RodneyThompson
Explorer
ArthurQ said:
And that's the kind of thing that I love to hear!
Fear!
- Thread starter The_Universe
- Start date
And that's the kind of thing that I love to hear!
The_Universe said:
Well, I don't buy poly unless I see a minigame I really like... So far that has happened once... I can buy a sourcebook for 4 issues of poly, and my income doesn't stretch that far yet...
I was desperately seeking star wars gamer when it was published, ony to be told that they didn't sell it in Australia far a variety of reasons...
So I agree that it wasn't that well marketted... I just wish there was more support.
I have never ever played D&D... but the 'Skaff effect' may be pulling me in.
But yes, in general we are an overly involved group I would say...
Davelozzi said:
yeah, as far as I know, I'm the only one in my group who looks at gaming sites... The rest know of D20 because that's what we play, other D20 games... But that's because I tell them.
they don't even buy core books, so that really says something about support for a magazine...
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
How about making a PC paramilitary organization that is dedicated to stopping FEAR, in the same style as GI JOE?Moridin said:
RodneyThompson
Explorer
Ranger REG said:
Yeah, I'm going to pitch the idea to Erik and see what he thinks. Maybe do it in the factions style (plus NPCs).
BrooklynKnight
First Post
While you're talkin to him, poke him to read over that d20modern thing i sent him weeks/months ago -_-.
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Maybe nobody on this thread has been down this road before, but the word from both Paizo and Wizards has been 100% consistent since day one:
Neither Dungeon nor Polyhedron were successful magazines on their own. Both were losing money. Combining the two was a last-ditch effort to avoid cutting both from the face of the publishing world.
It's possible, of course that these people are lying about that. It's also possible that things have changed and that now the two magazines COULD survive separately. I doubt either of those two possibilties.
The easiest, most likely explanation of the current situation is that neither Dungeon nor Polyhedron can exist on their own. That means Paizo will not, indeed, should not try to spin either into an independent magazine. Rest assured that if they thought they could make MORE money publishing MORE magazines, they'd be doing so. Indeed, if I were them, I'd be monitoring the market very closely for any sign that there was room for another title. I'm sure they'd LOVE to be making money publishing all sorts of magazines.
But I would not invest any money in an non-D&D d20 magazine publishing venture.
Neither Dungeon nor Polyhedron were successful magazines on their own. Both were losing money. Combining the two was a last-ditch effort to avoid cutting both from the face of the publishing world.
It's possible, of course that these people are lying about that. It's also possible that things have changed and that now the two magazines COULD survive separately. I doubt either of those two possibilties.
The easiest, most likely explanation of the current situation is that neither Dungeon nor Polyhedron can exist on their own. That means Paizo will not, indeed, should not try to spin either into an independent magazine. Rest assured that if they thought they could make MORE money publishing MORE magazines, they'd be doing so. Indeed, if I were them, I'd be monitoring the market very closely for any sign that there was room for another title. I'm sure they'd LOVE to be making money publishing all sorts of magazines.
But I would not invest any money in an non-D&D d20 magazine publishing venture.
ledded
Herder of monkies
That was kind of my point Barsoomcore.
Paizo combined them because of their definition of 'success', i.e. maximizing profit per page.
If they can publish one magazine which is approximately half the work of two, and not split the advertising revenue between them, you effectively get twice the money for the amount of work, material, production costs, and sales going into it, content and readership wants/needs be damned.
They are a business. They thrive by selling as little as possible for as much as possible. Providing you with what you want is at best a secondary concern. If they lose 25% of their combined subscribers out of 2 magazines by killing one and jamming the content together, they are happy if it makes them 30% more profit than having them seperated, and don't give a whit who they displease or put out. Of course all these numbers are completely artificial, as I'm not a magazine or advertising exec, but I think you get my point.
Not all publishers are like that of course; only the ones that make lots of money are
So while I agree with you somewhat, I personally feel the combination of the 2 was of less than any real attempt to save them, as more of an attempt to see if they could ever turn a good profit with them however that could be done. Which, by efficiently slashing what they could, in effect, did save them.
Paizo combined them because of their definition of 'success', i.e. maximizing profit per page.
If they can publish one magazine which is approximately half the work of two, and not split the advertising revenue between them, you effectively get twice the money for the amount of work, material, production costs, and sales going into it, content and readership wants/needs be damned.
They are a business. They thrive by selling as little as possible for as much as possible. Providing you with what you want is at best a secondary concern. If they lose 25% of their combined subscribers out of 2 magazines by killing one and jamming the content together, they are happy if it makes them 30% more profit than having them seperated, and don't give a whit who they displease or put out. Of course all these numbers are completely artificial, as I'm not a magazine or advertising exec, but I think you get my point.
Not all publishers are like that of course; only the ones that make lots of money are
So while I agree with you somewhat, I personally feel the combination of the 2 was of less than any real attempt to save them, as more of an attempt to see if they could ever turn a good profit with them however that could be done. Which, by efficiently slashing what they could, in effect, did save them.
Last edited:
