Interview with Scott Rouse, Chris Perkins & Bill Slavicsek

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Chris: We’re working on content details now, and we’re certainly interested in what the community thinks. It’s fair to say that all things related to D&D will be part of our content. We value all of our settings and the history behind them, and we’re fans of all these worlds, too. But we have to find a way to deliver this kind of content without fracturing our audience, which I believe was one of the factors that led to the end of 2nd Edition. As for non-D&D content, those plans are still being evaluated.

For what it's worth, while I was an infrequent purchaser of Dragon, I always picked up the issues featuring "Campaign Classics". Support for WotC's non-D&D rpg products would shift this from a maybe, to a must buy for me.

 

[Umbran]

Get down your high horse, Ari. Please.

A general request folks - given the current atmosphere and Morrus' request for you to watch it in the first post in the thread, could you please try to keep things from getting personal? Please? It isn't hard to address the poster's position, rather than the poster, and it goes a long, long way to keep the nastiness from recurring.

 

[coastiemike]

I'm not too worried about them not answering specific questions. I understand the legal issues as I have worked as a Public Relations Specialist for 10 years. I'm not worried that much that they didn't address specific issues. The one thing that worries me above all else and has me more disinterested than when I first heard about DI is the following:

We have not come up with a solution for “portability” of content after your subscription has ended but we are discussing ideas with in our development team. We do not have a DRM solution yet but have a range of options available to us.

You have got to be kidding. Sometime last year, you guys got together with Paizo and agreed to let the licensing run out and go the online route. That's fine adn I understand the corporate stance on saving cash frompublishing magazines.

But, someone in your office had to know it would be a huge concern to your customer base about keeping the materials published online that they had access to during their membership, and that they would be able to take this material with them when they decided to drop their subscription. To say that in quite a few months, you still don't have a solution to something that is a major concern is very disheartening.

What it sounds like is you guys haven't put alot of thought at all into anything besides, "Hey, wouldn't it save some money to drop the physical mags and put all that info on line?" I will reserve further judgements for the next four months as you decide to release info. As of now, there is nothing you have said that would even remotely interest me i n subscribing to an online version.

 

[Riley]

Even moving beyond that, the tone across every RPG forum I've seen in the last week, hasn't just been angry, which is perfectly understandable, but raving and hostile.
...I try to be reasonable. But frankly, the whole thing has gotten to be way too much.

A lot of people are angry. I was quite angry. I'm still sad. But now, the anger on one side just makes the other side more angry. And the cycle goes on. We've gotta stop it some time.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I've done exactly this sort of interview before and I would have included what I said in my first post: A logo, a bullet point list of some intended (but not promised) features and a piece of art relating to one that's essentially a lock.

I know a company that did exactly what you advocate. It was called Ion Storm. They made a game called Daikatana.

Daikatana promised a *lot*. When released, it delivered enough that--if able to stand on it's own merits--it would have been adequate. But since Ion Storm jumped the gun and promised too much too early, the game failed. So, eventually, did the entire company.

If they don't have those three items, they're in a lot of trouble. I am confident they have all those available and could -- and should -- have shown them.

"Trust us, it'll be cool" is not a way to respond to the problems their lack of communication over the last week and change has created.

It's way, way too early. The DI is a major initiative requiring tremendous resources. Revealing their hand now:

1. Sets up a future PR calamity (see Daikatana, and any number of products that overpromised and underdelivered)
2. Gives competitors time (a lot of time) to come up with something comparable
3. May be considered communication of insider information

Basically, if they're still in the scoping stages it would be irresponsible to speculate. Not only would that be a Bad Thing for us ravenous fans, it may be a Bad Thing for Hasbro shareholders.

You've read the interview. They've told us what they can, and they've asked for feedback on that as well as suggestions for other features. That's great!

It's unfair to ask for a full and accurate feature list for a product that is still being scoped.

-z

 

[Dr. NRG]

Strategically, the timing of the cancelation of the magazine licenses could have been better coordinated with the announcement of their replacement. I strongly suspect a number of people inside WotC would agree with this notion.

The press release they issued, in the form of responses to questions, provides more information than they have provided before, which is good. That said, it provides less information than they would have been wise to provide at the outset of this business. The clumsy handling of the transition here suggests to me that those in control of the flow of information are either not conversant with the community they are facing or that they believe that the reactions of the hardcore fanbase represented by EnWorld is not that important. For all I know, they may well be right.

