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

[Vigilance]

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.

Well everyone seems to talk about Paizo in *glowing* terms as a business. So using their numbers seems like a reasonable base. Also, those numbers are pretty in line with other numbers I've heard.

I believe Dancey's number was 2-3 million. So they might have been aiming high and doubling the number of active players, but they weren't increasing it by 10.

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?

More tomorrow than today.

And that will be true of EVERY tomorrow.

That makes this a great long-term idea imo.

Also, you show a great ignorance of those countries. China has a HUGE population of massively multiplayer online games. So obviously there's a large population of of folks not only with an internet connection, but with high-speed access.

While people don't own as many computers, people oversees have these things called internet cafes. The MMO market is huge in Korea too.

Now let's look at some numbers: China has 123 million internet users, India has 60 million internet users, Russia has 24 million internet users. All those numbers are from the CIA World Factbook btw.

That's 200 million internet users. A lot of them, based on the popularity of online gaming in those countries, are already predisposed to liking wizard's products.

Sorry, this is a great move. And it will be a better move tomorrow, and the day after that.

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

It's an either or situation because WOTC has firmly and consistently shown that they do not want to be in the magazine business.

That's why they licensed them out in the first place. Peter Adkisson has *said* as much. They he wanted to diversify Wizards, moving more heavily into stores, magazines and such. Hasbro on the other hand, wanted a nice, tight division that did ONE thing.

I don't think WOTC could have handled this better.

The people who were upset, nay *outraged* would have been no matter how many details were released, what was said etc. They lost a security blanket. Something that let them know, no matter what, that the brand was ok.

They also don't think Wizards has the right to just cancel something, if they're not LOSING MONEY on it.

It's not enough for them to just think it's going to become less viable over time, while their alternative service will become more viable.

 

[Mark CMG]

Creative Mountain Games has published an article regarding the end of Dragon and Dungeon magazines and what comes in their wake.

 

[Muad'dib Pendragon]

That's 200 million internet users. A lot of them, based on the popularity of online gaming in those countries, are already predisposed to liking wizard's products.

While I can buy everything else you referenced, I think this is a stretch. Of those 200 million users, how many would want to play a traditional pen & paper RPG? Sure, a great number (I couldn't say how many) have and will play MMPORGs, but I would venture to guess the vast majority of Chinese, Indians and Russians have never been exposed to a classical P&P RPG.

WotC has said next to nothing on its digital initiative, but IMO it's pretty clear the whole thing is meant to bring the P&P RPG, at least in part, online, in hopes of expanding it's customer base by appealing to the MMPORG crowd. To be honest, I don't see how P&P can compete, especially given its lack of exposure to the international crowd you reference. P&P would almost seem antiquated in comparison, and a step backward. P&P RPGs and MMPORGs require an entirely different mindset, not to mention the vastly different social dynamic.

If WotC somehow can, over time, bridge that gap, then they're golden. As for the traditional P&P RPGer, we must adjust or slowly die off to extinction.

As for the OP: yeah, the late posting was an attempt at placation, offering nothing substantive. Hopefully, we'll hear more shortly.

 

[kigmatzomat]

My thinking is the snafu is in irritating the people most likely to be clients of the digital initiative. Dungeon & Dragon readers are a market that has demonstrated a willingness to pay for information, just like the CMP customers were the ones proven to pay for electronic game aids.

These people comprise the the greatest likely early adopters for the digital initiative. Either WHasbrotC expects their new customers, possibly in a new demographic, to more than make up for bad feelings or they think their customer base will "get over it."

 

[JustinA]

Their statement in Dragon #351 says:
41,772 (13,517 from subs) for the most recent issue.
47,220 (13,438 from subs) average for the last 12 months.

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

We honestly don't know enough to draw any meaningful conclusion from those numbers.

1. If all 5 million members of that active player base were actively buying D&D products every month, the RPG industry would be a lot healthier than it is today. Heck, if it was even a significant fraction of that number the RPG industry would be a lot healthier today.

