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

Hmm...

I don't think that

I'm pretty sure that at least some elements of "Eberron as we know it" were imported from the other finalists' settings.

even if true (and there's some confusion on the matter), necessarily equates to

the other two settings may have had some of their best features cannibalized

I would say it's quite likely that they may have had their most Eberron-appropriate features cannibalized. But

A) That hardly means they have nothing of their own to offer, and

B) Eberron itself changed dramatically from initial conception to Keith's "setting bible" to its final form. These other settings would doubtless do the same.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cthulhudrew

First Post
MoogleEmpMog said:
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.

War of the Lance, the MMO? :)
 

Banshee16

First Post
MoogleEmpMog said:
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.

Isn't that what they did with the Dragonlance hardcover that they released a few years back? Or will they do the whole thing all over again?

I really hope that they aren't just deciding to sit on it. That would be entirely frustrating.

Banshee
 

Banshee16

First Post
Mouseferatu said:
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.
.

Your theory could have a basis to it, if other, later posts referencing the idea of parts of the other two settings being cannibalized to add to Eberron don't have a basis in fact. If those settings were cannibalized, then what value would a new one based on one of those two have?

With all the buzz about 4E though, would they really be wise to be spending time releasing a new setting, unless 4E isn't quite as close as some people speculate? What if they wait until 2009 or 2010 to release it? Then they could get 2.5 years or so of products out for a new setting.

I do think that if I was running Margaret Weis Productions, I'd probably be rather upset at the moment. i'm pretty sure just a month or so ago, they released a statement on one of the message boards about the future of the game, and that they intended to renew the license, and that they'd actually hired more staff to work on the Dragonlance game. If I'd just incurred the expenses of hiring on new staff that I now have to pay to get rid of, yeah, I'd be pretty frustrated.

I didn't purchase the Age of Mortals module trilogy, but now I'm thinking maybe I should pick them up, so I have them available if WotC doesn't *do* anything with the setting.

The last, frustrating thing, is that Taladas will be overlooked....again. I think Time of the Dragon was out in '89, and with the completion of the novel trilogy this year, which was the best Dragonlance series I've read in a while, the time was perfect (I thought) to release a new setting book. Guess that'll go back into the realm of dreams..

Banshee
 

Veander

First Post
Who cares what current employees say UNLESS it's against the boss? You heard the same stuff when 3.5 came out so fast. This is a dumb decision to lose the two magazines that introduce the game to many and keep it on the back-burner for tons of other gamers who aren't currently gaming. Anything other than a new magazine is a decision that goes completely against the model of a paper magazine sold easily at local gaming shows and big book stores. Period.
 

Storm Raven

First Post
Jim Hague said:
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.[/i]

Well, no. You just don't get the point. Dragon has been a valuable marketing tool for WotC products.

How did they hype the launch of 3e? With previews in Dragon.

How did they hype the launch of 3.5e? With previews in Dragon.

How did they hype the launch of Eberron? With previews in Dragon.

There isn't a single significant D&D product WotC has put out that has not be hyped with previews, bonus material, and other promotional efforts via Dragon and/or Dungeon. And that's going to go away.

You could argue that they could do the same thing with their DI, but that likely will cover pretty much the same customers as their website promotions in the past have. And the population of magazine buyers is likely not the same as the population of webzine subscribers; so there is a net loss of marketing potential.

In addition, all of the "supporting products" that help people play D&D will lose a marketing avenue. WotC doesn't directly benefit from, for example, megamats and tact-tiles, but they make the games WotC publishes much easier to use. Sacrificing Dragon means also sacrificing the main marketing avenue for companies that make products like this. And that's bad for the hobby, and because WotC is so dominant in the hobby, that's also bad for them.

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.

I would say that you are probably wrong. Because your conclusion doesn't match the facts you have presented. Someone in Austin was buying Dragon and Dungeon, because the excellent game stores you refer to kept stocking them. Excellent game stores avoid stocking product that doesn't sell. Of course, your assessment also (a) doesn't account for subscribers, and (b) assumes your personal experience in Austin is representative.

You're asking hypotetical 'what ifs', with what seems to be a touch of hysteria thrown into the mix, which isn't helpful.

No, I'm pointing out salient facts. Most of the current game designers and writers in the industry right now got their start in the business by writing articles that appeared in Dungeon or Dragon. This is not a hypothetical. This is a known fact. This avenue of entry is being cut off.

