Liz Schuh on Dragon/Dungeon moving to the web

[Jim Hague]

I read the interview, same as you. WotC is a large firm, a professional firm. I contend that they know and are responsible for their interviews. Please do not assume that my opinion is informed by not having read the interview in question. I certainly would not imply that yours isn't.

So you blame WotC for a statement the interviewer made? That's...well, let's say it makes no sense at all.

 

[freebfrost]

Things I have problems with:

"We're just delivering it in a more timely, and we think, a more convenient fashion for people."

"I can't really speak to the frequency to which things will come out, but I think it's safe to say that it will be more frequent rather than less frequent."

Which one is it?

"We're going to put out lots and lots of printed products. For people who prefer ink on paper, they'll always have a wide variety of choices."

Now, it's not the items that I want as a consumer - i.e. Dragon and Dungeon Magazines, but it's Monster Manual XIII with the "half-scro, ooze-templated undead, the dreaded teal and aquamarine dragons, and the Third Guardsman from the Left!" ( © DanMcS )

Whee!

"We look at our own Website, and we have over 13 million unique visitors in a year. That's a lot of eyeballs; that's a pretty powerful way to reach people."

And how many million are return customers versus bots, multiple logins, Magic players, forum users, people who followed a link from the main Hasbro site, etc.?

All in all, more smoke and mirrors.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The question that still comes back to me is why not both. I will accept the numbers they give and even concede that the DI is a promising business venture. What I don't understand yet is why they have to cancel the magazines to do this. It seems like given thier numbers there should be enough room for both, and even more room because I bet there would be a bunch of overlap customers willing to pay for both.

 

[Ourph]

But you see, the focus has shifted gradually from "I hate you from discontinuing my magazines" to "nothing you do will compare to the magazines" to "at least you better give me something good".

Has it? Personally, I always was (and still am) in the second camp because my lack of interest in the digital initiative isn't emotional. I'm simply not interested in digital content, period. I haven't seen any signs that people who took that position originally are changing their minds.

 

[wingsandsword]

It also means that they have more unique visitors at their website than there are active D&D players.

Then again, that also assumes every D&D player visits the WotC site. . .

It's been a long time since I've been there. If I want message boards I can get those here, and usually a substantially better and more informative discussion.

I know a decent number of active D&D 3.5 players who aren't online, or if they are it's only enough to check e-mail or the weather and news and they don't go browsing wizards.com, or enworld, or anything else.

 

[TwinBahamut]

And how many million are return customers versus bots, multiple logins, Magic players, forum users, people who followed a link from the main Hasbro site, etc.?

All in all, more smoke and mirrors.

Why are forum users, Magic players, and people who followed a link from the main Hasbro site criticized here? I don't see the differece between forum users and return customers, and there certainly isn't a difference between Magic players, people who follow a link, and potential customers. Should D&D only be sold to a limited number of customers who have "proven" thier dedication to the brand?

 

[freebfrost]

Why are forum users, Magic players, and people who followed a link from the main Hasbro site criticized here? I don't see the differece between forum users and return customers, and there certainly isn't a difference between Magic players, people who follow a link, and potential customers. Should D&D only be sold to a limited number of customers who have "proven" thier dedication to the brand?

It's not a criticism of those people, it's a criticism of the business logic behind that answer.

And there is certainly no statistical correlation between people who use a site for one reason and those same people being interested in paying for products that don't necessarily meet their needs.

 

[wingsandsword]

Why are forum users, Magic players, and people who followed a link from the main Hasbro site criticized here? I don't see the differece between forum users and return customers, and there certainly isn't a difference between Magic players, people who follow a link, and potential customers. Should D&D only be sold to a limited number of customers who have "proven" thier dedication to the brand?

No, but when the original reason for listing the number of visitors to the site was to gauge the customer base for the DI, Magic players and random web visitors like those who follow a link on the hasbro main site really aren't likely customers of the D&D Digital Initiative.

 

[Vocenoctum]

It occurs to me also that the number of people who visit the free site, vs. the number of people who will pay for content, are two different beasts. I've visited the free site to see if I was interested in upcoming products; I have no interest in paying for content (especially sight-unseen) at all. How many of their "eyeballs" are attached to brains like mine?

Without knowing what their numbers mean, I'm sure they're not expecting every single viewer of the site to pay for content. They might figure that there are actually 500,000 people viewing the D&D website looking for D&D content, and that of those, 10% will subscribe. (I'm sure they've broken it down even more into "trials" and "sustained" and other such catagories.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I contend that they know and are responsible for their interviews.

Why would you contend that?

Someone asks a question, they respond as best they can. It's not like WotC gets approval over what an interviewer asks. I'd have a much bigger problem with that than with one boneheaded interview question.

Is WotC really so insane in your book that they would bother to criticize those who aren't onboard with their new thing?

Q: Yes, I understand that you think one delivery system is superior to the other, but that doesn't address the question of why you couldn't do both rather than just the one you think is a better delivery system.

Well, they've said they're still very dedicated to print products. And that releasing a compendium of the "best of the web" or something is likely in the works alongside this.

So, really, what they're saying is "Instead of getting $4 out of you for a handful of usable pages every month, we're going to collect $35 from you for a library of useful material that has been very popular every year."

So the answer to the question of "Why not both?" is "Why would you want both? Between the DI and our print stuff, Paizo'd have a bit of a tough sell with their product. We'd much rather part ways with them amicably and give them a chance to do their own thing than drive them out of business."