Pathfinder 1E Paizo no longer publishing Dungeon and Dragon

[Kid Charlemagne]

You'd think these people had never dealt with the touchy-feely side of D&D fandom! It strikes me as odd that no one anticipated the "punched in the gut" reaction that many have expressed and was ready to expound on the (supposedly) brighter future that's just around the corner (in theory).

I think its pretty clear WoTC looked at this as "Dragon and Dungeon will move to an online magazine format" while most of the people who have been responding in this thread look at it as "Dragon and Dungeon have been cancelled." They probably should have known better, or at least been ready to react if that started to happen. Then again, WoTC hasn't had an online presence at ENWorld (don't know about other online places) since Charles Ryan left.

 

[Mistwell]

Because that's the only thing that makes sense, really.

So the rest of my message, which you clipped, wasn't one reasonable alternative senario in your minds?

Why would Paizo cut their own throat? Given the state of 3rd party d20 stuff, they will be lucky to still be in business in 2 years.

If they felt the license fee being proposed from WOTC during the re-up negotiations were not their best financial move, it was not "cutting their own throat", and yet also not "WOTC's fault, and just their fault". Paizo is saying, over and over again, that your assumption that this means bad things for them financially is false. Why are you essentially calling them liars?

Seriously, just how many adventure mostly d20 companies are there around these days? Basically just one, Goodman Games.

Paizo feels they are in a great position to pick up most of the previous subscribers to the two magazines without having to pay a licensing fee to WOTC. Maybe they know what they are doing.

Look at Kenzer - they publish a successful magazine, but their own adventures (officially licensed no less) apparently don't sell squat.

Look at Necromancer - without a big company to help them publisher, they were going to throw in the towel. Even with White Wolf's backing, a lot of their recent products only sold a couple 1000 copies (if that).

Both different situations. And Paizo thinks they are different as well.

Paizo has gone from publishing a magazine that probably sold what, 30,000-40,000 copies each, to adventures that will sell 1-2k. This is also going to negative impact their other side businesses (like their D&D gouging business), because they no longer have free advertising, nor will they be associated with Dragon/Dungeon/D&D any longer, which has a lot of branding value.

Paizo's only real chance of survival is if they built up their brand name strong enough. But even then, I doubt their future is very bright.

How can you one the one hand praise Piazo for running a great business by producing a great product, and on the other hand assume they have no idea what they are doing with the financial aspect of their business and are just plain old wrong about their business assumptions about their future?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I never once bought an issue of Dungeon or Dragon, so this announcement really doesn't mean that much to me. I feel for the people who really liked it and will miss it when it is gone, but I just can't say that I feel the same way.

If Wizard's new "Digital Initiative" is something worth having, I will get it, but if it doesn't appeal to me, then I won't. I don't think the magazine cancellation will affect my choice in that matter at all.

 

[Ranger REG]

What you are essentially saying is that one company did more PR in the first 24 hours after a press release than the other company (but both did some), and therefore the company that does less PR deserves all blame for any anger over the announcement, despite all signs that this was an amicable parting of the ways.

For me, personally, the business decision to go all-online is the straw the broke the camel's back.

If WotC had said they want to restart magazine print publishing, I would have been fine.

 

[Shroomy]

What you are essentially saying is that one company did more PR in the first 24 hours after a press release than the other company (but both did some), and therefore the company that does less PR deserves all blame for any anger over the announcement, despite all signs that this was an amicable parting of the ways.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I know when the company I work for makes a decision to replace something that was relatively popular, we do more than issue a paragraph in a press release. We either say we're sorry here is a credit (or something of this sort, something to make the customer feel appreciated), or more likely, we market the hell out of our new replacement product. At the very least, we provide more detailed responses for our 1st level customer contact people than what I received from WoTC Customer Service, which basically boiled down to "Thanks for writing!"

 

[EricNoah]

It's hard to take the 2nd sentence

The magazines will cease publication following the release of the September issues, which ship to subscribers and newsstands in August. The final issues will be Dragon #359 and Dungeon #150.

as meaning anything other than "deader than a doornail."

