Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?
- Thread starter Erithtotl
- Start date
The B&W issue...I don't buy it...
If I recall correctly from looking at my stacks of oop dungeons from the late nineties, the magazine had a clean-cut black and white look, but still was able to come up with full color adds. So I don't buy it when people say "the magazines gotta be in color for the ads." It doesn't add up.
With respect to newstand issues, has the magazine ever been an impulse-off-the-newstand buy? When I first bought dungeon it was because I knew what I was doing, and if I ever buy it, its based on content, not flashiness of presentation. That's just me though- I'm sure there are people who do buy product based on placement and color.
I think part of the problem then, is that the magazine becomes something that it never was- in trying to broaden its appeal it becomes watered down from the original content. I think that's what frustrates people who have been long-time supporters of the magazine. I personally would rather see more adds to pay for more dungeon content rather than fewer adds and have the magazine tank because it has to be made into some sort of hybrid to attract off-the-shelf buys, which I'm doubtful are working anyway because we know now that the magazine is in some dire straights.
Maybe the best thing to do would be to make Dungeon magazine the PDF. If that got content back to its original quality and levels I think it would be worth it. If that happened I would never read poly. Its something I read for being in dungeon, not because I would seek it out and read it anyway.
fwiw
guacamole
If I recall correctly from looking at my stacks of oop dungeons from the late nineties, the magazine had a clean-cut black and white look, but still was able to come up with full color adds. So I don't buy it when people say "the magazines gotta be in color for the ads." It doesn't add up.
With respect to newstand issues, has the magazine ever been an impulse-off-the-newstand buy? When I first bought dungeon it was because I knew what I was doing, and if I ever buy it, its based on content, not flashiness of presentation. That's just me though- I'm sure there are people who do buy product based on placement and color.
I think part of the problem then, is that the magazine becomes something that it never was- in trying to broaden its appeal it becomes watered down from the original content. I think that's what frustrates people who have been long-time supporters of the magazine. I personally would rather see more adds to pay for more dungeon content rather than fewer adds and have the magazine tank because it has to be made into some sort of hybrid to attract off-the-shelf buys, which I'm doubtful are working anyway because we know now that the magazine is in some dire straights.
Maybe the best thing to do would be to make Dungeon magazine the PDF. If that got content back to its original quality and levels I think it would be worth it. If that happened I would never read poly. Its something I read for being in dungeon, not because I would seek it out and read it anyway.
fwiw
guacamole
WizarDru
Adventurer
Hi, Erik. Nice to see you again.
Let me be clear: I like both magazines, and I like the way they are. I enjoy Polyhedron, especially the mini-games...and I love Downer and Bolt & Quiver. It's not a waste of space, IMHO. I may not use Hijinx, but I like to read it...and it's a great example/lesson of how to apply the d20 system to some very un-D&D applications.
I enjoy Dungeon on multiple levels, too. I like the ads. You heard that right...I like the ads. I enjoy seeing ads for new gaming products, like miniatures, supplements and the like. I like that the magazine is in color, and provides me more value monthly than I get from some supplements I buy. I enjoy the quality of the writing, and I like the people who write it. Johnny Wilson is not the BBEG to me, and while he and I may not see eye-to-eye all the time, I think the magazine has prospered under his control.
I think Erik Mona is one of the best folks working in the field right now, and I'm glad we have him, Herr Thommasson and a host of talented professionals working towards bringing us enjoyable content that I, in turn, grant to my players. I think that Dungeon, which I hadn't picked up until post-3e, has only generally improved (with the occasional speed bump). I think Dragon got a little weak just prior to the switchover to Paizo...but by issue 300, the content had gotten quite good (particularly 299 and 301).
Do what you need to do to keep the magazines running, IMHO.
Let me be clear: I like both magazines, and I like the way they are. I enjoy Polyhedron, especially the mini-games...and I love Downer and Bolt & Quiver. It's not a waste of space, IMHO. I may not use Hijinx, but I like to read it...and it's a great example/lesson of how to apply the d20 system to some very un-D&D applications.
