What do I want? An apology.

[Henry]

One thought did occur to me, thinking about the anger that some people have displayed:

Consider current events right now, and consider personal issues in real life that bleed over into messageboard conversations. The outrage expressed in something as seemingly small as a magazine cancellation could be a side effect of other issues, not a cause.

Giving an example: Years ago, the bottom fell out of my car (engine restraining bolts) as I was driving on the Interstate. 70mph, and I lose control and fortunately slide to a halt on the roadside. I get out of my car, and the cell phone has no reception. So I begin to walk to the nearest exit. A thunderstorm breaks out, soaking me to the bone. I made it to a truck stop and called for two hours to reach my wife.

When I came home, my toilet backs up on the first flush.

I REALLY ranted and raved like a sailor for about an hour over that damned toilet.

While some responses are totally unwarranted, not understanding why someone rails against something seemingly innocent is not the same as them having nothing to rail about.

 

[Deimodius]

Perhaps some people have misunderstood. As I pointed out in my original post the magazines aren't coming back, nor should we want them to at this point because it can never now be as it was.

There are two issues, it seems, whether an apology is owed by a company to its consumers, and for what that apology should be.

To the first point, it is unlikely that any thing I could say will convince certain people, and they are entitled to their opinion. Mine is not right or wrong, it is simply a different perspective. If it will help, however, it seems to me that some comparisons just don't work. The nature of this industry makes it vastly different from most producer/consumer relationships. This industry is based entirely around a hobby based around social interaction (table top face-to-face gaming), and as such is different from a manufacturer of a vacuum. If a vacuum maker discontinues a certain brand of vacuum, consumers who really like it might be upset, but there is not a social community of specific-brand vacuum consumers.

These magazines were an integral part of this social community in many ways (which have been discussed here and elsewhere) which makes them _more_ than simple physical products. WotC made a decision that directly affects the society in many ways, but _obviously_ on an emotional level. I think we can all agree to that, and _that_ why _I_ think we _can_ be owed an apology.

As to the second point, I'm not asking them to apologise for killing the magazines. I guess what I really want is an apology for the way they handled it, and for making a decision that _so far_ doesn't seem to be supported by their assertion that it is what the community wants. The sheer amount of outraged users on the forums seems to me (anecdotally perhaps) to demonstrate that there is a large portion of this community who _would_ have said "No" if WotC has actually asked us about killing of the magazines. It also seems to show that they _thought_ they knew what we wanted, but were wrong.

The new DI might in fact turn out to be an amazing thing, but it's not the thing _I_ want. I want those magazines in physical form (and the reasons for and against have already been discussed). I will not subscribe to the DI because 1. I am no longer buying WotC products unless they apologise, and 2. for all the reasons that have been leveled against it elsewhere.

I respect the right of those who disagree with me to do so, but i stand by my original post, you can not convince me otherwise.

WotC made a mistake in how they handled this, and in arrogance, presuming to know what we want. I want them to apologise for that.

P.S. Lockridge: Please re-read my post. I said "stick" not "stuck". I became a charter subscriber of Paizo's new Pathfinder days ago.

 

[freebfrost]

In the mean time.... Get over it, people. It's a game. They are magazines. How about doing something constructive with your righteous indignation instead of pointless, professional-victim-esque calls for apologies.

What's missing here is that this is how people react when something that they love and cherish is ended. No hyperbole intended, but whether you are talking about a relationship, your first car, a magazine, your favorite dish at Olive Garden, a television show - it's all the same. Something that you've enjoyed is lost and people do get outraged and upset. What people aren't used to seeing is all the others who feel the same way. Consider that a "benefit" if you would of this wonderful series of tubes that is the IntraWeb.

Just because not everyone agrees that a certain item is worthy of that kind of devotion doesn't make the feelings associated with it less for that person. Different strokes and all that.

In the end, it will be our wallets that decide this issue. If WotC wants to cater to the crowd that is upset, so much the better for them. If they choose not to, then they place their bets on others to replace that revenue stream. Obviously, only they are privy to their numbers, and only time will tell if they are right or not.

 

[freebfrost]

Giving an example:

And I thought I was having a bad day today...

Thanks for cheering me up Henry!

Personally I am just very disappointed in the decision and level of response on this, but I can see where that would easily be exacerbated by other events.

 

[Storm Raven]

What's missing here is that this is how people react when something that they love and cherish is ended. No hyperbole intended, but whether you are talking about a relationship, your first car, a magazine, your favorite dish at Olive Garden, a television show - it's all the same.

