NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 3472620" data-attributes="member: 20741">More to the point...Did the "end" of Dungeon and Dragon as a brand and the migration of that "sort of content" to an online subscription service have a lot more to do about liability for subscriptions already paid for and how that would be accounted for?The more I think about it, the more I think it did. Money is always the very best explanation for anything in a commercial agreement. When its not about money - its usually about the wrong thing.Here's my reasoning:1 - WotC announces Dragon and Dungeon to be moved to online paid subscription only.Much teeth gnashing and wailing about paper vs electronic and .pdf formats, sure, but nowhere NEAR this level of reaction. Even though Paizo's Erik Mona et al would not have been involved in the new online version, it would have been a spin in terms of PR that would have wholly turned on the nature of delivery, and not in the nature of the death of the magazines or the change in content or direction.If that's all it was - they would have announced the transfer of both to an online form in a heartbeat - made the changes to content as they liked - and spun the changes later as "necessary".But they didn't do that at all. So why not?2- In killing the brands, they avoided hundreds, and later, thousands of inquiries on how the subscriptions already paid for would transfer over.Maybe Paizo could have paid the money to WotC. And just as possible, maybe they could not have afforded to do it. Either way - WotC would have been on the hook for the service, would have had to pay money to implement database transfers - all a big big headache for a charge that Hasbro  - longterm - can easily afford.They also would have been pressure to roll out the service in August/September, and they may not be ready by then.3. A trigger of all the subscription transfers to WotC could have put Paizo under.That sort of subscription $$ transfer would have resulted in a triggering of the payment of 300-500k+ in cash from Paizo to WotC. It  could have resulted  quite possibly in Paizo going under.  Certainly - it would have been grim for its cashflow even if they did not go under.So.4. They announce the death of the magazines and everybody gets something.WotC gets:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> No liability for continuing a subscription if Paizo defaults on payment;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> No requirement to implement database transfer of customers and subscription credit;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> No expectation of readers for continuing/ not continuing popular columns and features in the mags that cost WotC money in lost sales of other higher priced product (Adventure Path - I'm looking at you); and,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> No pressure to roll out the service on a fixed timetable in Septmber of 2007 </li> </ul>Paizo gets:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> No absolute liability to refund transfer the subscription money. This is HUGE; </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The chance to leverage that subscription money ALREADY PAID for store credit or for Pathfinder subscriptions instead of a straight refund. This is ALSO huge; and,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Positive PR to promote Pathfinder right before GAMA and to the public. </li> </ul>This suited everybody's interest much better than some supposed migration of products WotC wanted to already substantially modify for business reasons.The downside is that it means that WotC is a total villain with fans while Paizo comes off buffing its halo as the good guys.So yes. I think WotC took one for Paizo here - though to be sure - they have done so as they think it is in their interests to do it. If they wanted Dungeon and Dragon to continue as print publications - all they had to do was extend the license.</blockquote>

Verification