The 3 reasons why I am done with WotC

[ColonelHardisson]

Or perhaps proper editing could solve the problem before errata is needed.

Like I also said, they do a helluva better job of it than most. I still think the fact they publish errata puts them way ahead of most game companies.

 

[Nightfall]

I already buy very little WoTC material. I do buy their miniatures, though. Their books? Not so much. Necromancer tends to get my money there.

Which will now also got to Paizo too right Klugie?

Don,

No there were some that WEREN'T in plastic wrap. The ones that did have it, usually had it to keep maps in there.

Was,

I've been one since the birth of 3.0 and continue to be a d20/third party man even after the demise of my beloved Scarred Lands. (Demise to be short lived I assure you!). But I feel you on the "I don't buy as much WotC stuff I as I used to."

 

[DonTadow]

Well, I know from posts from yesterday and today that Diaglo and I are out of the WotC buying business. I don't believe either of us were clamoring for online-only Dragon/Dungeon magazines. And just the two of us apparently spend about $6000/year on WotC product.

How many online subscribers will it take to make up for losing us?

And how much more will they lose from other faithful "old-school" gamers?

They can appeal to the new kids all they want. The new kids don't have the kind of disposable income that the old generation does.

Wotc doesnt even produce $3,000 worrth of stuff a year. And this isn't about the young kids, this is about us old timers. Us with the laptops and little time to cipher through magzines to plan an adventure. Us with the disposable income to buy large projector setups for our swanky game only laptops.

I don't think that there is going to be a loss of subscribers that won't be filled by the flurry of new subscribers.

 

[Nightfall]

Don,

You might be right...but a) part of me hopes you're not and b) that history proves me wrong about WotC making this a crappy half ass thing.

 

[Agamon]

Wotc doesnt even produce $3,000 worrth of stuff a year. And this isn't about the young kids, this is about us old timers. Us with the laptops and little time to cipher through magzines to plan an adventure. Us with the disposable income to buy large projector setups for our swanky game only laptops.

I don't think that there is going to be a loss of subscribers that won't be filled by the flurry of new subscribers.

I use a laptop to DM my tabletop game. I'm starting a Fantasy Grounds online game. I have no plans on paying WotC let me read stuff online, though.

 

[Nightfall]

Aggy,

That's because you're a Vulcan man! No vulcan wants to serve a computer!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

If out of 2 million D&D gamers (year 2000 numbers I believe) there are only 500 of us that devoted to the game who are outraged (0.025 % of the population), that's a loss of $3m a year. If they price at $10 a month, you'd need to attract 25,000 subscribers. Of course if they charge $30 a month, they'd only need 10,000 new subscribers.

If Wizards can't match the 50,000 subscribers Paizo had on Dungeon, I will be flatly amazed (assuming DragOnline isn't horrendously buggy). The scale of Wizards' operations is massively greater than Paizo's, especially if DragOnline ends up covering all of Wizards' d20-based RPGs and minis games.

Besides which, how in the world do you buy $6000 of D&D material?! Unless you're buying complete sets of D&D minis direct from the source - in which case you'd best up that 2m figure (and, judging from the way Paizo treated the miniatures game, drop the % outraged). Even then I'm not sure how you'd manage it!

If you assume 4 books at $30 apiece every month (which seems like too many), that's $1,400, tops - less if you bought any on Amazon or on sale at the FLGS or with a local retailer discount card or in any other way below market price. The only complete set of D&D minis I see on Ebay right now is going for $250; they release, what, four of those a year? So maybe you could get a little over $2000 (although the $1000 spent on minis wouldn't go directly to Wizards).

If you drop your figure to a more reasonable(?) $2000, Wizards would only have to have 16,000 subscribers at the more reasonable, and IMO more likely, $5/month rate to make up for 'losing' your theoretical 500 big-spending rebels. 8,000 at $10/month.

 

[Nightfall]

Moogle,

I'm betting horrendously buggy will be the case. And not well written either. But then I'm betting on Underdog Paizo.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Moogle,

I'm betting horrendously buggy will be the case. And not well written either. But then I'm betting on Underdog Paizo.

Considering that the same people, aside from the actual Paizo editors, will almost certainly be working on it, I'm betting the writing will be as good or better. There'll be more Mike Mearls and Matt Sernett, probably more Ari Marmell and Keith Baker; that sounds like a good base to build on from where I'm sitting. Again, they're inheriting Paizo's slush pile, and several of the Wizards people have worked on the Dragon staff before, so why WOULDN'T they maintain ties with the established authors?

As for the bugs - we'll see. That's where it will sink or swim, I suspect.

 

[Nightfall]

Eh I'll give you Mike and Ari along with Keith. But I'm no fan of Matt's. Sorry. But we'll see. But it's the bugs that, like you, have me believing otherwise.