2007)

Lets See:
This is quite simple - who do I expect better adventures, design and content from?   

Team 1:

Erik Mona
Wulfgang Baur
James Jacobs
Tito Lati
Rich Pett
Nicolas Logue
Stephen Greer
Greg Vaughan

Team 2:
Chris Tomasson
Mathew Sernet
James Wyatt
Jesse Decker
Chris Perkins
Kim Mohan
Bill Savachek


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Lets See:
> This is quite simple - who do I expect better adventures, design and content from?
> 
> Team 1:
> ...




Team 1.  Erik and Wulfgang are my favs since Gary and Rob Kuntz.


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> PS in reply to haakon1: yes, like my profile says, I work at Penny Arcade.




So you are one who believes in the whole web publishing is better then print publishing angle so your opinion is very skewed.

Next thing will have the miniature line go online with E-miniatures! No more of those mini's collecting dust you will have instant access to hundreds of miniatures with a click of a mouse! All your D&D favorites in full 24-bit color at 256x256!

Print comic books, books, etc. read better when they are printed on paper. Hate E-books. Also, hate the fact that if you switch computers you loose em.

comic strips work online because they are a quick view... reading something in depth hurtz me eyes.


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Lets See:
> This is quite simple - who do I expect better adventures, design and content from?
> 
> Team 1:
> ...




A team 1 never works for wizards? Are they exclusive to someone else?


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2007)

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Lets See:
> This is quite simple - who do I expect better adventures, design and content from?
> 
> Team 1:
> ...




I''ll go with Team 1 for the win.  So will WoTC, since many of their modules are written by freelancers who are part of the Paizo stable.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Apr 21, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> A team 1 never works for wizards? Are they exclusive to someone else?




The answer is self evident and further analysis will lead to even more self evident answers.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 21, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> I am fine will cool online stuff... but I wont BOTH. I dont want one popular gaming staple to be replaced with something that frankly isnt as valuable to me.




I hear you. This topic was brought up in another thread; the consensus seems to be to provide full access to discrete content like PDFs, even after the subscription expires. You can then burn that content to disc, print it, stick it on a USB jump drive and carry it around, whatever. 

It'd be a mistake, I think, to simply rent/license such content. 

Compare to the other (assumed) parts of the DI, like online tools and such. That stuff makes total sense for a traditional subscription model, where you lose access once you stop paying your subscription. 

But yeah, you should be able to keep whatever you *buy*. I imagine they'll allow online real-time searching through old archives as part of a subscription, and then you can choose to *buy* and download/own a copy of that content for a small additional fee.

eCommerce is interesting because credit card processing is a fixed cost. So even if you want to sell individual articles for, say, 10 cents apiece you can't because Visa charges the vendor a fixed amount (up to $1.50) _per transaction_. So the customer would pay you a dime and after it's all said and done you're down a buck forty. 

MS gets around the issue with Xbox Live points. It's like company scrip; the customer pays 10 real bucks (a palatable amount, given Visa's fees) and MS gives you X thousand "points". Each product costs a couple hundred points--effectively two or three dollars, but since Visa isn't involved the low purchase price is doable. So your single $10 transaction allows five "purchases" at 200 points each, at a cost to MS of only $1.50, netting $8.50. Compare to five transactions at $2.00 each, at a cost to MS of $7.50, netting $3.50. 

Smart of them!

But that's a pretty big tangent.

-z


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> The answer is self evident and further analysis will lead to even more self evident answers.




i guess you didnt note the sarcasm... many of them Have worked and are still working for wotc in some capactity as freelancers for example


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Lets See:
> This is quite simple - who do I expect better adventures, design and content from?
> 
> Team 1:
> ...





That's not as easy a choice as it looks at first blush, but yeah, Team 1 gets my vote, as well.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I''ll go with Team 1 for the win.  So will WoTC, since many of their modules are written by freelancers who are part of the Paizo stable.




That is very true, plus Wolfgang has his Open Design Project, too.


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I hear you. This topic was brought up in another thread; the consensus seems to be to provide full access to discrete content like PDFs, even after the subscription expires. You can then burn that content to disc, print it, stick it on a USB jump drive and carry it around, whatever.
> 
> It'd be a mistake, I think, to simply rent/license such content.
> 
> ...




Well we are at somewhat of an agreement.

I am fine with the other E stuff being a service but if I buy an e-zine I would like to own it... but it still sucks not having a hard copy that is printed and bound nice.

And, I can see them doing that to make more money. Recapping the "best of the internet" in a 300 page hardbound that people all oogle over... when in reality you alrady paid for it.

sorta like the shackled city and dragon compendium to be honest... at least SC had new content.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that's not an fair summation at all.  Dragon and Dungeon are finished.  They will not be moving to an online format.  The name will not be used, and the content will not be the same.  A magazine that I've read off and on since the 80s (most of my life) is finishing.  Why shouldn't that hold serious emotional significance for me?  People whine when their Battlestar episodes suck.  That shows been around for what, 3 years?  Ha!
> 
> Trial of Champions?  No more.
> Demonomicon?  Nope.
> ...




As someone else said, wanna bet?  Why would the DI axe these articles?  What reason is there to assume that none of these will appear in the digital form of the articles?  Other, of course, than Chicken Little screaming?



			
				Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Lets See:
> This is quite simple - who do I expect better adventures, design and content from?
> 
> Team 1:
> ...




Hrm, some of those names on team 2 were at the helm of Dragon during the "Golden Age".  I'm not sure that saying that they have no idea what makes a good Dragon is true.  

And, as far as misrepresenting someone's quote, well, even the term tend is meant to mean the majority, which is just projecting personal experiences without any facts to back it up.  Feel free to do so.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 21, 2007)

I think the thing that bothers me the most is I can't quite undersatnd why WotC would bother to "unlicense" Dragon and Dungeon from Paizo *unless* Dragon and Dungeon were to be in direct competition with what WotC was planning to do.  Now, for that to be the case, a couple things would seem to have to be true.

A) The same people that read Dragon and Dungeon would have to be the people WotC was trying to court.

B) The value of Dragon and/or Dungeon would have to be better than or equivalent to the value of whatever it is WotC has planned.

A seems to fly in the face of the common notion, that the people who subscribe to and read Drangon and Dungeon are the same people that would subscribe to an electronic magazine.  B suggests that whatever the cost WotC plans to ask, it is going to be more -- at least from a value perspective -- than what Paizo asks.

So, I am going to hazard a guess and suggest that the "online content" thing is only half the story -- largely due to "A".  I think, in reality, Dragon and Dungeon probably get sold or licensed as a package deal, and the real issue is that Dunegon outperforms WotC's own adventures for much less.  But in order to clear Dungeon from competing with WotC's new adventure push -- and I'll get to the reasons in a second -- they also had to get rid of Dragon.  The "online content" isn't, I don't think, the reason Dragon got axed -- it is the damage control.  that is, the electronic initiative is going to be more along the lines of databases and record keeping and virtual tabletop.  But WotC can't leave people in the lurch, so they are, temporarily at least, going to step up the value and quality of the content already provided on the WotC site as a salve to help lessen the sting of the Dragon loss.

Now, as to the issue with Dungeon and WotC's adventures: the only thing that makes any real sense, to my mind, is that 4E is actually a good ways away -- probably in order to test out the use of the digital initiative and determine exactly how "digital" 4E needs to be to compete.  I was talking to the owner of my FLGS today and he said that gaming, even D&D was down by lots, but Dragon and Dungeon were still selling well.  We got to talking, and even the D&D minis aren't selling well.  Of course, this is anecdotal to one store, but assuming the store isn't unique and the trend, if not the exact numbers, is common in the industry, then it is obvious that WotC would be looking at ways to improve their sales.  I think they know that they won't catch lightning in a bottle a second time -- 4E will not reinvigorate the game the way 3E did.  therefore, they need to find new ways to market the game, and new people to market it to.  To do that, they need to look at technology.

How's all this relate to Dungeon magazine?  Well, one thing that "old" D&D had was the shared experience of classic and iconic modules.  but it isn't just D&D that has this.  it is also MMORPGs, especially WoW.  I am not a WoW fan myself, and only played casually for a year or so, but I can tell you that when you hear WoW folks start talking about the raids they've done, you might as well be listening to grognards talking about going into the Keep on the Borderlands.  it is amazing, even enlightening, and lamost makes you want to subscribe to WoW just to get a small piece of the same bliss that those pasty guys are geekgasming over.  Same with D&D.  but with D&D, the experience is much more protracted, and it is a hell of a lot more work.  Especially when it comes to adventures, given the complexities and weight of the 3rd edition rules (the same complexity and weight that is a draw for the player base).

Now, bear with me, I think i am finally coming to my point.

If on the one hand you have a solid library of iconic modules -- including encounter designs and stat blocks built specifically for taking the labor out of DMing said adventures -- and on the other hand you have a level of electronic support and immediacy on par with an MMO, or at least a CCG, where those things meet is where D&D successfully traverses into the 21st century.

Imagine, if you will, a group of gamers sitting down at the FLGS in 2009 or 2010 to play Return of the Red Hand of Doom or some such.  Now, there's four of them, and they've all played through portions  -- i.e. levels -- of the adventure, but never together and never at this FLGS.  But that's okay.  they hit the WotC website, load up their current PCs and start playing, on a virtual tabletop with a "paid" DM -- whether it is a guy who volunteers for free swag/subscriptions, or an actual employee whose job it is to click the right mouse buttons to "run" the adventure -- getting the best of both -- traditional and electronic -- RPG worlds.

It's a longshot, I know, and there are entirely too many details for me to be "right" about this, but I think something like this, along these lines, might be where WotC's head is at: they need to incorporate technology into the D&D experience in order to compete against MMOs and the like, and unless they do it soon, the industry (not necessarily the hobby, though) is as good as dead.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Apr 21, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> i guess you didnt note the sarcasm... many of them Have worked and are still working for wotc in some capactity as freelancers for example




Quite the contrary; you might want to reread your own statement and what it implies.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2007)

If WotC just brings back some version of the magazines in online form, the reception from me is really going to hinge on if the content allows for freelance submissions like Dragon & Dungeon, or if it'll all be produced by a group of in-house writers. I'm praying for the former, but I won't be absolutely surprised if it's not the case.

Even if my hopes for the new digital toy all end up being best case scenarios, it still remains to be seen how long (or if even) it takes to counteract my initial, rather visceral reaction to the magazines getting junked by WotC.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 21, 2007)

As has been pointed out, this didn't have to be an either/or decision by WotC.

In fact, there are many hard publications that have 100% of their content available in electronic form.  Guitar Player Magazine (and all of its sister publications), The Economist, The NY Times, The New Orleans Times-Picayune and others all have managed to have a digital form while simultaneously continuing publication in their traditional print & paper forms.

With the magazines both apparently operating in the black with increasing subscriber bases, WotC could have continued its partnership with Paizo and introduced e-zines with 100% of (or even _expanded_) the print content.

By killing the print mags this way, they've alienated a lot of people that they didn't have to.

By killing the print mags this way, they've lost a lot of subscribers that they didn't have to.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 21, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> eCommerce is interesting because credit card processing is a fixed cost. So even if you want to sell individual articles for, say, 10 cents apiece you can't because Visa charges the vendor a fixed amount (up to $1.50) _per transaction_. So the customer would pay you a dime and after it's all said and done you're down a buck forty.



Which brings up another rather obvious but thus far overlooked point: not everybody *has* a credit card.  The 12-year-old spending his allowance on the magazines at the FLGS, for example, just got pretty much cut right out of the equation...it's a much bigger deal to have to ask to borrow Mommy's credit card to read something online.

Lanefan


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Apr 21, 2007)

Or those of us who have a credit card but value our privacy and refrain from using it to make online purchases.


----------



## rowport (Apr 21, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As has been pointed out, this didn't have to be an either/or decision by WotC....By killing the print mags this way, they've alienated a lot of people that they didn't have to.
> 
> By killing the print mags this way, they've lost a lot of subscribers that they didn't have to.



I with Danny on this 100 percent.  For me, while I like Paizo and do not wish bad tidings for them, the termination of the license is not the problem.  Heck, I really like a lot of the recent WOTC books, and my (limited) interaction with WOTC staff like Matt Sernett, Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls have all been uniformly positive.  So, this is not about the 'evil WOTC' or whatever in my view.

I am just bummed to be losing magazines that I look forward to reading.  On-line content is fine, but does not replace print for me by a long stretch, and I frankly do not expect to pay for it as if it does.  Now, if WOTC had instead announced that it would be *replacing* Paizo as the new publishers of the mags, and also offering the content on-line as either an option or add-on service, all would be cool with me.  But, unfortunately, this business model costs me something and does not offer an equal or better replacement.  That strikes me a short-sighted, even just from a pure revenue perspective.

Whateva.  I am sure I can find something else to waste money on instead.


----------



## ssampier (Apr 21, 2007)

I agree, plus even adults with credit cards (READ: me) have trouble justifying an internet subscription. All the online subscriptions I have access to are paid by work (and most are online extensions of a paper products, such as Consumer Reports).

With all due respect, they have a steep slope to climb. When all the dust settles I think most content will be free (ad-supported) with some content subscriber only.

I would agree they missed the boat by not keeping the paper magazines around, too.


----------



## VictorC (Apr 21, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Which brings up another rather obvious but thus far overlooked point: not everybody *has* a credit card.  The 12-year-old spending his allowance on the magazines at the FLGS, for example, just got pretty much cut right out of the equation...it's a much bigger deal to have to ask to borrow Mommy's credit card to read something online.
> 
> Lanefan





Is this the same 12 year old that dosn't have a credit, but still playes WOW. If a kid wants this service they will get it from there parents. Most of these spiteful arguements are lame at best, please grow up.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hrm, some of those names on team 2 were at the helm of Dragon during the "Golden Age".  I'm not sure that saying that they have no idea what makes a good Dragon is true.




I think we disagree where the mags' Golden Age has been.  I'd say it started 2-3 years ago and is about to end.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> A) The same people that read Dragon and Dungeon would have to be the people WotC was trying to court..




LOL!  While I don't necessarily disagree with you, isn't that a lot like asking a girl out on a date by slapping her?  Silly Wizards, tricks are for kids.

And all I know is, a whole lot of subscribers at Paizo are now Pathfinder subscribers (me included), which costs about the same as a sub to the mags.

WotC's online idea better absolutely blow my mind with how incredibly awesome and 'must have' it is.  Otherwise, whatever...


----------



## Vanuslux (Apr 21, 2007)

VictorC said:
			
		

> Is this the same 12 year old that dosn't have a credit, but still playes WOW. If a kid wants this service they will get it from there parents. Most of these spiteful arguements are lame at best, please grow up.




Actually, if I understand correctly, you can buy WoW time at pretty much any video game store.  At least I'm pretty sure I've seen them...and what would be the point of such a product if not to let people who won't give up their CC numbers play?


----------



## Ulric (Apr 21, 2007)

Prophet2b said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I can actually kind of understand why WotC hasn't released any information, yet.  Considering how big this news is and how upset so many people were over the who whole ordeal, if they were to release their future planes _right this moment_ they'd get shredded by the "angry mob" and spit back out to WotC in tiny, tiny pieces.  In other words, _nothing_ at the moment could possibly be good enough to take the place of _Dungeon_ or _Dragon_, and people would make sure WotC knew it.  It would forever taint people's perspective on the new product.
> 
> As it is, yeah, perspectives are tainted, but we don't even know what it is, yet.  So once the big hooplah dies down a bit, people might react quite a bit differently to the new product when it's finally revealed what that's going to be.  As it stands, anything new would not be "good enough" and many people would probably cement their current feelings on the project once and for all.
> 
> I'm *not* saying that those upset are a problem or anything like that.  No way!  I'm not pointing fingers at anybody - nothing like that at all.  Just want to clarify that.  All I'm saying is... I can kind of see why Wizards wouldn't release their plans just yet, especially so soon after this news broke.




I agree with this. And the response from Wizards is appreciated. It probably would have prevented a lot of the negative responses if this would have come out yesterday, but, again, thanks Wizards for posting it. I look forward to seeing their on-line offerings.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 21, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Actually, if I understand correctly, you can buy WoW time at pretty much any video game store.  At least I'm pretty sure I've seen them...and what would be the point of such a product if not to let people who won't give up their CC numbers play?




You are absolutely right.  I can't think of a single MMO that requires a credit card to play in fact.  All of them have prepaid cards you can buy in stores.  Usually they have a time limit rather than a dollar amount on them (3 months, frex) but I know XBox live at least sells in game "money" as well as subscriptions in B&M stores.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right.  I can't think of a single MMO that requires a credit card to play in fact.  All of them have prepaid cards you can buy in stores.  Usually they have a time limit rather than a dollar amount on them (3 months, frex) but I know XBox live at least sells in game "money" as well as subscriptions in B&M stores.




So, online games have evolved to let you buy off the shelf...looks like WotC is going bass-ackwards...


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Shem,

All I care about is seeing your Loth articles and planar stuff being used. Cause if it's not, well there goes a hell of a lot of fun in my book. 

*is on Team Nightfall that supports team #1 which has done BETTER at adventure writing a good portion of the time than Team 2.*


----------



## Reynard (Apr 21, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> So, online games have evolved to let you buy off the shelf...looks like WotC is going bass-ackwards...




There's no indication that if the digital initiative is a subscription service, WotC won't be selling the same kind of prepaid cards in your FLGS -- and your Walmart, and your Borders, and even your Best Buy -- in the same manner.  I assume -- no matter what one may actually think of the prospect of a web enhanced D&D experience -- that WotC isn't run by idiots.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> There's no indication that if the digital initiative is a subscription service, WotC won't be selling the same kind of prepaid cards in your FLGS -- and your Walmart, and your Borders, and even your Best Buy -- in the same manner.  I assume -- no matter what one may actually think of the prospect of a web enhanced D&D experience -- that WotC isn't run by idiots.




There's certainly no indictation that that won't happen.  There's also no indication I won't trip and fall into a pit full of money tomorrow, either.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard,

That's a VERY dangerous assumption to make by a company that keeps changing it's tune each time they want to do "New Coke" to us gamers.

Me, I suspect the subscription service WILL be mandatory.


----------



## Wraith Form (Apr 21, 2007)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> For me, it's not about losing the magazines. It's about losing hardcopies of what was good.
> 
> Reading online content is not the same as holding a book/magazine in your hands. I'm sure they will charge close to the same price for the online content as we would've paid for a printed version. The new content might be just as good or better, but paying full price for an online download without having a hardcopy is a deal breaker for me  :\



See, this is the ONLY way in which I think this is positive:  I love to write and scribble all over my _Dungeon_ adventures.  In paper form, I'd have to photocopy them....which is technically illegal....in order to do that.

In PDF, I can print the pages, and then write anything I want all over them.

Aside from the positives of this, I see nothing good about this move, and have little or no itention of supporting WotC's decision.  OTOH, I do fully intend to support Mr. Mona and Company, as my gaming mindset seems very much on the same level as his (Greyhawk, Cthulhu, a darker D&D game, etc).


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> There's certainly no indictation that that won't happen.  There's also no indication I won't trip and fall into a pit full of money tomorrow, either.





Aggy,

If you do, give me a few million.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> See, this is the ONLY way in which I think this is positive:  I love to write and scribble all over my _Dungeon_ adventures.  In paper form, I'd have to photocopy them....which is technically illegal....in order to do that.
> 
> In PDF, I can print the pages, and then write anything I want all over them.
> 
> Aside from the positives of this, I see nothing good about this move, and have little or no itention of supporting WotC's decision.  OTOH, I do fully intend to support Mr. Mona and Company, as my gaming mindset seems very much on the same level as his (Greyhawk, Cthulhu, a darker D&D game, etc).




That and the fact there will be MAJOR opportunities for Paizo to work deals with Necromancer Games to create truly innovative products.


----------



## Wraith Form (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> WotC isn't run by idiots.



Oh no, precioussssss....they're very very good at getting our money from our pocketses, aren't they, precioussss?


----------



## Wraith Form (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> That and the fact there will be MAJOR opportunities for Paizo to work deals with Necromancer Games to create truly innovative products.



Yes, I'm sorry--that too.  Absolutely a Good Thing (tm).


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Wraith,

Well just saying...and you're right too about them being grubby people for money.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Me, I suspect the subscription service WILL be mandatory.




I think I used too many double negatives in my initial statement.  What I meant was assuming a subscription service, WotC would likely sell prepaid cards the same way MMOs and other online gaming services do.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 21, 2007)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> Oh no, precioussssss....they're very very good at getting our money from our pocketses, aren't they, precioussss?




I think that's a borderline post, though I didn't report it.  The fact is that WotC only gets as much money from you as you are willing to give them.  I am as confounded by this move -- specifically, their pulling of the Dragon and Dungeon licenses, not the digital initiative -- as anyone, but WotC can't steal what's in my pocket.  I give them what i want to give them, and that's it.  There's nothing they can offer that is necessary, and therefore they have to ask me, politely even, for my money.  It isn't like they're the electric company for goodness sake.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard,

*sings* The Electric Compan-eeee-eee! The Electric Company-eeee!! 


Sorry I couldn't resist.


So they are going to treat it like a cell phone plan?! Dude. That's harsh. Me I just figured they'd treat it more like a magazine subscription plan...but eh. Pre-paid cards seems...well I guess I'm just against cell phones.


----------



## caudor (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> There's no indication that if the digital initiative is a subscription service, WotC won't be selling the same kind of prepaid cards in your FLGS -- and your Walmart, and your Borders, and even your Best Buy -- in the same manner.  I assume -- no matter what one may actually think of the prospect of a web enhanced D&D experience -- that WotC isn't run by idiots.




I agree.  Bill Slavicsek says they have a plan; I believe it.

Not too long ago, we were speculating on what would be the 'next big thing' for D&D.  I think that the digital initiative is the next big thing.  The aim, I suspect, is to make D&D easier to prepare and play without dumbing it down.

What is needed to do that given the complexity and volume of D&D material?  A suite of tools for character generation, online play, digital adventures, quick access to resources, etc.  Does that mean they will stop printing paper books?  I don't think so.

I don't want to steal Merric's title as "ENWorld's Optimist", but I am optimistic about what is coming.


----------



## megamania (Apr 21, 2007)

I don't buy PDFs.

I won't buy into this electronic magazine.

Why?

Not everyone has a good computer.  When I log onto the WoTC site it takes my computer 10 minutes to allow me to use it.  (Vermont-  most don't even have an option of Direct Line or High Speed Internet)

It's done.

It's their decision, their magazine.  Theyu are shifting their business to the computer minded and abled.


Sucks but that is the trend.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Caudor,

No but you're certainly in the running for that title. You and about 20 other people. 


Mega,

As always your argument is that of a modron, to the point and winning.


----------



## grimslade (Apr 21, 2007)

*How to handle a break up*

I loved Dungeon/Dragon and have subscribed to one or both over the past 25 years. Paizo and especially Mr. Mona have done an amazing job ratcheting up the quality these past few years. 

I am struck by different amounts of information being released by Paizo and WotC. 
Paizo has released many details of "what comes next" starting in September '07.  We know who is penning the first installments of Pathfinder. We know who is doing the cover art. We know the title of the adventure path and that it is set in Paizo's default setting. We have a lot of positive attitude flowing from them about new projects and pride in what they have accomplished. 

WotC had a very impersonal sounding initial press release. And a smattering of reminiscences. Bill Slavichek has 'a plan'. There is very little meat to go on. What happens in Sept '07 is left up in the air.

Add to this WotC's less than perfect record with their web/electronic presence. E-tools. Patch management that shuts the site down for hours at a clip. No decent search on their message boards. It gives a lot of fodder to doubt them.

There is only 4 months until these magazines disappear from magazine racks. A little idea of what will be coming out from WotC to replace them would be nice. Maybe who will be involved in the initial offering. Maybe an assurance that there will be an alternative to the empty space on the rack. We have an answer from Paizo. What does WotC have?


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

grimslide,

Money angels! 

Money Angel


----------



## caudor (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> grimslide,
> 
> Money angels!




Although we seem to have opposite views on this issue, you still manage to make me chuckle   with your well-targeted posts


----------



## borc killer (Apr 21, 2007)

I have been trying to figure out why I find 90% of the response to this decision so repugnant.  After a few hours of thought I think I have it figured out.  The response proves that a lot of people in this hobby are a bunch worthless smelly trolls.  I guess for decades I have been turning to a blind eye to it… but I just have to accept it now.

/boggles


borc killer, please refrain from suggesting suicide as a solution to people's emotional reaction to the loss to these mags.  You may think it is an over-reaction, and you might even be right, but that is no reason to break the board rules of civility and respect. 

If you don't like the reaction, you can always stop reading.  I have edited your message if you have any questions feel free to email me or one of the other mods.

Thanks
-el-remmen (a mod).


----------



## Erithtotl (Apr 21, 2007)

It's not about two magazines.

This is not just about the death of Dungeon and Dragon.  The assumption is that a change much greater than that is on the horizon, and there isn't a lot of info on what that is, nor faith that it will be good for the core fanbase of D&D.

There are a lot of legitimate concerns about the future of our hobby.  It's always had to compete with computer games, but MMORPGs are providing a flashy, accessible, but much more shallow form of entertainment for the same target audience.  The flagship property of table top gaming is ultimately owned by a massive toy corporation, whose focus is always going to be on generating the most amount of sales and the most amount of revenue.  

Whether the new electronic initiative is good or not is somewhat besides the point.  The move away from the print magazines clearly was done without worrying about a negative reaction from the core D&D audience.  We are a relatively small subset of that greater world of players that could be captured by something new and flashy.  The D&D movies, and D&D Online, are both examples of an effort to achieve a broad base of success by abandoning the very core that also holds Dungeon and Dragon dear.  Maybe neither of those attempts were successful but there will be more, and eventually I think we all worry that eventually the next attempt to mass market D&D will be by dramatically shifting the core gaming experience into something that can attract those MMORPG gamers.  Without more information, abandoning Dungeon and Dragon would seem a logical early step towards that ultimate end.

I don't consider myself a grumpy old fart.  I work in technology and have more computers than anyone should own.  I'm researching buying a tablet PC to use at the gaming table.  I am annoyed by the amount of space that all my D&D books and magazines take up in my apartment.  But I'll miss the care and quality of Dungeon, and right now I remain thoroughly unconvinced that this is not the forerunner of something new and bad for our hobby.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Caudar,

Just because I'm a realist/pessimist about this situation, doesn't mean I have to go and make it personal. 

Borc,

I am NOT a smelly troll. I'm a semi-divine servant of the Scarred Lands and half fiend son of Orcus!


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Darn,

No one disputes my claims.  Sad...


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 21, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Actually, if I understand correctly, you can buy WoW time at pretty much any video game store.  At least I'm pretty sure I've seen them...and what would be the point of such a product if not to let people who won't give up their CC numbers play?






			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right.  I can't think of a single MMO that requires a credit card to play in fact.  All of them have prepaid cards you can buy in stores.  Usually they have a time limit rather than a dollar amount on them (3 months, frex) but I know XBox live at least sells in game "money" as well as subscriptions in B&M stores.




And why can't WotC also provide pre-paid cards for sale at retail?

I am also still reeling from yesterday's news, but like a few here I am also getting quite sick of the hyperbole and almost deliberate ignorance from many posters here (not necessarily the two quoted above, just in general).

I sympathize with every post that expresses dismay and feelings of loss with the impending cancellation of the two mags, but almost every post that offers "proof", "evidence", or "arguments" regarding how evil and foolish WotC is in the matter are just blowing smoke.

Fact is, we know very little about what Wizards is planning.  It could suck.  It could rock.  I think it will probably cut the difference and neither suck nor rock, but I'm willing to wait and see.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Dire,

It could also be a waste of time and be half assed. I'm just saying..there's plenty of room to negotiate here. 


*is only negative cause history seem to say otherwise about WotC doing any thing good online...*


----------



## BronzeDragon (Apr 21, 2007)

As someone who has been away from RPGs (and, consequently, D&D) for about two years, I speak with a little more comfort than most here.

I love books. I absolutely love them. Magazines usually are to books what a "quickie" is to sex (pardon the comparison, but it's the one that first popped in my mind).

However, Dragon and Dungeon were not regular magazines. They could be referenced in the future, used endlessly, providing new things even years after their publication date. Far more like a good book than a regular subscription magazine. Far from being "quickies", they were nearly endless repositories of fun and enjoyment.

It's very interesting that WotC has decided to pay more attention to the online world, and I hope their new take is better than the first blunders of TSR back in the early 90's (if anyone here remembers Wilson's "Showdown on the Electronic Frontier" editorial in Computer Gaming World, bonus cookies). But it's just not my kind of thing with PnP RPGs.

Don't get me wrong, I love the electronic world. I have been playing World of Warcraft for almost two years now, and the enjoyment I have there is, contrary to popular belief, no less than what I had in my best years of PnP gaming. It is not shallow when you're surrounded by people you like and communicate with every day, and when you experience adventures, be they facing monsters in a cave or just running around town talking to each other (or beating each other to pieces in PvP). It's just a matter of recognizing that it didn't really matter what the adventure was about, it was all about friends and human company. But I diverge from my point. 

Role-playing games were, for me, a lot about the experience of the written word. I liked to write my adventures (always been a DM at heart, I began as one and ended as one. I played in a grand total of 3 campaigns in my life), and I liked to see the rules and the setting fleshed out in detail. I understand that this is perfectly possible in an electronic media, but something just doesn't feel right.

As I said before, I love books. And I think my fetish (for lack of a better term...though it may be more appropriate than I think) for paper may just be the tipping issue in all this. I cannot see myself, in the past, present or future, investing my money on an RPG magazine (or its equivalent) that is only available in online format. It's the same reason why I don't read comic books online, however available they may be.

A computer, no matter how small, is infinitely more cumbersome than a book. It has wires, or it's hot, or it has to be recharged, or it's too big. It also hurts your eyes if you spend more than a couple of hours reading something on the screen. I do not recall ever having to  stop reading a book because my eyes hurt, even after marathon sessions of ten to fourteen hours. Computer screens have evolved since the Amber and Green screens of yore, but not to the point of actually being comparable to a sheet of paper.

There may come a time when PnP RPGs become CnC (Computer and Computer) RPGs, but I do not believe it will happen soon. Some would correct me and point to my own experience with MMORPGs as proof that such a change has already taken place. Though I would admit (as I did at the start) that I immensely enjoy my MMO experience, I am also ready to say it's definitely a *different* experience. Until a time comes when I can honestly say something I play online is the equivalent of a PnP RPG, I will remain away from them.

I am currently preparing a campaign in the world of Birthright, a long expected (at least among my closest friends) return to PnP RPGs, and of course this gives me considerable freedom to ignore anything new from WotC or any other company for that matter. But I still enjoyed the chance of looking into a Dragon magazine, new or old, and expecting to find something that would help me craft a better campaign for me and my players.

A sad day for me.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

*pats Bronzey on the back* You can always try making money angels...


----------



## +5 Keyboard! (Apr 21, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> While many of us may not like this decision, there is NO reason to claim this is the end of the world, comparable to a person's death, or that this is even a decision that hurts D&D players as a whole.




People feel the way they feel about things. Plain and simple. Just because you don't feel the same way is no reason to come on here and start giving people crap about it. Cut some people a little slack. Not everything a person verbalizes is going to be exactly accurate and, yes, people tend to embellish. for myself, I got the same "punched in the gut" feeling expressed by most people that felt strongly about it. Have you ever been fired from a job? Have you ever had a girlfriend (or boyfriend) break up with you? Have you ever received unexpected news that a close friend or relative had something very, very bad happen to them (death, hospitalization, etc.). Many of us had that same initial gut reaction. Is it the same magnitude as, say, a loved one dying? Certainly not. But the feeling was very similar to a lot of us.

As far as I've read, nobody is claiming it's the end of the world. However, it _is_ the end of a long tradition that whether you subscribed to or regularly bought these magazines or not has been a part of the greatest fantasy role-playing game nearly from it's beginning.

So, please lighten up and stop reacting so callously.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Steve,

Yeah instead what we should all do is make Money angels!


