{DRAGON] Will there be a DRAGON Annual this year?

[Psion]

If we do another annual, it will be newsstand only.

I consider that a very bad thing to do to the subscribers. Many subscribers subscribe precisely because they have difficulty getting the Dragon at the newstands. They don't want to miss an issue. Now, they have to go seek one out from an unreliable outlet, made doubly unreliable because now people will be scrambling for it that the outlet that the outlet was not counting on.

Personally, I would much rather have the annual than a random supplement that I will already own if I wanted it.

I do think it is good that you listen to feedback (and do hope you listen to my negative feedback, among others, about the inclusion of "edgy" material.) That said, I don't see how you are addressing customer needs by taking away an annual. I don't think anyone has said they don't want an annual. I do think they have said they want a better annual.

 

[Psion]

With all due respect, sir, I can understand the numerous complaints. People expect D&D content in Dragon Annual. Period.

Personally (and I know I am not alone), I don't think that d20 or non d20 is the issue. Most of us here at enworld understant that unless a product is explicitly not targeted at d20 fantasy, it is de facto a D&D product.

What raised many people's hackles is that much of the material in the annual was "previews" and "excerpts" that will be reprinted in another product. I.E., they see the d20 special as a virtual ad. People don't like to pay for ads (and yes, if I buy a subscription with the understanding that I will get annuals as part of it, I am paying for the annual.)

People have made similar complaints about the flurry of "preview" material in the pages of Dragon itself related to upcoming D&D products. Same thing, different situation.

 

[Visceris]

No Dragon Annual?

Well, that just blows big chewey chunks of moldy kibble.

I like the Dragon Annuals, dammit.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I suspect it's impossible for the people at Paizo to tell you that positive feedback "carries more weight" than negative, and actually I'm not even sure it should. If one person tells you an article was great, and 113 tell you it was worse than having a dead skunk mailed to them, which opinion should they listen to?

As I've noted on this thread and others, the feedback I've seen, which is mostly just on the internet, since I don't get Paizo's e- and snail-mail, has been mostly positive. I'm sorry if this sounds snippy, but my point was missed. I was not saying that one positive comment should outweigh a multitude. I was saying that the overwhelming number of positive comments which I see should count for more than the very vocal minority who complain.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

No one at Paizo is happy about axing the annual, I'm sure. But if you work on something and get mostly negative feedback, it doesn't make sense to do it again. Johnny is annoyed because subscribers were overwhelmingly negative about the d20 special, but it sold well on newsstands

OK, this is what has been unclear to me. Where were all the negative comments from subscribers (I'm one, by the way, and I know that I posted positively)? The majority - and I specifically mean numerically, as in the comments of different people, not a bunch of posts by a few - of what I saw, as I said above, were positive. Was there a majority of people (not comments) who commented negatively via all the various methods one can use to contact Dragon and Dungeon? I'm not being a smart alec; I actually would like this made clear. If the majority of people who commented on the annual/special commented negatively, then the issue is at rest, for me at least.

 

[Glyfair]

But if you work on something and get mostly negative feedback, it doesn't make sense to do it again.

Now, I'm going to say right now, I don't know who owned/worked on what. My understanding of the timing is a mess right now.

However, this isn't a good representation of what happened (from a Dragon standpoint anyway - not necessarily from a Paizo standpoint). What it seems to be to me is that they did something and got good feedback. They then changed what they did and got negative feedback. What that says to me is not "don't do it again." It says "Go back to the old way."

Now, as to the monetary issues: I've said before, if it is driving them into the poor house putting it out, then they should stop. No one here wants Dragon to go out of business. However, no matter what spin they want to put on it, Dragon Annual was part of the subscription and advertised as such.

Secondly, I agree with Psion. I subscribed mostly so I wouldn't have to worry about find a place that carried Dragon on time. If Paizo starts publishing it again, it should be included in the subscription. Raise the subscription price an appropriate amount, but include it.

As an aside, if the d20 special sold well on the newstands but got complaints from subscribers, maybe it shouldn't have been the Dragon Annual. Maybe it should have been a different magazine, with perhaps an annual or semi-annual publication.

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[Dragongirl]

Personally I think that if you want to experiment by changing the format of the annual as you did with the d20 one, then you should be willing to accept whatever your subscribers say. If you judge that the overall opinion of that expement was negative then you should obviously not continue in that direction. That being said, you now coming to us and saying that since we didn't like the experiment you worked so hard on and spent so much on that you are not going to do any annual is very childish. I also find Mr. Wilson's post to be whiney and less than I would hope for as an official answer.

I am not one of those people that hated issue #300, I thought it was so so. I greatly enjoy Dragon every month and this annual issue will not change my opinion of the magazine, but I think you guys could have handled this is a much more mature manner.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Personally I think that if you want to experiment by changing the format of the annual as you did with the d20 one, then you should be willing to accept whatever your subscribers say. If you judge that the overall opinion of that expement was negative then you should obviously not continue in that direction.

But here's the thing that still bothers me. If every subscriber said it sucked but it sold more than twice the amount of last year's annual... well, it basically states that they don't feel that the cost incurred due to subscribers, who are supposed to get said product anyway, was worth selling even twice as much as they did previously. strange math there.

 

[Talaysen]

Yes, and I think that's the part that makes them look very childish indeed. "Yes, it sold very well, but some subscribers were mean to us so we're not going to do it anymore! So there!"

It's not like they really lost money over it anyway...it sounds to me like they probably made a tidy profit with the newsstand sales, and it's not like the subscribers demanded (or, I would presume, got even if they did demand) their money back. I can't imagine there were very many subscriptions cancelled over that issue, if any. Heck, if you ask me, the hubbub over Dragon #300 was probably far more fierce and far more potentially damaging; tell me, Johnny, does that mean you'll be skipping directly from #399 to #401?

And I'm sick and tired of people saying "well, you're getting so many pages per year for an incredible price". That's apples and oranges. When I buy a sourcebook, or ten sourcebooks, or a hundred, I know what I'm getting. I pick and choose the material I buy. There may still be some stuff I won't use, but for the most part, it all deals with something I'm interested in. Some issues of Dragon are entirely decent from my perspective; some have only one or two redeeming factors. I'm basically paying for the luck of the draw. Feedback should shape things to the point where I find more to my liking in each issue, but then, Paizo has to deal with the feedback from a vast number of sources, and they have now demonstrated that they may not respond well to that feedback. Aside from that, magazines are always less expensive than sourcebooks by definition.

This looks even worse when you take into account the recent increase in subscription prices. As I said: a lot of subscribers will probably be cheated unless said prices are lowered once again or the Annual is somehow restored. And, as I said, I for one would be willing to accept another slight increase if that's what will convince you to restore the Annual. But this decision is quite unfair, and I think sufficient reason for that feeling of injustice has been given.

 

[Ranger REG]

Actually, by Paizo Logic, if they receive so many negative feedback on #300, it makes senses to cancel the entire Dragon circulation.

Which is what I equate to their recent decision regarding the Annual.

It was one time. One issue that receive criticism. The first 5 issues were great. But based on last year's singular issue, they cancel the entire Annual circulation.

We're simply telling them to do what they have been doing with the first five issues and not the sixth issue.

I still stand by my statement: I want the Dragon Annual back.

One more thing: Just because I have been buying my Dragon--and more recently Dungeon/Polyhedron--at my FLGS for the last 15 years does not mean my opinion carry less weight than your subscribers. The fact that I'm willing to pay full price shows my devotion and support for the magazines.