Most WotC products have been heavily promoted via Dragon and Dungeon, and most supporting gaming material that helps make using WotC products enjoyable is almost exclusively marketed via those magazines. This is not a hypothetical. This is historically verifiable. This avenue is now being cut off.

Many gamers have gotten their first gaming experiences via the magazines, and many other rely upon the magazines to connect them with the gaming hobby, or assist them in keeping their campaigns going. The only thing hypothetical about this is the volume; we know this is true for many gamers, because they have said so, we just don't know if the figure is 100 gamers, or 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000 for which this is true.

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.

Actually, the mean is not what needs to be evaluated. Because the mean is not the type of gamer who buys big piles of WotC products. The hardcore gamers are. Back when Dancey did his now famous survey, I recall that he found that a tiny percentage of gamers accounted for a large percentage of gaming product purchases (something that is actually true for many products in many markets). I don't see any real reason to think that this pattern has significantly changed.
 

Hussar

Legend
No, I'm pointing out salient facts. Most of the current game designers and writers in the industry right now got their start in the business by writing articles that appeared in Dungeon or Dragon. This is not a hypothetical. This is a known fact. This avenue of entry is being cut off.

Well, yes, they won't be publishing in Dragon. But, why wouldn't they be publishing in DI?

There are other means of getting the message to gamers. There are many, many gamers who never see Dragon, but hang out on the WOTC boards. I think you are underestimating the impact of the web here. There are 50 000 members at ENworld. Do you not think that the WOTC site has similar numbers? That would mean that more people see the WOTC boards than see Dragon right off the bat, assuming that every member actually looks at the boards.

I'm fairly sure that WOTC would have the hits traffic to be able to make a better estimate.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Well, no. You just don't get the point. Dragon has been a valuable marketing tool for WotC products.

How did they hype the launch of 3e? With previews in Dragon.

How did they hype the launch of 3.5e? With previews in Dragon.

How did they hype the launch of Eberron? With previews in Dragon.

Or to continue the point: How did they print "official" 3.0 and 3.5 updates to 2Ed era settings like Athas, Spelljammer & Oriental Adventures? Through Dragon & Dungeon/Polyhedron.

There were also boardgame designers who got their start or a significant boost from games published within their pages. Anyone remember Tom Wham? I don't see myself downloading a boardgame from a digital site and spending all that money printing it up at Kinkos.

(Assuming you can- Kinko's & other places have gotten hypernervous about printing copies of copyrighted material, even when it says explicitly that permission to do so is granted.)

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?

I'm a bit of a poor example- I spend my entertainment budget on so many things (RPGs, CDs, novels, gemstones, sporting events, sheet music & instruments, etc.), almost any decrease in one area is counterbalanced by increased consumption in other areas. Its only during periods when I have to give everything up, like Lent or a long trip, that any unallocated "entertainment $" go unspent.

However, within the gaming portion of my budget, I spend on all kinds of products- WotC products, HERO, Paranoia, Mutants & Masterminds, Space 1889, & other RPGs, boardgames, minis (collectible & normal), and, once upon a time, M:tG. Due to their schedule of releases, I probably spend more on WotC product than on anyone else's, but I don't buy everything they make.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
There were also boardgame designers who got their start or a significant boost from games published within their pages. Anyone remember Tom Wham? I don't see myself downloading a boardgame from a digital site and spending all that money printing it up at Kinkos.

Yes, that's true.

Twenty years ago.

What game board designers have gotten a boost out of Dragon in the past 15 years?
 

broghammerj

Explorer
Hussar said:
There are many, many gamers who never see Dragon, but hang out on the WOTC boards. I think you are underestimating the impact of the web here. There are 50 000 members at ENworld. Do you not think that the WOTC site has similar numbers? That would mean that more people see the WOTC boards than see Dragon right off the bat, assuming that every member actually looks at the boards.

I'm fairly sure that WOTC would have the hits traffic to be able to make a better estimate.

Although I agree with you that WOTC site probably gets a huge amounts of hits, I would question how much of the board actually gets viewed (or as you say seen). For example, the last time I went to WOTC site was to look at Star Wars preview. Before that, the new minis coming out. I would dare say I have never looked at any Eberron portion of the website.....ever! Is that good for WOTC or what they want?

A magazine reader is more likely to page through and at least look at most if not all pages. The level of reading may be minimal but people will see ads, supplemental material, etc. On a website people don't click on content they don't want to see. WOTC may get a lot of hits but if you want actual viewing, they'll have to start adding pop-ups, audio advertisements, etc.
 

Remove ads

Top