----------



## +5 Keyboard! (Apr 21, 2007)

borc killer said:
			
		

> I have been trying to figure out why I find 90% of the response to this decision so repugnant.  After a few hours of thought I think I have it figured out.  The response proves that a lot of people in this hobby are a bunch worthless smelly trolls.  I guess for decades I have been turning to a blind eye to it… but I just have to accept it now.
> 
> /bogglesl




Boggles, read my previous post. You really ought to go find another message board thread to hang out in if that's the kind of vitriol you feel the need to spout. This kind of repugnant posting paints you as the true *troll* here.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Yep, he's a troll and I'm the half divine agent of the Scarred Lands and the half fiend son of Orcus!


----------



## +5 Keyboard! (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yep, he's a troll and I'm the half divine agent of the Scarred Lands and the half fiend son of Orcus!



Hey, there's a rumor going around that you don't sleep, either.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Steve,

Not this week anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 21, 2007)

I'll restrain commentary about borc killer's person, and just respond to his "position":

Some of us find the decision repugnant because the decision seems precipitous and arbitrarily timed; because we have past experience with onine publications and found them wanting, and so forth.

While e-zines have many advantages, they aren't perfect, and some of us actually still prefer the advantages of the print media, despite their shortcomings.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yep, [...]  I'm the half divine agent of the Scarred Lands and the half fiend son of Orcus!



The visuals of such a beast lying out in the Scarred Lands somewhere making money angels is just *too* good! 

Lanefan


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Danny,

Sure you don't want to restrain Borc some other way?  

Btw just tell him you're the Gator Eater Fighter Lover NPC.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> The visuals of such a beast lying out in the Scarred Lands somewhere making money angels is just *too* good!
> 
> Lanefan




Thanks!  yeah well I figure I've got my platinum stashed well enough for that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 21, 2007)

I'm no NPC.

I'm definitely a "Playa" Character.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

LOL!  Fine, you're a "Playa" character.  But you're still a Gator eater Fighter Lover.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

*grins*

Nah, don't pick one or the other, roll a rogue, that way you can be a lover AND a fighter.

The stealth helps you get in and the fighting helps when her boyfriend shows up.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Friadoc,

He's got levels in both.


----------



## danzig138 (Apr 21, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Wait, that's it? They're taking the magazines and making them online?
> 
> I thought surely, judging from the reaction, that they had drug EGG from his house, burned it down and publically pantsed him.
> 
> ...




Don't forget that they also pushed everyone's granny into traffic.


----------



## Stereofm (Apr 21, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> They are missing a big point...
> 
> You cant collect web pages.
> 
> ...




I could not have said it better.


----------



## danzig138 (Apr 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I must conclude that you are trolling.




You accused someone of trolling? Oh thank you. After reading all these threads today, I needed a good laugh.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Friadoc,
> 
> He's got levels in both.





Hmm, sounds like an odiferous munchkin.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Friadoc,

Yep that our Danny. Odoriferous munkin of them all.

danzig,

You should see my money angels. They are much funny. *pushes danzig's granny into the boards* Keep your head up granny!


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Don't forget that they also pushed everyone's granny into traffic.




Ya know, I love my gramma, but I gotta admit, the ol' bird has a tendancy to let her mouth write a check that her butt can't always cash...so I could see WotC pushing her into traffic.

 

She'll roll with it and come back at 'em all Gargoyle-Wearing-Terminator-style!


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Fraidoc,

Just make sure you have a large press to crush her in later.


----------



## Stereofm (Apr 21, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As has been pointed out, this didn't have to be an either/or decision by WotC.
> 
> In fact, there are many hard publications that have 100% of their content available in electronic form.  Guitar Player Magazine (and all of its sister publications), The Economist, The NY Times, The New Orleans Times-Picayune and others all have managed to have a digital form while simultaneously continuing publication in their traditional print & paper forms.
> 
> ...




They could also have turned them into Print on Demand, which would have been clever.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I assume -- no matter what one may actually think of the prospect of a web enhanced D&D experience -- that WotC isn't run by idiots.




Any company that pisses off its customer base without a darn good increase in net income is run by idiots.

Hasbro should make WOTC do some customer sat surveys.  Bwahahaha!


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

Haakon,

You're assuming that Hasbro didn't some how okay this...


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Just make sure you have a large press to crush her in later.




Oh, heck no, I ain't getting involved in this, I mean if WotC wants to push her into traffic, that's there choice.

I know my gramma, I know her well, and the Corps trained me well enough, but they didn't say a word about takin' on gramma.

Nope, have at it WotC and hope Godzilla gets to Seattle before she does.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 21, 2007)

> They could also have turned them into Print on Demand, which would have been clever.




That might appease some, but not someone like me who would see that as shifting printing costs from the company directly to me.  When a company does a mass printing of 50k issues, they get price breaks.

Ever print up a 100 page document and have it bound? Pretty pricey.

But you're absolutely correct- it would be smarter.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 21, 2007)

LOL!  Well that or she doesn't find Rodan to give her a lift. Or Mothra.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 21, 2007)

Interesting.

Not surprisingly some reactions to this was "it's too late" (24 hours late, OMG), "it's just spin" or "it's just marketing" or "it's not enough".

Of course it's marketing. A bit more laid back than the one Paizo is laying down thick on these very boards actually, for example. Of course it's spin. Did anyone expect a heartfelt apology and a "oh, you know we changed our minds because people have so eloquently put forward their feelings on the matter and that contradicts all our data and our analysis."

Now that WotC are speaking up, that's wrong as well. I don't think WotC can please some of the most vocal detractors with any amount of communication.

I still don't like the decision. But now that WotC are beginning to communicate, a day or so after the announcement, I'm going to listen to what they are saying, give them some time and have a pint or two in rememberance of the mags. 

/M


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> LOL!  Well that or she doesn't find Rodan to give her a lift. Or Mothra.




Aww, crud, I didn't think about that...yeah, WotC better just send her a letter saying they weren't thinking when they put the hit out and they're sorry.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> You're assuming that Hasbro didn't some how okay this...




I'm sure there will be some blamestorming, but the Hasbro guys are in a pretty good position:

Hasbro exec: "So, WOTC exec, marketing tells me there's been a strong negative reaction to your DI plan on the web site and some independent blogs or whatever you kids call them.  What's your plan to fix it?"

WOTC exec: "Oh, it'll blow over, boss.  Geeks are like this.  They just don't like change."

Hasbro exec: "I wouldn't know.  I trust you to understand this stuff.  All I know is, the bad blogging sounds bad for business.  You'd better make sure those geeks keep buying."

WOTC exec: "Oh, no worries, our projections show this is great.  All press is good press, and it works the same way with web coverage."

Hasbro exec: "If you say so.  Just make sure you beat the contribution margin for next quarter."


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 21, 2007)

Haakon1,

Hey, have you ever seen those "We only deal with big business" commericials?

If so, oddly enough, I just pictured the WotC Exec standing on the ink blotter of the Hasbro execs desk.



Nice!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> Not surprisingly some reactions to this was "it's too late" (24 hours late, OMG), "it's just spin" or "it's just marketing" or "it's not enough".
> 
> ...




I mentioned this in the other thread, but, yeah, I basically agree with this.  Of COURSE Paizo is hitting the spin as hard as it can.  This could potentially break them.  A major source of income for them just got flushed.  Add in the money they have to give back to subscribers (either in cash or kind) and this could have sunk them.

So, they were well prepped, had a new project in hand that looks pretty snazzy and are putting up a great face.  Duh.  

From WOTC's perspective, they haven't lost anything other than the license income.  Somehow I doubt that's a major source of revenue.  Money in hand, true, but not something they are going to lose sleep over.  So, they take their time, wait for the storm of hyperbolic vitriol to blow over and then show people what they've got.

I'm fairly content to wait and see.  But, it is fun to watch people blowing a gasket over this.


----------



## delericho (Apr 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Oh for the love of Pete!  Rarely have I seen such an embarrassing display of drama queenery and hyperbole.
> 
> And yet many of you... describe feelings of physical pain and mourning like someone important to you has died...




In the other thread, I posted that this felt like being punched in the gut. That wasn't hyperbole, it was a statement of my feelings at my time. Like a great many people here, I have been reading Dragon for the majority of my life, and now it is gone. So, yes, there is a sense of mourning.

Your being dismissive of the feelings of those who are effected by this, no matter how silly you may think they are being, is really not appreciated.



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Most of the posts against WotC's decision have been along the "cold businessmen in black suits making profitable decisions" type.




This _was_ a decision taken by 'suits' for business reasons. That's not to say it was the wrong decision, however.

Wizards of the Coast have recently moved back into publishing adventures. Rightly or wrongly, they seem to have seen Dungeon as a source of competition. In addition, they are moving to a digital subscription model, and here they rightly consider Dragon to be a source of competition to that. So, under those circumstances, it _is_ a good idea for them to end the magazines. It would be folly to keep them in circulation and allow them to compete with their new venture.

(I would also expect to see the d20 license revoked, except that d20 (not OGL) now seems to be essentially dead, and probably isn't even a blip on the radar of the people pulling the shots at WotC. Besides, revoking d20 gains them nothing since everyone affected would just go OGL.)

This move does improve the chances of the Digital Initiative succeeding. They now have something that is a solid draw and that they _know_ they can deliver. Unfortunately, as I see it, this only improves the chances for the DI from 'certain failure' to 'almost certain failure'. I have seen nothing in Wizards' track record to indicate they can pull off a tenth of the other things they have promised. And the e-zines alone aren't enough to sustain the DI; there's a reason ebooks haven't taken off - reading large blocks of text on a screen is uncomfortable, you lose all the benefits of the printed medium, and leverage none of the advantages of multimedia that the PC can provide.

So, I'm 95% certain the DI will fail, with features delivered late, crippled, or not at all. A year down the line, the promised functionality will be pared back, and back, and eventually the whole thing will be canned.

My horror scenario is that then Hasbro will look at D&D _the role-playing game_ and determine that it is not profitable enough. The design work done on 4e will be shelved, the product will be canned. And, because D&D the brand remains a very valuable asset (for licensing to novels, video games, and movies) they will decline to sell, or even to license out the rights. And D&D as we know it will be dead.

_That's_ the scenario that most worries me. I am, actually, hopeful that that last paragraph won't come to pass, but I _do_ expect the DI to fail. Now, I don't hate WotC for doing this, and I'm not going to boycott them or anything like that. I'm almost certainly not going to sign up for the DI, unless the Virtual Tabletop is a stellar tool, but I don't particularly wish it ill.

Just my opinions.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Apr 21, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> ...Just my opinions.




And opinions well considered and written. I hope we don't look back in two years time and say, "The turning point of D&D's demise was when they cut Dragon and Dungeon."

Like you, it is difficult to see this having a positive effect on D&D. Like I said in my post, I just hope I'm wrong.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> From WOTC's perspective, they haven't lost anything other than the license income.  Somehow I doubt that's a major source of revenue.  Money in hand, true, but not something they are going to lose sleep over.  So, they take their time, wait for the storm of hyperbolic vitriol to blow over and then show people what they've got.



And, of course, image. Image is huge nowadays. 

Have you seen the Wizards starting page? 

It has stuff like silly lines "9 of 10 play our games. The 10th is dead." - Why? Because they want to appear as "friendly company", similar to your FLGS. They're writing articles (MtG AND D&D) in a fairly colloquial way... to avoid alienation.

This said, they're risking more than money. They're risking image. And, AFAIK, Wizards spends a lot on image - have you seen MtG marketing? It's a marketing with emphasis on "we're caring for you", because they're sending free stuff, supplemental stuff and so on.

This time PR wasn't that good.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Apr 21, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> They could also have turned them into Print on Demand, which would have been clever.




People don't buy Print on Demand.



OK, a small percentage do.  But very, very few.  The small publishers who you see doing PoD aren't really doing PoD.  Their print runs are so teeny tiny that the only people who will handle them affordably are PoD printers.  WotCs production values are much, much too high for PoD printers.  Sure, they could lower their production values, but you want to know something crazy?  They'd sell fewer books that way.  RPG books are a luxury/entertainment item and people like their color pictures.


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 21, 2007)

I don't care how exciting Kim Mohan thinks the new thing will be. Will it be delivered to my house? Will it come with the occasional random fold-out map of my favorite campaign world? Can I take it to read on the flight to California? Will it have ads in the back for a ton of little gaming companies I would have never heard of otherwise?

Until it does, I want my magazines.

-The Gneech


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 21, 2007)

> This ending isn’t an execution—it’s an evolution. Now comes the next era. We have a plan.




That's a big pile of steaming crap. Evolution would be to have both the magazines and their Online Aberration at the same time and see what will win out. But they meddled. They killed the dinosaurs so their apes could become human. That's not Evolution, it's Infernal Intervention.



> What keeps the old girl alive, though, is her never-ending goal of reaching the greatest number of people with the best possible content. Using a new delivery system doesn't have anything to do with compromising that goal.




Fact: A dual model of both print magazines and online content, available both on their website with a number of payment and subscription options and in paper, which would in turn be both available everywhere you can get D&D stuff and as a subscription, again with many delivery and payment options (including "paid with cash and carried home from the store") would be the delivery system to reach the greatest number of people.

So where does that leave our old girl? I'd say: "bleeding in the gutter".




> This is a big deal and it is our full intention to continue to deliver the great content that the fans have come to expect from these magazines in a new medium.




Yeah, right. Except that you suck at that medium.



> Part of me still can’t believe the magazines, in their current format, won’t be around anymore after the summer. But when I look to the future and see what we have planned, I can’t wait. Believe me, sometimes change really is for the best. I’m more excited than ever about the future of these gaming institutions. They’re not really going anywhere; they’re just coming home.




Coming home? Dragged back in, kicking and screaming. You threw them out when they were not good enough for you anymore, and when you saw that others could do them right, you got jealous and shot them down.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> Why license from WotC?  If you fail you lose money.  If you succeed, you lose the license, and Wizards sets up a competing product to take your place.




I hope others will learn from this. I guess it will be harder for them to license anything, because it's a lose-lose situation: Either you fall down on your face, or you have some success for a time, until they take it away from you.




			
				catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I commented about this in another thread.  The melodramatic hyperbole is nauseating to me.  It sucks that the mags are dying (in their present incarnation). It REALLY sucks.  I have been reading them since the 80's.  But geez... it's a magazine.




Aren't you a nice guy. People feel terrible about this, and you ridicule them. You must have many friends. 



			
				catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I totally agree, but some of the analogies are overkill.  People saying that it feels like rape, or that a baby has drowned need to be called out.




Those comments were made by some cynicists who did the same as you did: Add insult to injury and ridicule those who feel the blow hardest.


----------



## BadMojo (Apr 21, 2007)

I was expecting one of the folks interviewed to say "This really sucks.  I haven't heard an idea this bad since the Book of Erotic Fantasy".  Very disappointing.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 21, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I'm a semi-divine servant of the Scarred Lands and half fiend son of Orcus!






			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> Darn,
> 
> No one disputes my claims.  Sad...




Your claim can't possibly be false


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Apr 21, 2007)

This just came across as hollow spin and damage control to me.  I'm betting they didn't expect such a negative response to their decision.  To try and combat this and get some credibility on the decision they got people who worked on the magazines to say how much they are looking forward to the new digital initiative.

Sorry, it didn't work on me.  You'll have to try much harder than that. 

The comments from Scott Rouse said it all for me.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 21, 2007)

Hey everybody,

I know this issue is bringing up a lot of emotions, but let's keep the rules of civility and respect in mind when posting.

My recommendation? Do what I do, hit the preview button, wait a few minutes and then re-read what you wrote - if it still seems okay then submit.

Thanks

El-Mod


----------



## mrswing (Apr 21, 2007)

Corporate spin at its least subtle. As a prelude to moneygrabbing at its most 
'Boy, wait till you see what's coming! You'll be overjoyed we trashed those two rag... uh, beloved classics of the D&D scene'. Yeah, right. 
No matter what is coming, there was no reason to stop Dragon and Dungeon. No reason both media couldn't co-exist peaceably. But apparently Hasbro/WOTC is reasoning that every penny that goes to Paizo is a penny stolen from them. 
Compare the current reaction to the reaction when Imagine (TSR UK's fairly rebellious magazine) was shut down for corporate reasons. The staff was furious, and let it be known. Ah, the good old days...


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 21, 2007)

Hmmm, for a minute there I was thinking that maybe WotC knew they were uncanning a pandora's box by cancelling the magazines and that's why they released the announcement on a Friday. As someone else pointed out, that's when government releases bad news b/c the public pay far less attention on the weekend.

That being said, I'm not so sure that the same is true for gamers. It's quite possible that _more _people will be available online over the weekend than during the week, potentially setting up quite the powderkeg of negativity.

It would be interesting to know if EN World is busier on the weekend than during the week...


----------



## pedr (Apr 21, 2007)

Two thoughts:

Firstly I think I remember rumours or confirmation when Dungeon and Dragon were first licensed out to Paizo (which, I think, was created precisely so that Wizards had a company to license the magazines to!) part of the reason was that Hasbro sees itself as a games company, and doesn't _do_ magazines. They didn't understand them, didn't do them in any other division and didn't really want to be doing them in the roleplaying division, or whatever Wizards is considered. So it might well be that Wizards is not permitted to publish print magazines like Dungeon and Dragon. Given that Paizo continuing to do so would be in competition with some of the content of the DI, it makes sense to end the print magazines for good. 

Secondly, what I found most interesting was the comment of Matthew Sernett in the 'Reflections' article: 







> True, paper issues won’t litter the floors of future game designers, but their contents, after having been on the periphery for so long, will once again be brought into the fold and become an integral part of the future of the D&D game.



I _think_ what he's saying here is that for a whole host of reasons, Dragon material isn't really considered to be D&D material. If Wizards writes up a feat or spell or class in a book, people consider it to be D&D material. They might decide to use it, or not use it, but it's considered 'official'. Despite '100% official material', I don't think the same is true for the material in Dragon. It is certainly not used by Wizards as 'official' material - it doesn't show up and inform later products the way that spells from SpC or feats from Complete Arcane do. By bringing this kind of content back in house, it suggests a far closer link between D&D R&D and the material used - and quite possibly a two-way relationship between the material you get as part of this subscription and the future direction of the D&D game.

Perhaps ...! I ought to say, I'm pretty neutral on the issue, having only occasionally bought Dragon, and never Dungeon. I agree that Paizo have done the PR superbly well, however - well enough to convince me to subscribe to Pathfinder!


----------



## delericho (Apr 21, 2007)

pedr said:
			
		

> It is certainly not used by Wizards as 'official' material - it doesn't show up and inform later products the way that spells from SpC or feats from Complete Arcane do.




Except, of course, for those spells from Dragon that did make it into the Spell Compendium and the magic items that made it into the Magic Item Compendium. There was also material in Complete Psionic that originally appeared in Dragon, and I'm pretty sure there have been other bits and pieces that have appeared at various times.

I will agree, however, that material from Dragon is allowed in campaigns far less often than other 'official' material.


----------



## Ghendar (Apr 21, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Do we have to get THAT overly dramatic about a collection of paper?





But I *am* supposed to get all excited about e-content in place of paper? 
This is a highly dramatic event to a lot of us. Why is it so hard for some to understand that?


----------



## Ghendar (Apr 21, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> they would love a e-zine by wizards... in addition to the Magazines.





Yes, exactly. (although maybe "love" is a bit too strong)
And if this were the case then I highly doubt we would be seeing this level of outrage.


----------



## Ghendar (Apr 21, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Nope, I just want answers.




I want a paper magazine.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 21, 2007)

Ghendar said:
			
		

> But I *am* supposed to get all excited about e-content in place of paper?
> This is a highly dramatic event to a lot of us. Why is it so hard for some to understand that?



 Ahh, but I didn't say you had to get excited about anything.

And the end of a magazine may be a dramatic event for some, but if its anywhere near the moaning, groaning, and comparisons to the death of real people, well...maybe a lot of people in this hobby have their priorities way off.

I loved Dragon and Dungeon, and have bought them for years...but they are just magazines. And like it or not, nothing lives forever, either.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 21, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Your being dismissive of the feelings of those who are effected by this, no matter how silly you may think they are being, is really not appreciated.




Since we are being honest about our feelings and all, I will say that reading people equating the loss of Dungeon and Dragon to the loss of a loved one was a slap in my face.


Having recently lost a loved one, I can say that the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon can't on any level compare to the grief I feel at the moment, and have been feeling for the last weeks.

So even though people are feeling bad about this, how about not throwing around hyperbole that really amounts to nothing at all?

That said, you saying it feels like a punch in the gut is ok by me. It's the "it feels like someone I loved died" that slaps me in my face.

Also, if someone really, really feels like the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon are equal to the grief felt when a loved one died, and does so from experience ... wow, you take your gaming seriously. Way too seriously in my opinion.

/M


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 21, 2007)

Just to clarify my personal feelings:

I have recently lost loved ones- this doesn't feel like that.

This feels like an insult, so I'm POed.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 21, 2007)

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=23149

It seems that we aren't going to get the discussion and answer from Wizards because of the way many people here are acting about the whole thing.  And frankly, I don't blame them one bit.


----------



## freebfrost (Apr 21, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=23149
> 
> It seems that we aren't going to get the discussion and answer from Wizards because of the way many people here are acting about the whole thing.  And frankly, I don't blame them one bit.




Sorry, Crothian - again this is spin control.  If WotC had this PR campaign pre-planned they would have inundated all of the big forums from Day 1.  They clearly did not do so, and now are saying they are afraid of posting?  

Why?  Is someone going to take them to task for it?  

Clearly so - as would have happened regardless.

To say they are afraid of posting because someone will disagree, well, that's always been the case on the Net.

I have great respect for the old WotC staff - I loved working with Kim Mohan playtesting 3E, but this is not about being honest - it's about spin and damage control.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 21, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Sorry, Crothian - again this is spin control.




Of course it is but that also doesn't make it any less true.  But spin control infers that is a planned response and I doubt a bunch of employees at wizards got together to all send a similar e-mail to Morrus on the subject.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 21, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Sorry, Crothian - again this is spin control.




I think so, too. So they're not posting and now we're to blame for this?

They feel like being thrown to the wolves if they come out. Don't they think about why those wolves are so angry? Or maybe the wolves are hungry, because someone has taken their food (to stretch that metaphor some more).

They're afraid of some angry posters. They decided to make those posters that angry, but now they don't want to talk to them.

I guess that makes people only more angry. It will be perceived as cowardice, and admittance of guilt.

I personally think that if they came out and gave us a plausible reason why Dragon and Dungeon had to be canned, why they couldn't coexist with their new Online Initiative, a lot of people would be able to get less angry at them.

But this only reinforces my conviction that it all ran like this: They saw that others were having customers, they wanted to take those customers for themselves, and instead of taking them by making better products, they tried to take the others' ability to make better products, so people would buy their own products without them having to get better. And I guess many others here think the same.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 21, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But spin control infers that is a planned response and I doubt a bunch of employees at wizards got together to all send a similar e-mail to Morrus on the subject.




Why not? They might well have coordinated their eMails to try to salvage some of the image they lost to it without going into the details we want to know.

Maybe they hope that they can prolong the whole thing a bit, get people banned, and then reply in a "more controlled environment. I have read the new EN policy regarding bans, and though they probably haven't thought of that, it's not too hard to imagine that this will result in bans, which can work to Wizards' advantage. That one post where someone suggested that all those "trolls who mourn dragon should just go kill themselves" (not the exact wording, but the essence) shows how extreme both sides get over this.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 21, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Of course it is but that also doesn't make it any less true.  But spin control infers that is a planned response and I doubt a bunch of employees at wizards got together to all send a similar e-mail to Morrus on the subject.



Perhaps.  But many people who have invested a whole lot of time/money/emotion into the game over the years still deserve an explanation...and if delivering that explanation requires the messenger's online head getting torn off, well ::shrug:: so be it.

(the little cynic in me just reared its ugly head long enough to say "hey, this whole thing *could* be nothing but a trial balloon from WotC, to see how much loyalty the readers have...")

Lanefan


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Apr 21, 2007)

I think the lesson here is that a company thinking of moving to an online model, needs to be better at managing the web reaction to their announcements...


----------



## nerfherder (Apr 22, 2007)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think the lesson here is that a company thinking of moving to an online model, needs to be better at managing the web reaction to their announcements...



lol!  Good point!


----------



## BadMojo (Apr 22, 2007)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think the lesson here is that a company thinking of moving to an online model, needs to be better at managing the web reaction to their announcements...




I think the other lesson might be that even the 20 and 30-somethings who are comfortable using the Internet (banking, buying a car, ordering a pizza) aren't as excited about online content as the press release suggests.

Game Informer magazine actually just had an editorial about web content vs. a print magazine.  The main point was that the web is great for up to date information on new products, reviews, previews, etc. but print is much better for a longer, more in depth article.  I really, truly agree with this and don't want to read a 10 page article on my monitor for a variety of reasons.  There's a reason why electronics manufacturers are still struggling with e-book readers.

I agree that WotC's handling of this has been awful.  The press release seems like it came out with the assumption that people who have been enjoying these magazines for most of their lives would be happy with one lame blurb about the great things to come.  The responses from the Wizards staffers now just seems like damage control.  I'm sure most of the things posted by the Wizards folks are truly what they feel, but it's hard not to see this as a bit of last minute corporate spin.

It's a shame that the WotC people don't feel comfortable posting here, but I can't believe they'd be shocked at the anger this business decision has stirred up.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 22, 2007)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think the lesson here is that a company thinking of moving to an online model, needs to be better at managing the web reaction to their announcements...




Damn right. Do I want to subscribe to an online scheme where the publishers will go and sulk in a corner with their hands over their ears when I don't like what they're selling to me?

Do I want to pay them a monthly fee if they go gnome on me?


----------



## Treebore (Apr 22, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I think the other lesson might be that even the 20 and 30-somethings who are comfortable using the Internet (banking, buying a car, ordering a pizza) aren't as excited about online content as the press release suggests.
> 
> Game Informer magazine actually just had an editorial about web content vs. a print magazine.  The main point was that the web is great for up to date information on new products, reviews, previews, etc. but print is much better for a longer, more in depth article.  I really, truly agree with this and don't want to read a 10 page article on my monitor for a variety of reasons.  There's a reason why electronics manufacturers are still struggling with e-book readers.
> 
> ...





Their own message boards have not been a "comfortable" place for them to post. Quit nasty, actually.


ENWorld has been a safe haven compared to posts I have read over there.

Plus WOTC better up thier building security for awhile. Just in case the myth that RPGers are mentally unstable sociopaths has some truth to it. IT would only take one, so I am not kidding about beefing up security and the strict enforcement of it.

I think it would be wise of WOTC to put forth a few pounds of prevention for awhile.

I definitely would if I were them. 

Just to be clear, I am in no way implying a threat, just a very honest (and I think real) concern. Much better to be safe and alive.


----------



## smootrk (Apr 22, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Damn right. Do I want to subscribe to an online scheme where the publishers will go and sulk in a corner with their hands over their ears when I don't like what they're selling to me?
> 
> Do I want to pay them a monthly fee if they go gnome on me?



Yes, I find it odd that they are so excited for their online version of Dragon/Dungeon content, yet are dumbfounded and afraid to deal with this online reaction.  
They have a lot to prove to impress me.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Smootk,

Just tell em they got the protection of Nightfall for the moment.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2007)

One thing I don't understand - if Dungeon and Dragon are such good products with a high degree of economic viability, why can't another company take them up (with different names, of course, to avoid trademark issues) and keep going under the OGL?

To put it another way - why is it crucial that the content come out under the same name? After all, Dragon once was called The Strategic Review, and Dungeon was once just adventures published in Dragon.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Pem,

WotC holds the rights to allow Paizo to use D&D specific stuff and also the fact I believe, they (Paizo) are under some contract that doesn't allow them to change names at the drop of the hat.

Someone with more legal expertise can explain that part.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 22, 2007)

I believe OGL magazines have been tried.  And did not last long.  EN World Player's Journal was one such.  Now one could take a gamble that with no "official" print counterpart available after Sept 2007 there would be more of a market.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 22, 2007)

Everyone ragging on the WotC folks for being "too cowardly" to post here, and for not wanting to be "thrown to the wolves," may want to stop for a moment and consider that the people likely to be posting about this are the creative folks--the ones you know by name, the ones who have posted here before--and _not_ the ones who made this decision. Even if some anger is justified, it's _not_ justifiably aimed at the people who would be posting--yet in the current environment, I don't blame them for worrying that they'll still get a face full of it.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Ari,

I believe my Declaration post addressed that point...but hey you can post it there too!


----------



## smootrk (Apr 22, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I believe OGL magazines have been tried.  And did not last long.  EN World Player's Journal was one such.  Now one could take a gamble that with no "official" print counterpart available after Sept 2007 there would be more of a market.



FYI I would love to see another online outlet to compete with WotC, maybe something started by ENWorld.      I would support it initially just for spite of WotC, then continuation would based on content/quality.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Smootk,

Can we save the spite and anger for next week? I want to hear what Bill Slavacik(sp) has to say.

But don't worry I support you. Just want some peace now.


----------



## amethal (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I believe, they (Paizo) are under some contract that doesn't allow them to change names at the drop of the hat.
> 
> Someone with more legal expertise can explain that part.



Its all rumour and speculation, but the word on the street is that the original licensing agreement between WotC and Paizo included a non-competition clause.

If it didn't, it should have (and WotC's lawyers were probably negligent).

Basically, as part of the agreement whereby WotC licensed the magazines to Paizo, Paizo would have agreed that for a set period of time after the licence expired they would not set up similar magazines of their own. 

Paizo would have the ability to now challenge any such clause if they felt it was an unreasonable restraint of trade, so the time period would have to be reasonable. In the UK, a reasonable period would be a year or two; I imagine the USA would be similar.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Am,

See I knew it was partial rumor but wasn't sure if there were some facts involved too.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Everyone ragging on the WotC folks for being "too cowardly" to post here, and for not wanting to be "thrown to the wolves," may want to stop for a moment and consider that the people likely to be posting about this are the creative folks--the ones you know by name, the ones who have posted here before--and _not_ the ones who made this decision. Even if some anger is justified, it's _not_ justifiably aimed at the people who would be posting--yet in the current environment, I don't blame them for worrying that they'll still get a face full of it.




Yeah, seriously if I were them I wouldnt want to post here either. I think the cancelling of DUNGEON jusk sucks and I fully intend to support Paizo's new effort at the same time taking a good hard look at my future WOTC purchases. On the other hand I'm more than just a little curious as to what WOTC's new online initiative is going to contain and look like and I dont want to hear about it from people who know nothing about it and are speculating. I want to hear about it from people who are involved in it and the only way for that to happen is to foster an enviornment where they would want to come here and tell us what they have planned. 

I'm a little suprised at the level of venom here. I get a little confrontational from time to time butthe past few days here have been ridicoulous (sp?).


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Shin,

Well not sure about ridiculous so much as the venom is emotional and thus blinding.


----------



## Tzeentch (Apr 22, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=23149
> 
> It seems that we aren't going to get the discussion and answer from Wizards because of the way many people here are acting about the whole thing.  And frankly, I don't blame them one bit.



Hiding out in the bunkers while the internet maelstrom swirls has always worked out well ...

I don't think WotC could have mishandled the PR on this more if they had tried - which as has been noted is pretty amusing since they are so big on pushing content through this series of tubes called the intarweb and yet don't have clue one on crafting their presence on it.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 22, 2007)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think the lesson here is that a company thinking of moving to an online model, needs to be better at managing the web reaction to their announcements...




Bravo.

The whole "WOTC staffers are "reluctant" (cough) to come over here and talk about this mess" that Morris posted  honestly cracks me up. 

As someone who has worked for some fairly large corporations who've had to make some  press announcements that pi$$ed off a lot of people/customers from time to time, quite honestly, I think the stance is rather unprofessional. Marketing and CS people sometimes get to have all the glory, and sometimes they have to eat the big $^&t sandwiches when it's bad press and problems. Quite frankly, where I have worked, our marketing people (that included myself) would have been reamed out and/or disciplined/fired for avoiding such a situation. An online "damage contol-blurb", would not be sufficient (in the least). Then again, we'd have our CS people up to snuff on the sitch as best we could, and also be putting out all kinds of FAQs for our customers (like Paizo did) 

I'm not talking about designers now...I'm talking about the marketing people and the people in charge of this online initiative (assuming they've hired the positions yet, lol).


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Jeff,

Yeah I feel you on that but on the other hand, let's just give them a chance. I'm not saying stop being unhappy. Just give them a chance to respond.