I enjoy Dungeon on multiple levels, too. I like the ads. You heard that right...I like the ads. I enjoy seeing ads for new gaming products, like miniatures, supplements and the like. I like that the magazine is in color, and provides me more value monthly than I get from some supplements I buy. I enjoy the quality of the writing, and I like the people who write it. Johnny Wilson is not the BBEG to me, and while he and I may not see eye-to-eye all the time, I think the magazine has prospered under his control.
I think Erik Mona is one of the best folks working in the field right now, and I'm glad we have him, Herr Thommasson and a host of talented professionals working towards bringing us enjoyable content that I, in turn, grant to my players. I think that Dungeon, which I hadn't picked up until post-3e, has only generally improved (with the occasional speed bump). I think Dragon got a little weak just prior to the switchover to Paizo...but by issue 300, the content had gotten quite good (particularly 299 and 301).
Do what you need to do to keep the magazines running, IMHO.
Ghostwind
First Post
Erik, thanks for weighing in. The fact that Dungeon and Poly will never be separated into two individual magazines is certainly a sticking point with much of the community here. Your points outlined shows that, while you are listening to the complaints, there are parameters that will not be changed. The magazine will always be color due to the need to attract more advertisers and there is a likelihood that there may even be an increase in the number of ads. This rigidity, while understandable from a business standpoint, may fuel even greater dissent in the long run.
If you look at the major components that seem to be the source of conflict: Dungeon content, Poly content, LG Journal, and Star Wars material, you see the largest complaints (at least here) fall into a Dungeon vs. Poly mentality. Since the material that makes up the Star Wars and LG Journal sections have more to do with general gaming than actual adventuring, why not move them to Dragon? In my humble opinion, this would be a better themed fit. It appears that there is a mindset that Dragon cannot be touched and that any modifications must only be to Dungeon. I hope this is a misconception. General gaming articles belong in a magazine devoted to gaming articles. Doing this, would allow more space for Dungeon adventures and yet still allow room for Poly and its mini-games.
I agree with the opinion that the current comics should be dropped in Dungeon. Again, in my opinion, if humor must be inserted, it should be done with small strips of single to three panels only that could fit at the bottom of a page or in a spot position. Keep the big humor stuff restricted to Dragon.
It is clear that some alterations in the format must be made and you are certainly stuck in a no-win scenario. If you took a look at using your strongest asset (Dragon) to assist in further modifying the format of Dungeon/Poly then perhaps it would not be so necessary to strongly consider cancelling Dungeon.
On a separate note, IF the decision to cancel Dungeon does come to pass, I assume you will have a realistic plan in place beforehand to handle existing subscribers and their concerns (unlike what happened when the decision to go monthly was announced and the confusion that was spawned as a result). I would suggest the options of:
1. A refund equal to the amount of the existing subscription.
2. Transfer of subscription to Dragon magazine with the addition of a single bonus issue as a way of saying thank you for the support.
3. Extension of an existing Dragon subscription by the time remaining on the former Dungeon subscription plus the additional bonus issue.
Perhaps this should be an option now for anyone who is upset with the current format of Dungeon? Why not allow customers who are dissatisfied with Dungeon to transfer their existing subscription to Dragon or use it to extend their current Dragon extension? Seems like a plausible alternative to me.
If you look at the major components that seem to be the source of conflict: Dungeon content, Poly content, LG Journal, and Star Wars material, you see the largest complaints (at least here) fall into a Dungeon vs. Poly mentality. Since the material that makes up the Star Wars and LG Journal sections have more to do with general gaming than actual adventuring, why not move them to Dragon? In my humble opinion, this would be a better themed fit. It appears that there is a mindset that Dragon cannot be touched and that any modifications must only be to Dungeon. I hope this is a misconception. General gaming articles belong in a magazine devoted to gaming articles. Doing this, would allow more space for Dungeon adventures and yet still allow room for Poly and its mini-games.
