Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ledded" data-source="post: 1394868" data-attributes="member: 12744">Whoa whoa whoa Barsoomie, calm down a bit.  I'm not calling anybody anything. I don't doubt that the mags were losing money, but I do doubt that this was the whole story, and that Paizo based very much of their part in it on the love of the genre or concern in providing content to those who wanted it.  I was just trying to look beyond the spin, and the press announcement kinda stuff, to get a glimpse at what it behind it by suppressing my naiveté for a few moments. So if I take what you are saying to be accurate, and I'm full of poo, then they were losing money *just* because nobody was buying them, and after they combined everybody jumped up and down and suddenly started snapping them up because it was the coolest thing since sliced bread.  None of that could be attrbutable to the increased exposure and interest in that sector of the gaming market during that time which made a focus shift and re-invention feasible.  The increase in profits was in no way related to the reduction of costs that come with longer production runs of a single mag, potentially less staff, management/editorial consolidation, or any reduction in overhead or increase in efficiency stemming from consolidation of the resources dedicated to 2 seperate entities.  It had nothing to do with reducing competition for advertising space between the 2 entities within nearly the same genre, where a combination maximizes the advertising dollar and effectively reaches *both* target audiences for effectively half the cost to the advertising customer. Which, if you look beyond the brief marketing nature of it, is precisely what Erik Mona's post says from a business perspective.  Change focus, consolidate resources, reduce costs... more profit. Could they have been managed better seperately so that they could have made money?  I don't know, and don't really care.  I like the combination personally, and the shift in focus.  I like it now, though like many, many others would really like to see more non-D&D content. But to think that the daddy of these magazines (not necessarily their editorial staff, mind you, but the guys they answer to) takes your thoughts or needs into their decisions and weighs them carefully is at best naive.  They are simply there to make money, and if publishing magazines about The Worlds Most Interesting Dog Feces would do it, you can bet they would scrap your beloved mags in a second to switch that way.  The editors, unfortunately, are given the unpleasant task of saving the mags they love and explaining it in a nice sunshiney way that wont make all the kids cry.   Sure, I paint it a bit harsh because I'm not a big fan of Paizo themselves (I tend to get that way about a company that kills my favorite gaming magazine, rips me off for the remainder of my subscription, then doesnt come through with the promised content in other mags, and the majority of what they publish and make the most money off of is pop-culture tripe IMO).  But people were discussing many reasons why the mags were organized the way they were and why there wasnt more d20 non D&D content, and that's part of the reason why.  There just isnt money in it for them to step outside of the mainstream pop-section of the genre, so they need to keep it as vanilla and bland as possible to reach the largest number of people.  So no, unless a ton of people start spending a *lot* more money on non-D&D d20 in such a way that it can be easily measured and quantified by non-gamer accounting types, I don't think you will see companies like Paizo even remotely attempting to entertain the slightest notion of it.   People should be glad they get what they do now;  there's simply a lot MORE D&D'ers than non-D&D d20 people, and they are serving up their stuff to whoever has the biggest wallet and cutting their losses on the rest. My whole point is, man, I was *agreeing* with you from an admittedly much more cynical standpoint, and then you go and imply I'm calling someone a liar.  Tsk tsk dude, read between the lines already.</blockquote>

Verification