Otherwise I feel and agree with you on that 100%.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2007)

JeffB said:
			
		

> The whole "WOTC staffers are "reluctant" (cough) to come over here and talk about this mess" that Morris posted  honestly cracks me up.
> 
> I'm not talking about designers now...I'm talking about the marketing people and the people in charge of this online initiative (assuming they've hired the positions yet, lol).




I'm pretty sure it is the designers though that are the ones saying they are reluctant to post.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Croth,

Which is who I want to hear from now. We'll let the marketing people burninate.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 22, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> One thing I don't understand - if Dungeon and Dragon are such good products with a high degree of economic viability, why can't another company take them up (with different names, of course, to avoid trademark issues) and keep going under the OGL?



I'm sure they could, but part of the reason I'm disappointed in this turn of events is that Paizo will no longer be doing these magazines (Dungeon at least, I really haven't cared about Dragon for quite some time).  Before Paizo took over I was quite disappointed in Dungeon for many years.  Paizo apparently can't or won't continue to produce periodicals.  Some third party might come along and produce a quality magazine as good as Paizo's Dungeon (a difficult, but not insurmountable task), but they won't have a track record of putting out quality periodicals for the past few years which, I would imagine, makes getting people to subscribe a lot harder.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 22, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Of course it is but that also doesn't make it any less true.  But spin control infers that is a planned response and I doubt a bunch of employees at wizards got together to all send a similar e-mail to Morrus on the subject.




While it is plausible that a bunch of employees could get together and do such a thing, I highly doubt how probably it is in this case.

Although I think they way it was initially handled was a mistake, a dropped ball to use that analogy, I don't put it all into a massive conspiracy of spin control.

It is spin control, but I doubt it is directed by TPTB (The Powers That Be) at WotC or Habro.

We're just seeing people who realize that they have have bruised, in some cases broken, the trust of the fan community and they're trying to make it better.

Personally I wish they would post here about it, too, as I'm not going to add to my list of comminuties I log into.

But, I can't blame them, either. I tend to avoid anything that could turn into a nasty flame war, not out of fear, mind you, but because I know how I tend to react to those situations and it is rarely professional. So, if I'm trying to be professional, best to avoid it.

That said, although a lot of us here can be blunt and forthright, I think we're also civil and would, I'd hope, avoid acting like a lynch mob.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Friadoc,

Yeah cause if I want a lynch mob, I'll drive 13 miles to Ashland.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Jeff,
> 
> Yeah I feel you on that but on the other hand, let's just give them a chance. I'm not saying stop being unhappy. Just give them a chance to respond.
> 
> Otherwise I feel and agree with you on that 100%.




well, to me..I'm not THAT upset..I mean ...I grew up on The Strategic Review and The Dragon, and Dragon..and I no longer play the current version of the game...so I have no use for the mags anymore...its upsetting though because of the "history"...but it won't hurt my gaming at all.

The point I was trying to make is WOTC FUBAR'ed this up beyond comprehension (from a business/marketing standpoint). You don't take away a 30 year old "institution" to a large number of gamers, and say "yeah well..we'll have something pretty cool in a few months...but uhm..well..we cant say what it is you're going to get..its REALLY cool , though...really....it is...cos uhm..we said so". And then you certainly don't post that poor "blurb" they are trying to pass off as damage control. You get into it with your customers and you inform them..you assure them things are gonna be OK..by giving them SOMETHING concrete...not marketing BS. You post FAQs...you have up a SAMPLE of what some of the things in the pipeline are..SHOW what you are going to do...not just tell them in vague roundabout ways and then "hide". All of this SHOULD have done before the annoucement was made....uhmm...once again..just like Paizo did.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Jeff,

I don't disagree but on the other hand, like someone once said "Fun is fun. And Done is done."
Change happened. We need to not necessary "accept it" so much as understand it and then maybe accept it. Or not.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 22, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure it is the designers though that are the ones saying they are reluctant to post.




I'm curious to know..I'm sure there ARE designers...but some of the heavys, I'd wager are here seeing the reaction as well.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Jeff,
> 
> I don't disagree but on the other hand, like someone once said "Fun is fun. And Done is done."
> Change happened. We need to not necessary "accept it" so much as understand it and then maybe accept it. Or not.




Oh I accept it, lol. I'm just amazed at how poorly it was (not) handled.. as I said..it really doesnt affect me or my games. I'm certainly not emotional about it or losing any sleep over it


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Apr 22, 2007)

> I have every confidence that this online format will be amazing,




I, OTOH, feel just the opposite . (ETools, anyone? Not directly comparable, granted, but it doesn't instill me with confidence.  And they only TRULY started their "Digital Initiative" within the last year, didn't they?)

I think alot of the preveant hostility seems to flow from the seeming disrespect (at least IMHO) that WotC is showing for the venerable legacy of "Dungeon" and "Dragon" magazines.  Which is undestandable.

But I, for one, would still be interested to hear what TPTB over at WizBro have to say, though honestly doubt anything they say would convince me to participate in the "Digital Initiative". (Not a big fan of reading lengthy articles online, and would rather pay the fee to have a nicely printed magazine to read at the kitchen table, or the living room, or the train to work.)



> I don't want to steal Merric's title as "ENWorld's Optimist"




Do we have an "ENWorld Pessimist"? If not, can I submit an application?


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Jeff,

Well I have lost something and I feel the emotion. But I'm done with it now and I want to move on.

I don't disagree this was handled pretty poorly. I just want answers now.


----------



## Tzeentch (Apr 22, 2007)

I suspect that the comments from the designers are going to be pretty underwhelming. For one thing they are probably going to demand that their response forum is heavily moderated, and they probably don't have much hard information they can share even if they wanted. They'll be lots of "we know secccrreeetts" and stuff but probably very little hard information on what is coming to replace Dragon in our budgets. I seriously don't really get what people expect from the designers, who are not the ones crafting PR and marketing decisions (we hope they are not that understaffed at least).

They'll wait for most of the energy to go out of this debate and then come in with some prepared Q&A in a highly structured environment. Not a chance of them getting involved directly like the Paizo folks did - WotC won't let them and they've never been directly involved with the community in the first place.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Jeff,
> 
> Well I have lost something and I feel the emotion. But I'm done with it now and I want to move on.




I should say...I'm not nearly as emotional as most, though I understand some of the reaction.

I'm a wee bit sad...just because of the history of the magazines and what they have represented...but the actual loss does not affect *me*.




> I just want answers now.




This is precisely my point. WOTC should have had those answers available..just like...

ermm...everybody repeat after me...

"JUST LIKE PAIZO DID"

That blurb, IMO was quite  insulting to people's intelligence, especially Bill S.'s comment. I don't even care that much and I was still insulted


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

*chuckle*  Yeah I can see your point Jeff. I guess though I want Bill here to perhaps clarify his statement in that "blurb."


----------



## Khairn (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Jeff,
> 
> Yeah I feel you on that but on the other hand, let's just give them a chance. I'm not saying stop being unhappy. Just give them a chance to respond.
> 
> Otherwise I feel and agree with you on that 100%.




Nightfall, if you're talking to someone at WotC who is thinking of responding on this site, but wants the criticism to be toned down first, please pass on this little piece of advise.  I strongly recommend posting on the official D&D boards before posting here.  Avoiding gamers on their own site by posting anywhere else will just add fuel to the fire.


----------



## BadMojo (Apr 22, 2007)

JeffB said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about designers now...I'm talking about the marketing people and the people in charge of this online initiative (assuming they've hired the positions yet, lol).




I work in Customer Service and have had to take the heat for a lot of things I had absolutely ZERO control over.  As you said, it's part of the job (same with Marketing).  The uh, stuff, all rolls down hill, as they say, and CS folks are usually the only direct contact the consumer has with the company.

Having said all that, it's part of my job to get blamed for stuff I didn't do.  As you pointed out, the designers and other creative folks aren't in any way obligated to take the fallout from this whole thing.  I'm not necessarily sure that everyone on EnWorld is going to make the same distinction that you did.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Devyn,

I'm sorry if you think I have such contacts. I don't. Most of my contacts are d20, and even they are former WotC employees. So while I can't speak for them, if such a person ever contacted me, I'll be happy to pass that along.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Jeff,
> 
> Yeah I feel you on that but on the other hand, let's just give them a chance. I'm not saying stop being unhappy. Just give them a chance to respond.
> 
> Otherwise I feel and agree with you on that 100%.




They've had more than enough chance to respond.  The fact they haven't in any meaningful way speaks volumes about their integrity, respect for the community, and professional conduct.  And their ability to deliver any kind of online content.  Just look at the fact they can't keep a search engine up and running on their forums.  We expect them to be able to technically keep a pay online service up and running?


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Kheti,

Maybe they've had internet access problems. I'm just saying CALM down. I'm not against you and I fully feel and somewhat support your anger. But let's not let that block the fact we've yet to TRULY hear from people at WotC.


----------



## smootrk (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall, just kidding around but, are you getting paid for all these responses?


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Kheti,
> 
> Maybe they've had internet access problems. I'm just saying CALM down. I'm not against you and I fully feel and somewhat support your anger. But let's not let that block the fact we've yet to TRULY hear from people at WotC.



Nightfall, you're not that naive. Internet access problems?  Every employee, the whole company?  More likely, they just don't give a fig about what the community thinks.
It's the way they have been running the business since day one.

And seriously, Nightfall, are you on WOTC's payroll?  You're almost being as sycophantic as Edymnion over on the WOTC boards.  Come on man, don't defend these corporate stooges.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 22, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I work in Customer Service.....




You have my sympathy 



> .... As you pointed out, the designers and other creative folks aren't in any way obligated to take the fallout from this whole thing.  I'm not necessarily sure that everyone on EnWorld is going to make the same distinction that you did.




Quite right, unfortunately....

But thats what the Marketing guys get paid big bucks to do, and they should be on the WOTC boards AND here, so you and other CS folk are not up to your ears in all that "stuff", and neither are the consumers. 

I can understand that WOTC may not want to reveal *too* much about this new initiaitve. I understand the business aspect here...however, any good marketing team will have *something* to help curb the villagers from setting their torches alight and get the pitchforks firmly planted on the ground instead of waving to and fro. 

And if WOTC marketing absolutey did NOT think there would be this kind of negative reaction, quite frankly, they need some marketing 101 refreshers.


----------



## BadMojo (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Kheti,
> 
> Maybe they've had internet access problems.




Maybe someone spilled some Red Bull on the WotC servers causing a chain reaction that led to an Intarweb outage in the greater Seattle area...it could happen.   

Anyway, I do agree that some perspective is in order here.  The passing of Tom Moldvay managed to stay on the front page of the message boards for a few hours.  That's an infinitely greater tragedy than the cancellation of a magazine.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 22, 2007)

Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> And seriously, Nightfall, are you on WOTC's payroll?  You're almost being as sycophantic as Edymnion over on the WOTC boards.  Come on man, don't defend these corporate stooges.




Seriously, cut with the ad hominem attacks, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're on the payroll of whom you're mad at, that's just insulting and paranoid.

Personally, I'm with Nightfall on these points AND I'm not even remotely employeed by WotC, in fact I've never been published by them or submitted items to them.

I've been very critical of their mistakes in this, but I think attacking someone who disagrees with you is not in the spirit of good debate, it's more part of the problem than the solution.


----------



## Shawn_Kehoe (Apr 22, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, the digital download generation and the green environmental groups are getting their wishes.
> 
> If wanting print magazine is wrong in this day and age, I don't want to be right.
> 
> Save your sympathy, WotC.




The trees are crying out to you...

And you call yourself a ranger?


----------



## Sholari (Apr 22, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> Nightfall, just kidding around but, are you getting paid for all these responses?




Some companies do actually pay people for these things (http://payperpost.com/), though I think Nightfall is being honest in the authenticity of his viewpoint.  Luckily, the FTC fairly recently has required some level of disclosure.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 22, 2007)

Another (semi-)official reply from WotC, by Rich Baker:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=702942&page=12


----------



## Shawn_Kehoe (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I'm the half divine agent of the Scarred Lands and the half fiend son of Orcus!




Ha ... I had just been thinking how weird it was for the Sage of the Scarred Lands to be constantly pimping Necromancer products. Kind of like the widow who ends up marrying his dead wife's sister 

Shawn


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 22, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Another (semi-)official reply from WotC, by Rich Baker:
> 
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=702942&page=12




Thanks for that link.


Thing is, I really don't see a point for the WotC people to post anyway.  Since they can't say what's coming (and thus discuss the issue), there's little point in them saying anything until the fervor dies down and when they actually *can* talk about the next step.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 22, 2007)

Shawn_Kehoe said:
			
		

> Ha ... I had just been thinking how weird it was for the Sage of the Scarred Lands to be constantly pimping Necromancer products. Kind of like the widow who ends up marrying his dead wife's sister




Well, if the dead wife's sister is hot, she's hot. 

Can't blame the man there, I mean she's hot AND a necromancer, helps keep all those zombies and ghouls his daddy gives him in line and maintained.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 22, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Thanks for that link.
> 
> 
> Thing is, I really don't see a point for the WotC people to post anyway.  Since they can't say what's coming (and thus discuss the issue), there's little point in them saying anything until the fervor dies down and when they actually *can* talk about the next step.




Maybe they can't tell us exactly what is coming, but if enough people that the community trusts says things are okay, then we can error on the side of caution and wait and see if it's okay.

Thus far, a lot of names I trust, some of which who I've even corresponded with once or twice, have come out and said that things are 'okay'.

Sure, they're employees and they might be supporting their company, I'll take things with a grain of salt, but I'm not going to discount their words by default and assume they're liars or drones.

I think they've been sincere and, when we hear from more of the designers and heads, I think we'll see that they're sincere, too.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Okay let me 100% clear about me. I am NOT on anyone pay roll. If I was, it's a damn more than I'm making now which is 0%. 

I also don't get paid by the post but considering my lifetime goal/lifequest is to surpass Crothian, well...I got a ways to go don't I? 


Kheti,

No I'm not that naive. I am, however, older and feeling like it's time to put aside the anger and let the answers we see be heard. If that means we have to give a little to get it, I'm all for it.

Sean,

It's only weird if you think to hard. Besides my mom isn't undead or anything. I'm just spontanteously formed that way.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> Nightfall, just kidding around but, are you getting paid for all these responses?




Once he hits 20,000 posts, he officially becomes Nightfall, god of money angels, New Coke, Orcus and the Scarred Lands.

That, or he's just looking forward to posting, "IN YOUR FACE, CROTHIAN!"


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I also don't get paid by the post but considering my lifetime goal/lifequest is to surpass Crothian, well...I got a ways to go don't I?




Ah, it was option 2, I knew it!


----------



## papastebu (Apr 22, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Well, you know.  If I had to pick between Dragon/Dungeon and my best friend.  I'd keep my best friend.  But if I had to pick between them and say... Bob down the hall.   Well, Bob down the hall.  I wouldn't even notice if he were gone.



I have a cat named Bob. What are you trying to say?


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 22, 2007)

papastebu said:
			
		

> I have a cat named Bob. What are you trying to say?




Bye-bye, Bob, bye-bye. WotC is looking to make an old school violin, RUN!  j/k


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 22, 2007)

Hmm...I just went over to WotC's message boards for the first time in 3 years (and after putting in my new email address etc.)...

It looks like _all_ of the forums are locked for posting.

Is this just for my account, just having recently been updated, or is WotC getting a little more flame than it can handle at this moment?


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 22, 2007)

JeffB said:
			
		

> The whole "WOTC staffers are "reluctant" (cough) to come over here and talk about this mess" that Morris posted  honestly cracks me up.
> 
> As someone who has worked for some fairly large corporations who've had to make some  press announcements that pi$$ed off a lot of people/customers from time to time, quite honestly, I think the stance is rather unprofessional. Marketing and CS people sometimes get to have all the glory, and sometimes they have to eat the big $^&t sandwiches when it's bad press and problems. Quite frankly, where I have worked, our marketing people (that included myself) would have been reamed out and/or disciplined/fired for avoiding such a situation. An online "damage contol-blurb", would not be sufficient (in the least). Then again, we'd have our CS people up to snuff on the sitch as best we could, and also be putting out all kinds of FAQs for our customers (like Paizo did)
> 
> I'm not talking about designers now...I'm talking about the marketing people and the people in charge of this online initiative (assuming they've hired the positions yet, lol).





			
				JeffB said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make is WOTC FUBAR'ed this up beyond comprehension (from a business/marketing standpoint). You don't take away a 30 year old "institution" to a large number of gamers, and say "yeah well..we'll have something pretty cool in a few months...but uhm..well..we cant say what it is you're going to get..its REALLY cool , though...really....it is...cos uhm..we said so". And then you certainly don't post that poor "blurb" they are trying to pass off as damage control. You get into it with your customers and you inform them..you assure them things are gonna be OK..by giving them SOMETHING concrete...not marketing BS. You post FAQs...you have up a SAMPLE of what some of the things in the pipeline are..SHOW what you are going to do...not just tell them in vague roundabout ways and then "hide". All of this SHOULD have done before the annoucement was made....uhmm...once again..just like Paizo did.



QFU(ltimate)T.

The Wizzos stuff may be so cool you could store a dead cow in it for a week. Six months from now gamers may be saying, "Paizo who?"

But this is not how you roll out a new product, and it is most definitely not how you say goodbye to a keystone publication. As of now this could be a chapter in a business textbook, the one titled, "Don't Let This Happen to You!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 22, 2007)

I live in D/FW, and when Jerry Jones bought the team in 1988, he fired the head coach, Tom Landry.  Not "promoted him to front office duties" "made him a GM" or "bought out his contract"- FIRED him.  No ceremonies.  No dinners in his honor.  Nothing.

Nevermind that the man had had a losing record for a couple of years- he was one of the most respected and beloved men in the area.

To the fans, the man was more than a coach around here, he was an institution.  Some people considered him a second father figure.

That, BTW, is _NOT_ hyperbole.

And today, after 3 Superbowl victories with the coaches that followed TL, Jerry Jones is _still_ experiencing pockets of backlash over that decision.  Its not the fact that TL was fired- many people (then AND now) said it needed to be done but the method in which he handled the change in coaching.  There are still people who _HATE_ him for doing it the way he did.

That is _also_ not hyperbole.

WotC has essentially done the same thing.

Even if the transition to a purely digital format for the 2 mags was a good decision, it was a poorly handled one that makes them look a lot like Mr. Jones.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 22, 2007)

The more I think of it, the more I think it was handled as a "death announcement" to avoid the accounting and date entry hassles with subscription transfers - with all its attendant database transfer and product roll-out deadlines too.

While I expect it was not an entirely selfless act, the more I think of it, it may well be that WotC has just taken a *huge* PR hit and given Paizo a chance to survive by permitting them to transfer subscription money to Pathfinder / store credit - instead of transferring cash to WotC.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

I don't think anyone ever likes Jerry Jones, Mister Gator Eater Fighter Lover.  


Aggy,

It's definitely option 2 in some ways BUT also think it might happen with option 1 IF I ever hit a billion posts.


----------



## lkj (Apr 22, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> The more I think of it, the more I think it was handled as a "death announcement" to avoid the accounting and date entry hassles with subscription transfers - with all its attendant database transfer and product roll-out deadlines too.
> 
> While I expect it was not an entirely selfless act, the more I think of it, it may well be that WotC has just taken a *huge* PR hit and given Paizo a chance to survive by permitting them to transfer subscription money to Pathfinder / store credit - instead of transferring cash to WotC.




Don't know why I, a habitual ghost on these boards, am posting in this chaos. Must be late and my judgement poor.

But, the same thought had occurred to me. While I agree  that it's unlikley to be an entirely selfless act (perhaps a deal of some kind?), it did occur to me that if Wizards had rolled out their full plan at the time of the announcement, it would have put Paizo's efforts a bit more in the shadows. This way Paizo gets a smooth transition and the opportunity to snag a bunch of customers. Erik did suggest somewhere in here that Wizards had allowed them to print more issues to allow them to finish up Savage Tide. Perhaps this is more of the same?

On the other hand, it strikes me that Wizards is just ending licenses as they come up (CMP's Etools license for instance). If that's the case, then the timing of the end of Dungeon and Dragon may have a lot less to do with the launch of the DI as it does the end of the license. Perhaps it's not worth the hassle to them to arrange interim licenses to fill the gap. 

Of course, the fact is there's a lot we don't know. Certainly it seems a bit odd not to let Etools limp along until they have a replacement, cuz it seems pretty likely there won't be a replacement for it in the near future. I don't know.

Anyway. Just some thoughts. 

Cheers,
AD


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

lkj,

My thoughts: I need to keep posting. I'm almost catching up to Thanee!


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Aggy,
> 
> It's definitely option 2 in some ways BUT also think it might happen with option 1 IF I ever hit a billion posts.




Crap.  I was hopeful with 20k, 'cause that's an ascension I'd like to witness!


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Nah, I'll just be epic when I hit 20K. A billion is godlike.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Nah, I'll just be epic when I hit 20K. A billion is godlike.




But Godlike is a different game (yeah, there was a d20 version, but it blew).  How about Immortal?  Not 3E, but at least it's D&D....


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Aggy,

Okay about Endless. Cause I don't feel like I'm ready to scream "There can be only one!" 

Not yet anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 22, 2007)

There was a D20 version of Godlike?


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Danny,

I guess. I wouldn't know since I don't play much d20 beyond d20 fantasy.


----------



## Alnag (Apr 22, 2007)

I've just wake up and read about the WotC stuff unwilling to write here. I would like to add my semi-profesional comment on this. First of all, you can definitely see a strong emotional response to the situation. This proves the commitment of the community to the game and its symbols.

Symbols - although the magazines might not be key in economical way, they were definitely important in the symbolic way. Let's say I would pull down the Statue of Liberty or Eiffel tower. It would not harm US (or French) economy much. But it would hit their patriotism very deeply. This is exactly what happened.

Silence - at the moment of announcement there was no one to calm the situation down. Absolutely unprepared community hitted like in 9/11. The reaction (in smaller scale) is pretty similar. Shock. Disbelief. Anger. Sadness. And no one to offer acceptable alternative, no one to offer support. This deepens the reaction to the point of distrust.

Distrust - you remember the early arrival of D&D 3.5 Since than most of the people are obsessed with 4e like chiliastic movment. Why? Because they became to believe in the "evil tyrant Hasbro" milking gamers of their money. The less and less designers communicating with community, the more and more "WotC ivory tower" feeling. This also add to current Magz effect.

I hope that WotC will learn from this lesson. To communicate. To inform. To support. To react in time!

The solution is nor ignoring the fans neither banning them from the board (although I understand the reason why it seems like acceptable solution). The manifested anger will disapper pretty soon. The moods don't hold for a long time. But the true test is the believes that will stay. And they will stay despite ignoring or banning. The only way to overcome tham is to be there and accept the anger. To understand.

So for any or all the WotC stuff. This is my view of reality. You are in very hostile situation which desperately needs solution. I hope you will not continue the current way and choose the right path.

I wish D&D brand, game, designers and fans all well. I am just sceptical to current situation.

Alnag


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There was a D20 version of Godlike?




Well, not a version, so to speak, but the game had a chapter on running it as a d20 game.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 22, 2007)

Aggy,

See I think you should have said that instead. Just saying.

Aln,

*nods* We'll see if you're right or not.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 22, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I fully intend to support Paizo's new effort at the same time taking a good hard look at my future WOTC purchases.




My purchases today:
- Dungeon 146
- DCC #6 Temple of the Dragon Cult
- DCC #31 The Transmuter's Last Touch
- NOT Expedition to the Demonweb Pits
- NOT Complete Scoundrel

My review of the three items I bought: "Whatever happened to my rock and roll".  All three are a bit too complicated for me, instead of "straight ahead" old school D&D.

DCC adventure about an army-wounded dragon and his adventuring party friends in a formerly-dwarven trap-strewn lair?  Priceless!  Dungeons AND Dragons AND the toughest monster of all -- the enemy party -- woo-hoo!  Bash in the door and roll initiative!

But when his friends have HALF DRAGON special powers?  Eh, whatever.  Too many useless new rules, and you lost me fluff wise.  The letters "DNA" don't belong in a DCC, and half dragons are just silly.  It's like mitochlorines, or whatever Lucas called 'em.  Just messes up the setting for me, going from medieval fantasy to "crunch fest rules-diddling fantasy".

As for the 5th to last Dungeon?  Well, there's not much there.  The editorial articles are OK (the most interesting idea is the bandit leader who is an exiled prince, but it's an idea I've heard before, as a card in the old City of Greyhawk boxed set), the secondary adventure is all about transformations/templates (yawn, a crunch-based adventure), but the main adventure seems to be an extended meditation on torture, piercings, tatoos, dirty paintings, and whorehouses.  Some sort of cross between Vile Darkness and Erotic Fantasy.  WHATever.  It's not that it's badly written or uninteresting.  It's just that D&D geeks getting their groove on thinking about "shaved" and pierced harpies?  Ugh, definitely not something I want to do with any gaming group I've been in!


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> Nightfall, you're not that naive. Internet access problems?  Every employee, the whole company?  More likely, they just don't give a fig about what the community thinks.




SCENE: WOTC cubicles, Friday afternoon

WOTC employee 1: Wow, people on the boards are REALLY pissed that we axed Dungeon and Dragon.

WOTC employee 2: Yeah, marketing made me write up some spin about how we liked the old mags, how we're gamers, not suits.

WOTC employee 1: The suits made you say we're not suits.

WOTC employee 2: Yeah.  I feel kinda dirty.  Let's get outta this dump early.  It's sunny in Seattle for once.

WOTC employee 1: Good idea.  I need a beer or a few after this week.  See ya Monday.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Another (semi-)official reply from WotC, by Rich Baker:
> 
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=702942&page=12






			
				WOTC website said:
			
		

> The Wizards community website is currently down for daily maintenance. Please check back again later.




Interesting . . . dang hacker gamers, or else WOTC really does think they need a rethink on this.


----------



## Ravellion (Apr 22, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> The more I think of it, the more I think it was handled as a "death announcement" to avoid the accounting and date entry hassles with subscription transfers - with all its attendant database transfer and product roll-out deadlines too.
> 
> While I expect it was not an entirely selfless act, the more I think of it, it may well be that WotC has just taken a *huge* PR hit and given Paizo a chance to survive by permitting them to transfer subscription money to Pathfinder / store credit - instead of transferring cash to WotC.



I find this unlikely, for if they had simply allowed the magazines to remain for one year, all subscriptions would have been gone "naturally". No headaches.


----------



## Syltorian (Apr 22, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Is this just for my account, just having recently been updated, or is WotC getting a little more flame than it can handle at this moment?




You probably haven't logged in or it didn't remember you. It's that way for guests... 

Unless they changed something since yesterday, but I can't check as the board is - again - down for their daily maintenance... :\


----------



## Najo (Apr 22, 2007)

I agree with most of the non-extreme statments expressed here and I am going to miss the magazines. I own a successful game store and am working of a game design project we are going to publish in the near future. Over the years my staff in the store and on the project have come to understand key game design values, and I just felt like putting my two cents in based on our work in both the retail store and game design studio.

Wizards track record with products other than D&D and Magic is poor. They tend to try to be trend setters and push the gaming industry in ways it doesn't want to go. They have a fairly large library of dead rpgs, ccgs and wargame attempts to support this. Though Magic's yearly development cycle is impressive and D&D products have gotten better over the years, most of Wizards new products fail. Think Dreamblade, Star Sistaz, Vampire, Mechwarrior, Netrunner, Everway, Duelmasters, Chainmail, Star Wars CCG. Most of these games had potential and alot of money put into making them, but they often lack key design elements and are dead before they even reach their target markets. Year after year Wizards pumps this kind of product out and they eventually all fail. Wizards has great staff, it just something in the final assembly of the products misses the mark. If I were to make a educated guess, I would say it is the creative directors on each of those products who either do not understand their target market or how the final game should play. 

Both the parent company hasbro and Wotc themselves do not utilize the internet well. Their websites are akward. They often fail to use the web as a medium well. This concerns me about the Digitial Initative and the future of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. 

Likewise, Wizards is seeing the success of WOW and reacting to the MMOs (including putting taunt and aggro, hearthstones, socketed items, and other WOW features in D&D) instead of adapting D&D for the future of the web. There is a key difference in these two actions:

WOTC is reacting when they are try to bring D&D to the internet and make it compete with a MMO in its own medium. A MMO and a RPG are two different products and treating them like they are the same will fail. You can learn or be inspired by a business model of one for the other, but just trying to market to your customers and tap into their revenues in a similar manner is not thinking the consequences through all the way.  

What WOTC needs to do is adapt D&D by removing its barriers to entry for new players and DMs. Strengthen what makes D&D unqiue and why people play it. Recapture the essence of what made D&D exciting in the first place and share that with a new generation. Likewise, draw solid, positive mainstream attention to the D&D brand instead of the negative attention of a couple of terrible movies, a really terrible MMO and the cheesy (but lovable) cartoon from the early 80's. The various video games that have done well mostly don't count because they are under the Forgotten Realms brand and the non-D&D players had little idea of the connection between those games and D&D. So far, D&D has not made a good household name for it self with the non-hobby gamers. This has to change.   

Roleplaying games offer something computer games (and MMOs) never can do well. They offer a shared adventure in the imagination driven by character development and storytelling. MMOs are all about the fights, persistant peer recognition and the various grinds. Roleplaying games can skip boring travel, trash mobs, weekly guild raids to Molten Core for the Nth time this year. They can move from scene to scene, they can delve in to social and political conflicts, they can evoke emotional reactions, immerse players and create drama, tension, fear and other moods. They can allow players to use their imagination and do anything they can think of, as opposed to what the programers were limited by time and budget to be done in the game. This is what roleplaying games should be figuring out how to support and sell, and then use the internet to support that in an intutive manner (kinda like what ENworld does naturally, and basically for free). 

D&D should not try to be WOW. It should try to be a better D&D with its barriers to entry removed for new players, DMs and veteran players alike. In our product studies, we found out of all the games in the hobby, platform and PC markets, World of Warcraft had zero barriers to entry for their users, other than basic computer skills until you reached end game content and could no longer play casually. D&D (and other RPGs) would be fairing better if they looked at their own barriers to entry and removed them without hurting gameplay. Then redevelop the games to capture and communicate why their fun to the target audiance, and give the target audience a free demo of that experience. That is what WOTC  needs to be doing, instead of making goblin sims games (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=goblinz/welcome) for their Digitial Initiative. 

I wish D&D and Dragon and Dungeon well. They are responsible for most of the gaming industry's existance and have some great talent working on them. It just seems to me it hard to find creative directors that have the business skills and the game industry knowledge to do it right and bring it all together. Hopefully this isn't one of those cases. 

Nate Jones
Borderlands Games
www.borderlandsgames.com


----------



## Michael Dean (Apr 22, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I've read similar statements to this over and over. I enjoyed both Dragon and Dungeon, but man...its just a magazine!
> 
> Out of all the gamers I've played with, I've been the ONLY one to buy them...and I've gone through a great many groups in multiple states and countries thanks to lots of moving. The buyers ARE the minority, like it or not, and its almost terrifying to me to see people acting like the end of a magazine is anything comparable to a person's death.
> 
> Do we have to get THAT overly dramatic about a collection of paper?




Come on, man, you're reading my post waaay too literally.  No, I don't really believe that the magazine going away is truly equivalent to a human person dying; that would be silly.  But Dragon was more than just a magazine to a lot of people; it represented being part of a community of like-minded people who truly enjoyed something amazing.  It was a part of my childhood that has been associated with some great memories.  Part of getting older means you realize that nothing is permanent, but that doesn't mean you have to coldly move on without any feelings at all for its passing.  Just because YOU don't feel that way about it shouldn't entitle you to be condescending to others that do.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 22, 2007)

Michael Dean said:
			
		

> but that doesn't mean you have to coldly move on without any feelings at all for its passing.




You make the mistake of thinking that people who are not using huge exaggerations for describing their feelings don't have any feelings on the matter.

It is entirely possible to feel that this move is a bad move, and that it'd have been better if Dragon and Dungeon stayed, without expressing that as "omg, it's like someone I loved died!" or any of the other more ... let's say colourful things that's been posted on EN World.

