What do I want? An apology.

[The_Gneech]

Imagine, for a moment, that you're a huge fan of Batman. You grew up reading Batman, Batman has a very strong personal meaning to you, and you eagerly await each month's installment of Detective Comics. And for the sake of this discussion, let's say that sales of said comic are on a major upswing.

Then, one day, out of the blue and regardless of the fact that Batman is selling well, the current management of DC drops the comics and excises Batman from all current and future publications -- although they give vague hints that Batman will be back some time in the future in a blue and red costume, and (because it's so much cooler) able to fly!

Is the current management of DC comics within its legal rights? Yeah. But they neither created Batman nor put him into his place of prominence -- they inherited both! Does the owner of a Picasso, Van Gogh, or Stradivarius have an obligation as its custodian, or are they free to trash it as the piece's owner? How about the owner of Batman?

Are you, as the Bat-fan, going to be upset? I would expect so.

Might you want an apology from the current management of DC for obliterating an established classic? You might.

-The Gneech

 

[Maggan]

Then, one day, out of the blue and regardless of the fact that Batman is selling well, the current management of DC drops the comics and excises Batman from all current and future publications -- although they give vague hints that Batman will be back some time in the future in a blue and red costume, and (because it's so much cooler) able to fly!

I can follow the analogy as far as current management dropping the comics, but after that I can't understand how your hypothetical example compares to the Dragon and Dungeon issue?

What would be the WotC equivalent of excising Batman from current and future publications?

/M

 

[Vigilance]

Imagine, for a moment, that you're a huge fan of Batman. You grew up reading Batman, Batman has a very strong personal meaning to you, and you eagerly await each month's installment of Detective Comics. And for the sake of this discussion, let's say that sales of said comic are on a major upswing.

Then, one day, out of the blue and regardless of the fact that Batman is selling well, the current management of DC drops the comics and excises Batman from all current and future publications -- although they give vague hints that Batman will be back some time in the future in a blue and red costume, and (because it's so much cooler) able to fly!

Is the current management of DC comics within its legal rights? Yeah. But they neither created Batman nor put him into his place of prominence -- they inherited both! Does the owner of a Picasso, Van Gogh, or Stradivarius have an obligation as its custodian, or are they free to trash it as the piece's owner? How about the owner of Batman?

Are you, as the Bat-fan, going to be upset? I would expect so.

Might you want an apology from the current management of DC for obliterating an established classic? You might.

-The Gneech

You mean like when Marvel started throwing "Avengers Disassembeled" on the cover of Avengers, killed several of them off, dismantled the team and cancelled the book?

See, similar things have happened before.

And when the book came back, it was "New Avengers" and it had Spider Man and Wolverine in it (you know, cause they're so kewl).

And no, they never apologized. Nor should anyone have expected them to.

The books were performing less than they thought they should. They weren't losing money though (just like Dungeon and Dragon weren't).

 

[The_Gneech]

I can follow the analogy as far as current management dropping the comics, but after that I can't understand how your hypothetical example compares to the Dragon and Dungeon issue?

What would be the WotC equivalent of excising Batman from current and future publications?

Hrm. I'm not sure how I could make it clearer.

Dragon & Dungeon gone = Batman gone

Online Initiative = Batman back at some future time in red and blue costume + flight (i.e., not really Batman, just called that)

-The Gneech

 

[The_Gneech]

And no, they never apologized. Nor should anyone have expected them to.

I bet they wanted them to, tho. That's the point.

Whether they should, or did, expect them to, is another matter.

-The Gneech

 

[Enforcer]

Batman: one character whose basic premise has remained untouched over the course of seven decades. It has been and will be one of the most popular books for comic readers.

Dragon: a magazine collecting a variety of different articles related to gaming. It has changed its content and article lineup several times over the years. It has covered all RPGs and just one. In recent years it has always been a much-liked magazine, but unlike Batman's popularity for comic book readers, Dragon has only been popular for a very small segment of the D&D-playing population.

Strawman: an argument that sets up a position that is easy to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent.

(relatively speaking) popular

1% of D&D gamers isn't popular, no matter how relative you want to make it. It's a niche within a niche, and one that's being replaced with a format that will target a much larger portion of our hobby. If Dragon is popular, relatively speaking, DI will be world-famous, relatively speaking.

The dictionary definition of "apology" is "an expression of one's regret"

We know this seems like a radical step, and we'll miss the magazines too, but we think you'll be very pleased with what we have coming online to replace them.

I guess now that you've defined apology, you'll have to define regret too--as it seems this quote expresses regret (and therefore your definition of an apology) to me.

 

[Ghendar]

Now, why was this done? In order to eliminate the magazine option for the consumer. Instead of allowing the DI succeeding on its own merits, WotC decided to limit our options to DI or nothing. As Ryan Dancey said, they decided that their customers can just be taken for granted because ultimately they'll be dragged into whatever business model WotC decides on, even if it's kicking and screaming.

This is what annoys me the most about the whole thing. They've completely taken it out of my hands. I can't buy a print Dragon Magazine because it will no longer exist. Are they within their rights to do this? Absolutely, but I would have appreciated being given a choice, not having the choice taken from me. So would A LOT of other gamers.

 

[Enforcer]

Define a "Lot" of other gamers. Given Dragon's readership, a "lot" is a very small percentage.

 

[Ghendar]

Batman: one character whose basic premise has remained untouched over the course of seven decades. It has been and will be one of the most popular books for comic readers.

.

I'm curious what you consider the "basic premise" of Batman?

 

[Vigilance]

I bet they wanted them to, tho. That's the point.

Whether they should, or did, expect them to, is another matter.

-The Gneech

I guess. What would be the point? The Avengers were gone. That cheest substitute with cheesy spider man and cheesy Wolverine wasn't it.

What good does sorry do? They're not sorry.

Oh! Here's another good case.

Like when I joined the RPGA to get a Polyhedron subscription. And then Paizo folded it into Dungeon. And then, they dropped it completely.

So I had subscribed to the magazine for Poly, and now was getting Dungeon.

They never apologized either. Or offered to refund my subscription.

And I didn't really expect them to.

Here's another one for you.

One issue into my Captain America subscription, he died. Totally dead.

And last month, I got a card from Marvel, telling me the next 5 issues of my Captain America subscription were going to be "Fallen Son", a book by a different writer talking about the impact of the death of Captain America.

Then my Cap subscription will continue, but he's dead lol.

And Marvel hasn't apologized.

And I don't really expect them to.

Companies manage properties best they can.

Every decision you make will make someone happy, and make someone mad.

It's called life.