Liz Schuh on Dragon/Dungeon moving to the web

[Glyfair]

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.

How were they voting against the magazine? Was it by not buying it?

In that case, I'll submit that the magazines were always in that state. The number of people not buying it (among D&D players) were higher than those who did by a significant margin.

In fact, I'm sure you can say that about any magazine. Even Reader's Digest only has a circulation of about 10 million. That's only about 3% (and the circulation is worldwide over several languages).

In fact, only about 32% of the U.S. population is a regular internet user, clearly the DI is headed for the same condition. (Hmmmm...I wonder what percentage of D&D players are regular internet users)

 

[Maggan]

Even Reader's Digest only has a circulation of about 10 million. That's only about 3% (and the circulation is worldwide over several languages).

Yep. But I have a hard time seeing the non-readers up in arms over changes to the format of Reader's Digest though. And many comments I've read about Dragon and Dungeon have come with the caveat of "I haven't read them in years".

So that's mostly what I was thinking about. Former readers who have voted with their dollars and stopped buying the magazines.

But I admit your point is valid.

It would have been interesting to see how much Paizo could have grown the readership, given a continuation of the license.

In fact, only about 32% of the U.S. population is a regular internet user, clearly the DI is headed for the same condition. (Hmmmm...I wonder what percentage of D&D players are regular internet users)

Yep. So if people vote with their dollars against the DI in significant numbers, it will fail. Actually, it will probably be discontinued sometime in the future, just like most other products. It's just a matter of time. Something will come along to replace it, I'm sure of that.

What it will be and when that will happen, I don't have a clue. But nothing lasts forever.

/M

 

[ShadowDenizen]

These things taken together suggest (to me, at least) that WotC sees Paizo as a competitor, and a successful one with an excellent product. Some of that product is based off of property WotC owns (such as those old module tie-ins). It therefore makes sense to me that, intending to develop its own content along the same lines, removes what competition it can.

I actually agree with that assement.

But?

(8) We know that WotC is also creating the Expedition series of hardbacks. Coincidence or connection?

I agree with most of your comments, and your overall view, Raven Crowking, but I personally tend to think of this point as more a prelude to 4th Edition, as opposed to anything else.

Remember, shortly before they transferred from 2E to 3E, they did the "retrospective" titles as well. ("Return to White Plume Mountain", "Against the Giants" redux, etc.)

Please, no "Edition Wars" or "Sky is Falling" flames for this!! I just think that point doesn't NECESSARILY follow with the rest of the comments.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree with most of your comments, and your overall view, Raven Crowking, but I personally tend to think of this point as more a prelude to 4th Edition, as opposed to anything else.

You could be right, in which case this sort of protesting is even more important -- we hardly wish WotC to believe that pulling the OGL from 4e would be well received!

OTOH, it hardly requires a belief that WotC employs Ernst Stavro Blofeld "plotting to keep you down" in order to believe that WotC is going to look at their sales figures for the DI to determine whether or not killing the print mags was a good idea. I, for one, hope that they are convinced that it was not a good idea.

(And that doesn't make me Blofeld, either, no matter how convenient a means that it to dismiss an idea or argument! )

RC

 

[Ourph]

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.

I don't think the cancellations will reduce the overall size of the hobby gaming market. I do think it will reduce the influence that the D&D game has on that market in the long run.

 

[freebfrost]

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.

It is very hard to put a magazine in a plastic bag with an acid-free backing board. Sometimes that flap just won't close right!

Not that I really care what D&D data I'll have access to from today fifty years from now, but I absolutely guarantee you that I, and the vast majority of other random people, will find it far easier to recover 50 year old electronic files than it will be to find the specific article I want in an intact and unfaded 50 year old copy of Dragon.

My Dragon #1 is not faded. I guess the fading speeds up the next 20 years?

The bottom line is that both forms have pluses and minuses, but you are radically misrepresenting the problems with electronic while also radically overstating the merits of paper. And your case is founded on this extreme double standard.

As I said, technology grows exponentially. Old technology is now outdated and useless. 30 years ago, you had punch cards still being used. Again, I can pick up another copy of Dragon #1 online, at an auction, etc. If you had Dragon #1 on punch cards, I'd challenge you to be able to transcribe that to today's technology. I can't even read a .pdf document from Adobe 1.0 without issues - why would you think it will get EASIER in the future?

I have to store my magazines in bags. That's the extent of my work to preserve it. I don't have to copy files, convert files, update files, etc. Nor do I run the chance of those processes changing my data. It's in a bag.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have to store my magazines in bags. That's the extent of my work to preserve it. I don't have to copy files, convert files, update files, etc. Nor do I run the chance of those processes changing my data. It's in a bag.

Not only that, but you can scan that magazine in a bag and have all of the same goodness that any electronic format gives you. However, what you can print from that electronic format is seldom as durable or high-quality as the original printed matter.


RC

 

[Jim Hague]

It is very hard to put a magazine in a plastic bag with an acid-free backing board. Sometimes that flap just won't close right!

I have to store my magazines in bags. That's the extent of my work to preserve it. I don't have to copy files, convert files, update files, etc. Nor do I run the chance of those processes changing my data. It's in a bag.

I've got three dozen boxes of comics, similarly stored, and those are a beast to move and maintain. I can put a hard drive with every image and word intact into a backpack, plug it in, and I'm good to go. Of course, if those paper files are damaged, you have no recourse to recover them, other than purchasing a new copy, unlike data.

Please stop building strawmen about the fictitious 'superiority' of paper. You have to perform maintenance on paper just as you do on files - proper storage, environment and organization.
Of course, if perhaps you'd do a bit of research on library science, you might start to realize how difficult maintaining paper archives is. Just a suggestion.

 

[Jim Hague]

Not only that, but you can scan that magazine in a bag and have all of the same goodness that any electronic format gives you. However, what you can print from that electronic format is seldom as durable or high-quality as the original printed matter.


RC

Ah, no. Barring high-end equipment, which most users don't have access to, scanning print usually produces an inferior product. Nor is what you scan searchable, indexable or as compact as original digital format files. Sorry.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Ah, no. Barring high-end equipment, which most users don't have access to, scanning print usually produces an inferior product. Nor is what you scan searchable, indexable or as compact as original digital format files. Sorry.

I would not call my $80 scanner high-end equipment, yet it does a fine job scanning. Obviously not as perfect as the print, but perfectly readable, and if I use the OCR feature, it even becomes searchable. Admittedly the file is larger than the original digital format files, but electronic file storage space is much cheaper than color (or even black and white) printing.

So, if paper and digital were equal cost for an original, copying paper to digital is more labor intensive (unless you have a feeder and are willing to cut up your mag), but less expensive than buying digital and printing it out.