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

[Prophet2b]

For what it's worth, I can actually kind of understand why WotC hasn't released any information, yet. Considering how big this news is and how upset so many people were over the who whole ordeal, if they were to release their future planes right this moment they'd get shredded by the "angry mob" and spit back out to WotC in tiny, tiny pieces. In other words, nothing at the moment could possibly be good enough to take the place of Dungeon or Dragon, and people would make sure WotC knew it. It would forever taint people's perspective on the new product.

As it is, yeah, perspectives are tainted, but we don't even know what it is, yet. So once the big hooplah dies down a bit, people might react quite a bit differently to the new product when it's finally revealed what that's going to be. As it stands, anything new would not be "good enough" and many people would probably cement their current feelings on the project once and for all.

I'm not saying that those upset are a problem or anything like that. No way! I'm not pointing fingers at anybody - nothing like that at all. Just want to clarify that. All I'm saying is... I can kind of see why Wizards wouldn't release their plans just yet, especially so soon after this news broke.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Well that's one view. The other view was that in amongst trotting out Kim Mohan, Chris Perkins and Chris Thomasson at the wake of their former children, the most senior guy in the lot - the guy who was responsible for this decision on his watch - says this:



Do you really need to ask if that had anything to do with what has happened?

So now its a crime not to have been a life-long gamer?

I love the rational ideas being thrown around today.

 

[Shroomy]

Well that's one view. The other view was that in amongst trotting out Kim Mohan, Chris Perkins and Chris Thomasson at the wake of their former children, the most senior guy in the lot - the guy who was responsible for this decision on his watch - says this:



Do you really need to ask if that had anything to do with what has happened?

Yeah, personally, I don't care how he came to game or when he started playing, but when I was reading that I thought to myself "That's not going to go over well in some quarters!" The guy has already been raked over the coals.

 

[haakon1]

Most of the posts against WotC's decision have been along the "cold businessmen in black suits making profitable decisions" type. Their message is to remind us that they too are gamers with a love for the magazines. In fact, they make us all aware of how much the majority of them have contributed to these magazines over the years.
. . .
As far as I can tell, textbook marketing getting them out of an exceptionally poor situation. Of course, if you try to ignore the spin, it just ends up being a hollow message. Still, I couldn't imagine them doing any better at this point in time.

Precisely. It's just like the ads where BP pretends they care about the environment and care what consumers think, after having a refinery blow up and having a pipeline in Alaska fail for lack of maintenance and dump tons of oil (tagline: "It's a start" and "Beyond Petroleum"). Or the old ad campaign where WalMart had happy employees telling you how great it is to work there, after they got busted the umpteenth time for wage & hour violations and lost a discrimination lawsuit.

 

[Shroomy]

So now its a crime not to have been a life-long gamer?

I love the rational ideas being thrown around today.

I personally don't think it really had much to do with the situation, but I think it is fair to ask whether or not a lack of longterm connection to the magazines had some impact on the decision. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it from Scott Rouse in the next few days.

 

[Steel_Wind]

So now its a crime not to have been a life-long gamer?

I love the rational ideas being thrown around today.

o_0

No. But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.

Answer? Clearly Not.

Which is so patently obvious a point - I cannot believe you genuinely missed it. I must conclude that you are trolling.

 

[Friadoc]

I should add that this is what probably should have been available yesterday. We needed this to be a big deal, not a "this was a no-brainer" type quote. Those names (with the exception of the brand manager's) carry weight with me, as they have a long history with the game and particularly with the magazines. I don't necessarily have great faith that it will be pulled off but I appreciate the sentiments.

They definately blew the announcement and should give an extra thanks to the folks at Paizo, who are not only handling their own PR, but doing their best to help WotC's PR too.

While both parties have been gracious, WotC fumbled with respects to the fans, by now you'd think they'd remember that 24-hours, on the net, is a freakin' lifetime.

If they would have done this at the same time Paizo did, I doubt we'd have a 26+ and growing page debate on e-zines, what they're doing, and whether or not we can blame WotC for it.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

o_0

No. But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.

Answer? Clearly Not.

Which is so patently obvious a point - I cannot believe you genuinely missed it. I must conclude that you are trolling.

The entire customer base of D&D has not been playing for 30 odd years.

The entire customer base of D&D does not read Dungeon or Dragon.

MOST of the customer base of D&D is much more likely to be like Mr. Rouse, either returned to it after time away or new to it and young(yes, they exist). Just because they don't whine and complain and scream at every little change doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[EricNoah]

o_0

No. But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.

Answer? Clearly Not.

You assume we, and other long-time pre-3E gamers, comprise the "base." Maybe we don't. Maybe the majority of their customers are relatively new gamers. I'm not sure how we would know one way or the other.

 

[Steel_Wind]

You assume we, and other long-time pre-3E gamers, comprise the "base." Maybe we don't. Maybe the majority of their customers are relatively new gamers. I'm not sure how we would know one way or the other.

No. I assume the "lifestyle gamers" are the ones who buy a lot of product overall and have great attachment to the magazines. They also tend the be the ones who subscribe to one or both.

We're not talking about who might buy a D&D mini or a PhB - we're talking about who regularly buys the magazines. That's the base I meant. Those people, in my submission, tend to be hardcore gamers.

The base WotC is chasing with this decision is somebody else.