I agree with the opinion that the current comics should be dropped in Dungeon. Again, in my opinion, if humor must be inserted, it should be done with small strips of single to three panels only that could fit at the bottom of a page or in a spot position. Keep the big humor stuff restricted to Dragon.
It is clear that some alterations in the format must be made and you are certainly stuck in a no-win scenario. If you took a look at using your strongest asset (Dragon) to assist in further modifying the format of Dungeon/Poly then perhaps it would not be so necessary to strongly consider cancelling Dungeon.
On a separate note, IF the decision to cancel Dungeon does come to pass, I assume you will have a realistic plan in place beforehand to handle existing subscribers and their concerns (unlike what happened when the decision to go monthly was announced and the confusion that was spawned as a result). I would suggest the options of:
1. A refund equal to the amount of the existing subscription.
2. Transfer of subscription to Dragon magazine with the addition of a single bonus issue as a way of saying thank you for the support.
3. Extension of an existing Dragon subscription by the time remaining on the former Dungeon subscription plus the additional bonus issue.
Perhaps this should be an option now for anyone who is upset with the current format of Dungeon? Why not allow customers who are dissatisfied with Dungeon to transfer their existing subscription to Dragon or use it to extend their current Dragon extension? Seems like a plausible alternative to me.
I have Dungeon since issue 27. I've always enjoyed reading it and used many of the adventures. Unfortunately the quality and usefullness of the magazine have dropped a lot lately. The issues in the 80's range were off and on good to not so good. The 90's were just plain bad. So I no longer buy the magazine and if things dont change I certainly will not in the future.
Personally I like Polyhedron and got it when I was a RPGA-member. The two magazines are however not really compatible. Combined with the downward trend in content quality the fusion has not been good for Dungeon magazine.
What I wonder is what Paizos is trying to do. Is their main aim to produce a quality magazine for an established audience or to make a flashy but not so good magazine for an as wide as possible public?
Personally I like Polyhedron and got it when I was a RPGA-member. The two magazines are however not really compatible. Combined with the downward trend in content quality the fusion has not been good for Dungeon magazine.
What I wonder is what Paizos is trying to do. Is their main aim to produce a quality magazine for an established audience or to make a flashy but not so good magazine for an as wide as possible public?
Sholari
First Post
My guess is what Paizo is trying to do by combining Dungeon to Poly is to employ a bundling strategy, where the products are negtively correlated. Theoretically, by employing a bundling strategy they can increase sales while decrease their distribution costs. By choosing two magazines that have very different audiences the value each of the "two" audiences' places on the magazine is negatively correlated, which under some conditions is supposed have a bigger impact. My guess would be this is why eliminating bundling is not an option. Because, they figure some of the original Dungeon audience will be upset by the bundling but there will be enough extra revenue to make up for this.
Here is an explanation of this technique I found off the Internet so I can not take credit for it myself...
"Consider two magazines, A and B, say "Dungeon Magazine" and "Polyhedron Magazine." Suppose that among one million potential customers, book A is valued at $1 by 100,000, at $2 by another 100,000, and so on, up to $10 by 100,000, and suppose the same distribution of valuations applies to book B. Suppose further that the valuations of the two books are independent. Thus there are about 10,000 customers who value book A at $3 and simultaneously book B at $5, and similarly about 10,000 customers who place values $9 and $2 on A and B, respectively. Under these conditions, if the publisher is to sell these books separately, revenue will be maximized when the price of each is set at $5. About 600,000 people will purchase each book, for total revenue from sales of both books of $6,000,000. (This maximum is not unique, as the same revenue can be achieved by pricing each book at $6, in which case about 500,000 people will buy each.) However, if the two books are sold together, revenue can be made much higher. Since there are 10,000 people who value the bundle at $2 (exactly the 10,000 who value each book at $1), while there are 90,000 who value it at $10, a short calculation shows that the revenue-maximizing price is $9. At the price of $9 per bundle, 720,000 people will purchase it, for total revenue of $6,480,000, exactly 8% higher than if the books were sold separately. Since profits would be the revenues minus the fixed costs of producing the books, they would increase much more dramatically."