/M


----------



## Michael Dean (Apr 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> You make the mistake of thinking that people who are not using huge exaggerations for describing their feelings don't have any feelings on the matter.
> 
> It is entirely possible to feel that this move is a bad move, and that it'd have been better if Dragon and Dungeon stayed, without expressing that as "omg, it's like someone I loved died!" or any of the other more ... let's say colourful things that's been posted on EN World.
> 
> /M




Would it have been better if I had said, "There was this time I made a sandwich.  Not just a sandwich, but a GREAT sandwich.  I'm talking Dagwood-style, with 3 kinds of meat made from animals that were hand-fed the sweetest hay and corn from fields where the soil was so soft you sank up to your ankles walking in it; and swiss, mozzarella, provolone, and smoky applewood cheddar cheeses; vine-ripened tomatoes, and the freshest iceberg lettuce that was grown and nurtured by light spring rains in the warm sun over the San Joaquin Valley in Central California and harvested by virgins at dusk, all on lightly toasted sourdough bread made in a small french bakery in San Francisco by a man named Emile, who had fled Paris just before the German Occupation by walking over the Pyrenees Mountains led by a lonely Basque goat-herder, and made his way to America in a cargo container ship dodging German U-Boats.  I hand-crafted a perfect chipotle mayonaisse to go with it, from a recipe given to me by a wandering Spanish bard, who swore me to secrecy when he gave it to me just before he died defending the honor of a woman, which I've since lost in a gambling debt incurred when I tried desperately to raise money to save the Kirtland Warbler from extinction. 

The most perfect sandwich in the history of sandwiches; so perfect, that if only I could duplicate it again in all its glory I could've put Subway and Quiznos, and all other sandwich-making pretenders out of business and I would have been rich beyond my wildest dreams.  Then the phone rang in the other room and I went to answer it.  And when I got back, the dog was licking his chops as he wolfed down the last of my sandwich. Dragon going out of print feels kind of like how I felt at that moment."  

Would that get the hyperbole police off my case?


----------



## Maggan (Apr 22, 2007)

Michael Dean said:
			
		

> Would that get the hyperbole police off my case?




I think that was a very eloquent and funny way of expressing your feelings. You're free to go.

 

/M


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 22, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Plus WOTC better up thier building security for awhile. Just in case the myth that RPGers are mentally unstable sociopaths has some truth to it. IT would only take one, so I am not kidding about beefing up security and the strict enforcement of it.
> 
> I think it would be wise of WOTC to put forth a few pounds of prevention for awhile.
> 
> ...




That's actually decent advice. Although those incidents with some D&D nut going and killing coworkers with a self-made sword (actually happened a couple of years ago, though in that case it was because that coworker relentlessly harassed him about his obsession) are very rare, they do happen. As you said: It's enough for a single guy who was a fanatic collector of either Dragon or Dungeon and does think this is not just equal to losing a fellow human, but worse. If you consider how enraged the normal people here are, think about what such a fanatic's reaction will be. As much as I dislike Wizards right now, I don't wish them to become the stage for something along the lines of the Virginia Tech Massacre.



			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> Just tell em they got the protection of Nightfall for the moment.




Real comforting: The self-proclaimed disciple of Orcus will protect them. That would make me sleep with a gun under my pillow - as a follower of the alleged creator of Undeath, that Nightfall person will probably think "If they're dead, nothing can happen to them any more" and will all slaughter them in their sleep to raise them as zombies.    



			
				Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> And seriously, Nightfall, are you on WOTC's payroll?




Come on, that's not fair. While I don't like sycophants and hopeless fanboys, Nightfall is hardly one. His stuff does make sense: Quiet down so the WotC guys will set foot outside again, and maybe start talking.



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> Another (semi-)official reply from WotC, by Rich Baker:
> 
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=702942&page=12




Yes, I read that (this happens to be the only thread on the Wizards boards that is really worthy of attention.)

Really, Rich gives a good example on how Wizards in general should handle things.(I'm speaking about FR here, not necessarily about his specific responses to the current situation): He (and a couple of other people, but mostly Rich) will answer Forgotten Realms related questions there. On Wizards own message boards. While others forsake the Wizards boards and go elsewhere, they take the time and answer our questions.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 22, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> If you consider how enraged the normal people here are




Who are these "normal" people you talk about?   

/M


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Who are these "normal" people you talk about?




Those who don't resolve their disputes by taking out those who caused those disputes with selfmade swords, of course.


----------



## Acid_crash (Apr 22, 2007)

Here's the thing about the whole situation as far as my opinion goes...

After hearing of the announcement, I was amazed and shocked.  I had been purchasing these magazines off and on ever since 3e came out, and I am surprised that they are cancelling them.

I think going straight online is a bad idea.  It could be good, but I know a whole lot of people in my area who purchase the magazines.  They are a staple of what makes D&D the game it is.  IMO they seem that way.

I know a whole lotta people who don't get online to look up any D&D information.  They buy the books on the shelves, they skim or purchase the magazines, and that's what they use.  Now I'm sure that WotC will have announcements leading up to the final magazine that will tell everyone what they have in store, but I don't think all that many people will go for it.  

Well, as we can obviously tell, not initially.

So, yes I'm pissed off as all hell, but Paizo have already picked up their slack, they have a plan and they are executing it.  WotC has something in store as well, and I'm sure it will be something cool, but only time will tell.

In the end, yes, I think this idea to cancel these magazines is just stupid.  Plain ole stupid.  I had to say it as calmly as I possibly could.


----------



## daemonslye (Apr 22, 2007)

> Don't know why I, a habitual ghost on these boards, am posting in this chaos. Must be late and my judgement poor.
> 
> But, the same thought had occurred to me. While I agree that it's unlikley to be an entirely selfless act (perhaps a deal of some kind?), it did occur to me that if Wizards had rolled out their full plan at the time of the announcement, it would have put Paizo's efforts a bit more in the shadows. This way Paizo gets a smooth transition and the opportunity to snag a bunch of customers. Erik did suggest somewhere in here that Wizards had allowed them to print more issues to allow them to finish up Savage Tide. Perhaps this is more of the same?
> 
> ...




An interesting line of thinking but lets examine this.  

If WOTC leadership were really that concerned for Paizo's well being they would have 

1) Let Paizo keep the license for an "overlap" period with their "digital initiative" and/or 
2) Enlisted their help in the new eWorld

Neither has happened so the conclusion I must draw is that this is a corporate manuever with little concern for Paizo or companies which relied on the magazines for advertising reach.

An interesting comment earlier from Rich Baker:



> Trust me, our decision-makers are aware of the response and are keeping an eye on it (but sometimes the best thing to do is let folks get the emotional responses out of their systems before you try to say anything else).




In case anyone has any doubts.  *Customers *can* win.*  It takes a little effort and determination - not much really;  Simply this, "Tell Your Friends - Stop purchasing WOTC products. *Ban 4th Edition.*".  For every gaming group that bans WOTC products end to end, the message gets clearer.

As Rich says above "our decision-makers are aware of the response and are keeping an eye on it".  They are currently betting this move will blow over.  If we persist, those same "decision-makers" *will* find a way to satisfy their customers.  *Otherwise, Hasbro will find other decision-makers.*

In the end, the real decision-makers are the customers (or, if you will, former customers).  

Complacency will doom this industry - not save it.  If you fight for the right decisions, they will be made - For example, continuing a set of print publications with online content until you prove the online model meets the customers wants/needs.  If done right, an online, rich media, community-based experience has a bright future for this space - but it will grow organically and not as originally planned out.  In the meantime, a customer-centric company would do well with complimentary print media.  The guys at Paizo are talented and run, seemingly effortlessly, a high-touch, community-based dialog with their customers (it is, I believe, in their "DNA").  WOTC should have evolved the partnership rather than dissolve it.  They obviously could have used the help.

~D


----------



## kigmatzomat (Apr 22, 2007)

Amusing, but futile.  No significant number of gamers are going to boycott 4e for the simple fact that they will want to _*see*_ 4e before they make a judgement.  I am personally expected to become a "d20" player (or whatever license-free name gets applied to R/SRD based games) after 4e comes out....but I'm still very likely to buy the 4e core books.

This is/was a huge PR gaffe.  The worst part is that WotC has shown this is a _consistent_ approach they take to handling the market.  Look at E-Tools/PCgen.  License canceled with finished product _in the pipeline_ that could never be released.  Plus, there's no official replacement product even now, several months later.  Now they pull the license on D/D mags and again there is no replacement product.  

I understand the logic: if the competing products are dead long enough, the general public will be so eager to see something official that they'll hail the e-mag and online chargen as being "eagerly awaited."  The problem is that they've shot their existing client base in the foot.  The people who would use the electronic chargens were E-Tools/PCGen users and will still be somewhat disenchanted with WotC.  The people who are willing to shell out cash for steady streams of content (e.g. subscribers to Dungeon/Dragon) will likely be quite irked at WotC as well, since they were cut off for several months.  

It's hard to say how many of these people will use the digital initiative because it all comes down to how many move on to other games or are thoroughly disenchanted.  WotC either expects these people will get over it and buy what they've got or that new users will replace them, indicating some kind of deep tie-in with 4e or DDM.  

And they are probably right.  The facelessness of a corporation means  a house-cleaning and a new product launch can often reinvigorate the line.  I know i was highly dissatisfied with TSR during the "Player's Options" years but I came to the WotC fold.  

It does mean that I probably won't buy many product lines that are licensed from WotC though, since I know that if the product turns out to be successful enough or provide some other marketing tie-in that  WotC is likely to cancel them and move them in-house with no support.

Sorry 3rd parties, unless you get a 10-year contract WHasbrotC is just too likely to screw you.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 22, 2007)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> The problem is that they've shot their existing client base in the foot.




I see the words "client base" or "user base" thrown around a lot these days.

What does it really mean?

It seems to me it's used as a shorthand for "readers of Dragon and Dungeon", or "people who have played a long time".

It also seems it can mean "the majority of D&D players" or "the segment which spends the most money on D&D".

The definition seems to vary depending on the point the poster wants to make. So my question is, do we have a somewhat agreed upon definition of what constitutes the "user base" of D&D?

/M


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 22, 2007)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> Simply this, "Tell Your Friends - Stop purchasing WOTC products.




Not going to happen.  Only 1% of D&D players bought these magazines to begin with, and a significant minority of even that 1% are somewhat okay with this decision.  Boycotting won't work, because the overwhelming majority of players don't have the stake you have in those magazines.  They just don't feel as strongly about it as you do.



> *Ban 4th Edition.*".  For every gaming group that bans WOTC products end to end, the message gets clearer.




There is no 4th edition, so what is there to ban?  You expect your passion to carry through for everyone who likes the game for a year or more?  Come on now...get some perspective.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I see the words "client base" or "user base" thrown around a lot these days.
> 
> What does it really mean?
> 
> ...




The user base of D&D is significantly different than the user base of these two magazines.

Their statement in Dragon #351 says:
41,772 (13,517 from subs) for the most recent issue.
47,220 (13,438 from subs) average for the last 12 months.

That's a bit less than 1% of the known D&D community (active player base of 5 million).

And while some purchases were passed from person to person accounting for more people than the purchases represent, a lot were also from people not really reading the magazines much at all, if at all.  I know for myself, I stopped reading them even while my subscription continued, and the same happened with my DM (who let his subscription lapse).  Which is why I feel the published numbers are the most accurate we are going to get as far as how many "users" were/are in the "userbase" of those magazines.


----------



## lkj (Apr 22, 2007)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> An interesting line of thinking but lets examine this.
> 
> If WOTC leadership were really that concerned for Paizo's well being they would have  . . .
> 
> ~D





Well, I'm certainly in no position to really argue one way or another. It's fine to speculate on their thinking, but I doubt we really have all the relevant facts to come to any confident conclusion. I'm sure that a business calculation drove the whole thing, but I'm not comfortable concluding that no other factors were involved in how it was implemented. That said, I don't really feel like it's worth arguing about, since I think we lack sufficient info to really make it worth the effort. Now, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't put their theories out. What the heck. It's an internet messageboard after all.

Which leads me to another point-- Vocal complaints from a group of people in an internet community seems, to me, like a lot of screaming in the dark. Probably, if you totalled all the people posting in all the threads on all the messagboards in the world on this topic, it would make just a tiny, tiny fraction of the D&D consumer base. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Certainly if these messageboards make a representative sample, it still matters. I just don't have the data to say one way or another. Maybe Wizards does. 

I suppose since this is all about a Digital Initiative, then the online community becomes far more important. But how many of us really post on this stuff? Until today, I almost never did. And I'll probably stop shortly. What sample does a thread like this represent? Is it something to make business decisions on? It might be. I don't know.

It's also not to say that internet outrage couldn't have an effect. Even if only a tiny fraction is complaining, there is the 'theory of the squeaky wheel'-- which is to say that I suspect not all business moves are rational either.

Yadda yadda. Just rambling really. 

Cheers,
AD


----------



## Henrix (Apr 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That's a bit less than 1% of the known D&D community (active player base of 5 million).



But presumably a lot higher percantage of the part of the community that really buys things - apart from the occasional PHB.


----------



## morbiczer (Apr 22, 2007)

Mistwell!

You keep mentioning that since only about 1% of D&D players bought Dungeon & Dragon, these magazines had no real following in the market, and only a small percentage of D&D players get damaged because of their cancelation.

Some thoughts: 

1.)  As far as I know the source of the 5 million players was a text written by Paizo to potential advertisers. Erik Mona said himself here a day or two ago (I think it was the "big" Dragon & Dungeon thread, sorry, can't link) that they never said 5 million customers, just 5 million players. I know many, many people, who own only a PHB, or maybe the three Core books, but never have bought anything besides that. Heck, I even know regular D&D players who don't even own a PHB! (They do have their own dice though.  ) 

2.) What circulation does an average book produced by WotC have? I don't think that there is data available for us about that, but I personaly would be very surprised if the current splatbooks or FR regional books or whatever would sell more than 40-50,000 copies. And remember that those 40-50,000 Dragons and Dungeons were sold every month! Why aren't we hearing that books like the Fiendish Codexes (Codices?), or Dragon Magic, or whatnot shouldn't be produced (or go online), because only a few ten thousand copies are sold of them? If 50,000 copies aren't much, than I'm pretty sure that not many WotC books sell "much". 

3.) I'm pretty sure that those who subscribed to either Dragon or Dungeon spent much more money on D&D stuff, than the average D&D player. Even if it is true, that the buyers of the magazines formed only 1% of D&D players, I'm sure that they generated a far bigger percentage of WotC's income.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 22, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> And remember that those 40-50,000 Dragons and Dungeons were sold every month!




Nope. 13000 were sold each month to subscribers. 50 000 were circulated in total to shops and subscribers.

Not all of the mags circulated are sold. Many are returned. At least if the magazine business in the US works anything like the one in Sweden, which seems likely.

The only guaranteed sales Paizo has/had comes from subscriptions. The rest is hit and miss distribution in the hopes of selling to casual readers. Just like it is for any other magazine, I guess.

Which is why subscriptions is a corner stone of a successful magazine strategy. Unless you go for an all out ad financed model, in which case distribution becomes the corner stone of the strategy.

/M


----------



## morbiczer (Apr 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Nope. 13000 were sold each month to subscribers. 50 000 were circulated in total to shops and subscribers.




Fair point.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 22, 2007)

Henrix said:
			
		

> But presumably a lot higher percantage of the part of the community that really buys things - apart from the occasional PHB.




Exactly!

So there's 5 million D&D players. That doesn't mean that 5 million players hunt down every Wizards product. It doesn't even mean that there's 5 million people who have ever spent anything on D&D.

In my current group, it is like this: I am the one who buys quite a lot of books, buys minis, maps, and so on. One or two other people have the PHB, or even the whole Core rules. Nothing else. The other two don't have any books. That doesn't mean that those two don't play, or the other two only play a little. It's just that we don't really need 5 Tomes of Battle or Spell Compendiums. I am also the guy with the dragon subscription, but everone would read some part, if only the comics at the end.

The other gaming group I used to play in was similar: There was another guy who bought several books (though still not nearly as much as I), his girlfriend had a handful of books in German (since she didn't want to use the English ones, and I refuse to use German ones, since they're a crime agains language). The rest, between 4 and half a dozen people, didn't have any D&D books. 

I would guess that we're not the big exception. I'd say that in your average group of 5 people, two don't have any books, another just has the PHB and maybe one or two other books, another had the core rules and some books, and only one has anything that can be clalled a collection.



I'd say that those who don't buy books other than the core rules (or not even them) will not subscribe to any silly online thingy, either. So out of your group of 5, you might have two potential subscribers to the Online Initiative, and many of those won't bother with it, since they either don't need any magazine-like content or don't want to pay for electronic stuff.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2007)

Henrix said:
			
		

> But presumably a lot higher percantage of the part of the community that really buys things - apart from the occasional PHB.




I don't see any evidence that suggests people who buy these magazines are the ones who are buying all the books.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 22, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Exactly!
> 
> So there's 5 million D&D players. That doesn't mean that 5 million players hunt down every Wizards product. It doesn't even mean that there's 5 million people who have ever spent anything on D&D..



You still are not going to make up enough difference to turn 1% into a really significant amount.

And that is before you take into account that six weeks from now the heat of this will be a long faded memory and 90%+ of the "outraged" vocal minority will be on to the next thing and looking for their next gaming fix.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm guessing here.....

But I'd wager that the vast number of people forking over $10 a month to play internet required WoW is a significant factor in making WotC conclude that a viable on-line access community is out there.  A tiny fraction of the WoW base would be a gold mine.


----------



## morbiczer (Apr 22, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't see any evidence that suggests people who buy these magazines are the ones who are buying all the books.




There certainly is no evidence for it. (All the people I know, who bought at least some Dragons and Dungeons in the past also at least semi-regulary bought books, but that really doesn't prove anything.)

But to me at least it is simply logic that people who show far above attachment to the game in buying its magazines (especially subscribers) also buy more books than the average. Especially since many D&D players don't buy anything. 

And I'm not saying that they are the ones buying all the books, just that your regular customer of Dragon and Dungeon would have spent more on other D&D stuff than those who didn't buy the magazines.


----------



## Henrix (Apr 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You still are not going to make up enough difference to turn 1% into a really significant amount.




But in that case, why ever produce any of all those books that sell significantly less than 50 000 copies?

The five million players are not five million buyers.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'm guessing here.....
> 
> But I'd wager that the vast number of people forking over $10 a month to play internet required WoW is a significant factor in making WotC conclude that a viable on-line access community is out there.  A tiny fraction of the WoW base would be a gold mine.





Any idea how big that community actually is?


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That's a bit less than 1% of the known D&D community (active player base of 5 million).




According to Newsweek, in 1984, there were 4 million players.

That was the height of D&D's popularity, when D&D could appear in movies (ET) without being a joke about nerds, and when it was a big enough cultural phenomenon to be researched by a major news organization.  

In the decades since, the closest we've gotten to anyone carrying about our existence beyond D&D being shorthand for nerds would be the 30th anniversary NPR coverage.  NPR emphasized how fun it is that some people STILL play after all these decades that the public thought it had died . . .

So 5 million players?  I'm thinking that's 2-4 times too high.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Henrix said:
			
		

> But presumably a lot higher percantage of the part of the community that really buys things - apart from the occasional PHB.




Nod, of the 18 people in the 3 gaming groups I'm in, only 5 are actually "customers".


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Their statement in Dragon #351 says:
> 41,772 (13,517 from subs) for the most recent issue.
> 47,220 (13,438 from subs) average for the last 12 months.



Wow! In my hayday of Dragon readership, the publication statements were in the 120,000-150,000 range, and this was the 2e era when so many "left AD&D for other games."


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Wow! In my hayday of Dragon readership, the publication statements were in the 120,000-150,000 range, and this was the 2e era when so many "left AD&D for other games."




Oddly enough though I know people and was one of them that left D&D but still got the magazines.  It was the best way to stay informed before the internet exploded with gaming.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But I'd wager that the vast number of people forking over $10 a month to play internet required WoW is a significant factor in making WotC conclude that a viable on-line access community is out there.  A tiny fraction of the WoW base would be a gold mine.




Apples and oranges. WoW and other MMORPGS provide a completely different form of entertainment than a magazine does. I'd be pretty skeptical of any research demonstrating any sort of causal relationship between the two, and would think that any marketing decisions on such information should be considered suspect. IMO, of course.


----------



## Sholari (Apr 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Not going to happen.  Only 1% of D&D players bought these magazines to begin with, and a significant minority of even that 1% are somewhat okay with this decision.  Boycotting won't work, because the overwhelming majority of players don't have the stake you have in those magazines.  They just don't feel as strongly about it as you do.




Consider that the subscriber base of Dungeon is comprised mostly of dungeon masters.  Each dungeon master has group of maybe 4-6 people on average.  Also consider the influence that subcribers of Dungeon magazine have on the market... these aren't your average players... many are influential loyalists that may own gaming stores, may volunteer time for Gencon, etc. that are very irate.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm just curious - where did the figure of 5,000,000 D&D players come from in the first place?


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 23, 2007)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Nod, of the 18 people in the 3 gaming groups I'm in, only 5 are actually "customers".



Same here - in our current group of 5, only 2 of us regularly buy material. The rest are happy to "borrow" our books and such as required at the table.

It was the same in our 2E heyday - the group was larger then (about 7 or 8), but I was really the only regular purchaser of materials, with 2 or 3 of the other making infrequent purchases.

So for every 1 purchaser of Dragon or Dungeon, assume a few freinds and gaming acquantainces who also read those same issues...suddenly that "paltry" 50,000 doesn't look quite so small a segment to hack off.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 23, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That said, you saying it feels like a punch in the gut is ok by me. It's the "it feels like someone I loved died" that slaps me in my face.
> 
> Also, if someone really, really feels like the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon are equal to the grief felt when a loved one died, and does so from experience ... wow, you take your gaming seriously. Way too seriously in my opinion.
> 
> /M




Hi Maggan. First off, my condolences for your loss. I mean it.

I feel like I have to start by answering to your post because, well, I do feel like I've just lost loved ones with Dungeon and Dragon mags, and I do it from experience, since I lost my mother about a year ago. I love D&D. I love RPGs. This hobby is such a huge part of my life and who I am today, and Dungeon and Dragon are such a huge part of the landscape of this passion of mine, that yes, I feel like I've been stabbed in the heart on this one.

I'm sorry you feel like it's a slap in the face, and I apologize for it, but I can't help but feel like WotC just slapped me repetitively in the face too. I feel their answer as both condescending ("we have a plan") and completely unprepared. 

I am underwhelmed at their response, and I am utterly disappointed. I'm not one to just cry for boycotts, but I certainly do not feel like purchasing any WotC product in the near future. I feel like I've really been taken for a moron on this one, and the answer they posted on their website feels quite the same.

I wanted to have answers, to understand. 

Instead, what I understand is the lack of preparation on Wizards part, the disconnection there is between some staff members and the gaming community, and a huge condescension for us.

In restrospect, I'm very excited about Pathfinder and Paizo's new ventures. In contrast and by comparison with WotC's management of the debacle, I feel their marketing strategy, their sense of the customer, their dedication to their work (posting non stop for how many hours, really? ) and their understanding of the "craft" nature of our hobby is nothing short of admirable. I'm so into it right now. 

Thanks Paizo for providing some light for me during this dark hour. I mean it.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2007)

Sholari said:
			
		

> Consider that the subscriber base of Dungeon is comprised mostly of dungeon masters.  Each dungeon master has group of maybe 4-6 people on average.  Also consider the influence that subcribers of Dungeon magazine have on the market... these aren't your average players... many are influential loyalists that may own gaming stores, may volunteer time for Gencon, etc. that are very irate.
> 
> Then go read this book...
> 
> ...




The DM being bummed that he now has to buy Pathfinder instead of Dungeon (maybe) is not sufficient to persuade all players of the DM to cease buying all WOTC books.

If you think it is, then I think we just have a different perception of people's buying habits.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2007)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> According to Newsweek, in 1984, there were 4 million players.
> 
> That was the height of D&D's popularity, when D&D could appear in movies (ET) without being a joke about nerds, and when it was a big enough cultural phenomenon to be researched by a major news organization.
> 
> ...




It comes from Paizo, the same people that list the circulation of the magazines.  If one number is flawed, why wouldn't the other number be flawed?  We have the same source for both numbers, so I am going to trust them to be as accurate as we are going to get.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Wow! In my hayday of Dragon readership, the publication statements were in the 120,000-150,000 range, and this was the 2e era when so many "left AD&D for other games."




Yup.  Readership has dwindled to about 1/3 of what it was about 15 years ago.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 23, 2007)

JeffB said:
			
		

> The whole "WOTC staffers are "reluctant" (cough) to come over here and talk about this mess" that Morris posted honestly cracks me up.
> 
> As someone who has worked for some fairly large corporations who've had to make some press announcements that pi$$ed off a lot of people/customers from time to time, quite honestly, I think the stance is rather unprofessional. Marketing and CS people sometimes get to have all the glory, and sometimes they have to eat the big $^&t sandwiches when it's bad press and problems. Quite frankly, where I have worked, our marketing people (that included myself) would have been reamed out and/or disciplined/fired for avoiding such a situation. An online "damage contol-blurb", would not be sufficient (in the least). Then again, we'd have our CS people up to snuff on the sitch as best we could, and also be putting out all kinds of FAQs for our customers (like Paizo did)
> 
> ...




Quoted for truth.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It comes from Paizo, the same people that list the circulation of the magazines.  If one number is flawed, why wouldn't the other number be flawed?  We have the same source for both numbers, so I am going to trust them to be as accurate as we are going to get.



Well, one number is obviously based on concrete sales figures. The other is based on...what? Asking 100 people in the street if they play D&D and then multiplying the result to get a figure representative of the whole planet?

I doubt that the method was this haphazard, but would still be curious to know how the figure was reached...


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Apr 23, 2007)

I have heard people state that the Dungeon circulation or "influence" is "1%" and "insignificant." If it is insignificant, why bother cancelling it in the first place? Why not go ahead with the "online initiative, " since a circulation of 50K is really pennies and really not going to impact the online initiative?


----------



## Jim Hague (Apr 23, 2007)

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> I have heard people state that the Dungeon circulation or "influence" is "1%" and "insignificant." If it is insignificant, why bother cancelling it in the first place? Why not go ahead with the "online initiative, " since a circulation of 50K is really pennies and really not going to impact the online initiative?




Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands?  Emphasis on the latter.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 23, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands?  Emphasis on the latter.



It wasn't costing WotC a cent to produce, the cost was entirely on Paizo, by my understanding.

And I have to disagree about the magazines not growing the WotC brand. Plenty of people I know first saw products they ended up buying either advertised in the magazines, or referenced in the articles and/or adventures.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 23, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands?  Emphasis on the latter.




But it isn't expensive for WotC, the ones that didn't want to renegotitate a new deal with Paizo.  Paizo's the business that creates and distributes the mags, they just had to okay the content by WotC.

WotC loses nothing and gains a good deal from continuing the deal with Paizo, unless they think that Dragon and Dungeon are serious competitors to their own stuff.

And if WotC thinks the mags were serious competition for their stuff, they must also think that readership is significant.  Numbers thrown around here don't really mean a lot, you know what they say about statistics...


----------



## dcas (Apr 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It comes from Paizo, the same people that list the circulation of the magazines.  If one number is flawed, why wouldn't the other number be flawed?  We have the same source for both numbers, so I am going to trust them to be as accurate as we are going to get.



Because they know exactly how many magazines they print every month and exactly how many subscribers they have.

They certainly don't have similar data on D&D's active player base.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 23, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> They certainly don't have similar data on D&D's active player base.




Yeah, I don't remember Paizo listing the current number of D&D players anywhere....


----------



## Dross (Apr 23, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> o_0
> 
> No.  But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.
> 
> ...




And I must conclude that you are trolling yourself if you cannot accept a different point of view.  :\   

Having someone who admits to not being a life long gamer does not mean that they do not care about the game or magazine, or that they do not want to do what is best for the game or magazine. 

Coming from outside may just mean that fresh eyes found the best way to move forward.

Now I don't know if this is true or not, only time will tell if it is a good move.

But not living in the US (and not a subscriber) meant that the paper copy had the magazine arriving at least a month after it came out (sometimes to several months delay) and often stores were not provided enough copies so it became first in first served.

An electronic copy would solve that. 

I'd rather have the hardcopy to use persnally, but just maybe this is the right way to go about things.

Or maybe not.  :\


----------



## Scylla (Apr 23, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> Because they know exactly how many magazines they print every month and exactly how many subscribers they have.
> 
> They certainly don't have similar data on D&D's active player base.



Agreed. (And I can't believe I've returned to these boards after a day to find people still chewing over these numbers!  Holy smoke!   But I respect your tenacity.  Do you guys _ever_ sleep?  ) 
As previously mentioned, I'd like to see the hard data used by Paizo (and don't get me wrong, I love the company) to get the 5 mil. number. I mean, how does anyone really know? I there a registry I missed somewhere? If I decide, here in the privacy of my home, not to play anymore it's 5 million -1 -- but who's to know? If I teach a friend to play tomorrow and they use my materials, it's +1, but again, who's to know? It's an estimate, and, unlike the magazine numbers, probably a very rough & possibly exaggerated one at that.

Even if it is 5 million, the number has little bearing without further data to examine. How many of those players are still playing 1e or 2e with their old TSR books? How many don't buy game books anymore? How many wouldn't buy a WotC product? How many copies _does_ a successful WotC book sell? What is a realistic "success" percentage for a gaming magazine? How many dislike e-content, don't have Internet access, or simply don't get content online (I have fellow players that are Internet savvy -- one works as a network admin -- and yet never to go Wizards' website or EnWorld)? 
Too many variables to proclaim anything based on the limited data available, it would seem.

Bottom line: Some people may think this was a good business decision for WotC, and they are entitled to that opinion. Maybe it is. Others may argue simply because they feel WotC is being judged rashly. Maybe it is (although I beg to differ). 
But this decision has certainly upset a great many people, as proved by the overwhelming negative response we've seen -- I can't conceive of anything short of a 4e announcement or actual cancellation/selling of the D&D game itself causing such a stir. Implying that all these people somehow constitute an unimportant fraction of D&D players isn’t valid, and doesn’t promote any sense of community. Many folks are saddened or angered by this news because it _does_ affect them, and feel the need to express it among their fellow gamers. Their feelings are sincere (if at times extreme); please let them grieve. 
I enjoy Gen Con on the rare occasions I can go, but it wouldn’t personally kill me if the show were cancelled – but I’m aware that others feel very, very different. And I respect that deeply. The attendance of Gen Con Indy is even less than that 1% of 5 million quoted so often, but if the show were cancelled tomorrow (perhaps replaced by an online version to reach more people?) I wouldn’t be at all surprised to read the posts reflecting the anger and sorrow and memories. And I’d respect those feelings, because the show, like the two magazines, is more than a simple product. It too is a gaming icon with a rich tradition founded in the very fabric of the game we profess to love.

Just my two coppers; thanks for reading this long missive.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Yeah, I don't remember Paizo listing the current number of D&D players anywhere....




It's part of the Piazo stat sheet they use to persuade people to advertise in the magazine.  It's used right along side the distribution stat.

By they way, their distribution stat is also not 100% accurate, as it is based on print run and shipping to distributors, without the returns numbers factored in.

Bottom line, if you trust these people for one stat, you should trust them for another.  And even if you think they are off by a factor of two for the larger stat, it STILL means the distribution of these magazines is infinitesimally small compared to the number of players.  Heck, it could be off by a factor of TEN and still result in these mags being really small relative to the whole.

All I am seeing is a whole lot of excuses, avoidance, and dodging over this issue. Look, I get that you want to feel that the magazines were a significant part of D&D as a whole because they were a big part *for you*.  But it's narcissistic to believe that your experience is representative of the whole based on what we know of this hobby (and given some of the extreme reactions mentioning physical pain, rape, the death of children, traitors to collective consciousness, etc.. that we have seen in this thread, narcissism does in fact seem to be a distinct possibility).  Can't you guys accept at least the vague possibility that these magazines were not in fact reaching the better part of the D&Ders out there, and that digital distribution has some potential for reaching more people?

In the very least you can see numerous reports of distribution problems overseas, and expensive shipping costs overseas, which were reducing distribution in those regions.  Those people will be able to access this information now, in an online format.  And that has to have some meaning.

