Intolerable!


log in or register to remove this ad

Whisperfoot said:
Hey TSR, thanks for cancelling my favorite magazine of all time in favor of something that does not provide an emphasis on board games or strategic games. I can't believe that you're cancelling this institution after 202 issues! It's unconscionable! You just ruined my childhood (which has been over for the better part of two decades) and gave us a price hike to boot! I refuse to read this new magazine called The Dragon (man, what an uninspired title) and I will not continue to feed your corporate greed with my dollars!

Actually, TSR had 7 issues total, an essentially quarterly distribution that reached maybe 2,000 readers. I fail to see how this equates to ending a 31 year, 359 issue run that currently reaches nearly 50,000.

But funny none the less :D

Edited: stupid grammar!
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
Really, the digital/paper issue didn't have to be a binary, either/or decision. Its a false dichotomy.

Even if WotC still chose to end Paizo's license in favor of their digital version of the magazines, there was still no reason to kill the print versions of the magazines. At least none has been provided by WotC- others have provided reasons like Monte Cook's theory that Dragon & Dungeon were outperforming WotC's product.

After all, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are many periodicals that have a print version coexisting with a digital edition with identical (or even bonus) content: Guitar Player, the NY Times, The Economist, to name but 3. I could name others.

However, DA, with all those examples, the online version and the print version are owned by the same company. They are not in competition whatsoever, but are both providing revenue streams for the same entity. Plus, the online versions are used as advertising for the print versions.

Why should WOTC do Paizo's advertising?
 



However, DA, with all those examples, the online version and the print version are owned by the same company. They are not in competition whatsoever, but are both providing revenue streams for the same entity. Plus, the online versions are used as advertising for the print versions.

Which is why I said:
Even if WotC still chose to end Paizo's license in favor of their digital version of the magazines, there was still no reason to kill the print versions of the magazines.

Emphasis mine.

There would be no competition with Paizo.

In the alternative, they could have continued Paizo's license and asked them to do the digital version as well...as a condition of renewal of the license.

Point additional Re:

Print costs MUCH MUCH MORE than electronic.

Its not the cost that matters. Its what is profitable. Just because a product costs less to create doesn't make it more profitable.

Dragon's cover price is $7.99USD per monthly issue. However, even with 100% of the same content, I wouldn't subscribe to an e-zine at that price (while it is absolutely true that I have NO interest in purchasing a sub to the online versions of the mags, we will assume arguendo that I do), but I might consider paying $1USD/month. Others might be attracted at a higher or lower price- the market would determine what the final price for the online service would be. The question is then which has the greater profit margin. It's possible the product with the higher monthly price has a greater profit margin if the market determines that the price for the online service is under a certain point.
 

Odhanan said:
The Tempest, if I'm not mistaken.

EDIT... argh, just checked: Macbeth, indeed. :)

Act V, Scene V:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.


This post brought to you by the letter S.
 

Remove ads

Top