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

[Thurbane]

And then, if we multiply that number you pulled out of a hat by THREE, suddenly 150% of players are affected!!!

Dude!!!

Exactly my point, the number is as likely to be substantially larger than it is to be substantially smaller.

All I'm asking is that people stop bandying about "1% of the community" as though it is gospel.

Here's the thing: there's a really good chance WOTC knows their business better than anyone on these boards.

If they think this is a good call, they probably have some market research not publically available on a web page to back it up.

I humbly disagree. Because WotC are a company does not mean that they, or their market research, are infallible.

In my 20+ years in various industries, I have seen major companies make mistakes that a humble member of the lower eschelons could have picked up. Trust me, it happens. New Coke anyone?

Also, everyone says WOTC needs to grow the hobby. Last I looked, there are a lot more people in Russia, China and India than there EVER will be in the US.

Everyone who's posted to a thread saying how Dragon introduced them to gaming? Think of how many gamers could be reached, introduced, encouraged, etc.

Sure, and just how many of those people do you imagine own their own PC and have reliable, cheap internet access, as compared to those who can receive something by post?

You're also looking at this as an either/or situation - myself, I firmly believe the online initiative and the print magazines could have happily co-existed.

Finally, the worst day to make this move online is TODAY. Every day going forward, it's a better move, because the world gets more connected every day and technology makes reading online a more pleasant experience.

People are saying WOTC is being short-sighted in this move. I actually think it's the opposite. The downside is now, with the outrage at people losing their magazines.

The downside will get smaller over time. The upside will get larger.

Only time will tell, but for my 2 cents, I believe WotC could have handled the whole thing A LOT better than they did.

 

[Maggan]

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

Thank you for your kind and well measured reply. My condoleances, as well.

/M

 

[Maggan]

Sure, and just how many of those people do you imagine own their own PC and have reliable, cheap internet access, as compared to those who can receive something by post?

In my travels around the world, I've been amazed at how wide spread Internet access is. In South America and Asia there were Internet cafés all over the place. Someone had hooked up to the Internet, got a few computers as well and made money on the tourists. Which benefited the local people as well.

And to compare to Sweden, a lot of the WoW playing is done in gaming cafés, where you get together with your friends, rent a computer for a while and play.

So you don't have to own a computer to get access to the Internet.

/M

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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

You make a very good argument. For continuing the magazines, that is: If it's expensive, it means that Paizo has to pay expanses. If it's not growing the brand, it means that it doesn't do so well.

So let them continue throwing money out of the window - after the new and "totally awesome" online rag is available, they will go out of business, and Wizards has shown that they're the better competitor.

 

[BryonD]

All I'm asking is that people stop bandying about "1% of the community" as though it is gospel.

So you are all for the debate as long as data that doesn't support your cause is excluded without a fact based reason.

 

[BryonD]

Any idea how big that community actually is?

Nope.

But clearly a potential market of online gamers exists that is already generating vastly more revenue than Dragon.

 

[BryonD]

Apples and oranges. WoW and other MMORPGS provide a completely different form of entertainment than a magazine does. I'd be pretty skeptical of any research demonstrating any sort of causal relationship between the two, and would think that any marketing decisions on such information should be considered suspect. IMO, of course.

One arguement being presented was that this was a bad move because of limited access to online content.
I'm not claiming an causal relationship. I'm claiming that there are a ton of gamers out there with online access.
I'm sure you can find some stray examples, but in terms of making a good economic choice, lack of access isn't even going to make a blip in the data.

 

[delericho]

But clearly a potential market of online gamers exists that is already generating vastly more revenue than Dragon.

Honestly, I fail to see how the WoW network of players has any bearing on (pen and paper) D&D. The people who subscribe to MMORPGs every month do so in order to play the game, not to read some magazine about playing the game. It's an entirely different experience.

I'm not claiming that this means that the Wizards DI is doomed - without evidence, that would be foolish. But equally, it is foolish for Wizards to look at the WoW market and think that they can offer the DI to duplicate that. It's an entirely different product and an entirely different experience. The fact that the delivery mechanism is the same is irrelevant - no-one pays to receive a product by post, they pay to receive a product by post.

 

[delericho]

So you are all for the debate as long as data that doesn't support your cause is excluded without a fact based reason.

The thing is, that 1% data point is pretty important to the debate - if it's accurate then I'd agree that Dragon's readership probably is irrelevant in the scheme of things. But if it's wrong...

Now, reason has been given to suggest that the player base of 5,000,000 is overstated. (And, if it's taken from a stat sheet used to encourage advertising, that alone should be enough to throw it into doubt - given that it's an estimate and not a concrete and verifiable data point, you would naturally shoot high.) The question is, is it overstated, and if so by how much?

If it is off by a factor of 10, suddenly that 1% turns into 10%, and that probably is significant.

And, yes, I think it is relevant to consider how much of the player base is actually part of the customer base. If the average WotC product sells tens of thousands of copies, that suggests that the customer base itself isn't much higher than that 10% (although that's hard to quantify, since not everyone buys the same books, so it could well be double, triple, or more than that). And then there genuinely is the overlap between the two groups to consider.

Anecdotally, of the six people in my group I own lots of books, one other owns the three core rulebooks and the Spell Compendium, and a third has a Player's Handbook. The others manage without. Now, of course, statistically that has no bearing whatsoever... but do Wizards actually have concrete data on how many active customers they have, as opposed to active players?

That's a large part of the fun of statistics - they can be used to 'prove' any point you want, and conversely can be taken, mangled, and rearranged to disprove the exact same point. My gut feeling is that Wizards have made a big mistake in doing as they have... but time will tell. And, it's not as if I will mind being wrong about this one, given the alternative.

 

[JVisgaitis]

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

Sorry, I'd have to say the exact opposite. The magazines were better then they have been in years. Paizo has built up a huge presence and has a massive store, and Wizards wants to take back the magazines now that they are successful and build on that.

AT&T did the same thing with Cingular. Cingular bought out AT&T and the AT&T brand disappeared. Several years later Cingular has amassed a lot of clients and is doing well, so AT&T buys them. Happens all the time and makes sense.

I just hope they don't just bring in the same content as the magazines and put them online. I feel that they need to add a lot more for this type of transition.