I guess we will wait and see.  But I think it's a distinct possibility that, in a few years, we will see distribution numbers much higher for these mags than they currently are.  And given the long term trend of distribution shrinking (it was 3 times the current distribution about 12 years ago), that is a good thing for this hobby.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 23, 2007)

Scylla said:
			
		

> I enjoy Gen Con on the rare occasions I can go, but it wouldn’t personally kill me if the show were cancelled – but I’m aware that others feel very, very different. And I respect that deeply. The attendance of Gen Con Indy is even less than that 1% of 5 million quoted so often, but if the show were cancelled tomorrow (perhaps replaced by an online version to reach more people?) I wouldn’t be at all surprised to read the posts reflecting the anger and sorrow and memories. And I’d respect those feelings, because the show, like the two magazines, is more than a simple product. It too is a gaming icon with a rich tradition founded in the very fabric of the game we profess to love.



Good analogy, and well said.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Bottom line, if you trust these people for one stat, you should trust them for another.



Well I'm sorry, but for me that is simply not the case. Gauging how many players there are worlwide would be a LOT more guesswork than figures based off your own sales figures.


> And even if you think they are off by a factor of two for the larger stat, it STILL means the distribution of these magazines is infinitesimally small compared to the number of players.  Heck, it could be off by a factor of TEN and still result in these mags being really small relative to the whole.



Let's look at that. For the sake of argument, we'll say it is off by a factor of 10 (I don't believe this to be so, but bear with me). All of a sudden the magazine readership is 10% of the player base. Then lets also assume that, for Dungeon at least, 1 DM buys it to run for 4 players - that's 5 players per magazine. All of a sudden that 10% (50,000 of 500,000) jumps to a staggering 50% that have been affected by the cancellation of the magazine. Lets go even further and imagine that of the 500,000 players worldwide, only about 50% are regular buyers of WotC product - the rest play with borrowed books or with SRD. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at - this guesstimated 1% figure could be significantly higher than you are crediting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 23, 2007)

Well, I'm one of those guys who is the "Buyer/Librarian" for the group.  Everyone buys some stuff, but I'm the one they borrow from when they don't get "product X"- which is usually the case.  I even have dupes of some books, like the PHB, since some of the players are so casually involved that they only supply their pencil, paper, and brains.

In our group of 10 or so gamers, I'm the only subscriber to Dragon _or_ Dungeon (or any other gamer mag, for that matter), but someone is always borrowing an issue of one or the other.

I told a buddy of mine- a non-buyer- about the demise of the print versions of the 2 mags.

He hadn't heard the news, and he designs websites, so he's always online for some reason or another.

He looked at me like I'd kicked his family jewels.

And, according to him, once the print version is gone, _he_ won't be reading it if I don't subscribe, since I'm the one he borrows the mags from, and he won't bother paying for it online for himself.

So that's one subscriber and at least 1 additional reader gone.  I wonder what will happen as the news filters down to the others in the group?

(I'm not being snarky, I honestly don't know)


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Well I'm sorry, but for me that is simply not the case. Gauging how many players there are worlwide would be a LOT more guesswork than figures based off your own sales figures.
> Let's look at that. For the sake of argument, we'll say it is off by a factor of 10 (I don't believe this to be so, but bear with me). All of a sudden the magazine readership is 10% of the player base. Then lets also assume that, for Dungeon at least, 1 DM buys it to run for 4 players - that's 5 players per magazine. All of a sudden that 10% (50,000 of 500,000) jumps to a staggering 50% that have been affected by the cancellation of the magazine. Lets go even further and imagine that of the 500,000 players worldwide, only about 50% are regular buyers of WotC product - the rest play with borrowed books or with SRD. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at - this guesstimated 1% figure could be significantly higher than you are crediting.




And then, if we multiply that number you pulled out of a hat by THREE, suddenly 150% of players are affected!!! 

Dude!!!

Here's the thing: there's a really good chance WOTC knows their business better than anyone on these boards.

If they think this is a good call, they probably have some market research not publically available on a web page to back it up.

Also, everyone says WOTC needs to grow the hobby. Last I looked, there are a lot more people in Russia, China and India than there EVER will be in the US. 

Everyone who's posted to a thread saying how Dragon introduced them to gaming? Think of how many gamers could be reached, introduced, encouraged, etc. 

Finally, the worst day to make this move online is TODAY. Every day going forward, it's a better move, because the world gets more connected every day and technology makes reading online a more pleasant experience. 

People are saying WOTC is being short-sighted in this move. I actually think it's the opposite. The downside is now, with the outrage at people losing their magazines. 

The downside will get smaller over time. The upside will get larger.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Also, everyone says WOTC needs to grow the hobby. Last I looked, there are a lot more people in Russia, China and India than there EVER will be in the US.



Last I looked, most people in Russia and China had a lot less disposable income than those in the US (and it is unlikely this situation will change in the next 15 years or so). Also, they were a lot more likely to pirate just about everything. Speaking of subscription-based services, WoW is happily running on free bootleg Russian and Chinese servers 24/7.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And then, if we multiply that number you pulled out of a hat by THREE, suddenly 150% of players are affected!!!
> 
> Dude!!!



Exactly my point, the number is as likely to be substantially larger than it is to be substantially smaller.

All I'm asking is that people stop bandying about "1% of the community" as though it is gospel.   


> Here's the thing: there's a really good chance WOTC knows their business better than anyone on these boards.
> 
> If they think this is a good call, they probably have some market research not publically available on a web page to back it up.



I humbly disagree. Because WotC are a company does not mean that they, or their market research, are infallible.

In my 20+ years in various industries, I have seen major companies make mistakes that a humble member of the lower eschelons could have picked up. Trust me, it happens. New Coke anyone?   


> Also, everyone says WOTC needs to grow the hobby. Last I looked, there are a lot more people in Russia, China and India than there EVER will be in the US.
> 
> Everyone who's posted to a thread saying how Dragon introduced them to gaming? Think of how many gamers could be reached, introduced, encouraged, etc.



Sure, and just how many of those people do you imagine own their own PC and have reliable, cheap internet access, as compared to those who can receive something by post?

You're also looking at this as an either/or situation - myself, I firmly believe the online initiative and the print magazines could have happily co-existed.


> Finally, the worst day to make this move online is TODAY. Every day going forward, it's a better move, because the world gets more connected every day and technology makes reading online a more pleasant experience.
> 
> People are saying WOTC is being short-sighted in this move. I actually think it's the opposite. The downside is now, with the outrage at people losing their magazines.
> 
> The downside will get smaller over time. The upside will get larger.



Only time will tell, but for my 2 cents, I believe WotC could have handled the whole thing A LOT better than they did.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 23, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Hi Maggan. First off, my condolences for your loss. I mean it.




Thank you for your kind and well measured reply. My condoleances, as well.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Apr 23, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Sure, and just how many of those people do you imagine own their own PC and have reliable, cheap internet access, as compared to those who can receive something by post?




In my travels around the world, I've been amazed at how wide spread Internet access is. In South America and Asia there were Internet cafés all over the place. Someone had hooked up to the Internet, got a few computers as well and made money on the tourists. Which benefited the local people as well.

And to compare to Sweden, a lot of the WoW playing is done in gaming cafés, where you get together with your friends, rent a computer for a while and play.

So you don't have to own a computer to get access to the Internet.

/M


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 23, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands?  Emphasis on the latter.




You make a very good argument. For continuing the magazines, that is: If it's expensive, it means that Paizo has to pay expanses. If it's not growing the brand, it means that it doesn't do so well. 

So let them continue throwing money out of the window - after the new and "totally awesome" online rag is available, they will go out of business, and Wizards has shown that they're the better competitor.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 23, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> All I'm asking is that people stop bandying about "1% of the community" as though it is gospel.



So you are all for the debate as long as data that doesn't support your cause is excluded without a fact based reason.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 23, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Any idea how big that community actually is?



Nope.

But clearly a potential market of online gamers exists that is already generating vastly more revenue than Dragon.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 23, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges. WoW and other MMORPGS provide a completely different form of entertainment than a magazine does. I'd be pretty skeptical of any research demonstrating any sort of causal relationship between the two, and would think that any marketing decisions on such information should be considered suspect. IMO, of course.



One arguement being presented was that this was a bad move because of limited access to online content.  
I'm not claiming an causal relationship.  I'm claiming that there are a ton of gamers out there with online access.
I'm sure you can find some stray examples, but in terms of making a good economic choice, lack of access isn't even going to make a blip in the data.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But clearly a potential market of online gamers exists that is already generating vastly more revenue than Dragon.




Honestly, I fail to see how the WoW network of players has any bearing on (pen and paper) D&D. The people who subscribe to MMORPGs every month do so in order to play the game, not to read some magazine about playing the game. It's an entirely different experience.

I'm _not_ claiming that this means that the Wizards DI is doomed - without evidence, that would be foolish. But equally, it is foolish for Wizards to look at the WoW market and think that they can offer the DI to duplicate that. It's an entirely different product and an entirely different experience. The fact that the delivery mechanism is the same is irrelevant - no-one pays to receive a product _by post_, they pay to receive _a product_ by post.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So you are all for the debate as long as data that doesn't support your cause is excluded without a fact based reason.




The thing is, that 1% data point is pretty important to the debate - if it's accurate then I'd agree that Dragon's readership probably is irrelevant in the scheme of things. But if it's wrong...

Now, reason has been given to suggest that the player base of 5,000,000 is overstated. (And, if it's taken from a stat sheet used to encourage advertising, that alone should be enough to throw it into doubt - given that it's an estimate and not a concrete and verifiable data point, you would naturally shoot high.) The question is, is it overstated, and if so by how much?

If it is off by a factor of 10, suddenly that 1% turns into 10%, and that probably _is_ significant.

And, yes, I think it is relevant to consider how much of the player base is actually part of the customer base. If the average WotC product sells tens of thousands of copies, that suggests that the customer base itself isn't much higher than that 10% (although that's hard to quantify, since not everyone buys the same books, so it could well be double, triple, or more than that). And then there genuinely is the overlap between the two groups to consider.

Anecdotally, of the six people in my group I own lots of books, one other owns the three core rulebooks and the Spell Compendium, and a third has a Player's Handbook. The others manage without. Now, of course, statistically that has no bearing whatsoever... but do Wizards actually have concrete data on how many active _customers_ they have, as opposed to active players?

That's a large part of the fun of statistics - they can be used to 'prove' any point you want, and conversely can be taken, mangled, and rearranged to disprove the exact same point. My gut feeling is that Wizards have made a big mistake in doing as they have... but time will tell. And, it's not as if I will mind being wrong about this one, given the alternative.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Apr 23, 2007)

> Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands? Emphasis on the latter.




Sorry, I'd have to say the exact opposite. The magazines were better then they have been in years. Paizo has built up a huge presence and has a massive store, and Wizards wants to take back the magazines now that they are successful and build on that.

AT&T did the same thing with Cingular. Cingular bought out AT&T and the AT&T brand disappeared. Several years later Cingular has amassed a lot of clients and is doing well, so AT&T buys them. Happens all the time and makes sense.

I just hope they don't just bring in the same content as the magazines and put them online. I feel that they need to add a lot more for this type of transition.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Exactly my point, the number is as likely to be substantially larger than it is to be substantially smaller.
> 
> All I'm asking is that people stop bandying about "1% of the community" as though it is gospel.




Well everyone seems to talk about Paizo in *glowing* terms as a business. So using their numbers seems like a reasonable base. Also, those numbers are pretty in line with other numbers I've heard.

I believe Dancey's number was 2-3 million. So they might have been aiming high and doubling the number of active players, but they weren't increasing it by 10. 



> Sure, and just how many of those people do you imagine own their own PC and have reliable, cheap internet access, as compared to those who can receive something by post?




More tomorrow than today.

And that will be true of EVERY tomorrow. 

That makes this a great long-term idea imo. 

Also, you show a great ignorance of those countries. China has a HUGE population of massively multiplayer online games. So obviously there's a large population of of folks not only with an internet connection, but with high-speed access.

While people don't own as many computers, people oversees have these things called internet cafes. The MMO market is huge in Korea too. 

Now let's look at some numbers: China has 123 million internet users, India has 60 million internet users, Russia has 24 million internet users. All those numbers are from the CIA World Factbook btw. 

That's 200 million internet users. A lot of them, based on the popularity of online gaming in those countries, are already predisposed to liking wizard's products. 

Sorry, this is a great move. And it will be a better move tomorrow, and the day after that. 



> You're also looking at this as an either/or situation - myself, I firmly believe the online initiative and the print magazines could have happily co-existed.
> Only time will tell, but for my 2 cents, I believe WotC could have handled the whole thing A LOT better than they did.




It's an either or situation because WOTC has firmly and consistently shown that they do not want to be in the magazine business.

That's why they licensed them out in the first place. Peter Adkisson has *said* as much. They he wanted to diversify Wizards, moving more heavily into stores, magazines and such. Hasbro on the other hand, wanted a nice, tight division that did ONE thing. 

I don't think WOTC could have handled this better.

The people who were upset, nay *outraged* would have been no matter how many details were released, what was said etc. They lost a security blanket. Something that let them know, no matter what, that the brand was ok. 

They also don't think Wizards has the right to just cancel something, if they're not LOSING MONEY on it.

It's not enough for them to just think it's going to become less viable over time, while their alternative service will become more viable.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 23, 2007)

Creative Mountain Games has published an article regarding the end of Dragon and Dungeon magazines and what comes in their wake.


----------



## Muad'dib Pendragon (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> That's 200 million internet users. A lot of them, based on the popularity of online gaming in those countries, are already predisposed to liking wizard's products.




While I can buy everything else you referenced, I think this is a stretch.  Of those 200 million users, how many would want to play a traditional pen & paper RPG?  Sure, a great number (I couldn't say how many) have and will play MMPORGs, but I would venture to guess the vast majority of Chinese, Indians and Russians have never been exposed to a classical P&P RPG.  

WotC has said next to nothing on its digital initiative, but IMO it's pretty clear the whole thing is meant to bring the P&P RPG, at least in part, online, in hopes of expanding it's customer base by appealing to the MMPORG crowd.  To be honest, I don't see how P&P can compete, especially given its lack of exposure to the international crowd you reference.  P&P would almost seem antiquated in comparison, and a step backward.  P&P RPGs and MMPORGs require an entirely different mindset, not to mention the vastly different social dynamic.

If WotC somehow can, over time, bridge that gap, then they're golden.  As for the traditional P&P RPGer, we must adjust or slowly die off to extinction.

As for the OP:  yeah, the late posting was an attempt at placation, offering nothing substantive.  Hopefully, we'll hear more shortly.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Apr 23, 2007)

My thinking is the snafu is in irritating the people _most likely_ to be clients of the digital initiative.  Dungeon & Dragon readers are a market that has demonstrated a willingness to pay for information, just like the CMP customers were the ones proven to pay for electronic game aids.  

These people comprise the the greatest likely early adopters for the digital initiative.  Either WHasbrotC expects their new customers, possibly in a new demographic, to more than make up for bad feelings or they think their customer base will "get over it."


----------



## JustinA (Apr 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Their statement in Dragon #351 says:
> 41,772 (13,517 from subs) for the most recent issue.
> 47,220 (13,438 from subs) average for the last 12 months.
> 
> That's a bit less than 1% of the known D&D community (active player base of 5 million).




We honestly don't know enough to draw any meaningful conclusion from those numbers.

1. If all 5 million members of that active player base were actively buying D&D products every month, the RPG industry would be a lot healthier than it is today. Heck, if it was even a significant fraction of that number the RPG industry would be a lot healthier today.

2. So what is the actual number for the active _customers_ in the D&D community?

3. What percentage of people subscribed to both magazines? Is it 50% (meaning there's a readership of 60,000 for both magazines)? Is it 90% (meaning there's a readership of 45,000 for both magazines)?

4. How much influence will those 40,000 to 80,000 readers on the gamers around them? Is it typical for each reader to belong to a group of 4 other players while being the only one to subscribe? Would 40,000 purchasers of the magazine actually suggest a user base of 200,000? (The magazine industry, in general, uses a 5-to-1 ratio of sales-to-readership when setting advertising rates, IIRC. Is that number accurate? Is it lower or higher than the number for a magazine specifically directed at supporting a group activity?

5. What percentage of those 40,000 to 80,000 purchasers of the magazines will actually be significantly upset by WotC's decision? And is that percentage the hardcore fans who make up the most active consumers?

6. And, furthermore, how many people purchase the magazine infrequently? Nearly 75% of the magazine's copies appear to be sold to people who don't subscribe. If only 25% of the copies are sold to readers who only buy, say, 1-in-4 issues you've doubled the number of people actively using these magazines.

7. How much importance is WotC putting on their new "digital initiative"? How much importance was WotC giving to the idea of turning existing Dungeon/Dragon subscribers into subscribers of their new digital content?

For an example to demonstrate why these numbers are all important in actually understanding the impact upset Dungeon/Dragon subscribers could have we'll need to make up some numbers of thin air:

Let's say that the typical WotC supplement sells 50,000 copies. Let's say that there are 10,000 fans who religiously buy essentially every WotC supplement as its released. Let's say that another 20,000 copies are sold to a customer base of 100,000 customers who buy 1-in-5 WotC supplements. The other 20,000 copies are sold to more casual customers, who we'll ignore for simpicity's sake.

How likely is it that a fan who buys every official supplement would also buy the official magazines? Pretty likely. So let's assume that pretty much all of the 10,000 hard-corers use Dragon or Dungeon at least some of the time. Let's also make the assumption that these are the fans most likely to be pissed off by WotC's decision. Maybe some of them just drop WotC altogether; maybe some just stop buying religiously. Whatever. Let's say this base takes a hit of just 10%. That's instantly a 2% drop in sales for every single WotC product.

A similar 10% hit in the 100,000 customers who buy 1-in-5 supplements represents a 4% drop in sales.

So if just 11,000 people (25% of the lowest possible number of magazine readers; but probably more like 10% of a reasonable estimate) decide to significantly reduce or drop their WotC purchasing habits, WotC could be looking at a 5-6% drop in sales.

Or they might be looking at more. Or they might be looking at less. Like I say, we just don't know enough about the numbers.



			
				haakon1 said:
			
		

> According to Newsweek, in 1984, there were 4 million players.
> 
> That was the height of D&D's popularity, when D&D could appear in movies (ET) without being a joke about nerds, and when it was a big enough cultural phenomenon to be researched by a major news organization.




The 5 million number is based on the exact same type of market research that the 4 million number would have been based on. (And, actually, the research behind the 5 million number was probably more thorough, since it was the result of actual market research -- whereas Newsweek's number was probably just a flat poll.)

The population of the U.S. was 234,000,000 in 1984: http://www.enworld.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3472158

So a player base of 4,000,000 in 1984 represented 1.7% of the population.

1.7% of the population today would be 5,000,000.

And there's really no reason to suspect that the market has actually shrunk in any significant degree. 3rd Edition was a massive success in recapturing and growing the fanbase by all accounts.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Now let's look at some numbers: China has 123 million internet users, India has 60 million internet users, Russia has 24 million internet users. All those numbers are from the CIA World Factbook btw.
> 
> That's 200 million internet users. A lot of them, based on the popularity of online gaming in those countries, are already predisposed to liking wizard's products.




Predisposed how? By being MMOers? While I'd say it's true that many PnP RPGers play MMO's, they're a small fraction of that group, compared to MMOers who are simply video gamers and haven't or don't care to play PnP games.

Assuming that you've got a built-in customer base for your traditional RPG just because there are huge numbers of MMOs out there that people are playing isn't terribly logical. The two types of gaming are vastly different experiences, and appeal to different sorts of interests.

Now, if the Digital Initiative is pushing for development beyond just the PnP format- such as online "tabletop" gaming and graphical interface support, real-time networking, etc.- then I'd say that there might be something to the idea of bringing in the MMO crowd. If the plan is just to use the DI as online support for continuing print efforts for the PnP format- then it's a flawed premise to assume putting things online will necessarily tap into that market.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> More tomorrow than today.
> 
> And that will be true of EVERY tomorrow.
> 
> ...




Agreed... if it works.

The other scenario sees them investing a lot of money in a Digital Initiative on the hopes that it will very quickly recoup the investment. If it fails to do so, they're committed to spending more money in providing content for the DI, content that probably isn't justified by the subscriber base. So, it continues to bleed money. If things pick up, they're fine (or, in fact, great), but if not, there will come a point where some business manager will look at it, see it's been bleeding money for months/years, and always had the promise of coming good 'any time now', and so he cancels it. (And quite rightly.)

Problem is, D&D then suddenly shows a massive loss, as all the investment has to be written off. So, when the Hasbro board look at the numbers, and see this 'line item' with a large and unexpected deficit, they're inclined to cancel the line. But they won't sell off or license the rights, because the D&D brand will retain significant value.

If the DI works as intended, it could be the best thing for gaming since 1974. If it fails, it could take the entire game with it. (Now, shall we look at WotC's track record with electronic endeavours to see which is more likely?)



> They also don't think Wizards has the right to just cancel something, if they're not LOSING MONEY on it.




Wizards have every right to cancel the magazines for whatever reason they choose. Of course, by the same token, any subset of their customers have every right to be angry at their actions for any reason they choose, or even for no reason at all.

But if customers feel betrayed, whether they were or not, then they're less likely to buy. And that is a problem Wizards have to address, or lose customers. And, with margins as thin as they are in the RPG business, and with the expectations of Hasbro haunting them, that percentage of customers can WotC really afford to lose?


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

cwfrizzell said:
			
		

> While I can buy everything else you referenced, I think this is a stretch.  Of those 200 million users, how many would want to play a traditional pen & paper RPG?  Sure, a great number (I couldn't say how many) have and will play MMPORGs, but I would venture to guess the vast majority of Chinese, Indians and Russians have never been exposed to a classical P&P RPG.




A certain percentage of gamers will be drawn to P&P RPGs. They will like the ultimate customizability, the ability to tell a story, their OWN story, etc. 

My point in reminding folks how popular MMOs are in Asia is to point out that there are gamers there. Folks like us. People HERE have plenty of MMO access, some like them in addition to P&P, some prefer them to P&P.

There are gamers in Asia, and the population is several times that of the US.

WOTC should grow the hobby.

This is how.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Predisposed how? By being MMOers? While I'd say it's true that many PnP RPGers play MMO's, they're a small fraction of that group, compared to MMOers who are simply video gamers and haven't or don't care to play PnP games.




Right, just like people who MMOs here are gamers who MIGHT like P&P RPGs if exposed to them.

People keep saying Dragon introduced them to the hobby.

Putting Dragon online is the best way to reach Asia, a population several times the size of the US. 

This is a good idea.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> You make a very good argument. For continuing the magazines, that is: If it's expensive, it means that Paizo has to pay expanses. If it's not growing the brand, it means that it doesn't do so well.
> 
> So let them continue throwing money out of the window - after the new and "totally awesome" online rag is available, they will go out of business, and Wizards has shown that they're the better competitor.




Imagine they did that for a minute.  Imagine the furor that would cause if WOTC brought out something in direct competition with its own licensee and drilled them into the ground.  I'm not saying that its a foregone conclusion, but, let's just picture that scenario for a moment.

1.  WOTC loses money because Paizo can't pay the licensing fees.
2.  WOTC looks like a complete bastard because the big guy beat up the little guy.

Where is the win situation for WOTC in that scenario?  If Paizo continues and continues to do well, then it competes with WOTC using WOTC's own material.  Remember, Paizo doesn't have to spend a dime to come up with any of the books that it uses as a basis for articles in the magazine.  Those eight pages a month of class acts are drawn competely from WOTC PI.  A good quarter of all the monsters appearing in Dungeon adventures are drawn from WOTC PI.  All the "campaign classics" articles, Forgotten Realms, Volo's Guides, Eberon articles, etc.  all drawn from WOTC PI.  

True, paid for by the license.  

But, how would WOTC benefit from allowing that to continue if they are going to do it themselves, regardless of format?


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Imagine they did that for a minute.  Imagine the furor that would cause if WOTC brought out something in direct competition with its own licensee and drilled them into the ground.  I'm not saying that its a foregone conclusion, but, let's just picture that scenario for a moment.
> 
> 1.  WOTC loses money because Paizo can't pay the licensing fees.
> 2.  WOTC looks like a complete bastard because the big guy beat up the little guy.
> ...




People expect them to be charitable I guess.

Or, at best, to treat it like a hobby, not a business, because it's a hobby to them.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> A certain percentage of gamers will be drawn to P&P RPGs. They will like the ultimate customizability, the ability to tell a story, their OWN story, etc.




You seem to be a fan of other people providing proof to back up their predictions.  Would you like to share with us the market research that supports yours?


----------



## carmachu (Apr 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The user base of D&D is significantly different than the user base of these two magazines.
> 
> Their statement in Dragon #351 says:
> 41,772 (13,517 from subs) for the most recent issue.
> ...





If your going to say "well, its only 1% read the magazines" as a guideline, how many actually use their forums? I'd hazard it isnt that many either.....

I love the magazines, but rarely if ever check their website. I'd rather be here or elsewhere.

Why they couldnt do both is beyond me and cover all the bases....


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, just like people who MMOs here are gamers who MIGHT like P&P RPGs if exposed to them.
> 
> People keep saying Dragon introduced them to the hobby.
> 
> Putting Dragon online is the best way to reach Asia, a population several times the size of the US.




Maybe. Of course, putting _Dragon_ online shouldn't preclude having _Dragon_ in print, but that appears to not be an option.

But I say it is only a "maybe" that going online is a way to reach the Asian market and expand the fan base in the same way that the print version of _Dragon_ did in the past because I don't think that online material will work similarly in that regard.

Most people who were introduced to D&D via _Dragon_ seem to have been introduced by a friend lending them a copy, or as a result of an impulse buy of a single issue at a gaming store or newstand while they were looking for something else (such as looking for a fantasy or science fiction novel or magazine). Those sorts of avenues don't seem to be available for online content. You can't really lend a copy to a friend. Subscribing to an online service strikes me as not really being an impulse buy. Basically, I would expect that WotC will sell their DI subscriptions (assuming they are selling subscriptions for the service) almost exclusively to their existing fanbase.

My guess is that, in time, this decision by WotC will turn out to have been penny wise, and pound foolish.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> You seem to be a fan of other people providing proof to back up their predictions.  Would you like to share with us the market research that supports yours?




Ive provided quite a few numbers actually.

The 5,000,000 gamers, 50,000 subscribers number was provided by me, from Paizo's website.

As was the number of internet users in the three Asian countries Russia, China and India, 200 million, about the population of the entire USA.

I don't have all the answers and have been pretty clear I think, that I am offering opinions. But I've actually provided more numbers than a lot of posters in these threads to back up WHY I have those opinions.

So what other numbers do you think I should be providing? I've given numbers to back up exactly why I think this move will reach MANY more potential gamers than Dungeon did and thus why I think it's a great idea.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 23, 2007)

cwfrizzell said:
			
		

> WotC has said next to nothing on its digital initiative, but IMO it's pretty clear the whole thing is meant to bring the P&P RPG, at least in part, online, in hopes of expanding it's customer base by appealing to the MMPORG crowd.




Which I just can't see working. Let's put ourselves in a MMORPG player's position (I know it hurts, it's terrible, but bear with me   )

After one great raid where you have found some really great loot, you chat a little with some fellow guild members, and one mentions D&D being online now. No, not Stormreach, but the classical D&D game in online form.

So you sign up for a trial account and get into some introductory game. The character creation was nice enough (though it didn't let you customize your character's appearance), and the game starts.

About five minutes into the game, you ask when you're done chatting and going to start the game, only to find out that you're already playing. 

"What!" you exclaim, "no graphics engine? The game master is going to stay with us all day and write/teamspeak about what's happening? The stuff he's been blurting wasn't some nice tales from the last game? This is all there is to it??"

That nice trial account lasted 25 minutes before it was abandoned for good.



I doubt that the MMORPG crowd will be any more interested in D&D just because it's now online. I doubt that they're going to introduce some graphic engine to represent the deeds, and if they do, they haven't created online D&D, but merely another D&D computer game, like Neverwinter Nights or Stormreach, since that kind of environment just can't properly support all the possibilities of D&D.

An online platform to play will only really appeal to those who already know and love the roleplaying concept we know but can't play because they lack players in the near vicinity. For those it will be a real boon to have a decent system that makes it easy to play D&D over the internet (if they manage to make a decent system), where you don't have to bother about IP settings or something, where you can roll virtual dice and the DM (and everyone that needs to know) will see the result, the Character's stats are automatically maintained by the system (and the DM can see them any time) and all that.



> If WotC somehow can, over time, bridge that gap, then they're golden.  As for the traditional P&P RPGer, we must adjust or slowly die off to extinction.




Nah, as long as there will those willing to play in the old-fashioned way, it will be possible for them to do so. Wizards can't come and burn our books, they can't take away the SRD, so others could print rulebooks even if Wizards goes online for everything.


----------



## Stereofm (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I don't think WOTC could have handled this better.
> 
> The people who were upset, nay *outraged* would have been no matter how many details were released, what was said etc. They lost a security blanket. Something that let them know, no matter what, that the brand was ok.
> 
> ...




NO ! SORRY !
I could have listened to something more detailed. I am an adult.

Why should it be any less viable ? Because you believe online services are reliable at all ? Can you cite ANY really reliable online service ? 

Even if I bought your service argument, how about EASE OF USE ?

Have you seen WOTC current website ? seriously ? 
Crap content
Down half of the time
broken links

Sorry, but the TSR website from years ago was better, easier to use, and funnier. It speaks a lot about what to expect from this new initiative.

And to all of you who might agree with the above post :
This is an ENTERTAINMENT industry

When it's not fun any longer, it's DEAD ! Dead, dead, dead.

And it's been WAY too long since I had fun with new WOTC products.


----------



## Stereofm (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Ive provided quite a few numbers actually.
> 
> 
> 
> So what other numbers do you think I should be providing? I've given numbers to back up exactly why I think this move will reach MANY more potential gamers than Dungeon did and thus why I think it's a great idea.




BWHAHAHAHAHA !

And these people would ...

Join an outdated game ?
In a foreign language they don't understand ?
With no graphics ?
And it costs them the equivalent of their whole monthly salary just to get online ????

Adn that's assuling they are interested an any way at all ...

Do you also remember that a good part of these countries are dictatorships where free speech is not encouraged, Internet is police controlled, and access is monitored ?

Look at the state of the world and get real !


----------



## Stereofm (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Ive provided quite a few numbers actually.
> 
> 
> So what other numbers do you think I should be providing? I've given numbers to back up exactly why I think this move will reach MANY more potential gamers than Dungeon did and thus why I think it's a great idea.




You are of course, entitled to your opinions. I just think you are WILDLY optimistic


----------



## Jim Hague (Apr 23, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'd have to say the exact opposite. The magazines were better then they have been in years. Paizo has built up a huge presence and has a massive store, and Wizards wants to take back the magazines now that they are successful and build on that.




And that's great for Paizo - kudos to them, and I mean that.  But it wasn't building _D&D_, it was building _Paizo_.  Substantial and important difference.  While it'll be interesting to see what WotC does with the DI, I think that trying to replicate the content from Paizo's side is just going to end badly.  YMMV.



> AT&T did the same thing with Cingular. Cingular bought out AT&T and the AT&T brand disappeared. Several years later Cingular has amassed a lot of clients and is doing well, so AT&T buys them. Happens all the time and makes sense.




Speaking as someone on the inside of that particular bit of business...ahh, no.  It's a bit more complicated than that and not really applicable to the Paizo/WotC situation at all.  Apples and oranges.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Ive provided quite a few numbers actually.
> 
> The 5,000,000 gamers, 50,000 subscribers number was provided by me, from Paizo's website.
> 
> ...



None of those numbers really support the prediction you are making though.  You said...



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> A certain percentage of gamers will be drawn to P&P RPGs. They will like the ultimate customizability, the ability to tell a story, their OWN story, etc.



You are predicting that a certain percentage of MMO gamers will be drawn to P&P RPGs.  This is true.  0% is "a certain percentage", so there is literally no way to argue with this statement.  However, I'm assuming when you said "a certain percentage" you meant "a certain non-zero percentage" so I'm wondering if you have any information indicating this is true and what that percentage might be.  You also seem to be predicting that, of that certain non-zero percentage sub-group that will be drawn to P&P RPGs, some non-zero percentage will be interested in the type of content to be found in _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazines and that some non-zero percentage of that subgroup will enjoy getting that content online.  I'm also wondering if you have any information suggesting that will be true or whether it is all personal conjecture.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> NO ! SORRY !
> I could have listened to something more detailed. I am an adult.




You are? The guy yelling "dead, dead, dead" wants me know he's an adult? Huh. Thanks for that. Cause I really wouldn't have noticed through all the noise. 