2. So what is the actual number for the active customers in the D&D community?

3. What percentage of people subscribed to both magazines? Is it 50% (meaning there's a readership of 60,000 for both magazines)? Is it 90% (meaning there's a readership of 45,000 for both magazines)?

4. How much influence will those 40,000 to 80,000 readers on the gamers around them? Is it typical for each reader to belong to a group of 4 other players while being the only one to subscribe? Would 40,000 purchasers of the magazine actually suggest a user base of 200,000? (The magazine industry, in general, uses a 5-to-1 ratio of sales-to-readership when setting advertising rates, IIRC. Is that number accurate? Is it lower or higher than the number for a magazine specifically directed at supporting a group activity?

5. What percentage of those 40,000 to 80,000 purchasers of the magazines will actually be significantly upset by WotC's decision? And is that percentage the hardcore fans who make up the most active consumers?

6. And, furthermore, how many people purchase the magazine infrequently? Nearly 75% of the magazine's copies appear to be sold to people who don't subscribe. If only 25% of the copies are sold to readers who only buy, say, 1-in-4 issues you've doubled the number of people actively using these magazines.

7. How much importance is WotC putting on their new "digital initiative"? How much importance was WotC giving to the idea of turning existing Dungeon/Dragon subscribers into subscribers of their new digital content?

For an example to demonstrate why these numbers are all important in actually understanding the impact upset Dungeon/Dragon subscribers could have we'll need to make up some numbers of thin air:

Let's say that the typical WotC supplement sells 50,000 copies. Let's say that there are 10,000 fans who religiously buy essentially every WotC supplement as its released. Let's say that another 20,000 copies are sold to a customer base of 100,000 customers who buy 1-in-5 WotC supplements. The other 20,000 copies are sold to more casual customers, who we'll ignore for simpicity's sake.

How likely is it that a fan who buys every official supplement would also buy the official magazines? Pretty likely. So let's assume that pretty much all of the 10,000 hard-corers use Dragon or Dungeon at least some of the time. Let's also make the assumption that these are the fans most likely to be pissed off by WotC's decision. Maybe some of them just drop WotC altogether; maybe some just stop buying religiously. Whatever. Let's say this base takes a hit of just 10%. That's instantly a 2% drop in sales for every single WotC product.

A similar 10% hit in the 100,000 customers who buy 1-in-5 supplements represents a 4% drop in sales.

So if just 11,000 people (25% of the lowest possible number of magazine readers; but probably more like 10% of a reasonable estimate) decide to significantly reduce or drop their WotC purchasing habits, WotC could be looking at a 5-6% drop in sales.

Or they might be looking at more. Or they might be looking at less. Like I say, we just don't know enough about the numbers.

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.

The 5 million number is based on the exact same type of market research that the 4 million number would have been based on. (And, actually, the research behind the 5 million number was probably more thorough, since it was the result of actual market research -- whereas Newsweek's number was probably just a flat poll.)

The population of the U.S. was 234,000,000 in 1984: http://www.enworld.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3472158

So a player base of 4,000,000 in 1984 represented 1.7% of the population.

1.7% of the population today would be 5,000,000.

And there's really no reason to suspect that the market has actually shrunk in any significant degree. 3rd Edition was a massive success in recapturing and growing the fanbase by all accounts.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Now let's look at some numbers: China has 123 million internet users, India has 60 million internet users, Russia has 24 million internet users. All those numbers are from the CIA World Factbook btw.

That's 200 million internet users. A lot of them, based on the popularity of online gaming in those countries, are already predisposed to liking wizard's products.

Predisposed how? By being MMOers? While I'd say it's true that many PnP RPGers play MMO's, they're a small fraction of that group, compared to MMOers who are simply video gamers and haven't or don't care to play PnP games.

Assuming that you've got a built-in customer base for your traditional RPG just because there are huge numbers of MMOs out there that people are playing isn't terribly logical. The two types of gaming are vastly different experiences, and appeal to different sorts of interests.

Now, if the Digital Initiative is pushing for development beyond just the PnP format- such as online "tabletop" gaming and graphical interface support, real-time networking, etc.- then I'd say that there might be something to the idea of bringing in the MMO crowd. If the plan is just to use the DI as online support for continuing print efforts for the PnP format- then it's a flawed premise to assume putting things online will necessarily tap into that market.

