As you’ll probably notice, this is my first post…been lurking for a while but finally prodded into action by this week’s news! I’m posting here because I really enjoy the community feel of the place, and I applaud the mods for working their hardest to maintain that feel even in the presence of such strong feelings this week.
Before I jump in I should probably say that I am strongly opposed to WotC’s decision. I think it is a mistake for them and for the hobby in general. On the other hand, I don’t hold this against anyone, and I respect their right to pull back the license. I subscribed to Dungeon, but only for the past few months (after a long, long hiatus since my childhood), and I liked but didn’t love it. I am primarily saddened by the loss of tradition and continuity in the hobby. These opinions probably color my thoughts below (which turned out to be rather long, sorry!).
Anyway, in all of the theorizing, attacks, and defenses, a few points that often seem to be taken for granted seemed a bit off to me. So I’d like to ask if they are really true.
First, it’s often said that print magazines are doomed because of the internet. That is not at all obvious to me! The internet is good for many things, and it has certainly made life tough for newspapers. But, at least in my circle, I have seen little impact on magazines. Sure, I go to the web for my daily news…but I still subscribe to magazines for more thorough pieces and analysis, and I never considered switching. In fact, of all my friends, I don’t know anybody who reads their magazines online! (And we bridge the 18-30 and 30-40 demographics, so we are certainly not Luddite dinosaurs.)
Moreover, at least according to the latest circulation figures I could find, “pop culture” and hobby magazines have been on the upswing for years. Nearly all of those have a model where the online component supplements, but does not replace, the print content. The magazine sections in Borders and Barnes & Noble don’t seem to be getting any smaller, and all of them have Dungeon/Dragon on the shelves. Contrast that with online-only magazines, like Salon and Slate, which have been struggling for years.
Second, people say that the younger generation is more likely to read things online. I work as a scientist in a university, so I work with young people all the time. Conveniently, scientific papers are a good analog to D&D adventures. They are both relatively short, with a fair number of illustrations (maps or figures, both necessary to understand the text); they both require lots of flipping back and forth, etc. While distribution through the internet is viable for scientific papers (nobody needs to read the whole journal, so it makes more sense), I don’t know anybody (at all!) who actually reads them on the computer. I print them out and then read them – and my students are just as likely to do that as I am. That’s viable for papers, because we have access to fancy, fast laser printers that can render all the images, don’t run out of ink, duplex, etc. Very few people have those facilities at home - which makes printing much less attractive. Again, I don’t think this is a generational thing. I think it’s a practical thing – for both biological and technological reasons.
Third, it’s often said that ENWorld readers are no longer WotC’s target demographic, that we are only a small piece of the market and our opinions won’t affect their business. That seems pretty unlikely to me. Who is buying their products? Casual gamers certainly aren’t; they just want a PHB and books provided by their DM. The devoted fans at ENWorld may be a small fraction of the market, but my guess is we are more likely to spend our money on RPG products than the average gamer. And, in any case, every business wants to appeal to the “early adopters.” The counter-argument is that ENWorld readers are more “sophisticated” gamers and know to look to other d20 companies for material. I’d say that’s only because some of us have decided that these other companies have better products – so WotC should be trying hard to win us back!
As direct evidence that the older demographic does matter, look at the recent spate of “Expedition to…” adventures. These are clearly designed to evoke the history of the game – which I think must be designed, at least partly, to appeal to the older generation.
Finally, I often see this appeal to WotC’s market research, that they must know more than we do. That may be true – I am sure they have done research. But research is imperfect (see the New Coke example always cited here). I think they were blindsided by the firestorm accompanying the demise of Dungeon/Dragon – otherwise there would have been some plan in place immediately, not a rather weak response over 24 hours later. It’s clear now they needed to have something in place immediately to show people they cared about this property. So they may not be correct about moving online either!
These are all my deductions of course, but I’m curious if anybody agrees, disagrees, has better information!
Before I jump in I should probably say that I am strongly opposed to WotC’s decision. I think it is a mistake for them and for the hobby in general. On the other hand, I don’t hold this against anyone, and I respect their right to pull back the license. I subscribed to Dungeon, but only for the past few months (after a long, long hiatus since my childhood), and I liked but didn’t love it. I am primarily saddened by the loss of tradition and continuity in the hobby. These opinions probably color my thoughts below (which turned out to be rather long, sorry!).
Anyway, in all of the theorizing, attacks, and defenses, a few points that often seem to be taken for granted seemed a bit off to me. So I’d like to ask if they are really true.
First, it’s often said that print magazines are doomed because of the internet. That is not at all obvious to me! The internet is good for many things, and it has certainly made life tough for newspapers. But, at least in my circle, I have seen little impact on magazines. Sure, I go to the web for my daily news…but I still subscribe to magazines for more thorough pieces and analysis, and I never considered switching. In fact, of all my friends, I don’t know anybody who reads their magazines online! (And we bridge the 18-30 and 30-40 demographics, so we are certainly not Luddite dinosaurs.)
Moreover, at least according to the latest circulation figures I could find, “pop culture” and hobby magazines have been on the upswing for years. Nearly all of those have a model where the online component supplements, but does not replace, the print content. The magazine sections in Borders and Barnes & Noble don’t seem to be getting any smaller, and all of them have Dungeon/Dragon on the shelves. Contrast that with online-only magazines, like Salon and Slate, which have been struggling for years.
Second, people say that the younger generation is more likely to read things online. I work as a scientist in a university, so I work with young people all the time. Conveniently, scientific papers are a good analog to D&D adventures. They are both relatively short, with a fair number of illustrations (maps or figures, both necessary to understand the text); they both require lots of flipping back and forth, etc. While distribution through the internet is viable for scientific papers (nobody needs to read the whole journal, so it makes more sense), I don’t know anybody (at all!) who actually reads them on the computer. I print them out and then read them – and my students are just as likely to do that as I am. That’s viable for papers, because we have access to fancy, fast laser printers that can render all the images, don’t run out of ink, duplex, etc. Very few people have those facilities at home - which makes printing much less attractive. Again, I don’t think this is a generational thing. I think it’s a practical thing – for both biological and technological reasons.
Third, it’s often said that ENWorld readers are no longer WotC’s target demographic, that we are only a small piece of the market and our opinions won’t affect their business. That seems pretty unlikely to me. Who is buying their products? Casual gamers certainly aren’t; they just want a PHB and books provided by their DM. The devoted fans at ENWorld may be a small fraction of the market, but my guess is we are more likely to spend our money on RPG products than the average gamer. And, in any case, every business wants to appeal to the “early adopters.” The counter-argument is that ENWorld readers are more “sophisticated” gamers and know to look to other d20 companies for material. I’d say that’s only because some of us have decided that these other companies have better products – so WotC should be trying hard to win us back!
As direct evidence that the older demographic does matter, look at the recent spate of “Expedition to…” adventures. These are clearly designed to evoke the history of the game – which I think must be designed, at least partly, to appeal to the older generation.
Finally, I often see this appeal to WotC’s market research, that they must know more than we do. That may be true – I am sure they have done research. But research is imperfect (see the New Coke example always cited here). I think they were blindsided by the firestorm accompanying the demise of Dungeon/Dragon – otherwise there would have been some plan in place immediately, not a rather weak response over 24 hours later. It’s clear now they needed to have something in place immediately to show people they cared about this property. So they may not be correct about moving online either!
These are all my deductions of course, but I’m curious if anybody agrees, disagrees, has better information!