> Why should it be any less viable ? Because you believe online services are reliable at all ? Can you cite ANY really reliable online service ?




By viable, I was speaking about potential market penetration.

Given the expense of international shipping, I think the web is the best way to reach the international market, which is huge. Much larger (by population), than the US market.

Russia, China and India have an internet user base almost the size of the entire US population. 

Over time, internet access is going to grow. 

Similarly, reading online will become a more pleasant experience over time, as monitors and PDF software continue to improve. 

By contrast, printing and shipping magazines internationally is something unlikely to get substantially cheaper, or faster, than it is today.

Therefor, in my opinion, web delivery of magazine like material will get more viable over time and has a much larger market it can reach. 



> Even if I bought your service argument, how about EASE OF USE ?




Online reading is pretty easy to use for me. I have a laptop with WiFi and use it when I run my weekly game already. 

And of course, web content will be easier to use tomorrow than it is today, and easier to use the day after tomorrow than it will be tomorrow, etc.

Prices come down all the time on laptops, more WiFi hotspots spring up every day in universities, coffee shops and bookstores, improving web access and technology gets more reliable. 



> This is an ENTERTAINMENT industry
> 
> When it's not fun any longer, it's DEAD ! Dead, dead, dead.
> 
> And it's been WAY too long since I had fun with new WOTC products.




Well if that's the case, then your problems run way deeper than them putting some magazines online.

Maybe you should go to the park, get some fresh air, or buy a new game or something.

Sounds like it might be time to take a break. 

For me, I think the DI has a lot of potential.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 23, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> You are predicting that a certain percentage of MMO gamers will be drawn to P&P RPGs.  This is true.  0% is "a certain percentage", so there is literally no way to argue with this statement.  However, I'm assuming when you said "a certain percentage" you meant "a certain non-zero percentage" so I'm wondering if you have any information indicating this is true and what that percentage might be.  You also seem to be predicting that, of that certain non-zero percentage sub-group that will be drawn to P&P RPGs, some non-zero percentage will be interested in the type of content to be found in _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazines and that some non-zero percentage of that subgroup will enjoy getting that content online.  I'm also wondering if you have any information suggesting that will be true or whether it is all personal conjecture.




Yes, I am assuming those things, because statistics lead me to believe they're true.

Do you really need a study to believe that?

Let's look at this:

Someone is interested in fantasy RPGs, because he already plays World of Warcraft at an internet cafe in China. We know he has internet access, likes fantasy role-play, likes gaming online, and can purchase things online.

I don't think I need a market research study to label him a potential customer.

And for that matter, if I had one, you'd just discount it and ask for another number.

Since that's what you did with the other statistics I provided.

Im not going to dance for you, just so you can keep coming to the conclusion you've already arrived at. 

I am stating opinions. But I think I've shown why those opinions were logically derived.

Feel free to agree or disagree.


----------



## Monkey King (Apr 23, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Mistwell! You keep mentioning that since only about 1% of D&D players bought Dungeon & Dragon, these magazines had no real following in the market, and only a small percentage of D&D players get damaged because of their cancelation.



WotC splatbooks and adventures rarely sell better than the magazines in terms of raw numbers per month (core books are the obvious exception). 

It's largely a matter of cost; magazines have a pre-sell to the subscribers, plus whatever they pick up from the newstand. However, some WotC books sell better than a single issue of the magazine over time; the magazines get pulled from the newstand in 30 days.


----------



## Muad'dib Pendragon (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> By viable, I was speaking about potential market penetration.
> 
> Given the expense of international shipping, I think the web is the best way to reach the international market, which is huge. Much larger (by population), than the US market.
> 
> Russia, China and India have an internet user base almost the size of the entire US population.




Agreed.  However, I think the language barrier is another huge hurdle.  While English grows and is often a second language, that's not always the case.  Could you imagine DI in Mandarin?    



> For me, I think the DI has a lot of potential.




I'll withhold judgment until WotC actually graces its customers with tangible DI information.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, just like people who MMOs here are gamers who MIGHT like P&P RPGs if exposed to them.
> 
> People keep saying Dragon introduced them to the hobby.
> 
> ...





if your intentions is to reach a mainly online Asian market, killing a magazine thats mostly in the states makes SO much sense.

/sarcasm.


----------



## Monkey King (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Also, you show a great ignorance of those countries. China has a HUGE population of massively multiplayer online games. So obviously there's a large population of of folks not only with an internet connection, but with high-speed access.
> 
> While people don't own as many computers, people oversees have these things called internet cafes. The MMO market is huge in Korea too.
> 
> ...




Well, it's true what you say about online access. However, it's a shame that Wizards doesn't have access to the MMO rights for D&D. Turbine holds those rights right now, and is using them.

So whatever the DI is, it is not an MMO. Comparing the DI to an MMO is a mistake.


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 23, 2007)

Scylla said:
			
		

> I enjoy Gen Con on the rare occasions I can go, but it wouldn’t personally kill me if the show were cancelled – but I’m aware that others feel very, very different. And I respect that deeply. The attendance of Gen Con Indy is even less than that 1% of 5 million quoted so often, but if the show were cancelled tomorrow (perhaps replaced by an online version to reach more people?) I wouldn’t be at all surprised to read the posts reflecting the anger and sorrow and memories. And I’d respect those feelings, because the show, like the two magazines, is more than a simple product. It too is a gaming icon with a rich tradition founded in the very fabric of the game we profess to love.
> 
> Just my two coppers; thanks for reading this long missive.




Shhh... people are listening. 

Don't want to let the cat out of the bag on this Second Life project yet


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 23, 2007)

Monkey King said:
			
		

> WotC splatbooks and adventures rarely sell better than the magazines in terms of raw numbers per month (core books are the obvious exception).
> 
> It's largely a matter of cost; magazines have a pre-sell to the subscribers, plus whatever they pick up from the newstand. However, some WotC books sell better than a single issue of the magazine over time; the magazines get pulled from the newstand in 30 days.




Cost wise, Magazines have the advantage of preselling (but I'm thinking that couples with a higher return rate), but also less per issue, profitwise. (Perhaps not percentage of retail, but in actual dollars. Half of $8 is less than half of $20, so to speak.) It also depends on how WotC's licensing deal went.

WotC has an idea of how many folks visit their website, so they may have figured that X% of those will pay $5 a month, and that will amount to more money for them, but also for more direct control.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I doubt that the MMORPG crowd will be any more interested in D&D just because it's now online. I doubt that they're going to introduce some graphic engine to represent the deeds, and if they do, they haven't created online D&D, but merely another D&D computer game, like Neverwinter Nights or Stormreach, since that kind of environment just can't properly support all the possibilities of D&D.




Oh my!

A disturbing thought occurs: although the Stormreach of NWN engines couldn't handle all of D&D, I bet it _could_ handle all of the examples of the Delve format we've seen to date...


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 23, 2007)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> Next thing will have the miniature line go online with E-miniatures! No more of those mini's collecting dust you will have instant access to hundreds of miniatures with a click of a mouse! All your D&D favorites in full 24-bit color at 256x256!




Actually, now that you mention it: I would _love_ that. Well, higher res, but I love the concept of online minis gameplay.

After, oh, Giants of Legend I had way too many D&D minis. It was a hassle to build a warband, simply because the inventory was too great--too many powers and possible synergies (especially with Commander effects) to keep track of. Not to mention the annoyance of constantly tabulating--on paper--the point cost of your warband, to make sure you stayed under 100 (or whatever). 

So I built an Excel sheet and laboriously entered all of my card info. Now I can build a warband in moments, instantly vet synergies (fireball casters with fire-immune troops, fear casters with undead, crazy commander effects allowing off-faction models, etc.) and be 100% confident the point totals are legal. 

Then they introduced ever more models and I gave up the hobby. Too much work.

So yeah, I would love an online D&D Miniatures game, complete with 3-d models, sounds, cool attack animations, etc. I want the computer to handle line of sight, keep track of movement, resolve attacks and saves, track hit points, etc. I want to concentrate of tactics and strategy, not the fiddly bits. I want a complete game able to be played in 10 minutes instead of 1 hour. 

I want the fun of collecting and warband building, the excitement of opening a new "pack", the fun of tactical minis combat--without the non-fun fuss of math/bookkeeping or the hassle of scheduling time to physically meet up with other players.

In other words, I want this: http://www.poxnora.com/index.do



-z


----------



## Ourph (Apr 23, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Someone is interested in fantasy RPGs, because he already plays World of Warcraft at an internet cafe in China. We know he has internet access, likes fantasy role-play, likes gaming online, and can purchase things online.




Yes, all of the people you mention above are capable of becoming _e-Dragon/Dungeon_ customers.  I'm just wondering if you have any information that suggest the number of people in that group who are actually likely to become _e-Dragon/Dungeon_ customers.



> I don't think I need a market research study to label him a potential customer.




I suppose you could make the argument that he might be a likely customer for D&D, but how likely is he to be a customer for _e-Dragon/Dungeon_?  As you have pointed out several times, only 1% or less of all D&D players felt the need to buy print versions of _Dragon/Dungeon_ and that's looking only at people who have already shown an interest in PnP RPGs.  I follow your reasoning that the people you describe are a potential market for D&D that can probably only be reached through the internet.  What I don't follow is why you dismiss 1% periodical sales as "too small to worry about" but seem to attach such significance to the number of Asians playing MMOs online when no one knows what percentage of that group would actually purchase _e-Dragon/Dungeon_.  Is there anything to indicate that it would reach 50-60,000?



> And for that matter, if I had one, you'd just discount it and ask for another number.
> 
> Since that's what you did with the other statistics I provided.




I haven't discounted any of the statistics you've been quoting.  Assuming they are accurate they do say a lot about the penetration of Dragon and Dungeon into the D&D player population and the availability of internet acces overseas.  I just said that (while they are not inconsistant with them) they don't necessarily support some of the predictions you've made and wanted to know if you were basing those predictions on additional information.



> Im not going to dance for you, just so you can keep coming to the conclusion you've already arrived at.
> 
> I am stating opinions. But I think I've shown why those opinions were logically derived.




I'm not challenging your right to offer an opinion (logically derived or not) and you certainly have the right NOT to reply to me if you don't want to.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 24, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> But equally, it is foolish for Wizards to look at the WoW market and think that they can offer the DI to duplicate that.



Who said anything about duplicating it?


It is closer to opening a store in a popular mall or opening an ice cream shop near a sports arena.  
The audience is there, it is up to you to offer a product they want.
There have been numerous claims that online will be hurt by lack of internet access.  That is bunk.  
Trying to misrepresent what I said as anything else is a waste of typing.

If a number equal to 5% of the WoW audience went for this then it would blow the doors completely off of anything Dragon in print ever dreamed of.  That doesn't mean 5% stop doign WoW.  That doesn't mean 5% go to DI for the same things they go to WoW for.  It just means that there is clearly a huge market of on line people willing to spend monthly cash on gaming related content.  They don't even have to be actual WoW players.  The whole point is that the market is there.  

I don't actually think that they can even get near to 5%.  But they don't need to get near to blowing the doors off Dragon's dream in order to be a big success.

Now the product could still suck and be a total failure.  But that would be a reflection on the product, and not at all on the level of marketplace.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 24, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I follow your reasoning that the people you describe are a potential market for D&D that can probably only be reached through the internet.  What I don't follow is why you dismiss 1% periodical sales as "too small to worry about" but seem to attach such significance to the number of Asians playing MMOs online when no one knows what percentage of that group would actually purchase _e-Dragon/Dungeon_.  Is there anything to indicate that it would reach 50-60,000?




I never meant to say that the subscriber base that the magazines were bringing in was too small to worry about, if I gave that impression, I typed in haste 

However, Wizards has never shown me any sign that they EVER had a desire to be in the magazine business once Peter Adkisson left. In my opinion, that's the reason they licensed out the magazines to Paizo to begin with. 

When Wizards was the whole company, it made sense to Peter Adkission to diversify. They had magazines and even expanded into having stores.

When Wizards became a small part of a very large company, that need was no longer there.

And there's other reasons to get rid of the magazines too. Making your website THE portal for anything online has a lot of value and there's no reason why Wizards couldn't and shouldn't take steps to drive all D&D players to their site on a regular basis. 

And then of course there's the international market, which to me is the icing on the cake.

And I KNOW there's some players out there, who play D&D, have internet access and have good enough English to read D&D books in our language.

How do I know this? Becuase I have had them buy PDFs from me. 

Chuck


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So you are all for the debate as long as data that doesn't support your cause is excluded without a fact based reason.



Well, not really. All I'm saying is that I've yet to see the "1% of gamers" statement proved as fact.

It may well be the case, but a lot of people are basing a large chunk of their argument on it. In my admittedly far fetched example above, the figure may have been as high as 50%. (Personally, I don't think it would be anywhere near that high).

I supposed I'm just asking people to keep an open mind that the 1% figure may not necessarily be fact...


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 24, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I suppose you could make the argument that he might be a likely customer for D&D, but how likely is he to be a customer for _e-Dragon/Dungeon_?  As you have pointed out several times, only 1% or less of all D&D players felt the need to buy print versions of _Dragon/Dungeon_ and that's looking only at people who have already shown an interest in PnP RPGs.




Just want to point out e-Dragon/Dungeon won't exist as standalone products. They're just two parts of the larger DI. 

Re: the 1% or less who buy print versions, that's an entire standalone case. Even if e-Dragon/Dungeon were available standalone, there's no evidence to assume print subscription numbers would be larger (or smaller) than e-Dragon subscription numbers. Even if the content is the same, they're different products.

-z


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well everyone seems to talk about Paizo in *glowing* terms as a business. So using their numbers seems like a reasonable base. Also, those numbers are pretty in line with other numbers I've heard.
> 
> I believe Dancey's number was 2-3 million. So they might have been aiming high and doubling the number of active players, but they weren't increasing it by 10.



The only reason I used TEN was because of what Mistwell said in the first place:







			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Heck, it could be off by a factor of TEN and still result in these mags being really small relative to the whole.



As I've already said, I personally don't think the figure IS that far out.


> Also, you show a great ignorance of those countries. China has a HUGE population of massively multiplayer online games. So obviously there's a large population of of folks not only with an internet connection, but with high-speed access.



I have a friend living in China with his fiance at the moment. I keep hearing from him how hard it is to get access to the net. Your experience may differ.


> While people don't own as many computers, people oversees have these things called internet cafes. The MMO market is huge in Korea too.



So you think having to go out to a internet cafe to read online content is as practical or convenient as a printed magazine?


> Now let's look at some numbers: China has 123 million internet users, India has 60 million internet users, Russia has 24 million internet users. All those numbers are from the CIA World Factbook btw.
> 
> That's 200 million internet users. A lot of them, based on the popularity of online gaming in those countries, are already predisposed to liking wizard's products.
> 
> Sorry, this is a great move. And it will be a better move tomorrow, and the day after that.



Well, I'm still yet to be convinced. And as I said, my argument isn't that the online initiative should never have come about, or that it is a bad thing - my argument all along has been that cancelling Dragon and Dungeon in printed magazine format is a bad move, regardless of what they do with their online initiative.


> It's an either or situation because WOTC has firmly and consistently shown that they do not want to be in the magazine business.
> 
> That's why they licensed them out in the first place. Peter Adkisson has *said* as much. They he wanted to diversify Wizards, moving more heavily into stores, magazines and such. Hasbro on the other hand, wanted a nice, tight division that did ONE thing.



I haven't once asked for WotC to get back into the magazine business, simply to accept a payment from Paizo to continue their license.


> I don't think WOTC could have handled this better.



On this we definitely disagree.   


> The people who were upset, nay *outraged* would have been no matter how many details were released, what was said etc. They lost a security blanket. Something that let them know, no matter what, that the brand was ok.



This is a blatantly false assumption, not to mention more than a little insulting. While I certainly can't speak for anyone else, myself (and quite a few people I have spoken to in person) would most defintely have been less upset if WotC had handled the announcement with more info on what is to come and some reassurances to the fans of the cancelled mags.


> They also don't think Wizards has the right to just cancel something, if they're not LOSING MONEY on it.
> 
> It's not enough for them to just think it's going to become less viable over time, while their alternative service will become more viable.



WotC are a company - within the limits of the law, they have the right to do whatever they darn well please, I have no delusions about that. Just as I have a right to be POd with what I view as a lack of respect for their consumer base, and the right to vote with my wallet.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2007)

> I haven't once asked for WotC to get back into the magazine business, simply to accept a payment from Paizo to continue their license.




I've seen this time and time again and my question still doesn't get answered.

What benefit does WOTC get allowing Paizo to continue publishing Dragon and Dungeon if they are going to produce similar (or same) material?  Considering Paizo is using WOTC's own PI to push their magazines, how would it possibly help WOTC to compete with its own licencee?

Take the ENnies for a second.  People complain that WOTC doesn't enter the ENnies.  But, again, there is simply no upside for WOTC.  If they enter and win, then everyone complains that the 900 pound gorilla is pushing out the little guy.  If they lose, then everyone nods and strokes their beards and pats themselves on the back because obviously WOTC doesn't publish anything of value.

It's a completely lose-lose situation.

The same is true here.  If WOTC, with the DI, comes to dominate the market and Dragon and Dungeon take a nosedive, then they are the big bullies screwing the little guy.  If the DI fails, then, well, it's just vindication for all the WOTC detractors out there.  There's simply no upside.

So, to all those out there who think that Dragon and Dungeon should be allowed to continue, please answer the following question:  What benefit does WOTC get for allowing Paizo to retain the license?


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Someone is interested in fantasy RPGs, because he already plays World of Warcraft at an internet cafe in China. We know he has internet access, likes fantasy role-play, likes gaming online, and can purchase things online.
> 
> I don't think I need a market research study to label him a potential customer.




I don't usually observe this happening. Technically, they're not interested in RPG's because they're not playing one; virtually no 'roleplaying' occurs, even on 'roleplaying' servers. Most people are there to get their character to 70th in the shortest time possible, then test combinations and argue back and forth about which ones are better. Or they're drawn by the carrot-and-the-stick potential of getting that one uber-powerful bit of armor or weapon so they get the bragging rights for it.

They're not playing an RPG; they're playing a somewhat different boardgame, and from what I've seen virtually none of them have any interest or even knowledge of tabletop RPGs. 

I've also not seen much to suggest they even like fantasy all that much. A large segment of the MM market seems to switch readily to whatever is in front of them at the time; they play it until they 'beat' it, then move on to the next one. Fantasy seems to work, but I think  large part of that is just piggybacking off the initial successes in the market which happened to be fantasy. City of Heroes was damn popular for a time, and I can't say we saw any increase in people wanting to migrate from that to superhero RPGs or comics. It was just something else to beat.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And that's great for Paizo - kudos to them, and I mean that.  But it wasn't building _D&D_, it was building _Paizo_.



This is an opinion I've read several times now. I'm genuinely curious - how do magazines full of (primarily) D&D content not build D&D? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology...


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 24, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I don't usually observe this happening. Technically, they're not interested in RPG's because they're not playing one; virtually no 'roleplaying' occurs, even on 'roleplaying' servers. Most people are there to get their character to 70th in the shortest time possible, then test combinations and argue back and forth about which ones are better. Or they're drawn by the carrot-and-the-stick potential of getting that one uber-powerful bit of armor or weapon so they get the bragging rights for it.




This may be a hijack, but: that's what D&D has become. The best-selling products are those with the most "crunch". D&D in its modern form is less about interactive storytelling, and very much more about character building and tactical combat.

Living Greyhawk is a good barometer. If one brings an unoptimized character--say, a Fighter with cross-class skills in "Perform" just because the player thinks it's neat to have a lute-playing Fighter--the rest of the table will laugh. Each character has a job to do, and anything that detracts from the efficiency of that character's completion of his job jeopardizes everyone else. 

With all the feats, PRCs, and combos available, I'd wager that most people play D&D as you describe. The nature of 3.5 encourages powergame mentality. Not to mention that powergamers tend to be willing to pay good money for new books (read, new ways to optimize their builds) while those unconcerned with uber characters are satisfied with just the PHB. 

Point is: D&D's incredible depth and crunchiness is very appealing to MMORPG players. There's a good chance they'd give D&D a try if it were presented in a familiar and appealing format. 

-z


----------



## JustinA (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Imagine they did that for a minute.  Imagine the furor that would cause if WOTC brought out something in direct competition with its own licensee and drilled them into the ground.  I'm not saying that its a foregone conclusion, but, let's just picture that scenario for a moment.




I don't think WotC's mistake here is necessarily pulling the license from Paizo.

WotC's mistake is killing the magazines.

What WotC should be doing is continuing to offer the magazines while offering digital content which includes all the magazine content and bonus content besides. Imagine a scenario where WotC said:

"Dragon and Dungeon are coming home. We think Paizo has done caretaking them these past five years, but because we're looking to integrate their content even more tightly into our development of D&D we've decided it makes the most sense for us to resume production of these magazines in-house.

Subscription rates will remain the same (or perhaps increase slightly), but with that subscription you will also receive free access to our digital initiative. As an alternative, you can also subscribe to just the digital initiative for $10 a month."

Is anyone complaining at that point? Oh, sure, we might hear a few grumbles about how Paizo did a wonderful job (they did) and how WotC will drive the magazines right back into the ground (they might), but I doubt you'd see the absolute vituperative hate which WotC has "successfully" generated by cancelling the magazines instead.

And it's important to remember that the magazines are, by all accounts, profitable. And maybe those profits aren't big enough to satisfy WotC/Hasbro -- but if they're not, then WotC is screwed because their digital initiative is doomed.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yes, I am assuming those things, because statistics lead me to believe they're true.
> 
> Do you really need a study to believe that?
> 
> ...



I disagree then.

I see no evidence that putting Dragon online is going to rope in a significant percentage of online FPRG players. How will these people hear about WotC online initiative? Word of mouth? Ads in online gaming sites?

I honestly can't see Dragon moving from print format to online format causing a stampede of online MMORPG players to jump on board. You honestly can't tell me that most of the interested parties haven't at least heard of D&D already? They still need the core rulebooks, dice and such to play - I just can't see the fact that the primary industry mag has moved online providing enough incentive for a significant portion of the people to jump over to D&D...


----------



## JustinA (Apr 24, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And that's great for Paizo - kudos to them, and I mean that.  But it wasn't building _D&D_, it was building _Paizo_.  Substantial and important difference.




If you believe this to be true, then you must also believe that the entire D20/OGL scheme was folly.

All evidence points to the contrary.


----------



## JustinA (Apr 24, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> This may be a hijack, but: that's what D&D has become. The best-selling products are those with the most "crunch". D&D in its modern form is less about interactive storytelling, and very much more about character building and tactical combat.




Your conclusion doesn't really follow from your premise. It's just as likely those products sell because a lot of people are interested in getting the raw tools they can use to create their own stories and memorable characters. That's why I prefer crunch supplements.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 24, 2007)

J Alexander said:
			
		

> Your conclusion doesn't really follow from your premise. It's just as likely those products sell because a lot of people are interested in getting the raw tools they can use to create their own stories and memorable characters. That's why I prefer crunch supplements.




The PHB and DMG give the raw tools. Make up your own feats, classes, and whatnot for new stories and memorable characters--same as in 2E or OD&D. You don't need the crunch books for that.

What the crunch books add are shiny new feats and powers, like swapping Turn Undead for cool abilities or sacrificing sneak attack dice for debuffs. 

Those new crunchy bits aren't needed--at all--to tell stories or create memorable characters. The only value they have is in unlocking new "official" powers and abilities. It may be too fine a distinction, but that sounds like powergame to me. The same motivator behind finding the next Purple drop on a WoW critter is behind buying the next Complete book for the new feats and classes.

-z

ps: welcome to Enworld!


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I've seen this time and time again and my question still doesn't get answered.
> 
> What benefit does WOTC get allowing Paizo to continue publishing Dragon and Dungeon if they are going to produce similar (or same) material?  Considering Paizo is using WOTC's own PI to push their magazines, how would it possibly help WOTC to compete with its own licencee?
> 
> ...



It benefits WotC as not being seen as the grinch whole stole Dragon, for starters...   

I agree that from a business standpoint, killing off opposition is a sound tactic. It won't win you a lot of hearts, however, and it also POd a significant portion of their consumer base.

Like I've said numerous times, a large part of my beef isn't the actual cancelling of the magazines, but rather WotC lack of info on what is to come, and the lack of empathy for their consumer base in the way the announcement was handled.

Take a look at Paizo - they aren't getting anywhere near the type of "bad press" that WotC have gotten over this. Why? Because they had answers ready for the consumers, and have been willing to share those answers.

The other point, is that some people have been claiming the digital initiative major purpose for WotC is to reach a wider audience than the print mags. This being the case, surely having both the DI and print mags would reach a wider audience still...

...from a purely financial standpoint, though, if WotC aim was to kill off opposition to their DI, I'd be hard pressed to argue against the decision (I'd still say that the PR side of things has been epically mishandled, however).


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> This is an opinion I've read several times now. I'm genuinely curious - how do magazines full of (primarily) D&D content not build D&D? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology...




Because very little in Dragon is original.  It borrows almost entirely from WOTC PI.  Even the really great articles like Demonomicon and Core Faiths are not original material.  No one would read the Demonomicon articles if they were not about core D&D demons.  Core Faiths about Scarred Lands deities would make me really happy, but, do you think they would sell magazines?



> And it's important to remember that the magazines are, by all accounts, profitable. And maybe those profits aren't big enough to satisfy WotC/Hasbro -- but if they're not, then WotC is screwed because their digital initiative is doomed.




WOTC doesn't have to make the same profit that Paizo made.  They only have to make more profit than the license paid for it to make sense for them.

As far as putting out both a print and digital forms, again, that's just competing with itself.  There's no upside for WOTC.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Because very little in Dragon is original.  It borrows almost entirely from WOTC PI.  Even the really great articles like Demonomicon and Core Faiths are not original material.  No one would read the Demonomicon articles if they were not about core D&D demons.  Core Faiths about Scarred Lands deities would make me really happy, but, do you think they would sell magazines?



So, what sort of content would grow D&D? New rules, new spells, new PrCs? Dragon has certainly had it's share of these. I'm not really sure I get your point.  :\


----------



## daemonslye (Apr 24, 2007)

> What benefit does WOTC get allowing Paizo to continue publishing Dragon and Dungeon if they are going to produce similar (or same) material?




*None.*

As an amoral corporate entity - None at all.

In fact, the best thing for the entity is to also restrict it's small competitor from even coming out with another magazine for as long as it can.

This brings about the added benefit of shutting off another avenue for other smaller competitors to reach a possibly interested consumer base. (Why no ads in Pathfinder? Would that make it a magazine?)

The best thing for the entity is to restrict Content to mediums and forms it controls - for the good of the entity and to maximize profits.

Of course I'm kidding here (somewhat);

But all kidding aside, I rather thought that WOTC was interested in promoting the industry on behalf of gamers.  I mean, thats what this is all for right? A game?  A social outlet for folks to let off some steam and relax (in a relatively wholesome way)?  

If I thought, for a minute, I was giving my money to an uncaring conglomerate that views it customers as simple fodder, then I would find other places to invest my money.  I don't believe in that business model.

If WOTC wants us all online, then PROVE the model with great content and varied access models.  In the meantime, they should have left the "little guys" doing what they do, on behalf of their shared customers.

But, the Entity, in it's machine-like wisdom, cares naught for a little, how was it put?, "*Nerd rage*".

~D


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> So, what sort of content would grow D&D? New rules, new spells, new PrCs? Dragon has certainly had it's share of these. I'm not really sure I get your point.  :\




New mechanics in Dragon?  In the past two or three years?  Not so much.  Much of the content has been focused on existing PI, particularly Greyhawk in both Dungeon and Dragon.  Ecology articles drawing from various monster manuals, the Adventure Paths, Class Acts, etc.

There was a time when new mechanics would regularly feature in Dragon first to test the water.  I have the issue with the rules for vehicular combat in D&D that was reprinted almost verbatim in the Arms and Equipment guide.  Now, you get articles that mesh nicely with existing books, but, rarely entirely new rules.  Yes, sometimes you do, but not often.

I would say that the original content that WOTC produces helps to grow D&D.  Building on existing content is nice, but, doesn't really help to grow things.  It simply feeds what is already there.



> If WOTC wants us all online, then PROVE the model with great content and varied access models. In the meantime, they should have left the "little guys" doing what they do, on behalf of their shared customers.




How?  What proof would be sufficient?  Say they come out with fantastic material that is every geek's dream.  They pour the money in to drive a great thing forward.  And in the process drill Paizo into the ground.  Is that helping the industry?  Or, supposing the material isn't great and everyone points to Paizo as to how it "should be done".  Both are Lose Lose situations for WOTC.  Even if the DI is "good enough", at what point could WOTC yank the license to Dungeon and Dragon?

How would it look for WOTC to spend advertising dollars in Dungeon and Dragon advertising online competition for both magazines.  "Hey, I know you just bought this magazine, but, y'know, don't buy the next one because you can get everything in here plus more online!"  Yeah, that would go over well.

Instead, by killing the print versions, the DI will be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits.



> I rather thought that WOTC was interested in promoting the industry on behalf of gamers.




How is competing with itself promoting the industry?  That sort of thing sunk TSR back in the day with constant fractioning of the fan base.  By allowing Dungeon and Dragon to continue, that's precisely what you are doing.  Some people would only read the magazine, others would only read online.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

I'll miss Dragon and Dungeon like everyone else.  But call me a sucker---call me loyal.

I still have faith in our friends at WotC.  Something cool is coming.


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

caudor said:
			
		

> I'll miss Dragon and Dungeon like everyone else.  But call me a sucker---call me loyal.
> 
> I still have faith in our friends at WotC.  Something cool is coming.




"our" friends?  Okedokey, your a sucker.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> "our" friends?  Okedokey, your a sucker.



 Because obviously they hate D&D and everyone that plays it just beacuse they decided to cut two magazines.

So now everyone that doesn't despite WotC is a sucker? Man, I love the internet.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> "our" friends?  Okedokey, your a sucker.




I don't mind being called a sucker in this context, but I do find your lack of faith...disturbing


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn, AMG, and everyone else -- I'm tired, and I try not to moderate when I'm tired, so you're getting an unexpected chance. Quit the bickering snark NOW. Our tolerance for this bullcrap is close to zero, and now is not the time to push limits.  Please stay away from passive aggressive sniping as well. 

I hope this is exquisitely clear to all and sundry.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

I guess the reason I'm optimistic is that I see certain pieces falling into place.  As of now, Wotc has not renewed CMP, Paizo, and now Dragonlance.

This leads me to believe that WotC is taking their Digital Initiative *very* seriously.  If this includes all or some of the goodies that have been speculated about, then we have reason to be excited.  I'm talking character generator (with access to sources!), the ability to play D&D over with internet with distant friends, and online content that can be searched.

That's why I think the DI is the next big thing:  it may make D&D easier to play without dumbing it down.


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

Piratecat ... noted.

Caudor, I wish I could share your optimism, but I think that in the case of both Paizo and now Weis/Hickman, that both companies were doing an outstanding job and providing support for their products that was stellar.

If WotC had such constant high standards I might be willing to harbor a similarly optimistic outlook.  But it doesn't.  Even with Dragon, Dungeon, Dragonlance, Ravenloft and every other IP added to DI, I still fear it will be a step down.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 24, 2007)

cwfrizzell said:
			
		

> I'll withhold judgment until WotC actually graces its customers with tangible DI information.




And I'll go as far as to say that they have a whole lot to prove in the electronic/online department.  I have no reason to think this won't flop like landbound fish.  I'd like them to prove me wrong, but I kinda doubt it'll happen.


----------



## Jer (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I've seen this time and time again and my question still doesn't get answered.
> 
> What benefit does WOTC get allowing Paizo to continue publishing Dragon and Dungeon if they are going to produce similar (or same) material?  Considering Paizo is using WOTC's own PI to push their magazines, how would it possibly help WOTC to compete with its own licencee?




Well for starters, Dragon and Dungeon are a pre-existing network of D&D players that WotC is cutting off in one fell swoop while they create their Digital Initiative.  By maintaining both the print magazine and their new digital platform simultaneously, Wizards could still maintain that player network while building their new player network.  By canceling the magazines up front, Wizards cuts off that player network entirely.

