Should Dungeon and Polyheadron be in the same magazine

[LightPhoenix]

Someone comes to an online forum and asks for opinions, I have not qualms about voicing mine.

I have no qualms about voicing mine either, obviously.

That's good to hear about the mailing thing though. From what I recall from my Public Affairs, which admittedly was several years ago, studies at the time showed that snail mail was vastly more effective than e-mail at elliciting a response. You see a similar thing with online petitions for shows and movies... few companies really pay attention to them. Of course, they're a dime a dozen nowadays, but the point is they don't indicate sales, which is what a company rightfully should be worried about.

 

[LightPhoenix]

This it the part that has always confused me. Printing and shipping a magazine is a significant element in its costs. Am I to believe that their subscriber base increased enough to cover these added costs solely because it moved to a monthly format? How many readers were really saying, "Gee, I'd like to get a subscription to Dungeon, but it's just not worth it unless I get it every month..."? I just don't see it.

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining this?

I'll throw in my opinion.

It's not that readership increased... in fact it probably didn't. It's that now instead of your overall readership paying for only six issues a year, they're paying for twelve, and that's what covers the cost of running the magazine.

Added to that is that their costs probably decreased having one monthly magazine instead of two bi-monthly ones, especially where printing and shipping is concerned. No need for two printers, no need for managing two subscription lists. Everything is basically streamlined.

Finally, I think that there's probably a psychological factor involved in getting something every month. There's a definite mental correlation between how soon you receive something and how valuable it is. This has been shown many times. If you get something every month, it seems like it's more, even though it's in reality it's the same or less.

 

[Simplicity]

The lack of faith some readers show us is absolutely astonishing sometimes. Suffice it to say, doubling up on letters has _nothing_ to do with why we switched to a monthly format.

I know it doesn't sound like it from my previous post, but I *like* Dungeon magazine. And it should be clear to anyone who knows anything about the industry that you don't work on Dungeon magazine for the money. I'm not saying that the guys who run Dungeon are just out to make a cheap buck off their subscribers. I'm just saying that I think Dungeon's ability to provide good adventures has gone way down since the switch in format.

The adventures are fewer AND shorter, and I'm unhappy with that.

 

[SoulsFury]

I let my subscription lapse because of them being together. Dungeon did fine before without polyhedron. I'd much rather have the older binding back from 2nd edition on Dungeon magazine if it meant cheaper subscription prices and no polyhedron. Oh well, now I'll have to pay cover price if I want the rest of the Shackled City adventure path, unless someone doesn't want those issues.

Nik

 

[Dire Bare]

Wait a minute . . .

I may be missing something here, but I read this complaint that Dungeon used to offer approx 4 adventures every two months, and now we are upset it offers only two adventures every month. Isnt that still four adventures every two months? Yep, yep it is! And the adventures are higher quality now with higher quality maps and artwork. And Poly had D20 content that can be mined for any D20 game (not every issue, of course). Sounds like win/win to me, I never understood all the sour grapes over this. But then I never understood all the sour grapes during the "If it ain't D&D get it out of my Dragon" debates years ago.

 

[kamosa]

I may be missing something here, but I read this complaint that Dungeon used to offer approx 4 adventures every two months, and now we are upset it offers only two adventures every month. Isnt that still four adventures every two months? Yep, yep it is! And the adventures are higher quality now with higher quality maps and artwork. And Poly had D20 content that can be mined for any D20 game (not every issue, of course). Sounds like win/win to me, I never understood all the sour grapes over this. But then I never understood all the sour grapes during the "If it ain't D&D get it out of my Dragon" debates years ago.

Except that those 4 adventures used to cost less than $2 and now they cost closer to $15. I also wouldn't call what we are getting today higher quality than the older modules. As someone with both era's of modules, I find myself going back to the older modules much more often than the recent stuff, even though I have to convert the old ones.

 

[scourger]

keep Dungeon & Polyhedron together

My voice and my money say keep Dungeon & Polyhedron together. I don't always like all the content of either, but occasionally I love a feature enough to continue subscribing (and even buy extra copies).

Thanks for the reply, Erik. It showed me that this forum is useful for getting information to the publishers (rather than just placing another opinion for other gamers to read) and prompted me to make this reply.

What I would like to see is more focus on d20 D&D minigames in Poly. It seems as if the last few have been for d20 Modern, which is less useful for me as I do not play Modern. I believe the minigames would have more portability as 3.5e D&D rather than focusing on d20 Modern. The Horizon line from Fantasy Flight is a good example--along the lines of Omega World. Just in case you're still reading, Erik.

 

[Simplicity]

I may be missing something here, but I read this complaint that Dungeon used to offer approx 4 adventures every two months, and now we are upset it offers only two adventures every month. Isnt that still four adventures every two months? Yep, yep it is! And the adventures are higher quality now with higher quality maps and artwork. And Poly had D20 content that can be mined for any D20 game (not every issue, of course). Sounds like win/win to me, I never understood all the sour grapes over this. But then I never understood all the sour grapes during the "If it ain't D&D get it out of my Dragon" debates years ago.

The complaint was that not that it went from 4 to 2.
The complaint was that it went from 4 larger adventures to 2 small adventures.

 

[Felon]

I didn't like it because they said it wouldn't raise prices and then a little while later raised prices because of increase printing costs. I dropped my subscription almost immediatly. I liked dungeon better when it wasn't glossy as well.

You know, I really have to wonder why nobody produces cheap magazines on cheap paper stock with cheap four-color inks anymore. If it's in color, it has to be slick and glossy and photoshopped to hell and back and therefore ridiculously expensive. Has the printing industry shifted over the last decade so that there just isn't any money to be saved by using low-grade pulp? Or is it just that distributors won't carry cheap stuff anymore?

Of course, publishers simply insist that nobody will buy a product that isn't glossy merely because it's affordable and has good content, but I have a bit of trouble accepting that explanation. Do we really HAVE to live in the age of three-dollar comic books?

 

[Felon]

Except that those 4 adventures used to cost less than $2 and now they cost closer to $15. I also wouldn't call what we are getting today higher quality than the older modules. As someone with both era's of modules, I find myself going back to the older modules much more often than the recent stuff, even though I have to convert the old ones.

Me too. They were actually adventures. What we get today would be more aptly called "encounters" or "skirmishes".