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

[Hussar]

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.

Hey, I love Dragon and Dungeon as much as the next guy. But, OTOH, I hadn't bought a Dragon from about 1985 to 2003. Does that mean tha t I have no connection to the brand? That someone who hasn't been reading and collecting the magazine since its inception cannot have the same connection to the brand that the consumer base does?

Actually, this guy sounds a whole lot like me. While I did continue playing throughout the 80's and 90's, it wasn't until very recently that I got into Dragon again.

Kim Mohan hasn't had much to do with the magazine for over a decade. Surely the views espoused there have no bearing on the issue. After all, if he truly had a connection to the magazine, he wouldn't be doing anything else.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

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.

But that's not the customer base. That's a PORTION of them.

While many of us may not like this decision, there is NO reason to claim this is the end of the world, comparable to a person's death, or that this is even a decision that hurts D&D players as a whole.

Liking Dungeon and Dragon is one thing, but its the melodrama and the doomsaying going along with all of this that's infuriating. No matter what WotC does, they're screamed at as evil...and yet...all these years later, I see the same people screaming the same things about never buying this or that again. Its tiring.

 

[EricNoah]

Kim's a he. Not that it matters.

 

[haakon1]

WOTC suits = Cylons, according to WOTC's Bill Slavicsek

This makes me laugh. Is Bill Slavicsek mocking WOTC's suits with a secret "yup, we are evil for doing this" comment, has he just been watching too much Battlestar Galactica, or is it a coinkydink? You be the judge.

Bill Slavicsek, in the lead off marketing essay in WOTC's wake for Dungeon and Dragon:
<<This ending isn’t an execution—it’s an evolution. Now comes the next era. We have a plan.>>

Intro voiceover to (2004+) Battlestar Galactica, all seasons after season 1:
<<The Cylons were created by man
They evolved
They rebelled
There are many copies
And they have a plan>>

If you don't believe me:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070420a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)

 

[Zaruthustran]

They are missing a big point...

You cant collect web pages.

That's an argument *for* online distribution. I've got a bunch of old Dragons. Some are in boxes, some are in bookshelves. I keep them because, I don't know, I guess I sometimes think I'll want to read them again. Guess what? I never have. Never. Even if I recall some feat or article that was interesting, and want to find it again, I consider the giant pile of magazines and it's just not worth sorting through them all.

Compare to the old Dragon archive CD. Instantly searchable. Always available. Portable. Clean and as clutter-free as a single silver platter can be. Put all the goodness online, and you can even toss the silver platter (and access the info from home, work, at a buddy's house, on your phone, etc.).

Don't get me wrong: I loved Dragon. Each issue was fun to read. Fun to read once. Magazines are supposed to be disposable; it's why descriptions of crazy people tend to include overflowing stacks of National Geographic and other periodicals.

I kid, but I'm also really, really glad that all that rich content will be presented online, where it's actually usable and archivable. I'll finally be able to pull up all those feats, articles, and other content in a practical way. And clean out my den.

-z

 

[Hussar]

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.

OTOH, I've been a Dragon subscriber for almost three years (would have been four), and a recent Dungeon subscriber. Yet, I haven't bought a WOTC book, or even a gaming book in general, since PHB2.

Please stop trying to universalize your experience.

 

[Hussar]

Kim's a he. Not that it matters.

Fixed. Honestly wasn't sure. :/

 

[crazy_cat]

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

Unlike many people at Wizards of the Coast, I am not a life-long gamer. I came to Wizards in 2000 by way of the snowboard industry and discovered gaming for the second time in my life.

—Scott Rouse, Senior Brand Manager, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS

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

QFT.

Dragon - RIP 2007
Dungeon - RIP 2007

Damn shame

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, there's a lot of chicken-little-ism going around, but that is to be understood. People want their magazines.

I have every confidence that this online format will be amazing, but this sudden, abrupt change wasn't the best way to go about it. Show us what we're going to get before you take away what we already have.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I kid, but I'm also really, really glad that all that rich content will be presented online, where it's actually usable and archivable. I'll finally be able to pull up all those feats, articles, and other content in a practical way. And clean out my den.

Your mistake is in assuming it has to be one or the other. No one bemoans Wizards wanting to do stuff on-line, we're annoyed that not only did they drag their feet in letting Paizo do stuff electronically, they now kill the paper product in favor of a pure-digital play, which *no one* has manged to do successfully yet.

They could have chosen to keep both going in such a way that they complemented each other. This path is short-sighted and greedy, and I have yet to see any persuasive argument otherwise.