Quite and insightful point. Example: my wife and I like Macaroni Grill. When we first started eating there, they had a dessert on the menu that was a flourless chocolate cake thing (I think it was called a "chocolate morte"). I loved it, and would get it every time we went. They stopped serving it several years ago. Whenever we go to Macaroni Grill I am always slightly annoyed that they don't have it on the menu any more (of course, I find the given reason for taking it off the menu amazing: a manager told me that they had made a decision to remove it from the menu because "they sold out of it too quickly every night" ). I always complain a little bit, even though it has been years.

I don't eat desserts at Macaroni Grill either - my little protest.

 

[barrowwight]

One thought did occur to me, thinking about the anger that some people have displayed:

Consider current events right now, and consider personal issues in real life that bleed over into messageboard conversations. The outrage expressed in something as seemingly small as a magazine cancellation could be a side effect of other issues, not a cause.

Giving an example: Years ago, the bottom fell out of my car (engine restraining bolts) as I was driving on the Interstate. 70mph, and I lose control and fortunately slide to a halt on the roadside. I get out of my car, and the cell phone has no reception. So I begin to walk to the nearest exit. A thunderstorm breaks out, soaking me to the bone. I made it to a truck stop and called for two hours to reach my wife.

When I came home, my toilet backs up on the first flush.

I REALLY ranted and raved like a sailor for about an hour over that damned toilet.

While some responses are totally unwarranted, not understanding why someone rails against something seemingly innocent is not the same as them having nothing to rail about.

Now that was a bad day.

 

[Enforcer]

The sheer amount of outraged users on the forums seems to me (anecdotally perhaps) to demonstrate that there is a large portion of this community who _would_ have said "No" if WotC has actually asked us about killing of the magazines. It also seems to show that they _thought_ they knew what we wanted, but were wrong.

And the reason that many of us are scratching our heads, muttering "what's the big deal?" is that we don't think there is a large portion of the D&D playing community who would have said no. Dragon/Dungeon readers were already a very small portion of D&D gamers, the EN World Dragon/Dungeon readers are an even smaller sub-portion of that.

I know we all love EN World (or at least I hope we all do ), but the fact is we're a very small minority of all D&D gamers. The fact that many of us feel that EN World is bigger or more important than it may actually be is a reflection of how excellent our community is (another sign of which is how regularly industry professionals chime in here).

What is true is that these small segments of gamers are very vocal about how they feel in regards to this change. Which is fine and important--minority voices should be heard. That's what a forum is for. It's also for those who disagree, however, so long as it's done civilly (which I hope I'm doing--Henry I know you're watching this thread and if you'd like me to stop posting in it I'm happy to oblige).

And so I can't agree that Wizards of the Coast should apologize for alienating a very small portion of its customers when the reason they did so is to introduce a system that's intended to appeal to a much larger portion. They're a business who has to justify its existence to their owners by proving themselves capable of turning a profit. And the fact that they own the license is itself the best reason why an apology is unnecessary in my opinion--they own it and can do what they want with it.

There are consequences to not apologizing, of course. Many have threatened boycotts or promised to ignore/not-pay-for the Digital Initiative content. Voting with one's wallet is a perfectly acceptable response and I wish everyone who chooses that path the best of luck with it. However, should Wizards of the Coast apologize, I think I'd lose respect for them as leaders in the RPG industry--I believe innovation, such as the Digital Initiative, is healthy and necessary and the idea that trying something different should be apologized for sets the wrong tone for me. I'm excited to see what Wizards comes up with, and definitely excited to have that content in electronic format due to the greater versatility (again, in my opinion). And if it doesn't work? I believe the cliche is "nothing ventured, nothing gained." They can always re-license the magazines.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The sheer amount of outraged users on the forums seems to me (anecdotally perhaps) to demonstrate that there is a large portion of this community who _would_ have said "No" if WotC has actually asked us about killing of the magazines.

164 people responded 'yes' to the poll Is it ok to be mad at WotC?. As I write this there are currently 2271 users online. That's 7%, which would seem to indicate the vast majority of ENWorlders don't give a f-ck.

 

[freebfrost]

As I write this there are currently 2271 users online.

Your sample size is flawed. Not every online person views this forum or elects to vote in polls.

 

[Veander]

I'm reading and responding to the thread, but I didn't vote.

An apology though? I guess. Personally I want someone to create some magazines that will end up costing me $7 a month on a subscription and get them into circulation. Replace the two that were killed and I'll be happy. Until then nothing anyone does with online content will matter to me.

(I gotta change my nick. Can you do that?)