Why Wizards Has Lost Touch w/ Its Base

[Kheti sa-Menik]

Two things:

- If you publicly slandered my professional abilities in the way you have just done to people at WotC that you don't even know I would destroy your life and career, assuming you had a career to destroy.

- Dear business guru, as you clearly know what WotC should be doing to once more become a corporate giant, would you please be so kind as to enlighten to rest of us about your extensive business background?

I'm not a fanboy, as such; I just think 12-year old kiddies shouldn't be allowed to slander people on messageboards. And an MBA of any sort is an achievement.

The test of whether or not WotC has lost touch with its base is its profits. Do we know what they are? The rumour is that last year was very successful. If that's correct then I would say that they're doing a great job connecting with their base.

Wow Imruphel, got something to prove?
Lemme guess, MBA from Podunk U?

Geez, someone needs to take a pill and chill out. "Destroy your life and career"? How lame.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

No, they are not cancelling them. They're going to try a different format, a digital one.

What? There will be Dragon Online? Dungeon Online? No. Because the two magazines will be cancelled. Something else is done, yes, but it probably won't be the same.


And all those saying that it's the logical step for D&D: That's rubbish. I don't believe it, and neither does Wizards. They seem to think that if they allowed Dragon and Dungeon to continue, it would hurt their Online stuff (probably more than getting even more people angry at you). If they thought that D&D Online really was the bee's knees, they would not pull the plug. They would let Paizo continue with their stuff, because they'd still get money out of it, Paizo would have all the risks of the two mags failing in a contest with their new Online thing.

They're afraid of the mags, otherwise they would not take it away from us.

Wizards has their own message boards. I have no idea what if any threads they had on the subject were like but they very well could have been answering questions there.

Is that a new development? With the exception of a couple of Realms people, you need to max out search, take all kinds of search buff feats, and take 20 on your check to catch Wizards people posting there.

Why do so many adult gamers complain about needing a credit card? I never hear "normal" people complain about needing a credit card...

I don't complain. I have a credit card. The point is that many of those 12 year olds we keep talking about (the ones who are apparently Wizards' customer base now that my 100+ tacken a month are not wanted any more) don't have a credit card.

And I'd say that they're a lot less wide-spread outside of the U.S., too. So even though they claim they will reach more people with their Shiny New Online Initiative, they again neglect a couple of continents.

 

[Krieg]

I have an MBA and I'm a gamer. It is possible to have a professional background outside the hobby and still be a gamer after all.

No.

 

[WizarDru]

Look - we already know that it won't be the same content. We know this because the people at Paizo who turned Dungeon and Dragon around and who have been stewarding the publications to their respective golden and silver ages won't be involved in it anymore.

That's a good point. If only they get Paizo authors like Skip Williams, Ed Greenwood, Monte Cook, Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, Gwen Kestrel, Wolfgang Baur, Eric Cagle, Stephen Schubert, Robin Laws, Jason Nelson, Creighton Broadhurst, Greg Noonan, Chris Tommasson or Chris Perkins to work on the D&D online content then maybe they.....

Oh, wait: THEY ALREADY ARE. All these authors have some form of content up on the main D&D articles page RIGHT NOW, except perhaps for Monte Cook, who I didn't see in an article within the last month. You'll note that the list includes TWO EDITORS from PAIZO. I don't see Erik Mona on there, but I see members of his editorial staff and I see tons of authors who have appeared in Dungeon and Dragon....which should come as little surprise to anyone, as many of them are either WotC employees or freelancers (many of whom have worked on WotC's hardbound books).

The fact of the matter is that while I'm not happy with this change AT ALL, it's clear that the single largest employer of freelance RPG writers and artists in the business will CONTINUE to do so...and while not every employee of WotC is a household name, it seems folly to assume that they lack talent or skill in producing content. The same people who have produced the content for Dragon and Dungeon in the last few months will likely continue to do so...indeed, they will probably be more in demand, as WotC ramps up their need for online content.

It isn't a fact that WotC's way will be any good or succeed....but the converse is also true.

I understand folks emotional reaction, to be sure...I experienced it, as well. But I have to admit that I find it very funny when someone chastises WotC for canceling a publication that they haven't supported in decades. As much as I hate to acknowledge it, it's a periodical, not a security blanket. Oddly enough, seeing all the bile here has actually pushed me more into accepting the change than resisting it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dragon and Dungeon were making money. I find it spurious to say that WotC took back the license because they were not. It seems obvious to me that WotC decided not to renew because they thought they could make more by providing content than by licensing content providers.

If anything, Paizo is a victim of its success in this matter.

That some people believe that the same thought process might apply to the OGL with a new edition in the wings is, IMHO, evidence that those people can apply rational thinking to the available data. Doesn't make it right, but it is plausible.

Finally, I have to admit that the art on the Paiza site right now makes me more interesting in their new products than I have been interested in a WotC product in a long, long time.

Just my $.02, and obviously YMMV, but WotC would have to really wow me before I'd buy anything more of theirs. Which is funny, in a way, because I had just started to give them some of my paycheque again.....


RC

 

[der_kluge]

I don't see a huge number of 12-year-olds. Period. I don't know what 12-year-olds are up to.
I would not have gone to a D&D meetup at age 12 myself.

ENWorld is indicative of hardcore gamers, and ENWorlders may be influential amongst gamers, but they're hardly typical gamers.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that a large percentage of gamers include the under 25 category.

Tons and tons and tons of high school kids are on the internet. Very, very, very few of them are on ENWorld. The last age breakdown poll I saw on ENWorld showed the average ENWorlder being about 34 years of age.

No, -we- are WoTC's demographic. I don't know who they're targetingt this stuff after. It doesn't really make any sense to me.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Ever been to Circvs Maximvs? I can respond to you there in the manner in which you deserve.

Show us where on the doll Vigilance comments touched you.

 

[Johnnie Freedom!]

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that a large percentage of gamers include the under 25 category.

Tons and tons and tons of high school kids are on the internet. Very, very, very few of them are on ENWorld. The last age breakdown poll I saw on ENWorld showed the average ENWorlder being about 34 years of age.

No, -we- are WoTC's demographic. I don't know who they're targetingt this stuff after. It doesn't really make any sense to me.

I agree. Teens and middle schoolers, for the most part, do not play tabletop RPGs. They play videogames and online games. Hell, they don't even play boardgames (boardgamegeek has had similar conversations about demographics).

That's part of the reason, I think, why WotC is trying to change things up, and why 4e will almost certainly be online or miniatures-based: they know that their current target audience is dying. The days of people buying 1,000 pages of cryptic rulebooks just to play a game are almost over, my friends.

 

[Desdichado]

As much as I hate to acknowledge it, it's a periodical, not a security blanket. Oddly enough, seeing all the bile here has actually pushed me more into accepting the change than resisting it.

Ditto. I was initially disappointed, but I have to admit; lately if I pick up 30% or so of the Dungeons and Dragons, then that's a lot. I'm a pretty spotty buyer. I honestly don't think I'll be missing that much, and frankly this Pathfinder thing sounds more exciting to me than Dungeon and Dragon were anymore anyway.

 

[Maggan]

Dragon and Dungeon were making money. I find it spurious to say that WotC took back the license because they were not.

Yes, but it is obvious that they didn't make WotC enough money to warrant keeping them around.

Making money and making enough money are two separate things.

/M