Dragon 361 Editorial

[Cyberhawk]

It sounds like the Dragon folks are taking a lot of slings and arrows right now, and I feel really bad adding to that but this part isn't sitting right with me:

"You won't see much of a change in the free content (yes, I felt compelled to point out that we're dropping a hefty dime to get this content contracted, commission art, and pay freelance editors and typesetters to get it to you without expecting any compensation) "

The thing is, if it was just free content I'd be overjoyed about what they're putting out right now and would jump around shouting praises.

But it's not "just" free content. This is supposed to be the preview for content I will have to pay for by the middle of next year. This is what's supposed to convince me to cough up the cash on a monthly basis.
So you do not get to sit back and say "It's free so stop whining".

I do feel bad for adding yet more criticism as I know they're trying to put out a magazine with a lot of restraints but this one just burns me a bit.

 

[Belen]

WOTC constantly confirms why they should not be running a magazine.

 

[delericho]

This editorial doesn't bother me. While I would prefer to see e-Dragon to essentially be as Dragon was in issues 350-359, I can understand them taking the approach they are taking. That's fair enough.

However, where they are falling down is that there has not been anywhere near enough in e-Dragon to persuade me to subscribe when the time comes. The only article worth paying for so far, IMO, is the Demonomicon article by James Jacobs... and one article alone isn't worth the money. It's for WotC to turn that around, and no volume of explanations or excuses will change that.

Is that fair? Maybe not. But it is as it is. WotC, if you want me to buy, persuade me to buy through content, not editorial.

 

[exile]

I've been pretty unimpressed with e-Dragon as well. As a matter of fact, the Paizo boards have held much more for me of late than have the e-mags. As far as monthly gaming spending, I'll keep buying print product, but the change to an e-format for the mags is starting to look like a pretty good jumping off point for me.

Chad

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Seems like more of the same from the online mags - much ado about nothing.

To be fair, the same could also be said for the same responses from the same names.

 

[Fifth Element]

June is still six months now right? Jan, Feb, March, April, May... June. Yup. Six. Not a few. Not three. Six.

I just checked a dictionary, and I couldn't find where "few" is defined as being less than six. It means not many, but more than one. Six falls within that definition. Six is a few.

I know that many people consider "a few" to mean "three", but that's not what the word means.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

(yes, I felt compelled to point out that we're dropping a hefty dime to get this content contracted, commission art, and pay freelance editors and typesetters to get it to you without expecting any compensation) "

The Internet requires Typesetters??

6 Months is 50% of a Year.

I still use Aurora's Whole Realm Catalogue in my 3.5 Games.

Heck, I use more 2nd ed D&D stuff than early 3.0 stuff, as a lot of those were made without really understanding the new system.

If you don't make anything because 4th ed will be out in 6 months, you have just cost yourself 50% of a year's potential revenue.

Dragon could sell copy if it wanted too (I have the 2nd-3rd Dragons sitting behind me to prove it).

Of course it requires a lot of work & creativity to get through the transition period.

Print to Digital

3-4.

Dragon has left me underwhelmed at this point (plus I have more spending cash as I haven't had to plop doen 8 bucks a month for a magazine).

I can seriously say "I don't care. After a decade, I can say Dragon has passed my by & I have seen nothing yet to make me think otherwise".

To Dragon:

"Good Luck, it's been a nice ten years, but, you've changed, I've changed. I'm afraid this is more than a trial seperation. The Divorce will be final"

 

[Imaro]

I just checked a dictionary, and I couldn't find where "few" is defined as being less than six. It means not many, but more than one. Six falls within that definition. Six is a few.

I know that many people consider "a few" to mean "three", but that's not what the word means.

Really, I didn't see where he said 3 = few. How about a few months =/= half of a year but instead would be less than half. Does this interpretation make it valid?

On the original topic, all I'll say is Paizo was able to still run 2nd edition articles in Dragon, even with their previews for 3rd. Why? Because...

1.) It wasn't a conflict of interest, they were trying to support the current edition, not invaldiate it.

2.) Paizo was not trying to produce 4e, the DI, and two magazines all at the same time. WotC really should have left Dragon in their hands until they were willing to commit the necessary resources and were in the position to make it something worthwhile. The funny thing is I bought Dragon and Dungeon before but have found my interest in both dwindle to the point where I come here to read about the e-zines instead of actually going to WotC's site.

 

[Greylock]

Huh. I don't recall Dragon Magazine shutting down and calling it quits for several months when 2nd Edition was announced. 3.0 either. Or 3.5 for that matter. The magazine kept right on supporting the current version, and giving sneak peaks at the new.

 

[Eridanis]

I know we sound like a broken record at this point, but

Please keep this discussion civil and on-topic.