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

[Zaruthustran]

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.

This may be a hijack, but: that's what D&D has become. The best-selling products are those with the most "crunch". D&D in its modern form is less about interactive storytelling, and very much more about character building and tactical combat.

Living Greyhawk is a good barometer. If one brings an unoptimized character--say, a Fighter with cross-class skills in "Perform" just because the player thinks it's neat to have a lute-playing Fighter--the rest of the table will laugh. Each character has a job to do, and anything that detracts from the efficiency of that character's completion of his job jeopardizes everyone else.

With all the feats, PRCs, and combos available, I'd wager that most people play D&D as you describe. The nature of 3.5 encourages powergame mentality. Not to mention that powergamers tend to be willing to pay good money for new books (read, new ways to optimize their builds) while those unconcerned with uber characters are satisfied with just the PHB.

Point is: D&D's incredible depth and crunchiness is very appealing to MMORPG players. There's a good chance they'd give D&D a try if it were presented in a familiar and appealing format.

-z

 

[JustinA]

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.

I don't think WotC's mistake here is necessarily pulling the license from Paizo.

WotC's mistake is killing the magazines.

What WotC should be doing is continuing to offer the magazines while offering digital content which includes all the magazine content and bonus content besides. Imagine a scenario where WotC said:

"Dragon and Dungeon are coming home. We think Paizo has done caretaking them these past five years, but because we're looking to integrate their content even more tightly into our development of D&D we've decided it makes the most sense for us to resume production of these magazines in-house.

Subscription rates will remain the same (or perhaps increase slightly), but with that subscription you will also receive free access to our digital initiative. As an alternative, you can also subscribe to just the digital initiative for $10 a month."

Is anyone complaining at that point? Oh, sure, we might hear a few grumbles about how Paizo did a wonderful job (they did) and how WotC will drive the magazines right back into the ground (they might), but I doubt you'd see the absolute vituperative hate which WotC has "successfully" generated by cancelling the magazines instead.

And it's important to remember that the magazines are, by all accounts, profitable. And maybe those profits aren't big enough to satisfy WotC/Hasbro -- but if they're not, then WotC is screwed because their digital initiative is doomed.

 

[Thurbane]

Yes, I am assuming those things, because statistics lead me to believe they're true.

Do you really need a study to believe that?

Let's look at this:

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.

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.

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.

Feel free to agree or disagree.

I disagree then.

I see no evidence that putting Dragon online is going to rope in a significant percentage of online FPRG players. How will these people hear about WotC online initiative? Word of mouth? Ads in online gaming sites?

I honestly can't see Dragon moving from print format to online format causing a stampede of online MMORPG players to jump on board. You honestly can't tell me that most of the interested parties haven't at least heard of D&D already? They still need the core rulebooks, dice and such to play - I just can't see the fact that the primary industry mag has moved online providing enough incentive for a significant portion of the people to jump over to D&D...

 

[JustinA]

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

If you believe this to be true, then you must also believe that the entire D20/OGL scheme was folly.

All evidence points to the contrary.

 

[JustinA]

This may be a hijack, but: that's what D&D has become. The best-selling products are those with the most "crunch". D&D in its modern form is less about interactive storytelling, and very much more about character building and tactical combat.

Your conclusion doesn't really follow from your premise. It's just as likely those products sell because a lot of people are interested in getting the raw tools they can use to create their own stories and memorable characters. That's why I prefer crunch supplements.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Your conclusion doesn't really follow from your premise. It's just as likely those products sell because a lot of people are interested in getting the raw tools they can use to create their own stories and memorable characters. That's why I prefer crunch supplements.

The PHB and DMG give the raw tools. Make up your own feats, classes, and whatnot for new stories and memorable characters--same as in 2E or OD&D. You don't need the crunch books for that.

What the crunch books add are shiny new feats and powers, like swapping Turn Undead for cool abilities or sacrificing sneak attack dice for debuffs.

Those new crunchy bits aren't needed--at all--to tell stories or create memorable characters. The only value they have is in unlocking new "official" powers and abilities. It may be too fine a distinction, but that sounds like powergame to me. The same motivator behind finding the next Purple drop on a WoW critter is behind buying the next Complete book for the new feats and classes.

-z

ps: welcome to Enworld!

 

[Thurbane]

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?

It benefits WotC as not being seen as the grinch whole stole Dragon, for starters...

I agree that from a business standpoint, killing off opposition is a sound tactic. It won't win you a lot of hearts, however, and it also POd a significant portion of their consumer base.

Like I've said numerous times, a large part of my beef isn't the actual cancelling of the magazines, but rather WotC lack of info on what is to come, and the lack of empathy for their consumer base in the way the announcement was handled.

Take a look at Paizo - they aren't getting anywhere near the type of "bad press" that WotC have gotten over this. Why? Because they had answers ready for the consumers, and have been willing to share those answers.

The other point, is that some people have been claiming the digital initiative major purpose for WotC is to reach a wider audience than the print mags. This being the case, surely having both the DI and print mags would reach a wider audience still...

...from a purely financial standpoint, though, if WotC aim was to kill off opposition to their DI, I'd be hard pressed to argue against the decision (I'd still say that the PR side of things has been epically mishandled, however).

 

[Hussar]

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...

Because very little in Dragon is original. It borrows almost entirely from WOTC PI. Even the really great articles like Demonomicon and Core Faiths are not original material. No one would read the Demonomicon articles if they were not about core D&D demons. Core Faiths about Scarred Lands deities would make me really happy, but, do you think they would sell magazines?

And it's important to remember that the magazines are, by all accounts, profitable. And maybe those profits aren't big enough to satisfy WotC/Hasbro -- but if they're not, then WotC is screwed because their digital initiative is doomed.

WOTC doesn't have to make the same profit that Paizo made. They only have to make more profit than the license paid for it to make sense for them.

As far as putting out both a print and digital forms, again, that's just competing with itself. There's no upside for WOTC.

 

[Thurbane]

Because very little in Dragon is original. It borrows almost entirely from WOTC PI. Even the really great articles like Demonomicon and Core Faiths are not original material. No one would read the Demonomicon articles if they were not about core D&D demons. Core Faiths about Scarred Lands deities would make me really happy, but, do you think they would sell magazines?

So, what sort of content would grow D&D? New rules, new spells, new PrCs? Dragon has certainly had it's share of these. I'm not really sure I get your point. :\

 

[daemonslye]

What benefit does WOTC get allowing Paizo to continue publishing Dragon and Dungeon if they are going to produce similar (or same) material?

None.

As an amoral corporate entity - None at all.

In fact, the best thing for the entity is to also restrict it's small competitor from even coming out with another magazine for as long as it can.

This brings about the added benefit of shutting off another avenue for other smaller competitors to reach a possibly interested consumer base. (Why no ads in Pathfinder? Would that make it a magazine?)

The best thing for the entity is to restrict Content to mediums and forms it controls - for the good of the entity and to maximize profits.

Of course I'm kidding here (somewhat);

But all kidding aside, I rather thought that WOTC was interested in promoting the industry on behalf of gamers. I mean, thats what this is all for right? A game? A social outlet for folks to let off some steam and relax (in a relatively wholesome way)?

If I thought, for a minute, I was giving my money to an uncaring conglomerate that views it customers as simple fodder, then I would find other places to invest my money. I don't believe in that business model.

If WOTC wants us all online, then PROVE the model with great content and varied access models. In the meantime, they should have left the "little guys" doing what they do, on behalf of their shared customers.

But, the Entity, in it's machine-like wisdom, cares naught for a little, how was it put?, "Nerd rage".

~D