My argument is there is probably enough of the Dungeon audience who place no value on the Poly magazine that the bundling strategy is no longer effective. This second example would be more applicable and is the reason why so many people are disatisfied.
"What weakens the case for bundling is that most people have no
interest in most goods. In the example of the books "Dungeon Magazine" and "Polyhedron Magazine," a more realistic assessment might be that in a population of 1,000,000, each book would be valued at zero by 90% of the population, with 10,000 valuing it at $1, 10,000 at $2, and so on. If the 100,000 people who do place a positive value on book A are distributed independently of those who value book B at $1 or more, then there would be only 10,000 people who place positive values on both A and B. Bundling under these conditions would not produce much benefit."
Dungeon is for game master who needs to save time and Polyhedron is for gamers that like to experiment with different d20 game, two very different audiences. Even looking at real world examples why don’t publishers force bundle Scientific American with Seventeen magazine or Boy’s Life with Modern Maturity? Theoretically, the strong negative correlation between the two examples would mean that that bundling would increase sales yet I don’t think these audiences would stand for this. Imagine kids being forced to buy magazines articles for the 50+ crowd. Why does bundling work so well for bundling Microsoft Word with Microsoft Excel? The big difference is most of the initial cost is in development. There is very little cost after the software has been developed. In other words, you do not have to sacrifice on the quality of Microsoft Word to include Microsoft Excel, because most of the money has been spent regardless of whether you bundle or not. Unfortunately, in bundling Dungeon and Polyhedron this is not the case or we would have more than just one adventure per issue. Anyway, I think my tab is up to 4 cents at this point, so I will end here.
Source: The bumpy road of electronic commerce, Andrew Odlyzko, AT&T Labs - Research, Preliminary version, August 9, 1996
Here is an explanation of this technique I found off the Internet so I can not take credit for it myself...
"Consider two magazines, A and B, say "Dungeon Magazine" and "Polyhedron Magazine." Suppose that among one million potential customers, book A is valued at $1 by 100,000, at $2 by another 100,000, and so on, up to $10 by 100,000, and suppose the same distribution of valuations applies to book B. Suppose further that the valuations of the two books are independent. Thus there are about 10,000 customers who value book A at $3 and simultaneously book B at $5, and similarly about 10,000 customers who place values $9 and $2 on A and B, respectively. Under these conditions, if the publisher is to sell these books separately, revenue will be maximized when the price of each is set at $5. About 600,000 people will purchase each book, for total revenue from sales of both books of $6,000,000. (This maximum is not unique, as the same revenue can be achieved by pricing each book at $6, in which case about 500,000 people will buy each.) However, if the two books are sold together, revenue can be made much higher. Since there are 10,000 people who value the bundle at $2 (exactly the 10,000 who value each book at $1), while there are 90,000 who value it at $10, a short calculation shows that the revenue-maximizing price is $9. At the price of $9 per bundle, 720,000 people will purchase it, for total revenue of $6,480,000, exactly 8% higher than if the books were sold separately. Since profits would be the revenues minus the fixed costs of producing the books, they would increase much more dramatically."
My argument is there is probably enough of the Dungeon audience who place no value on the Poly magazine that the bundling strategy is no longer effective. This second example would be more applicable and is the reason why so many people are disatisfied.
"What weakens the case for bundling is that most people have no
interest in most goods. In the example of the books "Dungeon Magazine" and "Polyhedron Magazine," a more realistic assessment might be that in a population of 1,000,000, each book would be valued at zero by 90% of the population, with 10,000 valuing it at $1, 10,000 at $2, and so on. If the 100,000 people who do place a positive value on book A are distributed independently of those who value book B at $1 or more, then there would be only 10,000 people who place positive values on both A and B. Bundling under these conditions would not produce much benefit."
