What do I want? An apology.

[Enforcer]

I disagree--saying you're sorry, especially when you're not because you think the new thing is much better, strikes me as dishonest and causing more harm than good. To me it would seem like WotC wasn't 100% confident in their decision.

It's not the same thing, but I can't recall Apple apologizing when they switched to Intel chips--they just said "this is what we're doing, it'll be better" and dragged the naysayers kicking and screaming. Of course, in this case it helps that the Intel chips are much better, but hey.

 

[JohnSnow]

No. What upsets me, that's the system that spawns such a situation. My father was CEO of a small company. I've been working under contract with the Canadian government. I'm in love with our hobby. All these things sort of combined in my head during these past few days.

My father used to talk about what he calls "the critical mass of companies", his own pet theory that there is a point at which a given company starts to lose its humanity and sense of personal responsabilities. Decisions are not taken by any individual in particular but as a collective and shady "we" that erases all responsabilities and all moral thought to concentrate the efforts of the company towards what many call the "bottom line": the dividends stock holders get from one year to the next, which forces CEO and employees to concentrate on this as well, or they're simply out of the equation.

I do believe my dad's pet theory is true. True to a point that sort of hit home several times in my life already, but this time, with the events we are discussing here, it really went right through my heart.

I hear you Odhanan, and I even understand and empathize. I run a small company myself that's being squeezed out of the business by rising costs of all kinds. I've had a few marginal victories over the years, winning some battles, but I'm losing the war. I had a situation a few years back where I encountered "irreconcilable differences" of opinion with a VERY large media conglomerate. I bluffed and we ended up playing chicken over one particular issue and they blinked first. That doesn't change anything in the world, but it kept me in the business a bit longer.

Big corporations do take on a life of their own. Consumerism is an entity of its own, and for good or ill, it drives much of what goes on in society. That said, I'm aware that for roleplaying to continue to exist as a hobby, it needs to attract NEW players. That means Dungeons & Dragons, as the standard bearer for RPGs, has to do what it can to broaden its appeal.

I think that tabletop RPGs are meant to be labors of love, of one craftsman to the other. The quality of such products as Ptolus convince me of that point I'm trying to make. So, the more a RPG company grows, the more it disconnects from the core concept of what a tabletop RPG ought to be. That could be said for any type of company vis à vis its customers, but that's particularly visible with tabletop RPGs because of their nature as a craft.

I think tabletop RPGs shouldn't be in the hands of big business and interest, to make myself clear. I think that if that means less minis, less glossy paper, PDF only... whatever, so be it. What I want is the craft. I want to see guys who love the game as much as I do share their passion with all the gamers around. What I don't want is for tabletop RPGs to be the next Mars bar you buy at the grocery store.

That makes me think "hell, if that means tabletop RPGs aren't ever going to be more popular with the grand public as they are now (regardless of the actual feasibility of the thing), so be it -I don't want them to be popular!"

This is where we differ. I DO want them to be popular. I'm in a somewhat different case than you, I think. I don't have an active game group. I'm frustrated by my inability to play on a regular basis. Why? Because very few people I know PLAY. Actually, that's not true, but many of my friends who do play live too far away (half a state) for us to game together on a regular basis. So the simple fact is that despite the fact that I know people who game, I don't know enough gamers to game on a regular basis. And that means I don't get to enjoy the hobby as much as I'd like.

I have friends I've known for years without finding out they were gamers. Guys I went to college with, work at Renaissance Faires with, or work with who game (or would like to game) on a semi-regular basis but don't, because they don't know enough other gamers. And they don't TALK about their gaming. As a niche hobby, gaming loses gamers.

So I applaud WotC's efforts to increase the appeal of the game. If it works, there will be more gamers, and more active games. To my way of thinking, that's not at all a bad thing.