Some of those folks will, of course, move to the new network.  Some of them will move blindly, just trusting that Wizards will provide a good digital product.  Others will wait-and-see if the new site is going to be worthwhile.  But some of us probably won't bother at all, and that's one less connection to these gamers that Wizards has.  As Wizards loses contact points with this group of gamers, it becomes easier for them to move to other games, move out of the hobby altogether, or, just as bad for Wizards, not bother to "upgrade" to the next version of the game when it comes out.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If WOTC, with the DI, comes to dominate the market and Dragon and Dungeon take a nosedive, then they are the big bullies screwing the little guy.  If the DI fails, then, well, it's just vindication for all the WOTC detractors out there.  There's simply no upside.
> 
> So, to all those out there who think that Dragon and Dungeon should be allowed to continue, please answer the following question:  What benefit does WOTC get for allowing Paizo to retain the license?




I disagree with this - I agree that the ENnies are a lose-lose situation for Wizards (and therefore its a good idea that they don't submit anything and let it be an award for the rest of the market), but this is a completely different story.  If the DI fails, well these online pay-for-subscription sites haven't been successful for anyone (other than the porn sites, I guess), so really there's no egg on anyone's face -- its just that the digital model (still) isn't ready for primetime yet.

OTOH, if the DI succeeds wildly and Dragon and Dungeon become unprofitable to maintain because of the competition, well it would be PAIZO who would be canceling them, not Wizards.  Paizo would not renew the license, and Wizards would just say "well, magazines just don't work any more, so with a heavy heart we find that we need to cancel the magazines altogether - but hey, we're still doing stuff on-line so check us out".  Paizo would be the ones taking all of the risks in this scenario, not Wizards.

Indeed, it seems like Wizards is taking an unnecessary hit in the PR department here.  If they'd built their site first, had some content up for a while (say a year) and allowed word of mouth and reviews to build up BEFORE cancelling Dragon and Dungeon, people might be more comfortable with the move to the digital format.  Instead, they announced it suddenly, without any forewarning, and haven't been able to show what kind of content they'll be replacing it with or how much it's going to cost.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Paizo would be the ones taking all of the risks in this scenario, not Wizards.



Remember that the people at WotC really like the people at Paizo -- they know them, they game with them, and they've worked with them for years. WotC also has lots of reasons to want Paizo to do well; they help the industry by being healthy. Nevertheless, it looks like WotC's business model requires creation and distribution of the sort of content that Dragon and Dungeon previously featured. So they don't renew the licenses, making sure that Paizo has time to acquire other revenue streams.

Again, just supposition, but I think a reasonable one from what I know of their friendship and relationship.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2007)

So, WOTC succeeds with a good product, Paizo fails because it comes in second best and everyone would be groovy with that?  Really?  There would be no giant uproar about how the big guy undercut the little guy?

While we have nothing right now, imagine WOTC puts its DI system in place for 6 bucks a month.  Half the price of a Dragon/Dungeon subscription.  Right there, people are going to start screaming that the bug guy is undercutting.  If WOTC advertises the DI in Dragon or Dungeon, they are basically telling buyers not to buy the magazine because the information is available elsewhere.  I'm sure that would go over well.  Remember the reaction when WOTC ran its anti-MMORPG ads in Dragon with the guy in his basement?  

There is simply no situation where WOTC comes out ahead.  Sure, it might be nice for consumers to be let down gently.  OTOH, it might very well happen that the magazine goes down kicking and screaming as well.  

If WOTC really were rat bastards, they simply could announced to everyone, including Paizo that the license was going away a month before the fact.  Instead, they informed Paizo at the last renewal that that would be the last one.  The fact that Paizo stopped its multi-year subscriptions last October and started offering 6 month ones is proof of that.

The best time to get out is always at the high point.  Letting the magazines stutter and fall would not be good for anyone.


----------



## broghammerj (Apr 24, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Remember that the people at WotC really like the people at Paizo -- they know them, they game with them, and they've worked with them for years. WotC also has lots of reasons to want Paizo to do well; they help the industry by being healthy. Nevertheless, it looks like WotC's business model requires creation and distribution of the sort of content that Dragon and Dungeon previously featured. So they don't renew the licenses, making sure that Paizo has time to acquire other revenue streams.
> 
> Again, just supposition, but I think a reasonable one from what I know of their friendship and relationship.




But the question is it WOTC or Hasbro.  If it's Habro, WOTC ties to Paizo become a moot point.  I don't know how their corporate structure plays into decisions at WOTC.  Under your description WOTC would seem to be performing pretty independently, which may be the case.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Apr 24, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> This may be a hijack, but: that's what D&D has become. The best-selling products are those with the most "crunch". D&D in its modern form is less about interactive storytelling, and very much more about character building and tactical combat.
> 
> Living Greyhawk is a good barometer.



Living Greyhawk is a *terrible* barometer. Two types of people play Living Greyhawk: those who enjoy a tabletop version of the MMO experience you describe, and those who don't much but have no other option for their D&D gaming.

Living Greyhawk doesn't resemble most home games I've *ever* heard of, even from "butt-kickers" who play just to kill things and take their stuff - it's a separate thing altogether, no more representative of D&D as she is played than is D&D Miniatures.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 24, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Living Greyhawk is a *terrible* barometer. Two types of people play Living Greyhawk: those who enjoy a tabletop version of the MMO experience you describe, and those who don't much but have no other option for their D&D gaming.




I'll back that comment up.  LG is not typical D&D by any stretch.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 24, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I even have dupes of some books, like the PHB




Last count, I have 5 copies of the PHB.  Not counting the three or so I've given away as gifts.  I'm a veritable Typhoid Mary of getting people to try D&D at no cost to themselves.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Last count, I have 5 copies of the PHB.  Not counting the three or so I've given away as gifts.  I'm a veritable Typhoid Mary of getting people to try D&D at no cost to themselves.




And what better way to say I love you than with the gift of a Player's Handbook 

Kidding aside, that really is admirable.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, WOTC succeeds with a good product, Paizo fails because it comes in second best and everyone would be groovy with that?  Really?  There would be no giant uproar about how the big guy undercut the little guy?



Speaking only for myself, no, no uproar. That scenario would not have irked me one fraction as much as what has just been played out. If WotC produced a superior product that undercut the sales of the magazines, there wouldn't be much to howl about, for me anyway...


> The best time to get out is always at the high point.  Letting the magazines stutter and fall would not be good for anyone.



Assuming, of course, that that's how it played out...


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Last count, I have 5 copies of the PHB.  Not counting the three or so I've given away as gifts.  I'm a veritable Typhoid Mary of getting people to try D&D at no cost to themselves.




I know what you mean, as not only do I have doubles of the 3.0 and 3.5 rules, but I was a source of the Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved copies for my group (not everyone though, the DM bought his own AE after enjoying AU so much).

Also, my group got Iron Heroes from me, too.

Alas, though, I could not afford to be the source of Ptolus - that said, there are three copies in our group, all from pre-order, and possible one more in the works. 

Yes, folks, I pimp Monte Cook like there is no tomorrow!    Well, him and Wolfgang Baur...they've got Dark*Matter to thank for my loyalty.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm another game librarian.

Typically, any game I'm running, I have at least 2 copies of the book that the players will need the most.

For example while I have only 1 1Ed PHB (all of my fellow 1Ed players have their own), I own 4 2Ed PHBs, 2 3Ed PHBs, and 2 3.5Ed PHBs.

Similarly, I have 2 RIFTS core rulebooks, 3 Space:1889 core rulebooks, and at least 2 core rulebooks for each edition of HERO (except FUZION, which I avoided).

I was also the guy who bought the magazines: HERO, GURPS, Space:1889, Car Wars, D&D and RIFTS oriented periodicals all grace my collections...all for the good of the game & the fun of my players.


----------



## daemonslye (Apr 24, 2007)

> Nevertheless, it looks like WotC's business model requires creation and distribution of the sort of content that Dragon and Dungeon previously featured.




The question is, which customers were CLAMORING for this new business model?  I kind of thought our guys at Paizo were starting to turn a corner.  

How does WOTC run a successful business model?  *Create the best official content in the industry;  Regardless of medium or channel.*

Why shutdown the competition (as insignificant as it is?)?  *Because. They. Can.*  ....and, perhaps, it helps to show the content providers (3p & freelancers) who runs the show.  Who gets Top Priority?  You sir!  Yessir!  To whom should the 3rd party companies kowtow?  Where will your next prestige class come from?  Once place.  www.4e.assimilation.com.  Look directly into the sun and follow us my friend.  We will collect your wallets/cc's/paypal accounts at the door.

This "Digital Initiative" makes me crack a grin.  What gamer would ever, *EVER*, call their new campaign a, my goodness, "Digital Initiative"??  It's as if the words themselves had put on a *blue suit and tie*.  Someone, somewhere has lost the perspective of their customers.

I absolutely LOVE D&D.  So do my players.

We always thought those that made the sacrifice to work in the industry (a tough thing considering there are people out there willing to work for almost free) were watching our collective backs and working hard to bring us the best experience - that's why we, without a thought, bought EVERY product released.  It was... solidarity.

Piratecat - I hold a lot of respect for your passion for the Game.  It's just that every time I run the scenarios of options together (with the limited current info I have, of course), I keep coming up with:

1. WOTC wants to make a change regardless of the wishes of it's client base or partners.

2. WOTC is arrogant enough to assume that I don't matter (e.g. Me. a Long Time (prolific) Player of the Game.  One who appreciates the history of the game.)

3. WOTC does not feel the need spend real effort answering our questions in a timely matter (e.g. You are Insignificant) - e.g. "We were ready for this - but we don't have our people standing by just this minute... We'll get back to you when we can properly Process your concerns."

I know, "*Nerd Rage*" it is.  Stupid for me to spend some 29 years playing this game.  Never - during any other time (1997 or 3E switch-over) did I feel this way.  96-98 was not a surprise (for most) and 3E was well communicated and pre-released to those willing to try it.  I converted an entire base (some 30 or so players;  Who went on to spread the word) to 3E.

I find myself, at this point, assuming that the WOTC employees we care about are sharing our concerns, that WOTC former partners are looking for Options, that (long-time) Customers of WOTC are wondering whether the Company cares about them - at all...  Perhaps a negative viewpoint.

The only consolation offered from folks who disagree is "Well, WOTC has a NEUTRAL alignment (Hey, they are a "corporate entity").  I thought you knew that.  I did.  *Wake up, Suckers.*"

OK.  Fine.  I'm awake now.  And sort of not happy about the whole thing.  Disilllusionment sucks.  Maybe it's healthy.  That does not mean I have to like it.

~D


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, WOTC succeeds with a good product, Paizo fails because it comes in second best and everyone would be groovy with that?  Really?  There would be no giant uproar about how the big guy undercut the little guy?




I agree that there would be an uproar. Simply because it is impossible to get everyone to agree on what a better products is, so WotC would be bound to be accused of underhand methods if Paizo would go under.

It's basically what some of the Kingdoms of Kalamar fans are claiming already.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2007)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> Stupid for me to spend some 29 years playing this game.




Sometimes I feel the same. Probably for wildly different reasons though.   

/M


----------



## Alnag (Apr 24, 2007)

Damn, I haven't been here for a day and I see the massacre continues. Now it is the Dragonlance licence. What the hell is happening? What's going on? I don't get it...


----------



## pedr (Apr 24, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> I'll back that comment up.  LG is not typical D&D by any stretch.



That's true to a degree - at least, I think it is as I don't have a huge amount of non-RPGA 3E D&D experience. By all accounts, including some of my limited experience, LG is significantly worse than home-campaign D&D in a number of areas.

However, it is better than home-campaign D&D in some other areas, which may be relevant for this kind of discussion:

1) The committment level is very small. Home-campaigns require a small, tight-knit group of people who get on well enough to want to spend regular time with one-another committing to spending regular time with one-another over a potentially open-ended time-period. LG and other RPGA-style games require a committment of 5-6 hours. If you like the people you played with, you might play with them again. If you didn't, you probably won't. 

2) Following on from this, RPGA-style adventures are perhaps better suited for electronic/internet-based delivery. One of the downsides to them is that they are often quite limited by the material in the module. An upside to this, though, is that there's no expectation that the DM ought to be able to 'pull something out of his hat' should the PCs wander far from the point: part of the shared expectations of the players is that they're going to actually play the adventure they are signed up for. This sometimes requires metagaming and offends the suspension of disbelief, but it makes the experience more predictable from the DM's point of view, making it easier to prepare the necessary material for an online game.

3) The urge to optimize mentioned above may well appeal to a different audience from those who play home-campaigns. The reported desire of MMORPG players to find combinations, exploits, advantages and other ways of making the most of the resources available is one shared by many LG players and forms part of the game. It's not the same thing as traditional character-building, but it wouldn't be accurate to say it's 'not' D&D. 

These factors may make an LG-style approach a growth-point of D&D, particularly if excellent online delivery tools are developed. Certainly it has the possibility of solving the problem which I believe vexes WotC: how to provide the opportunities for more people to experience playing D&D.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 24, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Remember that the people at WotC really like the people at Paizo -- they know them, they game with them, and they've worked with them for years. WotC also has lots of reasons to want Paizo to do well; they help the industry by being healthy. Nevertheless, it looks like WotC's business model requires creation and distribution of the sort of content that Dragon and Dungeon previously featured. So they don't renew the licenses, making sure that Paizo has time to acquire other revenue streams.
> 
> Again, just supposition, but I think a reasonable one from what I know of their friendship and relationship.




Heck, don't some of the people at Paizo do work for WoTC? (Looks at certain Expedition book with title of authors.)


----------



## Gallo22 (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The best time to get out is always at the high point.  Letting the magazines stutter and fall would not be good for anyone.




Where do you get this information from???   :\   From all accounts both magazines were doing very well and making a profit according to Paizo.  Both magazines were doing better then they have ever done.  This is not just speculation, it's fact.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, WOTC succeeds with a good product, Paizo fails because it comes in second best and everyone would be groovy with that?  Really?  There would be no giant uproar about how the big guy undercut the little guy?




I'm not going to argue no one would be upset by that scenario, but, yes, I suspect there would be alot less harsh feelings because it gives the customers the chance to vote directly with their wallet.  If the DI succeeds in pulling customers away from Paizo and _Dragon_ and/or _Dungeon_ still fail then at least the loyal periodical customers had a chance to compete.  Yanking the license and killing the print magazines is like WotC cancelling the "game" and declaring DI the "winner" by default.  A lot of customers perceive that move as "unfair" (to them, not to Paizo).


----------



## JustinA (Apr 24, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> The PHB and DMG give the raw tools. Make up your own feats, classes, and whatnot for new stories and memorable characters--same as in 2E or OD&D. You don't need the crunch books for that.




"Your imagination gives you the raw tools. Make up your own rules and whatnot -- same Gygax and Arneson did. You don't need rulebooks for that!"

...

Yeah, whatever.



> Those new crunchy bits aren't needed--at all--to tell stories or create memorable characters.




The core rulebooks aren't needed for that, either. And yet they're still nice tools to have.

Basically, you're arguing that -- once someone has smelted the metal for you (core rulebooks) -- you should be able to make your own shovel (supplements) in order to dig a hole.

I'd rather just go down to Sears and buy the shovel somebody else has already made for me. That lets me focus on digging the hole (telling an interesting story) -- which is what I want to be doing, not designing rules.

If no one makes a shovel I like, then I'll take the time to make one so that I can dig the hole I want to. But saying that anyone who buys their power tools at Sears is a whiny powergamer because they aren't handcrafting them...

... well, it's an _interesting_ argument, it's just not a particularly compelling one.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 24, 2007)

caudor said:
			
		

> I'll miss Dragon and Dungeon like everyone else.  But call me a sucker---call me loyal.
> 
> I still have faith in our friends at WotC.  Something cool is coming.




Tell me, are all suckers loyal or does being loyal mean being a sucker?    

There's nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith is another matter entirely. Wizards has made too many blunders for me to keep my faith in them.


----------



## Grimstaff (Apr 24, 2007)

Why is everyone so quick to blame WotC? Does anyone think mighty Hasbro had a part in all this?

Picture a shadowy, torchlit inner sanctum at Hasbro. A couple of pencil-thin, pale WotC employees are ushered before a great corporate magnate.

Magnate: What's this I hear about these Dangers and Dragoons magazines?

Peons: Um..Dungeons and Dragons, sir. Um, they are doing great. Paizo has really done a good job!

Magnate: Silence! Good job...(mutters). Why did we sell our license for Dumdums and Draggings magazines anyway?

Peons: Um, Dungeons and Dragons, sir. And to be honest, we thought they would die off quickly and some other company could take the blame. But instead, they sell liek 40 or 50 thousand of each every month.

Magnate: Absurd! That money should be ours! Cancel them at once!

Peons: (sputter and whine) but...but...master, no, we love the magazines! The fans love them!

Magnate: Too bad! Kids like computers, right? Why don't we just charge them $20 a piece for a password to look at stuff on your website that you make in-house? That way we make like a million bucks every month and I only have to pay you guys...um what do I pay you guys anyway?

Peons: Just a few thousand a month, Master.

Magnate: Hmm, well, unfortunate. You shall include mandatory advertisements in your product to defray that cost, understood?

Peons: Um, yes, Master. But everyone's going to pick on us!

Magnate: HA HA, very funny. (Stuffs live Maine lobster into mouth and chews for a moment) You're used to it aren't you? I mean you're both Dingbats and Dogbones players, right?

Peons: Um...yes sir...and its Dungeons and Dragons, sir.

Magnate: Well, don't just stand there! Get to work!

Pale WotC employees are taken back out by corparate guards.

End Scene.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Tell me, are all suckers loyal or does being loyal mean being a sucker?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith is another matter entirely. Wizards has made too many blunders for me to keep my faith in them.




Well, I can't think of anything bad that will happen to me if I have faith in WotC...even if some of that faith is a little blind at this point.  If it turns out I don't like the DI, then I will simply cancel it.  

I'm optimistic because I see certain pieces starting to fall into place.  It is clear that WotC is taking the DI very seriously.  I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12204101&postcount=32

This is from Rich Baker, Senior Designer, Roleplaying R&D, Wizards of the Coast, Inc..  He posted it on the WOTC boards, in response to another post (which I have also quoted).  It's not highly useful, but I think it's somewhat interesting. 



> Your source is wildly misinformed. The only correct assertion I can find in your "insider's" remarks is that Wizards expected third-party publishers to produce more adventure material than they actually did.




In response to:



> Originally Posted by Anorien Ssirinthil
> I wrote this on another thread. But you're right.
> 
> Re: Dungeon/Dragon discontinued
> ...


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 25, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue no one would be upset by that scenario, but, yes, I suspect there would be alot less harsh feelings because it gives the customers the chance to vote directly with their wallet.  If the DI succeeds in pulling customers away from Paizo and _Dragon_ and/or _Dungeon_ still fail then at least the loyal periodical customers had a chance to compete.  Yanking the license and killing the print magazines is like WotC cancelling the "game" and declaring DI the "winner" by default.  A lot of customers perceive that move as "unfair" (to them, not to Paizo).



This mirror's my thoughts exactly...


----------



## Khairn (Apr 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12204101&postcount=32
> 
> This is from Rich Baker, Senior Designer, Roleplaying R&D, Wizards of the Coast, Inc..  He posted it on the WOTC boards, in response to another post (which I have also quoted).  It's not highly useful, but I think it's somewhat interesting.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately its the only thing anyone from WotC has said in the last ... what ... 6 days now?

I'm glad that post was important enough to get his attention.  Hopefully he will see other posts and questions that might warrant a comment or two.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Where do you get this information from???   :\   From all accounts both magazines were doing very well and making a profit according to Paizo.  Both magazines were doing better then they have ever done.  This is not just speculation, it's fact.




Thus, thank you for making my point.

Dungeon and Dragon are on their highest point in years.  Have been for a while.  If the DI succeeded and Dungeon and Dragon stuttered, everyone would be screaming that WOTC is screwing the little guys.




> I'm not going to argue no one would be upset by that scenario, but, yes, I suspect there would be alot less harsh feelings because it gives the customers the chance to vote directly with their wallet. If the DI succeeds in pulling customers away from Paizo and Dragon and/or Dungeon still fail then at least the loyal periodical customers had a chance to compete. Yanking the license and killing the print magazines is like WotC cancelling the "game" and declaring DI the "winner" by default. A lot of customers perceive that move as "unfair" (to them, not to Paizo).




Look at the fairly regular hate of WOTC that gets trotted around here.  WOTC never produces any good books.  3rd party publishers are better.  WoTC is a bunch of suits that don't know about gamers.  And that's on a good day when they don't really compete directly with anyone.

Step forward a bit and imagine that WOTC is putting full page spreads in Dragon and Dungeon asking customers to effectively abandon the magazines for the DI.  The howling would be immediete and long lasting.  

Did they rig the game?  Probably.  But, then again, why compete with yourself when you own the ball, the court and the stadium?

In all of this, no one has told me what they figure WOTC would get out of letting the magazines continue.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2007)

Let's take another hypothetical.

WOTC allows Dungeon and Dragon to continue but doesn't want to compete directly.  Not a bad idea I suppose.  So, they decide that all DI material will consist of closed content and Dungeon and Dragon will only be able to use OGC.

How long would 3rd party publishers survive in direct competition with Dungeon and Dragon?  Goodman Games gets by with its appeal to nostalgia.  And, as an added plus, you don't have to have the latest WOTC books to run a GG module.  Imagine if Dungeon ran a GG style module EVERY MONTH.  Dragon started cranking out OGC lists a la Ronin Arts.  

3rd party publishers would take a huge hit as Dungeon and Dragon filled their niche.

Or, conversely, people move away from both magazines in droves because they have no use for OGC material and only want WOTC goodies.  Something we already see today.  Again, WOTC looks bad because they are screwing over Paizo by not letting them use WOTC material.  

There's just really no way for WOTC to compete with Dragon and Dungeon and come out ahead.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 25, 2007)

> Your source is wildly misinformed. The only correct assertion I can find in your "insider's" remarks is that Wizards expected third-party publishers to produce more adventure material than they actually did.




That's probably one of the single most revealing 4e statements I've ever heard.

Y'heard it here, folks: According to Rich Baker, 4e will still use the OGL.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> In response to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Great quote, Mistwell! If for nothing else, the thought that someone is claiming WotC would actively work to SHRINK the rpg market to earn more money boggles my mind.

/M


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 25, 2007)

> There's just really no way for WOTC to compete with Dragon and Dungeon and come out ahead.




This is a false dichotomy.

WotC could have yanked Paizo's license and _still_ continued putting out the print magazine- IOW, not competition but synergy.

A "return home" like that could have had regular updates & rules corrections etc. that improved its value.  (Of course, all of the same could be done online...)



> In all of this, no one has told me what they figure WOTC would get out of letting the magazines continue.




By continuing the print version you:

1) Don't lose paying customers who will never buy into the digital-only format.  People like me- a 10+ year subscriber.

2) Don't alienate extant customers who may be driven away from purchasing your _other_ products.  Not me, but I've heard some people on these boards & others expressing opinions like that.

3) Continue to gain income from a profitable product- one that is possibly more profitable than your digital one.

4) Can get your product into places that have no reliable internet access or to people who cannot pay for online services themselves.  Some people on these very boards have pointed out that their internet service wouldn't allow them to view an e-zine, live in countries where sites can be blocked by the government (and often are), or don't have a credit card or permission to use their parents' in order to pay for such a service.

5) Have your product in the market in a non-volatile format.  You can hack a website, but it would be darn tough to destroy every physical copy of the Dragon shipped from the printer each month.

6) Have your product in the market alongside your other physical products, leading to possible cross-marketing synergistic opportunities- AKA impulse buys.  Several people on these boards have claimed that it was Dragon & Dungeon that brought them into their FLGSs every month, which was when they bought other things.  For them, no Dragon, no other RPG purchases either.

I'm sure there are other advantages.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Apr 25, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Both magazines were doing better then they have ever done.  This is not just speculation, it's fact.




No, it's speculation.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Apr 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> This is from Rich Baker, Senior Designer, Roleplaying R&D, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. . . .




I'll back up fellow Hokie Rich on this one. Anyone who thinks that D&D benefits from a shrinking RPG market is nuts--and when I was last in the WotC building, nobody was that crazy. The health of the RPG hobby and marketplace is a tide that floats all boats, even the D&D supertanker.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 25, 2007)

> Both magazines were doing better then they have ever done. This is not just speculation, it's fact.






> No, it's speculation.




Actually, no and no.

By their own numbers (that have been numerously posted by others- with attribution) at its peak, Dragon's circulation was about 3x what it is right now.  However, current circulation is on an increasing trend, and is the best its been in many years.

(Just FYI: In post #128 of this thread, E. Gary Gygax points out that at one point, Dragon was grossing $1M/year profit.)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *snip for excellent points*




The problem with all of that is the assumptions that the profits that Dragon and Dungeon make are enough to keep them going if WOTC does it.  If they were, then I would guess that they would have kept the magazines going.  However, I'm willing to think that they are looking at the bottom line and saying that it just isn't worth it.

Somewhere around here was also mentioned a fairly large price hike for magazines by the postal service.  That would take a big bite out of the profits right there.

As far as people who live in countries where their internet is regularly censored, well, since Paizo only published in English, I highly doubt they had much penetration there.  Possible, but, extremely unlikely.  OTOH, it is quite possible for WOTC to have the DI offered in different languages.  After all, I see the PHB, DMG and numerous other books in Japanese when I head down to the hobby shops here.  It would never be profitable enough to print Dragon in Japanese, but, translating a website?  Not such an insurmountable task.

The problem is, everyone points to Paizo and says they were making money.  I'm sure that's true.  But, were they making enough money?  I don't know.  I have no idea.  A sneaking suspicion, based on the 100k magazines/month in their stats says no, they weren't making a lot of money.  Maybe a lot for a 3rd party publisher, but, possibly not enough for a publisher the size of WOTC.  Remember also, the DI doesn't have to make more money than Dungeon and Dragon, only more money than the license brought in to make it a success.

Yes, the magazine is in a non-volatile format, but, the distribution is so small that virtually no one actually sees it.  Yes, websites get hacked.  Then again, post trucks get into car accidents and burn (which happened a few months back)  No medium is fool proof.

If WOTC publishes the magazine itself, it's simply competing with itself.  That's never good for business.  If it was going in the model of a newspaper website, and mostly paid for by advertising space on the website, then possibly.  But, they are going with a subscription model.  Meaning that people who get the magazine instead of the web access are a net loss.

I'm fairly confident that this conversation was held at WOTC long before we've had it.  They looked at the pros and cons of dropping the magazine and decided that dropping it made more sense.  I would love to hear their thinking on this as I'm sure most people would.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, the magazine is in a non-volatile format, but, the distribution is so small that virtually no one actually sees it.




Not according to vets like Monte Cook. Someone else mentioned that a 1% readership rate is a good rate. They're also pretty much the only trade magazines D&D has got.

So I'm not buying the argument that they weren't serving a very useful marketing role for D&D.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Step forward a bit and imagine that WOTC is putting full page spreads in Dragon and Dungeon asking customers to effectively abandon the magazines for the DI.  The howling would be immediete and long lasting.




I'll just repeat...



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue no one would be upset by that scenario, but, yes, I suspect there would be alot less harsh feelings


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Remember also, the DI doesn't have to make more money than Dungeon and Dragon, only more money than the license brought in to make it a success.




The problem with looking at things this way is that it assumes that the only value _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ had was the dollars they brought in. I would contend that they had other, much more valuable aspects.

They provided an avenue for bringing new players to the game. They provided an avenue for new game designers and writers to cut their teeth in publishing. They provided a format for advertising D&D (and other RPG related) products to hardcore gamers. They provided support for players newer to the hobby to run their own games, and improve the network of available games. And so on.

Frankly, I'm surprised that these magazines were able to be spun off to begin with, because that means that they were actually making money in addition to basically being a marketing tool for WotC and D&D. Before Paizo licensed the right to publish the magazines, I pretty much assumed that they were loss leaders intended to provide marketing support. The fact that they were profitable is, in my mind, a bonus.

Will the DI serve these other functions? I don't know for certain, but I doubt it.


----------



## Razz (Apr 25, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Heck, don't some of the people at Paizo do work for WoTC? (Looks at certain Expedition book with title of authors.)




*Fiendish Codex I * is another one.


----------



## Jim Hague (Apr 25, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The problem with looking at things this way is that it assumes that the only value _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ had was the dollars they brought in. I would contend that they had other, much more valuable aspects.




Sadly, not to a business.  And I reiterate here - Paizo was doing such a bang-up job with them both that it was growing _Paizo's_ business and not WotC's.  And when it comes to the bottom line, if the license wasn't growing WotC's stuff, then it'd be better done in house.



> They provided an avenue for bringing new players to the game. They provided an avenue for new game designers and writers to cut their teeth in publishing. They provided a format for advertising D&D (and other RPG related) products to hardcore gamers. They provided support for players newer to the hobby to run their own games, and improve the network of available games. And so on.




See, here I really disagree.  Only the hardcore gamers ever really picked up Dragon and even fewer (mostly GMs) picked up Dungeon.  I rarely saw, at least in the past 3-4 years, new writers being brought into the fold or published, and the waiting list was long enough that Paizo didn't need to solicit content.  I'll agree _somewhat_ on the support idea, but consider that to really, really be more advanced than new players are going to look at or need.  And I'll say that neither magazine really brought new people in - again, it's who the magazines were marketed to.



> Frankly, I'm surprised that these magazines were able to be spun off to begin with, because that means that they were actually making money in addition to basically being a marketing tool for WotC and D&D. Before Paizo licensed the right to publish the magazines, I pretty much assumed that they were loss leaders intended to provide marketing support. The fact that they were profitable is, in my mind, a bonus.
> 
> Will the DI serve these other functions? I don't know for certain, but I doubt it.




The DI will, I'd guess, serve _different_ functions - by targeting the valuable 18-35, internet-savvy market.  As for the magazines being profitable...well, again, they were profitable for Paizo, not so much for WotC.

I'm still unhappy that they're going away, though it's a golden opportunity for Paizo to really stretch their wings as a publisher.  The DI?  Well...we'll see.  I'm pretty leery of it at this time, but hope that I'll be proven wrong.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 25, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Sadly, not to a business.  And I reiterate here - Paizo was doing such a bang-up job with them both that it was growing _Paizo's_ business and not WotC's.  And when it comes to the bottom line, if the license wasn't growing WotC's stuff, then it'd be better done in house.




Actually, all of the things I mentioned _would_ be growing WotCs business. The only element that grows Paizo's business is directly making money with the magazine.



> _See, here I really disagree.  Only the hardcore gamers ever really picked up Dragon and even fewer (mostly GMs) picked up Dungeon.  I rarely saw, at least in the past 3-4 years, new writers being brought into the fold or published, and the waiting list was long enough that Paizo didn't need to solicit content.  I'll agree somewhat on the support idea, but consider that to really, really be more advanced than new players are going to look at or need.  And I'll say that neither magazine really brought new people in - again, it's who the magazines were marketed to._




And who does WotC think they are marketing their various supplemental products to other than hardcore gamers? And the new gamers aren't brought in by buying the magazine - how many people have said "I started playing D&D because a friend [lent me, let me read, showed me] a copy of _Dragon_"? This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it one that seems to have disappeared, this seems to be a method of entry that has taken place from the 1970s through now. How many gamers have started or continued campaigns because of material from the magazines? (And having a network of existing gamers actively playing in ongoing games is _critical_ for the continued health of D&D; ask someone who plays - or rather for many of them, used to play - a defunct RPG or CCG).

WotC gives up all of those benefits of _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_, and I just don't see the DI as likely to be a very good replacement on that score. As I've said before, I think this decision will turn out to have been penny wise, but pound foolish.


----------



## Jim Hague (Apr 25, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, all of the things I mentioned _would_ be growing WotCs business. The only element that grows Paizo's business is directly making money with the magazine.




Except that, in many cases, the Paizo content was as good or _better than_ the WotC content....thus growing Paizo and not WotC.  Enough so that Paizo is out on its own soon with almost no stumbling blocks, thanks to high-quality content and business sense.  Thus WotC's content isn't grown or expanded, and they choose not to renew the license.