Dungeon is for game master who needs to save time and Polyhedron is for gamers that like to experiment with different d20 game, two very different audiences. Even looking at real world examples why don’t publishers force bundle Scientific American with Seventeen magazine or Boy’s Life with Modern Maturity? Theoretically, the strong negative correlation between the two examples would mean that that bundling would increase sales yet I don’t think these audiences would stand for this. Imagine kids being forced to buy magazines articles for the 50+ crowd. Why does bundling work so well for bundling Microsoft Word with Microsoft Excel? The big difference is most of the initial cost is in development. There is very little cost after the software has been developed. In other words, you do not have to sacrifice on the quality of Microsoft Word to include Microsoft Excel, because most of the money has been spent regardless of whether you bundle or not. Unfortunately, in bundling Dungeon and Polyhedron this is not the case or we would have more than just one adventure per issue. Anyway, I think my tab is up to 4 cents at this point, so I will end here.
Source: The bumpy road of electronic commerce, Andrew Odlyzko, AT&T Labs - Research, Preliminary version, August 9, 1996
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
Sholari's persistent, I'll proclaim for all to see. 
BIIIIIG WORD OF WARNING -
If you aren't sure your post is getting through after the first two or three times, save it to a word processor or notepad, and wait for a while.
Chances are, you are doing this very thing - it's posting, but your confirmation is not returning.
BIIIIIG WORD OF WARNING -
If you aren't sure your post is getting through after the first two or three times, save it to a word processor or notepad, and wait for a while.
Chances are, you are doing this very thing - it's posting, but your confirmation is not returning.
Wow, I go away for a couple days and my thread has grown into a monster!
Ironically, I think I am less extreme than most, in that I don't hate Poly so much I think it should be destroyed, and I don't think the quality of adventures has dropped THAT much. Ironically, though, one I did have a problem was the first Adventure Path one, which I thought was horribly balanced for a 1st level party (a 1st level party, with that kind of opposition, and a tight time limit, I imagine would get wiped out very quickly, but then again, I didn't play it).
My big question to the Dungeon guys, why SO MUCH Poly. Thats the part I just don't get. If the magazine went monthly, and poly was 20-30 pages each month out of a 100, I doubt we'd be getting this debate. I think even the people who don't like Poly could deal with that. When was the decision made to make it an equal partnership with Dungeon? Poly has always been a niche product. The only people you'd lose by doing that split would be some of the ones who read Dungeon ONLY for Poly. Everyone else would be pretty satisfied.
Additionally, you could actually make Poly even more specific, and move the Living Greyhawk stuff and other D&D supplements to Dragon (that is, after all, whats its for, D&D articles and supplements). Leaving Poly only for general non-D&D d20 support.
Anyway, I'd be really curious as to hearing the rationale behind why Dungeon was split %50-%50 rather than continuing the previous trend of 70-30.
Ironically, I think I am less extreme than most, in that I don't hate Poly so much I think it should be destroyed, and I don't think the quality of adventures has dropped THAT much. Ironically, though, one I did have a problem was the first Adventure Path one, which I thought was horribly balanced for a 1st level party (a 1st level party, with that kind of opposition, and a tight time limit, I imagine would get wiped out very quickly, but then again, I didn't play it).
My big question to the Dungeon guys, why SO MUCH Poly. Thats the part I just don't get. If the magazine went monthly, and poly was 20-30 pages each month out of a 100, I doubt we'd be getting this debate. I think even the people who don't like Poly could deal with that. When was the decision made to make it an equal partnership with Dungeon? Poly has always been a niche product. The only people you'd lose by doing that split would be some of the ones who read Dungeon ONLY for Poly. Everyone else would be pretty satisfied.
Additionally, you could actually make Poly even more specific, and move the Living Greyhawk stuff and other D&D supplements to Dragon (that is, after all, whats its for, D&D articles and supplements). Leaving Poly only for general non-D&D d20 support.
Anyway, I'd be really curious as to hearing the rationale behind why Dungeon was split %50-%50 rather than continuing the previous trend of 70-30.
Similar Threads