I think that tabletop RPGs are meant to be labors of love, of one craftsman to the other. The quality of such products as Ptolus convince me of that point I'm trying to make. So, the more a RPG company grows, the more it disconnects from the core concept of what a tabletop RPG ought to be. That could be said for any type of company vis à vis its customers, but that's particularly visible with tabletop RPGs because of their nature as a craft.

I think tabletop RPGs shouldn't be in the hands of big business and interest, to make myself clear. I think that if that means less minis, less glossy paper, PDF only... whatever, so be it. What I want is the craft. I want to see guys who love the game as much as I do share their passion with all the gamers around. What I don't want is for tabletop RPGs to be the next Mars bar you buy at the grocery store.

That makes me think "hell, if that means tabletop RPGs aren't ever going to be more popular with the grand public as they are now (regardless of the actual feasibility of the thing), so be it -I don't want them to be popular!"

I suppose the unfettered hyperbole was getting to me grim. And I didn't mean to insult anyone. I am sorry to see the magazines go. But I can't get angry about it, because I didn't read them on a regular basis. Yeah, I checked them out at the bookstore sometimes, and occasionally bought an issue or two, but I didn't read them every month.

Part of my resigned acceptance also comes from something I've seen happening in the publishing industry. Periodicals are dying. If someone had come up with an inexpensive, lightweight, and easily portable tablet, they'd be dead already. We'd all be getting our "magazines" and "newspapers" as SIM cards for uploading into said tablet, or as files downloaded via email or some website. It's practical, it's coming, it saves tons and tons of needless paper waste, and within 20 years, I'll be surprised if printed periodicals exist at all. So the way I see this is that the RPG magazine industry is the proverbial canary in a coalmine. It doesn't make sense to spend money producing something for 40,000 users that you could potentially produce for 400,000 or 4 million, without spending any more money.

WotC talks all the time about the fact that the highest cost of developing RPG product is paying writers, designers and developers. Newsprint and paperbacks won't make game products cheaper. Spreading out the fixed costs of creating products over more consumers will. It's not the book that's pricey, it's paying Mike Mearls, Steve Kenson, Ari Marmell, the layout people, the accountants, the insurance, paying for the lights, and so on. WotC can make money on hardcovers because at the volume they do it, producing a glossy paper book with a hardcover costs about $2 per book more than making a paperback in black & white. And the consumer (us, that is) is willing to pay $30 or $35 rather than $20. That can be the difference between a product that loses money (like Sword & Fist) and one that makes money (like Complete Warrior).

When you factor in retailer margins and everything else, just consider that if subscribers went from 40,000 to 400,000, WotC could keep the price the same and deliver 10x the content, or 20x, or more. Quite honestly, the fact that the guys "in the know" at WotC are excited makes me excited too. Remember that many of them used to work at, for, or on Dragon and Dungeon. So, if they're excited, there's probably a good reason. And I'd hate to see the anger of a few people sink what could be a great move for both Dungeons & Dragons specifically and the roleplaying game community in general.

However, you guys have made me understand where your anger comes from. And for that I thank you.

 

[Enforcer]

Enforcer, the two formats are only competing for players who are _already_ consumers of the magazine. I have already granted that if enough mag consumers want DI instead, then the decision is founded (and economic theory would have ensured the natural demise of the mags).

They're not though. If some good content ends up in the mag and not online, the online-only people lose out. And once people are DI customers, and then discover Dragon and say "hey, this has some stuff DI doesn't, they could switch the wrong way (wrong from WotC's perspective).

The problem with the argument is that it was based on the idea that it appears only to be a minority of people who are angry, and thus no big deal. As I pointed out, the real question is whether or not the people who are angry constitute a majority of the mag consumers.

And my point is that it doesn't matter if all the angry people are only magazine customers--it's still a minority and the business decision is for ALL D&D gamers.

I understand the business argument. WotC wanted to control the content to control the profit. The simple fact that only magazine consumers were consumers of the magazines proves that the only reason to kill the mags was to push those consumers to the DI. People who were not already mag consumers are not part of the "competition" equation because WotC is not competing for their dollars.