> And who does WotC think they are marketing their various supplemental products to other than hardcore gamers? And the new gamers aren't brought in by buying the magazine - how many people have said "I started playing D&D because a friend [lent me, let me read, showed me] a copy of _Dragon_"? This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it one that seems to have disappeared, this seems to be a method of entry that has taken place from the 1970s through now. How many gamers have started or continued campaigns because of material from the magazines? (And having a network of existing gamers actively playing in ongoing games is _critical_ for the continued health of D&D; ask someone who plays - or rather for many of them, used to play - a defunct RPG or CCG).
> 
> WotC gives up all of those benefits of _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_, and I just don't see the DI as likely to be a very good replacement on that score. As I've said before, I think this decision will turn out to have been penny wise, but pound foolish.




Sure, and that's some interesting anecdotal evidence...but it holds no water.  I can easily say that here in Austin, which has a huge, huge gaming community with D&D predominant, Neither Dungeon nor Dragon brought new players in - it was an existing social network and a chain of really excellent stores.  Both magazines, as good as they are, sat on shelves and in racks, gathering dust, by and large.

You're asking hypotetical 'what ifs', with what seems to be a touch of hysteria thrown into the mix, which isn't helpful.  Your singular experience, like mine, does not equal the market; the mean is what we need to look at.  WotC may or may not give up a marketing avenue by pulling the magazines in and switching to DI.  I don't disagree that the decision isn't a bad one; I think it is.  But I also think that the importance of both magazines, as beloved as they are by us hardcore gamers, is being vastly overestimated.  Me, if I get back to playing D&D, I'll be investing in Pathfinder, thanks to the track record that Paizo (not WotC) has established.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Apr 25, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And who does WotC think they are marketing their various supplemental products to other than hardcore gamers? And the new gamers aren't brought in by buying the magazine - how many people have said "I started playing D&D because a friend [lent me, let me read, showed me] a copy of _Dragon_"? This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it one that seems to have disappeared, this seems to be a method of entry that has taken place from the 1970s through now. How many gamers have started or continued campaigns because of material from the magazines?




None that I've ever met in person.

I've met gamers who were brought into the hobby by a friend or family member, by buying a version of Basic D&D (I'm referring to the Moldvay/Mentzer/Cook Basic, not the current one), by going into a FLGS to find out what the whole RPG thing was about, by going into a FLGS for non-RPG products (usually Magic or a minis game), or by playing Baldur's Gate.

1. Friends or family
2. Moldvay/Mentzer/Cook D&D
3. non-RPG games bought at FLGS
4. Baldur's Gate
5. Actively seeking RPGs out

Obviously, SOME people have been brought into RPGs via the magazines - but I would think that was a phenomena largely confined to the era before Dragon became 'The Magazine of D&D,' when it made sense for a person who did not yet play or understand RPGs to pick up a copy of Dragon for its game reviews, its book reviews, its clever writing, or its fiction.  Dragon does not now, and Dungeon never did, provide anything to someone without a PHB.

I've known all of two people to use Dragon or Dungeon content in an actual campaign; both were GMs - and I was one of them!


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 25, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is a false dichotomy.
> 
> WotC could have yanked Paizo's license and _still_ continued putting out the print magazine- IOW, not competition but synergy.
> 
> ...




Well, the kicker is how many people will actually carry through on their threats?  I think a lot of people will gripe and moan, but in the end, will end up buying from WotC anyways.

Lots of us spend a certain portion of our entertainment budget on gaming products each month.  If the quantity of non-WotC products decreases, do you decrease your spending, buy more WotC stuff, or buy stuff from other companies?

This is partly dictated, I figure, by how well WotC fills the void.  Right now, I'd contest that they're not doing a lot to fill the void by how empty the market has become in the last two years.  They're filling the void caused by the loss of Dragon/Dungeon only if enough people find the DI worth subscribing to.  That'll depend on the quality of the service's content, pricing, and just how many customers are willing to sign on to an online service.....how percentage of the total gamer market will buy that kind of content online, rather than via a magazine?

Similarly, if they cancel the D20 or OGL licenses, it only really helps their market share *if* they increase their production of products.  They basically have three lines, right?  Core, Eberron, and FR.  If you don't like Eberron or FR, then you're not going to spend nearly as much money on their products as you would if they did have a setting that you like.  That's my personal fear.....that they're going to end up removing the D20 license, and then also continue to hold onto their stubborn insistence on not having more of a selection of campaign settings etc.  But then they're back into the situation of having a divided customer base.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens.  I'm rather angry about several of those announcements, and I sincerely hope that they know what they're doing.

Banshee


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 25, 2007)

> hey basically have three lines, right? Core, Eberron, and FR. If you don't like Eberron or FR, then you're not going to spend nearly as much money on their products as you would if they did have a setting that you like.




Okay, what follows is _pure_ guesswork on my part. I have no inside info on this topic, and I wouldn't be allowed to share it even if I did. But...

WotC purchased three campaign settings at the end of their setting search, not just the one. Eberron's still doing well (I think), but it's not new anymore, and it has its share of people to whom it doesn't appeal.

Is it possible that the folks at Wizards have decided the time has come for a new setting? Maybe they've decided that the market can bear three, rather than just two? Were that the case, I can certainly see why they wouldn't want to have to compete with other semi-official, licensed settings like Dragonlance.

Again, just spitballing, but I think it's as viable a theory as any other.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 25, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Okay, what follows is _pure_ guesswork on my part. I have no inside info on this topic, and I wouldn't be allowed to share it even if I did. But...
> 
> WotC purchased three campaign settings at the end of their setting search, not just the one. Eberron's still doing well (I think), but it's not new anymore, and it has its share of people to whom it doesn't appeal.
> 
> ...




Interesting idea.  We know a new setting is not coming in 2007 (since the schedule for the year has been released), but a summer 2008 launch would put it at 4 years after the release of Eberron.

That could energize the current D&D version if the setting attracted a wide audience.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 25, 2007)

J Alexander said:
			
		

> ]
> If no one makes a shovel I like, then I'll take the time to make one so that I can dig the hole I want to. But saying that anyone who buys their power tools at Sears is a whiny powergamer because they aren't handcrafting them...
> 
> ... well, it's an interesting argument, it's just not a particularly compelling one.




Sorry, you lost me here. I don't see where you got "whiny". And I suspect we're talking about different things; in your example my point would equate holes--and the desire to dig them, regardless of the source of the tool--as powergaming. But whatever. I respectfully abandon the tangent/thread hijack. 

-z


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Apr 25, 2007)

Depending on the _Dragonlance_ movie's success, Wizards might even be taking the line in-house with the intent of relaunching it themselves, at least in limited release form.


----------



## Khairn (Apr 25, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Okay, what follows is _pure_ guesswork on my part. I have no inside info on this topic, and I wouldn't be allowed to share it even if I did. But...
> 
> WotC purchased three campaign settings at the end of their setting search, not just the one. Eberron's still doing well (I think), but it's not new anymore, and it has its share of people to whom it doesn't appeal.
> 
> ...




Very interesting idea.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 25, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Okay, what follows is _pure_ guesswork on my part. I have no inside info on this topic, and I wouldn't be allowed to share it even if I did. But...
> 
> WotC purchased three campaign settings at the end of their setting search, not just the one. Eberron's still doing well (I think), but it's not new anymore, and it has its share of people to whom it doesn't appeal.
> 
> ...





I would guess that any adventures they have with the new DI will focus on FR or Eb to help drive sales of the setting books.  Though, I suppose, they might add a third setting and use the DI to promote that, too.


----------



## amethal (Apr 25, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Okay, what follows is _pure_ guesswork on my part. I have no inside info on this topic, and I wouldn't be allowed to share it even if I did. But...
> 
> WotC purchased three campaign settings at the end of their setting search, not just the one. Eberron's still doing well (I think), but it's not new anymore, and it has its share of people to whom it doesn't appeal.
> 
> ...



Interesting theory.

I'm pretty sure that at least some elements of "Eberron as we know it" were imported from the other finalists' settings.

Given that WotC thought Eberron was the best anyway, and the other two settings may have had some of their best features cannibalized, I don't think releasing either of them as a major setting would be a good idea.

However, I've always been very curious about the two "lost" settings, and I'd jump at the chance to buy a stand alone book detailing one or both of them. I also think it'd be great if the guy whose name I can never remember (the one who isn't Rich Burlew   ) got a bit of recognition.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 26, 2007)

Hmm...

I don't think that



> I'm pretty sure that at least some elements of "Eberron as we know it" were imported from the other finalists' settings.




even if true (and there's some confusion on the matter), necessarily equates to



> the other two settings may have had some of their best features cannibalized




I would say it's quite likely that they may have had their most _Eberron-appropriate_ features cannibalized. But

A) That hardly means they have nothing of their own to offer, and

B) Eberron itself changed _dramatically_ from initial conception to Keith's "setting bible" to its final form. These other settings would doubtless do the same.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Depending on the _Dragonlance_ movie's success, Wizards might even be taking the line in-house with the intent of relaunching it themselves, at least in limited release form.




War of the Lance, the MMO?


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Depending on the _Dragonlance_ movie's success, Wizards might even be taking the line in-house with the intent of relaunching it themselves, at least in limited release form.




Isn't that what they did with the Dragonlance hardcover that they released a few years back?  Or will they do the whole thing all over again?

I really hope that they aren't just deciding to sit on it.  That would be entirely frustrating.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Is it possible that the folks at Wizards have decided the time has come for a new setting? Maybe they've decided that the market can bear three, rather than just two? Were that the case, I can certainly see why they wouldn't want to have to compete with other semi-official, licensed settings like Dragonlance.
> .




Your theory could have a basis to it, if other, later posts referencing the idea of parts of the other two settings being cannibalized to add to Eberron don't have a basis in fact.  If those settings were cannibalized, then what value would a new one based on one of those two have?

With all the buzz about 4E though, would they really be wise to be spending time releasing a new setting, unless 4E isn't quite as close as some people speculate?  What if they wait until 2009 or 2010 to release it?  Then they could get 2.5 years or so of products out for a new setting.

I do think that if I was running Margaret Weis Productions, I'd probably be rather upset at the moment.  i'm pretty sure just a month or so ago, they released a statement on one of the message boards about the future of the game, and that they intended to renew the license, and that they'd actually hired more staff to work on the Dragonlance game.  If I'd just incurred the expenses of hiring on new staff that I now have to pay to get rid of, yeah, I'd be pretty frustrated.

I didn't purchase the Age of Mortals module trilogy, but now I'm thinking maybe I should pick them up, so I have them available if WotC doesn't *do* anything with the setting.

The last, frustrating thing, is that Taladas will be overlooked....again.  I think Time of the Dragon was out in '89, and with the completion of the novel trilogy this year, which was the best Dragonlance series I've read in a while, the time was perfect (I thought) to release a new setting book.  Guess that'll go back into the realm of dreams..

Banshee


----------



## Veander (Apr 26, 2007)

Who cares what current employees say UNLESS it's against the boss?  You heard the same stuff when 3.5 came out so fast.  This is a dumb decision to lose the two magazines that introduce the game to many and keep it on the back-burner for tons of other gamers who aren't currently gaming.  Anything other than a new magazine is a decision that goes completely against the model of a paper magazine sold easily at local gaming shows and big book stores.  Period.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 26, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Except that, in many cases, the Paizo content was as good or _better than_ the WotC content....thus growing Paizo and not WotC.  Enough so that Paizo is out on its own soon with almost no stumbling blocks, thanks to high-quality content and business sense.  Thus WotC's content isn't grown or expanded, and they choose not to renew the license.[/i]




Well, no. You just don't get the point. _Dragon_ has been a valuable marketing tool for WotC products.

How did they hype the launch of 3e? With previews in _Dragon_.

How did they hype the launch of 3.5e? With previews in _Dragon_.

How did they hype the launch of Eberron? With previews in _Dragon_.

There isn't a single significant D&D product WotC has put out that has not be hyped with previews, bonus material, and other promotional efforts via _Dragon_ and/or _Dungeon_. And that's going to go away.

You could argue that they could do the same thing with their DI, but that likely will cover pretty much the same customers as their website promotions in the past have. And the population of magazine buyers is likely not the same as the population of webzine subscribers; so there is a net loss of marketing potential.

In addition, all of the "supporting products" that help people play D&D will lose a marketing avenue. WotC doesn't directly benefit from, for example, megamats and tact-tiles, but they make the games WotC publishes much easier to use. Sacrificing _Dragon_ means also sacrificing the main marketing avenue for companies that make products like this. And that's bad for the hobby, and because WotC is so dominant in the hobby, that's also bad for them.



> _Sure, and that's some interesting anecdotal evidence...but it holds no water.  I can easily say that here in Austin, which has a huge, huge gaming community with D&D predominant, Neither Dungeon nor Dragon brought new players in - it was an existing social network and a chain of really excellent stores.  Both magazines, as good as they are, sat on shelves and in racks, gathering dust, by and large._




I would say that you are probably wrong. Because your conclusion doesn't match the facts you have presented. Someone in Austin was buying _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_, because the excellent game stores you refer to kept stocking them. Excellent game stores avoid stocking product that doesn't sell. Of course, your assessment also (a) doesn't account for subscribers, and (b) assumes your personal experience in Austin is representative.



> _You're asking hypotetical 'what ifs', with what seems to be a touch of hysteria thrown into the mix, which isn't helpful._




No, I'm pointing out salient facts. Most of the current game designers and writers in the industry right now got their start in the business by writing articles that appeared in _Dungeon_ or _Dragon_. This is not a hypothetical. This is a known fact. This avenue of entry is being cut off.

Most WotC products have been heavily promoted via _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_, and most supporting gaming material that helps make using WotC products enjoyable is almost exclusively marketed via those magazines. This is not a hypothetical. This is historically verifiable. This avenue is now being cut off.

Many gamers have gotten their first gaming experiences via the magazines, and many other rely upon the magazines to connect them with the gaming hobby, or assist them in keeping their campaigns going. The only thing hypothetical about this is the volume; we know this is true for many gamers, because they have said so, we just don't know if the figure is 100 gamers, or 1,000, or 10,000  or 100,000 for which this is true.



> _Your singular experience, like mine, does not equal the market; the mean is what we need to look at.  WotC may or may not give up a marketing avenue by pulling the magazines in and switching to DI.  I don't disagree that the decision isn't a bad one; I think it is.  But I also think that the importance of both magazines, as beloved as they are by us hardcore gamers, is being vastly overestimated._




Actually, the mean is _not_ what needs to be evaluated. Because the mean is not the type of gamer who buys big piles of WotC products. The hardcore gamers are. Back when Dancey did his now famous survey, I recall that he found that a tiny percentage of gamers accounted for a large percentage of gaming product purchases (something that is actually true for many products in many markets). I don't see any real reason to think that this pattern has significantly changed.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2007)

> No, I'm pointing out salient facts. Most of the current game designers and writers in the industry right now got their start in the business by writing articles that appeared in Dungeon or Dragon. This is not a hypothetical. This is a known fact. This avenue of entry is being cut off.




Well, yes, they won't be publishing in Dragon.  But, why wouldn't they be publishing in DI?  

There are other means of getting the message to gamers.  There are many, many gamers who never see Dragon, but hang out on the WOTC boards.  I think you are underestimating the impact of the web here.  There are 50 000 members at ENworld.  Do you not think that the WOTC site has similar numbers?  That would mean that more people see the WOTC boards than see Dragon right off the bat, assuming that every member actually looks at the boards.

I'm fairly sure that WOTC would have the hits traffic to be able to make a better estimate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 26, 2007)

> Well, no. You just don't get the point. Dragon has been a valuable marketing tool for WotC products.
> 
> How did they hype the launch of 3e? With previews in Dragon.
> 
> ...




Or to continue the point: How did they print "official" 3.0 and 3.5 updates to 2Ed era settings like Athas, Spelljammer & Oriental Adventures?  Through Dragon & Dungeon/Polyhedron.

There were also boardgame designers who got their start or a significant boost from games published within their pages.  Anyone remember Tom Wham?  I don't see myself downloading a boardgame from a digital site and spending all that money printing it up at Kinkos.

(Assuming you can- Kinko's & other places have gotten hypernervous about printing copies of copyrighted material, even when it says explicitly that permission to do so is granted.)



> Lots of us spend a certain portion of our entertainment budget on gaming products each month. If the quantity of non-WotC products decreases, do you decrease your spending, buy more WotC stuff, or buy stuff from other companies?




I'm a bit of a poor example- I spend my entertainment budget on so many things (RPGs, CDs, novels, gemstones, sporting events, sheet music & instruments, etc.), almost any decrease in one area is counterbalanced by increased consumption in other areas.  Its only during periods when I have to give _everything_ up, like Lent or a long trip, that any unallocated "entertainment $" go unspent.

However, within the gaming portion of my budget, I spend on all kinds of products- WotC products, HERO, Paranoia, Mutants & Masterminds, Space 1889, & other RPGs, boardgames, minis (collectible & normal), and, once upon a time, M:tG.  Due to their schedule of releases, I probably spend more on WotC product than on anyone else's, but I don't buy everything they make.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2007)

> There were also boardgame designers who got their start or a significant boost from games published within their pages. Anyone remember Tom Wham? I don't see myself downloading a boardgame from a digital site and spending all that money printing it up at Kinkos.




Yes, that's true.

Twenty years ago.

What game board designers have gotten a boost out of Dragon in the past 15 years?


----------



## broghammerj (Apr 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> There are many, many gamers who never see Dragon, but hang out on the WOTC boards.  I think you are underestimating the impact of the web here.  There are 50 000 members at ENworld.  Do you not think that the WOTC site has similar numbers?  That would mean that more people see the WOTC boards than see Dragon right off the bat, assuming that every member actually looks at the boards.
> 
> I'm fairly sure that WOTC would have the hits traffic to be able to make a better estimate.




Although I agree with you that WOTC site probably gets a huge amounts of hits, I would question how much of the board actually gets viewed (or as you say seen).  For example, the last time I went to WOTC site was to look at Star Wars preview.  Before that, the new minis coming out.  I would dare say I have never looked at any Eberron portion of the website.....ever!  Is that good for WOTC or what they want?

A magazine reader is more likely to page through and at least look at most if not all pages.  The level of reading may be minimal but people will see ads, supplemental material, etc.  On a website people don't click on content they don't want to see.  WOTC may get a lot of hits but if you want actual viewing, they'll have to start adding pop-ups, audio advertisements, etc.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What game board designers have gotten a boost out of Dragon in the past 15 years?



Cheap Ass Games -- and quite possibly FFG, although I'm less certain of that.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> B) Eberron itself changed _dramatically_ from initial conception to Keith's "setting bible" to its final form. These other settings would doubtless do the same.




I would be utterly fascinated to hear about the changes that were made and the initial concepts; I've always wondered how much change one typically sees from initial submissions to final product.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, yes, they won't be publishing in Dragon.  But, why wouldn't they be publishing in DI?




Because almost no one in the publishing industry takes web writing credentials particularly seriously. The question is not "can a writer get stuff on the DI", the question is, "will anyone regard that as a significant writing credential subsequently". Unless the print industry undergoes a massive personality change, the answer will be "not really".



> _There are other means of getting the message to gamers.  There are many, many gamers who never see Dragon, but hang out on the WOTC boards.  I think you are underestimating the impact of the web here.  There are 50 000 members at ENworld.  Do you not think that the WOTC site has similar numbers?  That would mean that more people see the WOTC boards than see Dragon right off the bat, assuming that every member actually looks at the boards._




Yes, there are. And like I said those gamers have already been reached via the WotC website, and their numbers likely do not overlap entirely with subscribers of the print magazines. In other words, the people who go to WotCs website are not all the same people who read _Dragon_. So the net marketing reach is reduced as a result of cancelling the magazines.

More salient, by making the DI a subscription service, WotC runs the risk of having a lot of people who now visit their website stop coming because now they have to pay. Many people will cruise a website if it is free, but stop spending time there if they are expected to pay to get access.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 26, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Cheap Ass Games -- and quite possibly FFG, although I'm less certain of that.




From advertising or from having games included in the mag?

/M


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 26, 2007)

The former. This was a drive-by-posting as I was scanning for problems -- so sorry if I misinterpreted the question!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Apr 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Because almost no one in the publishing industry takes web writing credentials particularly seriously. The question is not "can a writer get stuff on the DI", the question is, "will anyone regard that as a significant writing credential subsequently". Unless the print industry undergoes a massive personality change, the answer will be "not really".




If there were a rolleyes smiley, it would be rolling at you even as we speak.

How seriously do people in the publishing industry - the real one, not the tabletop RPG industry, which is entirely different beast - take RPG credits of any kind?  Not very, in my experience.  "Better than nothing, nothing much" seems to be the rule.

By contrast, do you (seriously  ) mean to suggest that within the tabletop RPG industry, which is completely dominated and driven by Wizards of the Coast, which puts out a large majority of its new releases (though not a majority of its sales or profits) via .pdf and print on demand, which is comprised primarily of bootstrap operations paying well below the US minimum wage, which is and has always been comprised of TSR/Wizards of the Coast on one hand and hobbyists on the other - will not take publication on Wizards' own web site seriously?


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> By contrast, do you (seriously  ) mean to suggest that within the tabletop RPG industry, which is completely dominated and driven by Wizards of the Coast, which puts out a large majority of its new releases (though not a majority of its sales or profits) via .pdf and print on demand, which is comprised primarily of bootstrap operations paying well below the US minimum wage, which is and has always been comprised of TSR/Wizards of the Coast on one hand and hobbyists on the other - will not take publication on Wizards' own web site seriously?




How seriously do they take writing credits from WotC's website right now? (If you said "not very", then I think you have found the right ballpark to be in). No one ever gives advice to new writers saying "get published in _Dragon_ *or* on WotC's website". They have (until now) always said 'try to get publsihed in _Dragon_ or _Dungeon_".

Why do you think this will be different and the website will have all sorts of credibility now?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 26, 2007)

> Because almost no one in the publishing industry takes web writing credentials particularly seriously.




While historically accurate, I'm of the belief that this will dramatically change within the next few years if it hasn't already. Print is no more inherently prestigious than the internet, and the internet, with DIY content, will be the place where many of the next generation of writers (for games as well as for media or even fiction) are published first. 

If you can write a product people want to pay money for, whether it's pdf or not doesn't say anything about your ability to write it. 

So, yes, I think a Web 2.0 style site where people can post their house rules and get them rated by other users certainly would allow someone a toehold within the industry, in even a more democratic fashion than Dungeon or Dragon could ever hope for. If I place consistently good material up there for free, and people leave comments to the effect of "WOW! Wizards should be publishing this!", WotC would be pretty foolish to ignore it just because of some web stigmata.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> While historically accurate, I'm of the belief that this will dramatically change within the next few years if it hasn't already. Print is no more inherently prestigious than the internet, and the internet, with DIY content, will be the place where many of the next generation of writers (for games as well as for media or even fiction) are published first.




While you may be right - since it is of course impossible to accurately predict the future, I think that you are wildly optimistic. There have been statements for years that web publishing will become big, that webzines will stand shoulder to shoulder equally with print magazines, and web publications will be accorded plenty of respect.

And, to date, it hasn't even come close. Because the web doesn't reach a large portion of the reading market as a significant means of transmitting material, and likely won't in our lifetimes. Sure, some writers have published books via the internet, usually to much ballyhoo, but the ones that people care about have already been successful print authors who are more or less "slumming" to see if the new medium will give them more publicity. Stephen King can get away with it because he has a track record of a hundred print titles behind him. Bob, the new guy, probably doesn't get much benefit out of web publishing. And in most cases, the material that has been published via the web has been intended to try to boost sales of the 'real" product - printed books.



> _If you can write a product people want to pay money for, whether it's pdf or not doesn't say anything about your ability to write it._




In a coldly objective world, probably not. In reality, many potential customers and future publishers will assume it does. "Couldn't print a _real_ book, huh? You must not be a _real_ writer."



> _So, yes, I think a Web 2.0 style site where people can post their house rules and get them rated by other users certainly would allow someone a toehold within the industry, in even a more democratic fashion than Dungeon or Dragon could ever hope for._




Like the House Rules forum on this site has? Now, don't get me wrong, the House Rules forum on this site is a great resource. But I don't see anyone citing stuff they put there as a writing credit. And I _really_ don't see anyone taking them seriously if they did. I also don't see this changing - the ability to publish via the web is not really new, and attitudes concerning web-published material do not appear to have changed appreciably since it was introduced.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In a coldly objective world, probably not. In reality, many potential customers and future publishers will assume it does. "Couldn't print a _real_ book, huh? You must not be a _real_ writer."




I think such a publisher would be very foolish. A persons writing skills are not measured by where he has his name printed, but upon the skills he has.

I think that in general, what you are describing could be the reaction of people not in the process of hiring a writer, but more of general reaction from other people.

On the other hand, it is a stamp of professionalism to have been published in print, and it might break the ice at initial contacts with publishers. But I maintain that any publisher who decides who to work with based the difference between "print" or "online" credits is foolish.

Even in print is easy for someone to get a writing credit, if you have the right clout or the right friends. I've had people in management tag along on texts I've written, for example. 

So just because someone says they're a writer and they've been published in print here and there, no publisher worth his salt would take that as evidence of anything without checking the writing skills by requesting a sample.

But, there are differences of course. Just as it is more impressive to have been published by WotC than having cranked out your own photocopied fanzine, so it is more impressive to have been published by an established publisher online (such as NY Times, or WotC or what have you), than just cranking out your own blog.

Your self-published work online would become a strength to you only after keeping up with it for a couple of years or so. So in that respect you are correct. No one is going to be impressed if you whip up a mail saying "I wrote this on my blog". They might give you a second look if you said "I write online for WotC".

I find that the thing that makes for the best stamp of approval is to say "people pay me to write stuff". Then a publisher will take a bit more notice, because if someone is paying someone to do something, then there's probably quality in there, somewhere.

/M


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 26, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I think such a publisher would be very foolish. A persons writing skills are not measured by where he has his name printed, but upon the skills he has.




Then pretty much every publisher is foolish. Look, it may not seem fair, and it may not seem smart, but to publishers it _matters_ where and in what format you have been published. Some magazines or journals are simply regarded as better places to have your work, regardless of the actual quality of the work - so much so that some writers will not submit their work to a "lesser" publication in lieu of trying to get a submission printed much later in a "better" outlet, even if they have already been rejected there.



> _I think that in general, what you are describing could be the reaction of people not in the process of hiring a writer, but more of general reaction from other people._




I think I am describing the publishing industry.



> _On the other hand, it is a stamp of professionalism to have been published in print, and it might break the ice at initial contacts with publishers. But I maintain that any publisher who decides who to work with based the difference between "print" or "online" credits is foolish._




Well then, you better get the word out to all of them, since almost all of them really appear to make that a big consideration.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think I am describing the publishing industry.




Not the one I'm working with. The one I'm working in pays closer attention to what I write and who I know, than where I've been published. It's nothing fancy, just basic advertising, educational material, games and the occasional comics work, which is a mix of online and print.

But it might very well be like you say it is, it's just that I haven't had any problems with people viewing my online writing as less than my print writing in the last 10 years of my career as a writer.

EDIT: Come to think of it, there are of course publications that are more prestigious to have been published on than others, and they are often print publications, due to the fact that they have had decades to build reputation. At the same time, there are web sites that are more prestigious than other web sites, or even other print publications. So I think we are both factually right and wrong, and it is a mistake to declare "the publishing industry" as one monlithic colossus where everyone either do as you say, or as I say. It varies, as always.

/M


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 26, 2007)

You know, online content coming from a company that has been working on the search enginefor their forums for about seven years or so without any success, doesn't really make me drool with excitement.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 26, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Not the one I'm working with. The one I'm working in pays closer attention to what I write and who I know, than where I've been published. It's nothing fancy, just basic advertising, educational material, games and the occasional comics work, which is a mix of online and print.




The market may be forgiving in some sectors than other then. In my experience, online material is just regarded as junk, not even worth looking at.



> _EDIT: Come to think of it, there are of course publications that are more prestigious to have been published on than others, and they are often print publications, due to the fact that they have had decades to build reputation. At the same time, there are web sites that are more prestigious than other web sites, or even other print publications. So I think we are both factually right and wrong, and it is a mistake to declare "the publishing industry" as one monlithic colossus where everyone either do as you say, or as I say. It varies, as always._




Well, here's one problem with the new regime - _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ have had years to build a reputation. The DI has not, and even though it is attached to WotC, I doubt it will be seen as much of significance for quite a while at the very least (if ever).

I think short sighted decisions like cancelling these magazines will result in long term problems for WotC, due to the loos of the flagship periodical of the industry. We may be seeing the impending end of the WotC/Hasbro era of D&D ownership: not because I think they are gearing up to sell it off, but rather because they are going to suffer financially as a result of the ham-handedness with which they have begun to deal with the market.


----------



## Veander (Apr 26, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> You know, online content coming from a company that has been working on the search enginefor their forums for about seven years or so without any success, doesn't really make me drool with excitement.




So true.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Apr 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How seriously do they take writing credits from WotC's website right now? (If you said "not very", then I think you have found the right ballpark to be in). No one ever gives advice to new writers saying "get published in _Dragon_ *or* on WotC's website". They have (until now) always said 'try to get publsihed in _Dragon_ or _Dungeon_".
> 
> Why do you think this will be different and the website will have all sorts of credibility now?




They've said to get published in Dragon not Wizard's web site.  Perhaps because Wizard's D&D web site has been almost exclusively the domain of in-house designers and regular freelancers who are already at the top of the field?

If I were looking to add a freelancer on an RPG product saw 'Wizards of the Coast's web site' as a publishing credit on someone's resume, and 'Dragon Magazine' as a credit on someone else's, I would immediately put the former on a higher tier.  Goodness knows I'd LOVE to be able to put WotC's web site on my resume!  I would assume a person whose article was chosen to appear beside the in-house designers at WotC, many of whom appear to be widely considered the absolute top of the line in the industry (Mike Mearls, Keith Baker, etc.), was someone with serious talent.  The Dragon credit (of which I have quite a few) would be a nice plus, but hardly unusual among applicants on a serious RPG freelance product.  One is exclusive, the other is common - that makes the exclusive one, at the very least, an interesting exception.

Now, that won't be the case once the Digital Initiative goes up.  What will almost certainly be the case is that it will be edited by current Wizards and/or former Dragon/Dungeon staff, will inherit the submissions to Dragon and Dungeon, and will probably be widely written by the same pool of writers (with Paizo's staff contributions largely replaced by Wizards').

Now, if you're referring to the wider publishing industry, the kind that puts out (failing) short story magazines and (sometimes successful) novels and a myriad of nonfiction publications, then yes, I absolutely agree with you: print publication is all that matters.  Wizards of the Coast's web site will mean nothing to such a publisher.  Dragon (fiction credits aside) will mean NEXT to nothing, but it will still be a viable credit and of help to a new author.  Are we talking about writers who happen to also be gamers and so submit to Dragon as it's a mag they know and read, or are we talking about prospective game designers who want credits within the industry?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 26, 2007)

Like I said earlier, most of the publishing industry regards digital material as inferior to physical print- _even when its from a dual-platform periodical_- as was made quite clear by my friend who worked for Playboy on both sides.

It will probably change over time, but not overnight.



> What game board designers have gotten a boost out of Dragon in the past 15 years?




Hussar, while nobody (AFAIK) has gotten a boardgame in Dragon in some time, a digital-only magazine format for the magazine almost completely precludes that as an option.  Were the magazine still available in print form post 09/07, Hasbro (WotC's parent company) could even use the magazine to try building up the skills & resumes of some of their own in-house talent with mini-game releases, as well as that of those within the insular wargame/RPG hobby.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Apr 26, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> my friend who worked for Playboy on both sides.




There's a joke in there somewhere.


----------



## Veander (Apr 26, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Were the magazine still available in print form post 09/07, Hasbro (WotC's parent company) could even use the magazine to try building up the skills & resumes of some of their own in-house talent with mini-game releases, as well as that of those within the insular wargame/RPG hobby.




Actually, I'd rather they just killed the magazine.  I would hate the magazine to become something where Hasbro takes over the magazine to promote non-rpg stuff.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 27, 2007)

I understand, but hey- minigames are as much a part of FLGSs as anything else.  There wouldn't be a SJG without Melee or Ogre/G.E.V.  I'm sure you or someone you game with has something from Avalon Hill, or possibly Task Force Games...

I don't think I'd have a problem with a non-gamercentric abstract strategy game (board, dice, cards, etc) if it were included in the pages of a gaming magazine.

If nothing else, such a game could be incorporated into one's homebrew campaign as the local's game of choice.


----------

