Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3468493" data-attributes="member: 467">Maybe.&nbsp; however, the issue isn't so much WotC trying something else as it is WotC trying something instead of.&nbsp; For that to happen, especially when WotC is putting relatively few resources toward the production of Dragon and Dungeon (I'd say none, except I assume they had someone checking something be sure they were in line with their licesnse, etc...), means that WotC must believe that the continued existence and publication of Dragon and/or Dungeon* as a print magazine will somehow hurt the something else.&nbsp; And for that to be the case, WotC must think their something else will appeal to the same market -- which might be 1% of the players, as stated -- which means either it is the same niche of product, or that the 1% is the group that spends money on D&amp;D.&nbsp; I don't know the answers, but that is sure as hell a lot of questions.*I am still of the opinion that Dungeon was the actual issue.&nbsp; it just so happens that the two were likely managed under a single license, so getting rid of Dungeon required sutting out Dragon as well.&nbsp; As I stated in one of the other umpteen threads, i believe this had more to do with WotC wanting to take control over the D&amp;D adventure market -- for numerous reasons -- and didn't need an entirely too competetive Dungeon magazine hindering their efforts.&nbsp; I mean, today i bought Eyes of the Lich Queen because that's what my group decided on, but we went through quite a list of alternatives, including all 3 Paizo adventure paths and only ended up with EoLQ because the guys didn't want to start off at 1st level.&nbsp; otherwise, we'de be playing Age of Worms.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 3468493, member: 467"] Maybe. however, the issue isn't so much WotC trying something else as it is WotC trying something [i]instead of[/i]. For that to happen, especially when WotC is putting relatively few resources toward the production of Dragon and Dungeon (I'd say none, except I assume they had someone checking something be sure they were in line with their licesnse, etc...), means that WotC must believe that the continued existence and publication of Dragon and/or Dungeon* as a print magazine will somehow hurt the [i]something else[/i]. And for that to be the case, WotC must think their [i]something else[/i] will appeal to the same market -- which might be 1% of the players, as stated -- which means either it is the same niche of product, or that the 1% is the group that spends money on D&D. I don't know the answers, but that is sure as hell a lot of questions. *I am still of the opinion that Dungeon was the actual issue. it just so happens that the two were likely managed under a single license, so getting rid of Dungeon required sutting out Dragon as well. As I stated in one of the other umpteen threads, i believe this had more to do with WotC wanting to take control over the D&D adventure market -- for numerous reasons -- and didn't need an entirely too competetive Dungeon magazine hindering their efforts. I mean, today i bought Eyes of the Lich Queen because that's what my group decided on, but we went through quite a list of alternatives, including all 3 Paizo adventure paths and only ended up with EoLQ because the guys didn't want to start off at 1st level. otherwise, we'de be playing Age of Worms. [/QUOTE]

Verification