 

[delericho]

More tomorrow than today.

And that will be true of EVERY tomorrow.

That makes this a great long-term idea imo.

Sorry, this is a great move. And it will be a better move tomorrow, and the day after that.

Agreed... if it works.

The other scenario sees them investing a lot of money in a Digital Initiative on the hopes that it will very quickly recoup the investment. If it fails to do so, they're committed to spending more money in providing content for the DI, content that probably isn't justified by the subscriber base. So, it continues to bleed money. If things pick up, they're fine (or, in fact, great), but if not, there will come a point where some business manager will look at it, see it's been bleeding money for months/years, and always had the promise of coming good 'any time now', and so he cancels it. (And quite rightly.)

Problem is, D&D then suddenly shows a massive loss, as all the investment has to be written off. So, when the Hasbro board look at the numbers, and see this 'line item' with a large and unexpected deficit, they're inclined to cancel the line. But they won't sell off or license the rights, because the D&D brand will retain significant value.

If the DI works as intended, it could be the best thing for gaming since 1974. If it fails, it could take the entire game with it. (Now, shall we look at WotC's track record with electronic endeavours to see which is more likely?)

They also don't think Wizards has the right to just cancel something, if they're not LOSING MONEY on it.

Wizards have every right to cancel the magazines for whatever reason they choose. Of course, by the same token, any subset of their customers have every right to be angry at their actions for any reason they choose, or even for no reason at all.

But if customers feel betrayed, whether they were or not, then they're less likely to buy. And that is a problem Wizards have to address, or lose customers. And, with margins as thin as they are in the RPG business, and with the expectations of Hasbro haunting them, that percentage of customers can WotC really afford to lose?

 

[Vigilance]

While I can buy everything else you referenced, I think this is a stretch. Of those 200 million users, how many would want to play a traditional pen & paper RPG? Sure, a great number (I couldn't say how many) have and will play MMPORGs, but I would venture to guess the vast majority of Chinese, Indians and Russians have never been exposed to a classical P&P RPG.

A certain percentage of gamers will be drawn to P&P RPGs. They will like the ultimate customizability, the ability to tell a story, their OWN story, etc.

My point in reminding folks how popular MMOs are in Asia is to point out that there are gamers there. Folks like us. People HERE have plenty of MMO access, some like them in addition to P&P, some prefer them to P&P.

There are gamers in Asia, and the population is several times that of the US.

WOTC should grow the hobby.

This is how.

 

[Vigilance]

Predisposed how? By being MMOers? While I'd say it's true that many PnP RPGers play MMO's, they're a small fraction of that group, compared to MMOers who are simply video gamers and haven't or don't care to play PnP games.

Right, just like people who MMOs here are gamers who MIGHT like P&P RPGs if exposed to them.

People keep saying Dragon introduced them to the hobby.

Putting Dragon online is the best way to reach Asia, a population several times the size of the US.

This is a good idea.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Imagine they did that for a minute. Imagine the furor that would cause if WOTC brought out something in direct competition with its own licensee and drilled them into the ground. I'm not saying that its a foregone conclusion, but, let's just picture that scenario for a moment.

1. WOTC loses money because Paizo can't pay the licensing fees.
2. WOTC looks like a complete bastard because the big guy beat up the little guy.

Where is the win situation for WOTC in that scenario? If Paizo continues and continues to do well, then it competes with WOTC using WOTC's own material. Remember, Paizo doesn't have to spend a dime to come up with any of the books that it uses as a basis for articles in the magazine. Those eight pages a month of class acts are drawn competely from WOTC PI. A good quarter of all the monsters appearing in Dungeon adventures are drawn from WOTC PI. All the "campaign classics" articles, Forgotten Realms, Volo's Guides, Eberon articles, etc. all drawn from WOTC PI.

True, paid for by the license.

But, how would WOTC benefit from allowing that to continue if they are going to do it themselves, regardless of format?