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

[Odhanan]

That said, you saying it feels like a punch in the gut is ok by me. It's the "it feels like someone I loved died" that slaps me in my face.

Also, if someone really, really feels like the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon are equal to the grief felt when a loved one died, and does so from experience ... wow, you take your gaming seriously. Way too seriously in my opinion.

/M

Hi Maggan. First off, my condolences for your loss. I mean it.

I feel like I have to start by answering to your post because, well, I do feel like I've just lost loved ones with Dungeon and Dragon mags, and I do it from experience, since I lost my mother about a year ago. I love D&D. I love RPGs. This hobby is such a huge part of my life and who I am today, and Dungeon and Dragon are such a huge part of the landscape of this passion of mine, that yes, I feel like I've been stabbed in the heart on this one.

I'm sorry you feel like it's a slap in the face, and I apologize for it, but I can't help but feel like WotC just slapped me repetitively in the face too. I feel their answer as both condescending ("we have a plan") and completely unprepared.

I am underwhelmed at their response, and I am utterly disappointed. I'm not one to just cry for boycotts, but I certainly do not feel like purchasing any WotC product in the near future. I feel like I've really been taken for a moron on this one, and the answer they posted on their website feels quite the same.

I wanted to have answers, to understand.

Instead, what I understand is the lack of preparation on Wizards part, the disconnection there is between some staff members and the gaming community, and a huge condescension for us.

In restrospect, I'm very excited about Pathfinder and Paizo's new ventures. In contrast and by comparison with WotC's management of the debacle, I feel their marketing strategy, their sense of the customer, their dedication to their work (posting non stop for how many hours, really? ) and their understanding of the "craft" nature of our hobby is nothing short of admirable. I'm so into it right now.

Thanks Paizo for providing some light for me during this dark hour. I mean it.

 

[Mistwell]

Consider that the subscriber base of Dungeon is comprised mostly of dungeon masters. Each dungeon master has group of maybe 4-6 people on average. Also consider the influence that subcribers of Dungeon magazine have on the market... these aren't your average players... many are influential loyalists that may own gaming stores, may volunteer time for Gencon, etc. that are very irate.

Then go read this book...

http://www.amazon.com/Influentials-American-Tells-Other-Where/dp/0743227298

I'd argue that there are quite a few category influentials that subcribe to Dungeon.

The DM being bummed that he now has to buy Pathfinder instead of Dungeon (maybe) is not sufficient to persuade all players of the DM to cease buying all WOTC books.

If you think it is, then I think we just have a different perception of people's buying habits.

 

[Mistwell]

According to Newsweek, in 1984, there were 4 million players.

That was the height of D&D's popularity, when D&D could appear in movies (ET) without being a joke about nerds, and when it was a big enough cultural phenomenon to be researched by a major news organization.

In the decades since, the closest we've gotten to anyone carrying about our existence beyond D&D being shorthand for nerds would be the 30th anniversary NPR coverage. NPR emphasized how fun it is that some people STILL play after all these decades that the public thought it had died . . .

So 5 million players? I'm thinking that's 2-4 times too high.

It comes from Paizo, the same people that list the circulation of the magazines. If one number is flawed, why wouldn't the other number be flawed? We have the same source for both numbers, so I am going to trust them to be as accurate as we are going to get.

 

[Mistwell]

Wow! In my hayday of Dragon readership, the publication statements were in the 120,000-150,000 range, and this was the 2e era when so many "left AD&D for other games."

Yup. Readership has dwindled to about 1/3 of what it was about 15 years ago.

 

[Odhanan]

The whole "WOTC staffers are "reluctant" (cough) to come over here and talk about this mess" that Morris posted honestly cracks me up.

As someone who has worked for some fairly large corporations who've had to make some press announcements that pi$$ed off a lot of people/customers from time to time, quite honestly, I think the stance is rather unprofessional. Marketing and CS people sometimes get to have all the glory, and sometimes they have to eat the big $^&t sandwiches when it's bad press and problems. Quite frankly, where I have worked, our marketing people (that included myself) would have been reamed out and/or disciplined/fired for avoiding such a situation. An online "damage contol-blurb", would not be sufficient (in the least). Then again, we'd have our CS people up to snuff on the sitch as best we could, and also be putting out all kinds of FAQs for our customers (like Paizo did)

I'm not talking about designers now...I'm talking about the marketing people and the people in charge of this online initiative (assuming they've hired the positions yet, lol).

(...)

The point I was trying to make is WOTC FUBAR'ed this up beyond comprehension (from a business/marketing standpoint). You don't take away a 30 year old "institution" to a large number of gamers, and say "yeah well..we'll have something pretty cool in a few months...but uhm..well..we cant say what it is you're going to get..its REALLY cool , though...really....it is...cos uhm..we said so". And then you certainly don't post that poor "blurb" they are trying to pass off as damage control. You get into it with your customers and you inform them..you assure them things are gonna be OK..by giving them SOMETHING concrete...not marketing BS. You post FAQs...you have up a SAMPLE of what some of the things in the pipeline are..SHOW what you are going to do...not just tell them in vague roundabout ways and then "hide". All of this SHOULD have done before the annoucement was made....uhmm...once again..just like Paizo did.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Thurbane]

It comes from Paizo, the same people that list the circulation of the magazines. If one number is flawed, why wouldn't the other number be flawed? We have the same source for both numbers, so I am going to trust them to be as accurate as we are going to get.

Well, one number is obviously based on concrete sales figures. The other is based on...what? Asking 100 people in the street if they play D&D and then multiplying the result to get a figure representative of the whole planet?

I doubt that the method was this haphazard, but would still be curious to know how the figure was reached...

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I have heard people state that the Dungeon circulation or "influence" is "1%" and "insignificant." If it is insignificant, why bother cancelling it in the first place? Why not go ahead with the "online initiative, " since a circulation of 50K is really pennies and really not going to impact the online initiative?

 

[Jim Hague]

I have heard people state that the Dungeon circulation or "influence" is "1%" and "insignificant." If it is insignificant, why bother cancelling it in the first place? Why not go ahead with the "online initiative, " since a circulation of 50K is really pennies and really not going to impact the online initiative?

Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands? Emphasis on the latter.

 

[Thurbane]

Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands? Emphasis on the latter.

It wasn't costing WotC a cent to produce, the cost was entirely on Paizo, by my understanding.

And I have to disagree about the magazines not growing the WotC brand. Plenty of people I know first saw products they ended up buying either advertised in the magazines, or referenced in the articles and/or adventures.

 

[Agamon]

Because distributing 2 print magazines is expensive and it wasn't 'growing' the WotC brands? Emphasis on the latter.

But it isn't expensive for WotC, the ones that didn't want to renegotitate a new deal with Paizo. Paizo's the business that creates and distributes the mags, they just had to okay the content by WotC.

WotC loses nothing and gains a good deal from continuing the deal with Paizo, unless they think that Dragon and Dungeon are serious competitors to their own stuff.

And if WotC thinks the mags were serious competition for their stuff, they must also think that readership is significant. Numbers thrown around here don't really mean a lot, you know what they say about statistics...