Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3498577" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, we certainly agree that they made two decisions, although the degree to which those decisions were seperate is unknowable at this time.Agreed, and I would also agree with you that "running a print magazine business would have far too low a profit margin for WotC".Well, let's look at that a bit more.(1)  We know that this isn't the only brand name WotC has pulled back in-house.(2)  We know that there was a special arrangement made to allow the mags to stay at Paizo until the current AP ends.(3)  We strongly suspect, from Paizo's insistence that we think of Pathfinder as a book, that Paizo is under some form of non-compete clause re: magazines, strongly suggesting that more than the NAMES are important.  This also suggests that these two "seperate" decisions might not be so seperate after all.(4)  We know that the 1st AP product was repackaged as a book, and sold well.(5)  We know that Paizo didn't receive permission to compile the 2nd AP as a book.(6)  We know that many WotC modular "adventure" products are becoming increasingly minis-centric....very different from what we see in Dungeon.(7)  We know that Paizo successfully demonstrated that references to old modules sell adventures....witnessed in both the APs and in Maure Castle.(8)  We know that WotC is also creating the Expedition series of hardbacks.  Coincidence or connection?(9)  We know that Paizo had its PR machine in place for the announcement of the mags' end, but WotC did not....this suggests to me that Paizo had more to do with the announcement's timing that WotC did.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.This is just speculation, of course.However, even if I'm correct, even if I understand why the decision was made, it still sucks, for a number of reasons.First, because the mags (or print mags) ending is, in a way, the ending of an era for the game.  While WotC is not legally obligated to tell us why they are ending that era, I nonetheless feel that they are obligated to give us some explaination.  I hold them to my moral compass with my support and money.....that is my right and my duty under a free market economy.Second, because of the implication that Paizo's content was pulled on the basis of its success and value.  That success and value means that I will continue to support Paizo with my dollars, rather than WotC's DI.  Again, I hold them to my moral compass with my support and money.....that is my right and my duty under a free market economy.Thirdly, because I have no intention of subscribing to online content sight-unseen.  For the most part (unless there are special goodies, like fold-out maps) Dungeon and Dragon were browsable.  On top of which, the consistent quality of Dungeon and Dragon meant that one could both subscribe (after testing the product) and pick up polybagged issues with confidence.  Frankly, I am concerned to discover that I am paying for articles on how to nerf rust monsters and change cats to make them more of an adventure challenge.....Or articles telling me how wandering monsters, traps, and verisimilitude are wrongbadfun.Finally, because Paizo's content is, IMHO, superior to the WotC content at this time, at least insofar as adventures are concerned.  I recently picked up Barrow of the Forgotten King, and -- while I liked the map quite a bit -- I didn't care for the idea of flipping the module back and forth to run single encounters.  Text for single encounters should not be in seperate locations of the booklet.  Nor did I care for the "Tell the players to place thier minis on the map" type content.  YMMV....obviously, some of yours varies quite a bit on this point.RC</blockquote>

Verification