Pathfinder 1E Paizo no longer publishing Dungeon and Dragon

[EricNoah]

They probably should have known better, or at least been ready to react if that started to happen. Then again, WoTC hasn't had an online presence at ENWorld (don't know about other online places) since Charles Ryan left.

Indeed. I can think of a couple of times in my D&D news reporting days when a helpful e-mail from someone on the inside-track got me ready for a busy day of reporting bad news. Just before the first round of layoffs, for example.

 

[TheLostSoul]

No praise for the decades-old legacy of Dragon. No assurances that the next big thing is around the corner. No expressions of appreciation for the current subscriber. No incentive for the current subscriber to wait patiently. No fanfare. No big deal, apparently! (edit -- where WotC fails, though, Paizo steps up to the plate later in the press release).

This is what I have seen from them most often, when it comes to things like this. It seems like they want to appear as professional as possible: We're too professional to care, seems to be their motto. Not that it necesarily is that way, but that is how it comes across to me. Too... corporate.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

We recently announced Planet Stories, our line of monthly science fiction and fantasy reprints that will start this August

As I mentioned here, I'm *really* excited about Planet Stories (the fiction), but also about seeing RPG products along those lines. Anyone who is a fan of Conan and other pulpy swords-n-sorcery fantasy (RPG stuff, too -- not just fiction) should check out what Erik Mona had to say in that thread.

 

[Mistwell]

So Dungeon and Dragon are both doing so well as print magazines that WotC thinks Paizo can afford a bigger licensing fee, but it's also a good time to reassess the product and change the way it's being done?

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It's doing well under Paizo. Well enough to ask for more money. But a change to another company will involve a hit. No matter what you do, the transition to a new owner hurts the product for a period of time. So if the product is already going to take a hit, why not move it to a different medium then if it makes sense to make that move.

You also assume the product is doing well because it's in paper format. I don't think you can necessarily make the causal connection between "print" and "doing well".

I will run some numbers as an example:

Assume the current production of these magazines makes 100 dollars a month profit total, 50 going to WOTC and 50 going to Paizo.

Assume WOTC wanted 60 a month, with 40 to Paizo, and Paizo didn't want to do that, so they parted ways.

Assume a new owner will make 80 a month, and under the new terms that would mean 48 going to WOTC, and 32 going to the new owner.

Assume also that WOTC doing this electronically instead of in print means it will produce 60 a month instead of the 80 due to drop off from people upset there is no print version, all of which goes to WOTC. 60 is still more than 48, with room for lots of error in their calculation, so it makes more sense to go to the new digital format. 60 is also the same number they wanted from Paizo, so it made sense to make that offer to Paizo to begin with rather than risk the electronic version.

Make sense now?

 

[Mistwell]

Is it me or are you trying to assign partial blame to Paizo?

I am saying there is no "blame" as far as we know, and if there is "blame" that the most likely senario is that both parties share in some of it.

I do not understand the assumption that the party doing the PR here with their Advertising & Marketing Director shares no "blame" in a controversial event that likely involved negotions.

 

[The_Gneech]

While we won't have magazines to occupy space at the newsstand, our presence in bookstores, hobby stores, and elsewhere grows larger every month. We aren't, in fact, going to take a pretty big hit.

I hope you're right.

-TG

 

[Ranger REG]

It's doing well under Paizo. Well enough to ask for more money. But a change to another company will involve a hit. No matter what you do, the transition to a new owner hurts the product for a period of time. So if the product is already going to take a hit, why not move it to a different medium then if it makes sense to make that move.

You also assume the product is doing well because it's in paper format. I don't think you can necessarily make the causal connection between "print" and "doing well".

I will run some numbers as an example:

Assume the current production of these magazines makes 100 dollars a month profit total, 50 going to WOTC and 50 going to Paizo.

Assume WOTC wanted 60 a month, with 40 to Paizo, and Paizo didn't want to do that, so they parted ways.

Assume a new owner will make 80 a month, and under the new terms that would mean 48 going to WOTC, and 32 going to the new owner.

Assume also that WOTC doing this electronically instead of in print means it will produce 60 a month instead of the 80 due to drop off from people upset there is no print version, all of which goes to WOTC. 60 is still more than 48, with room for lots of error in their calculation, so it makes more sense to go to the new digital format. 60 is also the same number they wanted from Paizo, so it made sense to make that offer to Paizo to begin with rather than risk the electronic version.

Make sense now?

If I'm a suit, then yeah, I understand. They also cut out the middlemen (printers and distribution).

But I'm a reader ... one who doesn't own a credit card (unless you share your numbers). While good for them, I've been shafted.

 

[Ranger REG]

I am saying there is no "blame" as far as we know, and if there is "blame" that the most likely senario is that both parties share in some of it.

And what concluding reason to say that Paizo share the blame?

That they did not fought? WotC owns the brands. Like fighting your dad for his Porsche.

That they give in to the higher licensing fee or modification to the licensing regarding revenue sharing? Sounds like WotC still holding a grudge when they tried to renew the Dune license but failed. The abused becomes the abuser.

 

[The_Gneech]

Do you have proof to back up that allegation?

Find the CMP announcement about their license being yanked. I'm sure it's floating around the forums somewhere.

They are saying differently. Are you saying they are lying?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I'm saying that my opinion is that they're going to take a big hit. They don't seem to think so.

I agree, so why assume you do know how they "really" feel, rather than assume what they say is what they mean?

I don't. My intelligence, guided by experience, leads me to suspect they weren't happy about it, and are too polite to say so. It's possible that I'm wrong.

That was not my assumption, but it makes a fine strawman. My assumption was that WOTC asked for more in the license renewal negotiations, and Paizo ran the numbers and decided they didn't want to do that. That is a different kind of situation than the one you just described.

You misread the point of my little vignette. What I was saying was that any number of scenarios were possible, and used an absurd example to demonstrate it. Your scenario has as much basis in established fact as mine does -- i.e., none at all.

-The Gneech

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Why is there a continuing assumption in this thread that it was the greed of WOTC only, and not the greed of both parties, that is at fault here. Or, that greed even played the major role in this decision?

It probably has something to do with the notion that, back in 2002 Wizards decided to divest itself of the magazine line because it thought that it was eating into the market for their other products (chiefly their design and development "core" products).

Now, all out of the blue, they have decided that they actually do want to put out both a magazine line and regular print product once more.

Many of us (at least myself) question the notion that they are suddenly capable and ready of handling both, when clearly in the past they thought there was a major disconnect between the pursuit of the two.

At least one insider- who was there at the time WotC (or, perhaps more appropriately these days, Hasbro) was originally discussing giving the magazines the axe, and the reasons behind it- has suggested this might in fact be the reasoning (the insider is Monte, whose posts on his own board are linked elsewhere in this thread).

Heck, I bet there are plenty of people who would willingly eat crow if it turned out not to be the case, but so far, WotC ain't talkin'.

[EDIT- Joshua has already posted something addressing this, so I suppose a rebuttal didn't end up being necessary. ]