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

[Jim Hague]

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]

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]

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...)



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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

]
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]

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]

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.

Very interesting idea.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

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]

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.

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.