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

[lkj]

An interesting line of thinking but lets examine this.

If WOTC leadership were really that concerned for Paizo's well being they would have . . .

~D

Well, I'm certainly in no position to really argue one way or another. It's fine to speculate on their thinking, but I doubt we really have all the relevant facts to come to any confident conclusion. I'm sure that a business calculation drove the whole thing, but I'm not comfortable concluding that no other factors were involved in how it was implemented. That said, I don't really feel like it's worth arguing about, since I think we lack sufficient info to really make it worth the effort. Now, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't put their theories out. What the heck. It's an internet messageboard after all.

Which leads me to another point-- Vocal complaints from a group of people in an internet community seems, to me, like a lot of screaming in the dark. Probably, if you totalled all the people posting in all the threads on all the messagboards in the world on this topic, it would make just a tiny, tiny fraction of the D&D consumer base. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Certainly if these messageboards make a representative sample, it still matters. I just don't have the data to say one way or another. Maybe Wizards does.

I suppose since this is all about a Digital Initiative, then the online community becomes far more important. But how many of us really post on this stuff? Until today, I almost never did. And I'll probably stop shortly. What sample does a thread like this represent? Is it something to make business decisions on? It might be. I don't know.

It's also not to say that internet outrage couldn't have an effect. Even if only a tiny fraction is complaining, there is the 'theory of the squeaky wheel'-- which is to say that I suspect not all business moves are rational either.

Yadda yadda. Just rambling really.

Cheers,
AD

 

[Henrix]

That's a bit less than 1% of the known D&D community (active player base of 5 million).

But presumably a lot higher percantage of the part of the community that really buys things - apart from the occasional PHB.

 

[morbiczer]

Mistwell!

You keep mentioning that since only about 1% of D&D players bought Dungeon & Dragon, these magazines had no real following in the market, and only a small percentage of D&D players get damaged because of their cancelation.

Some thoughts:

1.) As far as I know the source of the 5 million players was a text written by Paizo to potential advertisers. Erik Mona said himself here a day or two ago (I think it was the "big" Dragon & Dungeon thread, sorry, can't link) that they never said 5 million customers, just 5 million players. I know many, many people, who own only a PHB, or maybe the three Core books, but never have bought anything besides that. Heck, I even know regular D&D players who don't even own a PHB! (They do have their own dice though. )

2.) What circulation does an average book produced by WotC have? I don't think that there is data available for us about that, but I personaly would be very surprised if the current splatbooks or FR regional books or whatever would sell more than 40-50,000 copies. And remember that those 40-50,000 Dragons and Dungeons were sold every month! Why aren't we hearing that books like the Fiendish Codexes (Codices?), or Dragon Magic, or whatnot shouldn't be produced (or go online), because only a few ten thousand copies are sold of them? If 50,000 copies aren't much, than I'm pretty sure that not many WotC books sell "much".

3.) I'm pretty sure that those who subscribed to either Dragon or Dungeon spent much more money on D&D stuff, than the average D&D player. Even if it is true, that the buyers of the magazines formed only 1% of D&D players, I'm sure that they generated a far bigger percentage of WotC's income.

 

[Maggan]

And remember that those 40-50,000 Dragons and Dungeons were sold every month!

Nope. 13000 were sold each month to subscribers. 50 000 were circulated in total to shops and subscribers.

Not all of the mags circulated are sold. Many are returned. At least if the magazine business in the US works anything like the one in Sweden, which seems likely.

The only guaranteed sales Paizo has/had comes from subscriptions. The rest is hit and miss distribution in the hopes of selling to casual readers. Just like it is for any other magazine, I guess.

Which is why subscriptions is a corner stone of a successful magazine strategy. Unless you go for an all out ad financed model, in which case distribution becomes the corner stone of the strategy.

/M

 

[morbiczer]

Nope. 13000 were sold each month to subscribers. 50 000 were circulated in total to shops and subscribers.

Fair point.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

But presumably a lot higher percantage of the part of the community that really buys things - apart from the occasional PHB.

Exactly!

So there's 5 million D&D players. That doesn't mean that 5 million players hunt down every Wizards product. It doesn't even mean that there's 5 million people who have ever spent anything on D&D.

In my current group, it is like this: I am the one who buys quite a lot of books, buys minis, maps, and so on. One or two other people have the PHB, or even the whole Core rules. Nothing else. The other two don't have any books. That doesn't mean that those two don't play, or the other two only play a little. It's just that we don't really need 5 Tomes of Battle or Spell Compendiums. I am also the guy with the dragon subscription, but everone would read some part, if only the comics at the end.

The other gaming group I used to play in was similar: There was another guy who bought several books (though still not nearly as much as I), his girlfriend had a handful of books in German (since she didn't want to use the English ones, and I refuse to use German ones, since they're a crime agains language). The rest, between 4 and half a dozen people, didn't have any D&D books.

I would guess that we're not the big exception. I'd say that in your average group of 5 people, two don't have any books, another just has the PHB and maybe one or two other books, another had the core rules and some books, and only one has anything that can be clalled a collection.



I'd say that those who don't buy books other than the core rules (or not even them) will not subscribe to any silly online thingy, either. So out of your group of 5, you might have two potential subscribers to the Online Initiative, and many of those won't bother with it, since they either don't need any magazine-like content or don't want to pay for electronic stuff.

 

[Crothian]

But presumably a lot higher percantage of the part of the community that really buys things - apart from the occasional PHB.

I don't see any evidence that suggests people who buy these magazines are the ones who are buying all the books.

 

[BryonD]

Exactly!

So there's 5 million D&D players. That doesn't mean that 5 million players hunt down every Wizards product. It doesn't even mean that there's 5 million people who have ever spent anything on D&D..

You still are not going to make up enough difference to turn 1% into a really significant amount.

And that is before you take into account that six weeks from now the heat of this will be a long faded memory and 90%+ of the "outraged" vocal minority will be on to the next thing and looking for their next gaming fix.

 

[BryonD]

I'm guessing here.....

But I'd wager that the vast number of people forking over $10 a month to play internet required WoW is a significant factor in making WotC conclude that a viable on-line access community is out there. A tiny fraction of the WoW base would be a gold mine.

 

[morbiczer]

I don't see any evidence that suggests people who buy these magazines are the ones who are buying all the books.

There certainly is no evidence for it. (All the people I know, who bought at least some Dragons and Dungeons in the past also at least semi-regulary bought books, but that really doesn't prove anything.)

But to me at least it is simply logic that people who show far above attachment to the game in buying its magazines (especially subscribers) also buy more books than the average. Especially since many D&D players don't buy anything.

And I'm not saying that they are the ones buying all the books, just that your regular customer of Dragon and Dungeon would have spent more on other D&D stuff than those who didn't buy the magazines.