They are, because once they're DI customers, Dragon can pull them away (they're more likely to learn of the alternative, which is worse than not having one). It's future competition, not immediate competition that makes keeping Dragon a bad idea.

Simply put: if the majority of magazine consumers prefer the DI over print, then I am wrong. if the _majority_ of magazine consumers prefer print over DI, then I am right. if WotC polled ALL users, not just those who are magazine consumers, their numbers are wrong because non-magazine consumers who responded that they prefer DI over print have skewed the findings.

I'm guessing that you're wrong. And WotC put money on it. But the fact is having Dragon around to compete with DI is a bad idea.

Killing the mags ONLY affects magazine consumers, NOT those who were not Magazine consumers. Am I wrong about that?

Again, no. Once DI gets off the ground, Dragon is in competition. Competition is bad. Killing Dragon is the right decision.

 

[Ourph]

I disagree--saying you're sorry, especially when you're not because you think the new thing is much better, strikes me as dishonest and causing more harm than good. To me it would seem like WotC wasn't 100% confident in their decision.

I never said you would think it was a good idea, but it's pretty obvious that WotC has disappointed some customers. Most companies react to that situation by offering an apology. If you think apologizing to disappointed customers is a bad PR move, maybe you should apply for a job in marketing at WotC* - apparently they share the same philosophy.

*or Dunder-Mifflin.

Perhaps WotC should get Michael Scott to make an apology tape.

In the made-for-TV movie about the cancellation of Dragon/Dungeon, the part of Scott Rouse will be played by Steve Carell. The part of Lorraine Williams will be played by Angela Kinsey.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'll leave this discussion with some final thoughts on the nature of anger, from one of my favorite philosophers, Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden (courtesy of his creator, Jim Butcher and originally quoted in White Night).

"I don't lie to myself," I responded. "Anger is just anger. It isn't good. It isn't bad. It just is. What you do with it is what matters. It's like anything else. You can use it to build, or to destroy. You just have to make the choice."

"Constructive anger," the demon said, her voice dripping with sarcasm.

"Also known as passion," I said quietly. "Passion has overthrown tyrants and freed prisoners and slaves. Passion has brought justice where there was savagery. Passion has created freedom where there was nothing but fear. Passion has helped souls rise from the ashes of their horrible lives and build something better, stronger, more beautiful.

"In point of fact, that kind of thing really doesn't get done without passion. Anger is one of the things that can help build it - if it's controlled."

So there you go. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Enforcer]

I just think dishonestly apologizing (we KNOW they're not sorry--they think this is the right way to go) would just make things worse.

And to Odhanan: when did this decision become morally wrong? WotC isn't price-gouging for vaccines to third-world countries or torturing puppies, they're canceling magazines based on their own intellectual property.

 

[Atavar]

Simply put: if the majority of magazine consumers prefer the DI over print, then I am wrong. if the _majority_ of magazine consumers prefer print over DI, then I am right. if WotC polled ALL users, not just those who are magazine consumers, their numbers are wrong because non-magazine consumers who responded that they prefer DI over print have skewed the findings.

Killing the mags ONLY affects magazine consumers, NOT those who were not Magazine consumers. Am I wrong about that?

Respectfully, yes, you may be wrong about that.

Here's a hypothetical, with fake numbers to make my point:

Let's say there are a total of 1,000,000 D&D players/DMs in the hobby. 10,000 of them subscribe to Dungeon and/or Dragon magazine.

WotC's research finds that there are 30,000 non-subscribers who say they won't pay for a print magazine but would pay for online content. WotC's business analysts conclude it is not economically feasible to have both subscription online content AND subscription print magazines (too much self-competition, or whatever).

So, WotC decides to kill the mags so that they can do their Digital Initiative.

