Liz Schuh on Dragon/Dungeon moving to the web

[Jim Hague]

Word. I agree - People have an individual choice to continue to support WOTC's direction. Every product purchased from WOTC is a vote that will have their leadership nodding to themselves and smirking, "Told you so. Starve them for content, and they will come to whatever table we set out. Hey, look at my models around a proprietary, online subscription-based 4E, dude! THIRTEEN MILLION!!!"

~D

...Uh, yeah. Sure. They're just sitting there like Blofeld plotting to keep you down. Except that they're not. But hey, let's not allow reality to intrude here, right?

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) the mags (or print mags) ending is, in a way, the ending of an era for the game.

No matter how great the DI might be or become, I think most people must feel this way to a certain degree.

 

[Jim Hague]

No matter how great the DI might be or become, I think most people must feel this way to a certain degree.

I know I do - the same feeling I had when IASFM and Amazing Stories folded.

 

[Maggan]

And yet hundreds of monthly paper magazines are available in retail stores at this very moment. Seems like a lot of publishers believe that print is still a better delivery system. Unfortunately, WotC does not.

That is true. But if you chose to look at the entire market of paper magazines, it is also true that many paper magazines fold each month. And for a long time, Dungeon and Dragon have been two of the few long-term surviving magazines in our field of interest. None of the print d20 magazines have survived, for example. So the market seems to have voted against paper magazines as a general delivery model for RPG material.

So if we want to compare Dragon and Dungeon to other magazine, I think it would be fair to look at those that failed as well, and not only those that are still alive.

/M

 

[jmucchiello]

Silly pointless comments about punch cards and 5 1/4" floppies show how much you are reaching to make a case.

Maintaining files on up to date media is SIMPLE!!!!!! Much easier than maintaining searchable and servicable paper archives.

Um, maybe for you, someone who does not generate a lot of files it is. But the general case of maintaining servicable data files is HARD: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4201645.html

 

[WizarDru]

Um, maybe for you, someone who does not generate a lot of files it is. But the general case of maintaining servicable data files is HARD: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4201645.html

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. BryonD was talking about the storage media, not the format of the data files. The issue in the popular mechanics article is discussing maintaining format compatibility when transitioning to newer versions of the operating software, such as the Nimitz discovering that CAD files appear differently under a newer version of AutoCAD or whatever app they were using. That's an entirely different problem...especially as, in that case, the files are perfectly usable, but the formatting or representation in the software has changed.

By and large this is less of a problem unless you move across platforms or to software from a different publisher. For example, most of the major graphic formats in use today were all created between 1985-1992. The vaunted PDF was introduced in 1993, but took years to gain critical mass in usage, mostly due to the web. I have text files that I've converted, periodically, so that I have text in some files that is now over 20 years old. The same applies for print, of course...I have stuff I printed out from 25 years ago in some boxes, too.

I've worked with a major government contractor on conversion projects and I've worked with a large Fortune 500 company on migrating from three separate mail systems to Microsoft Exchange. In the case of the latter, the company had thousands of documents in DEC VaxMail that were mission-critical to their FDA drug filings and could no be lost or risk losing 12 years of filing work towards the release of a new drug into the market. Smart companies tackle these problems before they have no choice in the matter.

All that said, the current state of online documents is such that PDFs are now open-sourced. One doesn't have to use Adobe's product to read them...and in a world where I can download 25 year old games to play on a PC, I find it hard to believe that it's going to be that big of a problem.

 

[Tzeentch]

If Wizards uses DRM on its new online offerings (which isn't necessarily going to happen) that significantly complicates any archival for honest consumers. Just keep that in mind. And for dishonest consumers realize that any online offerings are going to be quite tempting - one person with a subscription that entire gaming groups and internet friends use for example.

 

[wingsandsword]

And for dishonest consumers realize that any online offerings are going to be quite tempting - one person with a subscription that entire gaming groups and internet friends use for example.

Why is that "dishonest"?

For the last 9 years I've been a member of a gaming club at the local University (I first became a member when I was an undergrad, and have stayed a member as an alumni), and we've had a club subscription to Dragon since the club was founded around 1988. My membership dues paid for part of that subscription (dues were low, for several years I think the main point of dues was for everybody to chip in towards Dragon), and every month I knew I'd be able to read Dragon and browse through it when it showed up at the club office.

If WotC wants us to think of this "digital initiative" as a Dragon & Dungeon in another format, then they better be prepared for people to think of it the same way they thought of Dragon, which means people sharing it and passing it around. If they don't allow that. . .then it's another reason the "Digital Initiative" is inferior to reliable hardcopy.

 

[Ourph]

None of the print d20 magazines have survived, for example. So the market seems to have voted against paper magazines as a general delivery model for RPG material.

Or perhaps the market was voting that print versions of Dragon and Dungeon were their prefered source for RPG-related periodicals. In most cases, you don't assume that product X is waning in popularity because product X's rivals are going out of business. Especially if product X seems to be growing in the face of its competitors' decline. The normal interpretation in those circumstances is that product X is stronger than the competitors and is driving them out of the market.

Of course, interpreting the data in that light implies WotC might have killed a worthwhile product, so we CAN'T have that.

 

[Maggan]

Of course, interpreting the data in that light implies WotC might have killed a worthwhile product, so we CAN'T have that.

Of course we can't have that! I'm trying to disprove every scrap of evidence that killing Dungeon and Dragon was a bad idea!

Soooo ... what can I say ... sure the rival is stronger, but since the number of people voting FOR the magazines with their wallets was considerable lower than the ones voting AGAINST the magazines, they were taken out.

A simple majority vote, basically.

FWIW, I believe that WotC have killed something that was valuable. But as a whole I think it was more valuable to other gaming companies than it was to WotC. And it sure was a lot more valuable to a whole bunch of gamers than it was to WotC.

But I don't think that the argument "look, others in unrelated fields are doing magazines so it would totally work for WotC to have both digital and magazines" holds much water.

Ok, let's see if I can turn the tables and find something that indicates that killing the magazines will prove to be bad for WotC ... hmmmmmm ... apart from taking a hit in the PR department of course ...

Let's try this; killing Dragon and Dungeon will prove to be a bad move for WotC if the absence of an advertising venue for smaller companies will reduce the overall size of the hobby gaming market. Therefore it is possible that it would have been worthwhile for WotC to keep Dungeon and Dragon around at the hands of Paizo, to support the auxiliary support from third party publishers and their efforts to reach out to customers, thereby slowly growing the overall market, which in the end benefits WotC.

I don't know. It feels to me that sure, the loss of paper Dungeon and Dragon is a big thing emotionally. But I can't really get the steam up for seeing it as a hobby shattering event.

/M