Again, there is no point in attacking the messengers here. I appreciate the information that's been provided, and realize that the interviewees are operating as cogs in a larger machine that undoubtedly limits their capacity to respond. I just wish they had been permittted to be more directly responsive and less Scott McClellany. For example, answering a question with a question is evasion 101, and serves only to make the person answering look squirelly. It's almost always wiser just not to answer, if given the option.

NRG

 

[Merifluous]

I'm normally just a lurker, but I was a big fan of both magazines and want to put my 2 cents in terms of how I would like to see the new content online.

First, I like having the paper, but I am ok with an an online model. More content spread out over a month would be fine with me, but here is what I want to see:

1. Average quality of content equal to or better than what the magazines have today - if we can get more content, great, but it had better be just a bunch of fluff to justify the price of the service. Theses a value proposition to more quantity, but I think its better to err on the side of quality.

2. DRM (if any) should be as unobtrusive as possible. Don't be like the movie and music industries - realize that if you make a good product, your customer will buy it. The folks who want the content and don't want to pay for it will find a way to get it for free no matter what you do, so cater to the people who will buy it. Basically, make the content as user-friendly as possible at the expense of fancy copy protection methods that aren't going to work anyway.

3. If I have a subscription, I should have unfettered access to whatever has came before. Basically, anything that has ever been posted on the site is available to me. It would be a pain to have to deal with purchasing content piecemeal and would cause more ill will than profit (if you don't believe this, look at the constant complaining about the pricing model for downloads on xbox live). To offset people buying a subscription for a month, getting all the content, and then quitting, require minimum commitments - say 6 months to a year. I think another possible compromise would be to provide unfettered access to people with long term subscriptions.

4. Most content should be printer and storage friendly. Just like I get a magazine I can always keep every month, I need to be able to keep any content I paid for even if my subscription runs out. I realize some content may be "episodic" and not make sense as a big PDF, but PDF compilations would be great once a complete run of articles are finished (though not to the extent that it would hurt the market for the large print products).

These are very user-centric and could be problematic, but if you want a price point anywhere the magazine's (which I always considered a weakness - I thought it was a bit pricey) you're going to have to make it a value to succeed in a new media format. All that said, I think it is a bold move to go online that could greatly benefit the gaming community and WotC if its done right (making a product with the user interests first and foremost). However, if it follows the lead of some of the other media that has made one dunderheaded move after another in the online space (music and movies) it will probably fall flat on its face.

 

[Morrus]

Not to be snarky, but could you clarify just what new information they have provided?

I'l give that a go. While I don't guarantee that the info is what you personally want, there is information there that we didn't have before. Let me go for 10 things:

1) Specific previews will be coming before Dragon/Dungeon end - i.e. in the next few months.

2) The decision was made more than a year ago.

3) Content has not yet been decided.

4) Some Dragon/Dungeon features and columns will continue.

5) Accounts will be user based; payment options without credit cards will be available; content will be "previewable" before purchase.

6) Content will be released in frequent small bursts and then collected together.

7) DRAGON and DUNGEON, as brands, will continue to exist; implication being that this doesn't replace the magazines, it's the evolution of them.

8) Hardcopy compilation is a part of the plan.

9) Freelancers will still be used.

10) There is some suggestion that the Dragonlance issue isn't as clear cut as Margaret Weiss portrayed it.

 

[Christoph the Magus]

Yep. Much like they're evil if they don't provide answers right now, but then when they do so, it's corporate spin/empty PR. :\

But they didn't really provide any answers. There's just not much solid information in their responses. So yeah, it looks a lot like empty PR.

 

[Vocenoctum]

But, someone in your office had to know it would be a huge concern to your customer base about keeping the materials published online that they had access to during their membership, and that they would be able to take this material with them when they decided to drop their subscription. To say that in quite a few months, you still don't have a solution to something that is a major concern is very disheartening.

What it sounds like is you guys haven't put alot of thought at all into anything besides, "Hey, wouldn't it save some money to drop the physical mags and put all that info on line?" I will reserve further judgements for the next four months as you decide to release info. As of now, there is nothing you have said that would even remotely interest me i n subscribing to an online version.

I think it's not so much a matter of "we don't know what we're doing" as "we haven't decided from the options we have".

Plenty of ENWorlders are comfortable with PDF's, but a company like WotC that considers piracy a real threat, has to manage where they fall on the accessibility scale. If one division wants watermarks and the other wants full on DRM, then they must come to a conclusion...

That's a far cry from "we don't know anything".