Of course the next sentence sets it straight, in theory...

Wizards of the Coast will be moving the kind of content currently found in Dragon and Dungeon to an online model.

But I think it's that italicized section that gets people quaking. If it's Dungeon-Like and Dragon-Like, but not made by the people who are now making Dungeon and Dragon .... well, there's lots of flavors of D&D writing and not all of it is tasty.

 

[JoshuaFrost]

Paizo has gone from publishing a magazine that probably sold what, 30,000-40,000 copies each, to adventures that will sell 1-2k. This is also going to negative impact their other side businesses (like their D&D gouging business), because they no longer have free advertising, nor will they be associated with Dragon/Dungeon/D&D any longer, which has a lot of branding value.

Paizo's only real chance of survival is if they built up their brand name strong enough. But even then, I doubt their future is very bright.

Paizo isn't in the business of publishing books that sell 1,000 copies.

As for our future, my friend, its never been brighter. We recently announced Planet Stories, our line of monthly science fiction and fantasy reprints that will start this August, our second Titanic Games board game releases next month and we've already pre-sold 1/3 of our sizeable print run as foreign language editions in German, French, and Spanish, we recently announced our GameMastery Modules which launch this June, our entire GameMastery line is continually growing and the recent Critical Hit Deck broke every single record we have for first day sales (including the Dragon Compendium's record!), and our online retail store has seen consistent month-over-month growth every single month since we launched it.

We're doing just fine.

 

[Mistwell]

While entertaining, your story couldn't be farther from the truth.

Are you stating, publically and on the record, that you were a principal party to the negotiations that took place and are privy to all details about the conversation concerinng the license re-up? Because in my experience, the Advertising & Marketing Director isn't usually the principal party to all negotiations. Usually, that position takes a role only after some of the more important conversations have already taken place.

Wizards has chosen to do something different with Dragon and Dungeon and, as a licensee, Paizo has had to adapt and seek another project in our favorite hobby. Everything WotC has told us leads us to the conclusion that they couldn't be happier with the direction of Dragon and Dungeon under Paizo, but that they have something else in mind. Since our license was up for renewal, it seemed a natural stopping point. Paizo and WotC hold no ill will towards one another and, in fact, wish each other well in their future endeavors.

Wait wait wait...since the license was up for renewal, WHO decided it was a natural stopping point. Was this in any way a mutual decision between both parties, or did WOTC dictate that they were making the decision and Paizo had no opportunity to make a counter offer or persuade them otherwise?

 

[Ourph]

WOTC: Well your license renewal is coming up, so lets talk about it. Your sales are way up, and we think we deserve a portion of that increase. So we want to add +X% to the license fee.

Paizo: No. We did the work, and we want the same percentage of profits as before.

WOTC: But part of your popularity is because you have the official seal of approval on your products, and can cover new products coming out from WOTC. WOTC's products are selling like gangbusters right now, and part of that popularity is spilling over to your magazines which share in the interest for those new products. We should therefore share in the increased profits from that increased popularity.

Paizo: We disagree. We think our product popularity is not really related to yours.

WOTC: Well then I guess we will need to part ways on this issue then.

Paizo: I guess so. So, how should we do this....

If that were the case, then why isn't WOTC looking for someone else to take over the license on their (new) terms?

Why should they? If you are no longer coming to terms with your current publisher, isn't that the natural time to reassess the product itself and see if you want to change the way it's being done?

So Dungeon and Dragon are both doing so well as print magazines that WotC thinks Paizo can afford a bigger licensing fee, but it's also a good time to reassess the product and change the way it's being done?

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Ranger REG]

Wait wait wait...since the license was up for renewal, WHO decided it was a natural stopping point. Was this in any way a mutual decision between both parties, or did WOTC dictate that they were making the decision and Paizo had no opportunity to make a counter offer or persuade them otherwise?

Is it me or are you trying to assign partial blame to Paizo?