Of the 10,000 magazine subscribers, 9000 of them say "screw you WotC" and don't sign up for the DI, while 1000 do sign up. Of the 30,000 non-subscribers who said they would pay for the DI, only half do so. So, in the end, WotC goes from 10,000 magazine subscribers to 16,000 DI subscribers. They make more money. More players/DMs are getting subscription content in a preferred and/or settled-for format.

In the above scenario, the majority of mag subscribers hate WotC's decision. Killing the mags affected the magazine subscribers AND the non-magazine subscribers. Obviously, the majority of magazine subscribers lost a beloved magazine (or two). But, the decision the kill the mags had another effect--the emergence of a subscription medium that appeals to all those non-magazine people enough to get them to sign up for the DI.

The existence of the DI and/or the killing of the mags should NOT be up to what the majority of mag subscribers want. It should be up to what the entire consumer base, mag subscriber or not, wants. WotC is betting that the DI will bring more to more consumers than the mags would. Only time will tell if they are right.

Respectfully,

Atavar

 

[Henry]

I'll leave this discussion with some final thoughts on the nature of anger, from one of my favorite philosophers, Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden...

I gotta say, I LIKE that quote...

 

[atom crash]

Except in this case an apology directly interferes with their promotion of the Digital Initiative, by directly saying it'll be disappointing. How can they get people to switch by saying "we're sorry you won't like this as much"?

Well put. Apologizing for replacing an old product with a new product is an implied admission that the new product isn't as good as the old product. How is that going to sell the new product?

If you're not going to buy the new product, apologizing for taking away the old product isn't going to change that. What's more, apologizing for the new product isn't going to sell it to those who are on the fence.

Imagine this MicroSoft announcement: "We're saddened to announce that we will no longer be making Windows XP. Instead we're offering Windows Vista. We apologize to those Windows XP users who will be disappointed by this move."

WotC -- and any company with their right business hat on -- should manage expectations by getting us all excited about their new product. In fact, that's what they seem to be doing.

Instead of:
"We're sorry we took away your old toy and gave you a nice shiny new one."

We see:
"Here's a nice shiny new toy. See how cool it is? With this, now you don't need that old one any more. And before long, you won't even miss it."

 

[Deimodius]

WotC's research finds that there are 30,000 non-subscribers who say they won't pay for a print magazine but would pay for online content. WotC's business analysts conclude it is not economically feasible to have both subscription online content AND subscription print magazines (too much self-competition, or whatever).

Atavar: WotC does not pay to publish the magazines. They are licensed to paizo, who incur all the costs. WotC _makes_ money from the license agreement.

Using your example above, there are 30,000 people who would not pay for a mag, but would pay for DI. Since these people are not, and would not be, paying for the mags, WotC does not need to kill the mags to get those 30,000 people. Killing the mags is pointless. If those people don't want to pay for mag, it won't matter how good the content is in the mags, because they won't pay for it! WotC has no competition for these 30,000 people. They are irrelevant to the discussion about killing the mags.

As for the argument that people who do not want to pay for a print magazine might suddenly see good content in the magazine and switch, it seems to me that the answer is to offer _better_ content and let the market take care of itself. If you can not win and keep customers by providing better content, then killing the competition just means you are happy to offer sub-par content.

As for print consumers, if enough of them want your DI because it is better, they will switch, and the mags will fold naturally.

BUT if the content isn't good enough to make enough mag subscribers switch, then the ONLY reason to kill the mags is to FORCE them to switch 9and get sub-par content if it wasn't good enough to convince them to switch).

I don't get how people don't see the simple logic of this.

Printing the mags cost Wizards nothing, so having them at the same time as the DI ONLY costs them money if non-print-subscribers switch to print. It stands to reason that after 30 years of printing the mags, those non-subscribers have already decided!

There is no competition, except for the money of print-subscribers! So killing the mags forces them to switch.

Again:
The decision affects 0% of non-print-subscribers because they already had chosen an option other than print.
The decision affects 100% of print-subscribers by simple virtue of the fact that they were subscribers.

It's a simple fact, folks. the magazines were killed to force mag consumers to switch to DI.