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

[Zaruthustran]

Next thing will have the miniature line go online with E-miniatures! No more of those mini's collecting dust you will have instant access to hundreds of miniatures with a click of a mouse! All your D&D favorites in full 24-bit color at 256x256!

Actually, now that you mention it: I would love that. Well, higher res, but I love the concept of online minis gameplay.

After, oh, Giants of Legend I had way too many D&D minis. It was a hassle to build a warband, simply because the inventory was too great--too many powers and possible synergies (especially with Commander effects) to keep track of. Not to mention the annoyance of constantly tabulating--on paper--the point cost of your warband, to make sure you stayed under 100 (or whatever).

So I built an Excel sheet and laboriously entered all of my card info. Now I can build a warband in moments, instantly vet synergies (fireball casters with fire-immune troops, fear casters with undead, crazy commander effects allowing off-faction models, etc.) and be 100% confident the point totals are legal.

Then they introduced ever more models and I gave up the hobby. Too much work.

So yeah, I would love an online D&D Miniatures game, complete with 3-d models, sounds, cool attack animations, etc. I want the computer to handle line of sight, keep track of movement, resolve attacks and saves, track hit points, etc. I want to concentrate of tactics and strategy, not the fiddly bits. I want a complete game able to be played in 10 minutes instead of 1 hour.

I want the fun of collecting and warband building, the excitement of opening a new "pack", the fun of tactical minis combat--without the non-fun fuss of math/bookkeeping or the hassle of scheduling time to physically meet up with other players.

In other words, I want this: http://www.poxnora.com/index.do



-z

 

[Ourph]

Someone is interested in fantasy RPGs, because he already plays World of Warcraft at an internet cafe in China. We know he has internet access, likes fantasy role-play, likes gaming online, and can purchase things online.

Yes, all of the people you mention above are capable of becoming e-Dragon/Dungeon customers. I'm just wondering if you have any information that suggest the number of people in that group who are actually likely to become e-Dragon/Dungeon customers.

I don't think I need a market research study to label him a potential customer.

I suppose you could make the argument that he might be a likely customer for D&D, but how likely is he to be a customer for e-Dragon/Dungeon? As you have pointed out several times, only 1% or less of all D&D players felt the need to buy print versions of Dragon/Dungeon and that's looking only at people who have already shown an interest in PnP RPGs. I follow your reasoning that the people you describe are a potential market for D&D that can probably only be reached through the internet. What I don't follow is why you dismiss 1% periodical sales as "too small to worry about" but seem to attach such significance to the number of Asians playing MMOs online when no one knows what percentage of that group would actually purchase e-Dragon/Dungeon. Is there anything to indicate that it would reach 50-60,000?

And for that matter, if I had one, you'd just discount it and ask for another number.

Since that's what you did with the other statistics I provided.

I haven't discounted any of the statistics you've been quoting. Assuming they are accurate they do say a lot about the penetration of Dragon and Dungeon into the D&D player population and the availability of internet acces overseas. I just said that (while they are not inconsistant with them) they don't necessarily support some of the predictions you've made and wanted to know if you were basing those predictions on additional information.

Im not going to dance for you, just so you can keep coming to the conclusion you've already arrived at.

I am stating opinions. But I think I've shown why those opinions were logically derived.

I'm not challenging your right to offer an opinion (logically derived or not) and you certainly have the right NOT to reply to me if you don't want to.

 

[BryonD]

But equally, it is foolish for Wizards to look at the WoW market and think that they can offer the DI to duplicate that.

Who said anything about duplicating it?


It is closer to opening a store in a popular mall or opening an ice cream shop near a sports arena.
The audience is there, it is up to you to offer a product they want.
There have been numerous claims that online will be hurt by lack of internet access. That is bunk.
Trying to misrepresent what I said as anything else is a waste of typing.

If a number equal to 5% of the WoW audience went for this then it would blow the doors completely off of anything Dragon in print ever dreamed of. That doesn't mean 5% stop doign WoW. That doesn't mean 5% go to DI for the same things they go to WoW for. It just means that there is clearly a huge market of on line people willing to spend monthly cash on gaming related content. They don't even have to be actual WoW players. The whole point is that the market is there.

I don't actually think that they can even get near to 5%. But they don't need to get near to blowing the doors off Dragon's dream in order to be a big success.

Now the product could still suck and be a total failure. But that would be a reflection on the product, and not at all on the level of marketplace.

 

[Vigilance]

I follow your reasoning that the people you describe are a potential market for D&D that can probably only be reached through the internet. What I don't follow is why you dismiss 1% periodical sales as "too small to worry about" but seem to attach such significance to the number of Asians playing MMOs online when no one knows what percentage of that group would actually purchase e-Dragon/Dungeon. Is there anything to indicate that it would reach 50-60,000?

I never meant to say that the subscriber base that the magazines were bringing in was too small to worry about, if I gave that impression, I typed in haste

However, Wizards has never shown me any sign that they EVER had a desire to be in the magazine business once Peter Adkisson left. In my opinion, that's the reason they licensed out the magazines to Paizo to begin with.

When Wizards was the whole company, it made sense to Peter Adkission to diversify. They had magazines and even expanded into having stores.

When Wizards became a small part of a very large company, that need was no longer there.

And there's other reasons to get rid of the magazines too. Making your website THE portal for anything online has a lot of value and there's no reason why Wizards couldn't and shouldn't take steps to drive all D&D players to their site on a regular basis.

