ShadowDenizen said:
OK, that reply wasn’t specifically directed at me, but I feel compelled to reply anyway. Hope that’s OK!!
I suppose it's okay, but just since you asked!
That’s the problem, IMO.
Rather than seeing it as a challenge to entice older customers back into the fold, (and there ARE no irrelevant customers!),
I disagree, simply because some customers are not worth the cost it would take to bring them back. I don't think WotC is trying to alienate people by any means, but I think they have categorized some folks as "not worth the effort" at least in the short term.
WotC is seemingly trying to alienate their customer base further, by making sweeping, grandiose changes, when they are not ready to implement a replacmenent or even explain what the future holds. (Witness the launching of proto-Gleemax, with it’s wonky TOS, or the cancellation of Dungeon/Dragon with nothing to replace it.)
Gleemax Alpha is not so much a D&D thing, and even now does at least as much as what it replaced (regular forums) so I don't think it's really a bad thing. It hasn't even officially launched yet. The TOS argument is over semantics really, but I already posted in that other thread, so anyway.
The DI is a harder thing to guess, since it really seems like they were caught surprised by it, and for them it's unusual. Usually stuff is planned well in advance.
It makes things seem VERY haphazard.
And given the fact that we see but a handful of WotC people here, whereas we interact with other publishers on a semi-regular basis, gives it a further feeling of distance between “us” and “them” (so to speak.)
It's a function of size, certainly, but I think WotC is getting more available on this forum. It's always been a function of ENWorld that it is more accesible to third party folks, while WotC stuck mainly to their own site. (I mean, MaxMinis would see occasional WotC folks, so I don't think it was a strictly "we don't post anywhere" thing. It does seem like WotC always has to answer the "big questions" when they come here though.)
More, what about the non-digitial gamer? Trust me, they ARE out there! Seems like there’s very little incentive for them AT ALL.
Like I said, I think WotC didn't feel that the Dragon situation was helping them, so they didn't renew it. The timing is the thing.
Combine all those factors? And that’s presumably where a lot of the anti-Wizards backlash is coming from.
Keep in mind, at least from my view, this WotC feeling has been here long before Dragon's end. If you searched a year ago, you'd probably find the same threads on "is WotC still relevant" as today. A year before that also. Many folks might still harbor resentment from the 3.5 switch, even.
Yes, Dungeon/Dragon HAVE changed over the years.(And I’ve been reading since Issue 1!!)
But almost always for the better. And with Erik and James spearheading things, I think both “Dungeon”and “Dragon” have been stellar for the last few years.
Me only since around issue 89, I actually got into D&D through the magazine. The magazines took an initial quality jump IMO when Erik got into them more and more, but then it got too repetitious to me, hence why I was dropping. I haven't picked up GR stuff for a long time.
Truthfully in both cases, I found that the material, while quality, added nothing to my games and very rarely saw use. Dragon had the added complication of being hard to find stuff in since the issues might have a central theme but still not as easy to search as a real book.
And yes, more people probably came to Paizo, rather than D+D through the magazines.
See, for myself I think that's where the problem started. I don't think WotC discontinued the magazines because they wanted to do the DI (heck, they wanted to kill them years ago, that's how Paizo was formed), but because the magazines were not providing the level of support and pull through that they wanted. In addition, using Greyhawk IP and such probably added another level of complication. It might have just been new WotC policy not to license out anything at all.
I think the DI was more of an afterthought, Dragon & Dungeon were dead regardless.
But to obliviate a legacy like that? Is a travesty. If WotC wants to pursue the DI, why is that mutually exclusive of a print version? Because there will always be that contigent who can say “The DI is not”Dragon”or “Dungeon”,even if it uses the name."
I answered that above, for my opinion on the matter, but I will say that keeping the product because it's a "legacy" doesn't make much business sense. Dragon and Dungeon were continually reimagined throughout the years because they were constantly fighting for business. The horrible cover text was a perfect example. Like Dungeon/Dragon needed to compete with other magazines...
I agree with this assessment: I have no problem with paying for online content. (I belong to quite a number of “PaySites”, and order PDF books on a regular basis [when the print copies aren’t readily available.])
And granted, I doubt I’m WotC’s target demographic anyway….
But I’m not gonna pay $4 for a pack of digital cards, the same rate as a PHYSICAL pack of cards I can hold in my hands, and go show to my friends. Showing them a .jpg of a card isn’t the same as showing them the actual card in person.
Dude, seriously, do you guys not know about Magic: ONline?
It's been going for a long time now, and I know a few folks that play and trade.
(If you're talking about something else there, my apologies.)
).
