WotC Replies: Statements by WotC employees regarding Dragon/Dungeon going online

[Shemeska]

If WotC just brings back some version of the magazines in online form, the reception from me is really going to hinge on if the content allows for freelance submissions like Dragon & Dungeon, or if it'll all be produced by a group of in-house writers. I'm praying for the former, but I won't be absolutely surprised if it's not the case.

Even if my hopes for the new digital toy all end up being best case scenarios, it still remains to be seen how long (or if even) it takes to counteract my initial, rather visceral reaction to the magazines getting junked by WotC.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As has been pointed out, this didn't have to be an either/or decision by WotC.

In fact, there are many hard publications that have 100% of their content available in electronic form. Guitar Player Magazine (and all of its sister publications), The Economist, The NY Times, The New Orleans Times-Picayune and others all have managed to have a digital form while simultaneously continuing publication in their traditional print & paper forms.

With the magazines both apparently operating in the black with increasing subscriber bases, WotC could have continued its partnership with Paizo and introduced e-zines with 100% of (or even expanded) the print content.

By killing the print mags this way, they've alienated a lot of people that they didn't have to.

By killing the print mags this way, they've lost a lot of subscribers that they didn't have to.

 

[Lanefan]

eCommerce is interesting because credit card processing is a fixed cost. So even if you want to sell individual articles for, say, 10 cents apiece you can't because Visa charges the vendor a fixed amount (up to $1.50) per transaction. So the customer would pay you a dime and after it's all said and done you're down a buck forty.

Which brings up another rather obvious but thus far overlooked point: not everybody *has* a credit card. The 12-year-old spending his allowance on the magazines at the FLGS, for example, just got pretty much cut right out of the equation...it's a much bigger deal to have to ask to borrow Mommy's credit card to read something online.

Lanefan

 

[CanadienneBacon]

Or those of us who have a credit card but value our privacy and refrain from using it to make online purchases.

 

[rowport]

As has been pointed out, this didn't have to be an either/or decision by WotC....By killing the print mags this way, they've alienated a lot of people that they didn't have to.

By killing the print mags this way, they've lost a lot of subscribers that they didn't have to.

I with Danny on this 100 percent. For me, while I like Paizo and do not wish bad tidings for them, the termination of the license is not the problem. Heck, I really like a lot of the recent WOTC books, and my (limited) interaction with WOTC staff like Matt Sernett, Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls have all been uniformly positive. So, this is not about the 'evil WOTC' or whatever in my view.

I am just bummed to be losing magazines that I look forward to reading. On-line content is fine, but does not replace print for me by a long stretch, and I frankly do not expect to pay for it as if it does. Now, if WOTC had instead announced that it would be *replacing* Paizo as the new publishers of the mags, and also offering the content on-line as either an option or add-on service, all would be cool with me. But, unfortunately, this business model costs me something and does not offer an equal or better replacement. That strikes me a short-sighted, even just from a pure revenue perspective.

Whateva. I am sure I can find something else to waste money on instead.

 

[ssampier]

I agree, plus even adults with credit cards (READ: me) have trouble justifying an internet subscription. All the online subscriptions I have access to are paid by work (and most are online extensions of a paper products, such as Consumer Reports).

With all due respect, they have a steep slope to climb. When all the dust settles I think most content will be free (ad-supported) with some content subscriber only.

I would agree they missed the boat by not keeping the paper magazines around, too.

 

[VictorC]

Which brings up another rather obvious but thus far overlooked point: not everybody *has* a credit card. The 12-year-old spending his allowance on the magazines at the FLGS, for example, just got pretty much cut right out of the equation...it's a much bigger deal to have to ask to borrow Mommy's credit card to read something online.

Lanefan

Is this the same 12 year old that dosn't have a credit, but still playes WOW. If a kid wants this service they will get it from there parents. Most of these spiteful arguements are lame at best, please grow up.

 

[Agamon]

Hrm, some of those names on team 2 were at the helm of Dragon during the "Golden Age". I'm not sure that saying that they have no idea what makes a good Dragon is true.

I think we disagree where the mags' Golden Age has been. I'd say it started 2-3 years ago and is about to end.

 

[Agamon]

A) The same people that read Dragon and Dungeon would have to be the people WotC was trying to court..

LOL! While I don't necessarily disagree with you, isn't that a lot like asking a girl out on a date by slapping her? Silly Wizards, tricks are for kids.

And all I know is, a whole lot of subscribers at Paizo are now Pathfinder subscribers (me included), which costs about the same as a sub to the mags.

WotC's online idea better absolutely blow my mind with how incredibly awesome and 'must have' it is. Otherwise, whatever...

 

[Vanuslux]

Is this the same 12 year old that dosn't have a credit, but still playes WOW. If a kid wants this service they will get it from there parents. Most of these spiteful arguements are lame at best, please grow up.

Actually, if I understand correctly, you can buy WoW time at pretty much any video game store. At least I'm pretty sure I've seen them...and what would be the point of such a product if not to let people who won't give up their CC numbers play?