And then of course there's the international market, which to me is the icing on the cake.

And I KNOW there's some players out there, who play D&D, have internet access and have good enough English to read D&D books in our language.

How do I know this? Becuase I have had them buy PDFs from me.

Chuck

 

[Thurbane]

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

Well, not really. All I'm saying is that I've yet to see the "1% of gamers" statement proved as fact.

It may well be the case, but a lot of people are basing a large chunk of their argument on it. In my admittedly far fetched example above, the figure may have been as high as 50%. (Personally, I don't think it would be anywhere near that high).

I supposed I'm just asking people to keep an open mind that the 1% figure may not necessarily be fact...

 

[Zaruthustran]

I suppose you could make the argument that he might be a likely customer for D&D, but how likely is he to be a customer for e-Dragon/Dungeon? As you have pointed out several times, only 1% or less of all D&D players felt the need to buy print versions of Dragon/Dungeon and that's looking only at people who have already shown an interest in PnP RPGs.

Just want to point out e-Dragon/Dungeon won't exist as standalone products. They're just two parts of the larger DI.

Re: the 1% or less who buy print versions, that's an entire standalone case. Even if e-Dragon/Dungeon were available standalone, there's no evidence to assume print subscription numbers would be larger (or smaller) than e-Dragon subscription numbers. Even if the content is the same, they're different products.

-z

 

[Thurbane]

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.

The only reason I used TEN was because of what Mistwell said in the first place:

Heck, it could be off by a factor of TEN and still result in these mags being really small relative to the whole.

As I've already said, I personally don't think the figure IS that far out.

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.

I have a friend living in China with his fiance at the moment. I keep hearing from him how hard it is to get access to the net. Your experience may differ.

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

So you think having to go out to a internet cafe to read online content is as practical or convenient as a printed magazine?

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.

Well, I'm still yet to be convinced. And as I said, my argument isn't that the online initiative should never have come about, or that it is a bad thing - my argument all along has been that cancelling Dragon and Dungeon in printed magazine format is a bad move, regardless of what they do with their online initiative.

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 haven't once asked for WotC to get back into the magazine business, simply to accept a payment from Paizo to continue their license.

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

On this we definitely disagree.

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.

This is a blatantly false assumption, not to mention more than a little insulting. While I certainly can't speak for anyone else, myself (and quite a few people I have spoken to in person) would most defintely have been less upset if WotC had handled the announcement with more info on what is to come and some reassurances to the fans of the cancelled mags.

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.

WotC are a company - within the limits of the law, they have the right to do whatever they darn well please, I have no delusions about that. Just as I have a right to be POd with what I view as a lack of respect for their consumer base, and the right to vote with my wallet.

 

[Hussar]

I haven't once asked for WotC to get back into the magazine business, simply to accept a payment from Paizo to continue their license.

I've seen this time and time again and my question still doesn't get answered.

What benefit does WOTC get allowing Paizo to continue publishing Dragon and Dungeon if they are going to produce similar (or same) material? Considering Paizo is using WOTC's own PI to push their magazines, how would it possibly help WOTC to compete with its own licencee?

Take the ENnies for a second. People complain that WOTC doesn't enter the ENnies. But, again, there is simply no upside for WOTC. If they enter and win, then everyone complains that the 900 pound gorilla is pushing out the little guy. If they lose, then everyone nods and strokes their beards and pats themselves on the back because obviously WOTC doesn't publish anything of value.

It's a completely lose-lose situation.

The same is true here. If WOTC, with the DI, comes to dominate the market and Dragon and Dungeon take a nosedive, then they are the big bullies screwing the little guy. If the DI fails, then, well, it's just vindication for all the WOTC detractors out there. There's simply no upside.

So, to all those out there who think that Dragon and Dungeon should be allowed to continue, please answer the following question: What benefit does WOTC get for allowing Paizo to retain the license?

 

[WayneLigon]

Someone is interested in fantasy RPGs, because he already plays World of Warcraft at an internet cafe in China. We know he has internet access, likes fantasy role-play, likes gaming online, and can purchase things online.

I don't think I need a market research study to label him a potential customer.

I don't usually observe this happening. Technically, they're not interested in RPG's because they're not playing one; virtually no 'roleplaying' occurs, even on 'roleplaying' servers. Most people are there to get their character to 70th in the shortest time possible, then test combinations and argue back and forth about which ones are better. Or they're drawn by the carrot-and-the-stick potential of getting that one uber-powerful bit of armor or weapon so they get the bragging rights for it.

They're not playing an RPG; they're playing a somewhat different boardgame, and from what I've seen virtually none of them have any interest or even knowledge of tabletop RPGs.

I've also not seen much to suggest they even like fantasy all that much. A large segment of the MM market seems to switch readily to whatever is in front of them at the time; they play it until they 'beat' it, then move on to the next one. Fantasy seems to work, but I think large part of that is just piggybacking off the initial successes in the market which happened to be fantasy. City of Heroes was damn popular for a time, and I can't say we saw any increase in people wanting to migrate from that to superhero RPGs or comics. It was just something else to beat.

 

[Thurbane]

And that's great for Paizo - kudos to them, and I mean that. But it wasn't building D&D, it was building Paizo.

This is an opinion I've read several times now. I'm genuinely curious - how do magazines full of (primarily) D&D content not build D&D? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology...