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

[daemonslye]

Nevertheless, it looks like WotC's business model requires creation and distribution of the sort of content that Dragon and Dungeon previously featured.

The question is, which customers were CLAMORING for this new business model? I kind of thought our guys at Paizo were starting to turn a corner.

How does WOTC run a successful business model? Create the best official content in the industry; Regardless of medium or channel.

Why shutdown the competition (as insignificant as it is?)? Because. They. Can. ....and, perhaps, it helps to show the content providers (3p & freelancers) who runs the show. Who gets Top Priority? You sir! Yessir! To whom should the 3rd party companies kowtow? Where will your next prestige class come from? Once place. www.4e.assimilation.com. Look directly into the sun and follow us my friend. We will collect your wallets/cc's/paypal accounts at the door.

This "Digital Initiative" makes me crack a grin. What gamer would ever, EVER, call their new campaign a, my goodness, "Digital Initiative"?? It's as if the words themselves had put on a blue suit and tie. Someone, somewhere has lost the perspective of their customers.

I absolutely LOVE D&D. So do my players.

We always thought those that made the sacrifice to work in the industry (a tough thing considering there are people out there willing to work for almost free) were watching our collective backs and working hard to bring us the best experience - that's why we, without a thought, bought EVERY product released. It was... solidarity.

Piratecat - I hold a lot of respect for your passion for the Game. It's just that every time I run the scenarios of options together (with the limited current info I have, of course), I keep coming up with:

1. WOTC wants to make a change regardless of the wishes of it's client base or partners.

2. WOTC is arrogant enough to assume that I don't matter (e.g. Me. a Long Time (prolific) Player of the Game. One who appreciates the history of the game.)

3. WOTC does not feel the need spend real effort answering our questions in a timely matter (e.g. You are Insignificant) - e.g. "We were ready for this - but we don't have our people standing by just this minute... We'll get back to you when we can properly Process your concerns."

I know, "Nerd Rage" it is. Stupid for me to spend some 29 years playing this game. Never - during any other time (1997 or 3E switch-over) did I feel this way. 96-98 was not a surprise (for most) and 3E was well communicated and pre-released to those willing to try it. I converted an entire base (some 30 or so players; Who went on to spread the word) to 3E.

I find myself, at this point, assuming that the WOTC employees we care about are sharing our concerns, that WOTC former partners are looking for Options, that (long-time) Customers of WOTC are wondering whether the Company cares about them - at all... Perhaps a negative viewpoint.

The only consolation offered from folks who disagree is "Well, WOTC has a NEUTRAL alignment (Hey, they are a "corporate entity"). I thought you knew that. I did. Wake up, Suckers."

OK. Fine. I'm awake now. And sort of not happy about the whole thing. Disilllusionment sucks. Maybe it's healthy. That does not mean I have to like it.

~D

 

[Maggan]

So, WOTC succeeds with a good product, Paizo fails because it comes in second best and everyone would be groovy with that? Really? There would be no giant uproar about how the big guy undercut the little guy?

I agree that there would be an uproar. Simply because it is impossible to get everyone to agree on what a better products is, so WotC would be bound to be accused of underhand methods if Paizo would go under.

It's basically what some of the Kingdoms of Kalamar fans are claiming already.

/M

 

[Maggan]

Stupid for me to spend some 29 years playing this game.

Sometimes I feel the same. Probably for wildly different reasons though.

/M

 

[Alnag]

Damn, I haven't been here for a day and I see the massacre continues. Now it is the Dragonlance licence. What the hell is happening? What's going on? I don't get it...

 

[pedr]

I'll back that comment up. LG is not typical D&D by any stretch.

That's true to a degree - at least, I think it is as I don't have a huge amount of non-RPGA 3E D&D experience. By all accounts, including some of my limited experience, LG is significantly worse than home-campaign D&D in a number of areas.

However, it is better than home-campaign D&D in some other areas, which may be relevant for this kind of discussion:

1) The committment level is very small. Home-campaigns require a small, tight-knit group of people who get on well enough to want to spend regular time with one-another committing to spending regular time with one-another over a potentially open-ended time-period. LG and other RPGA-style games require a committment of 5-6 hours. If you like the people you played with, you might play with them again. If you didn't, you probably won't.

2) Following on from this, RPGA-style adventures are perhaps better suited for electronic/internet-based delivery. One of the downsides to them is that they are often quite limited by the material in the module. An upside to this, though, is that there's no expectation that the DM ought to be able to 'pull something out of his hat' should the PCs wander far from the point: part of the shared expectations of the players is that they're going to actually play the adventure they are signed up for. This sometimes requires metagaming and offends the suspension of disbelief, but it makes the experience more predictable from the DM's point of view, making it easier to prepare the necessary material for an online game.

3) The urge to optimize mentioned above may well appeal to a different audience from those who play home-campaigns. The reported desire of MMORPG players to find combinations, exploits, advantages and other ways of making the most of the resources available is one shared by many LG players and forms part of the game. It's not the same thing as traditional character-building, but it wouldn't be accurate to say it's 'not' D&D.

These factors may make an LG-style approach a growth-point of D&D, particularly if excellent online delivery tools are developed. Certainly it has the possibility of solving the problem which I believe vexes WotC: how to provide the opportunities for more people to experience playing D&D.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Remember that the people at WotC really like the people at Paizo -- they know them, they game with them, and they've worked with them for years. WotC also has lots of reasons to want Paizo to do well; they help the industry by being healthy. Nevertheless, it looks like WotC's business model requires creation and distribution of the sort of content that Dragon and Dungeon previously featured. So they don't renew the licenses, making sure that Paizo has time to acquire other revenue streams.

Again, just supposition, but I think a reasonable one from what I know of their friendship and relationship.

Heck, don't some of the people at Paizo do work for WoTC? (Looks at certain Expedition book with title of authors.)

 

[Gallo22]

The best time to get out is always at the high point. Letting the magazines stutter and fall would not be good for anyone.

Where do you get this information from??? :\ From all accounts both magazines were doing very well and making a profit according to Paizo. Both magazines were doing better then they have ever done. This is not just speculation, it's fact.

 

[Ourph]

So, WOTC succeeds with a good product, Paizo fails because it comes in second best and everyone would be groovy with that? Really? There would be no giant uproar about how the big guy undercut the little guy?

I'm not going to argue no one would be upset by that scenario, but, yes, I suspect there would be alot less harsh feelings because it gives the customers the chance to vote directly with their wallet. If the DI succeeds in pulling customers away from Paizo and Dragon and/or Dungeon still fail then at least the loyal periodical customers had a chance to compete. Yanking the license and killing the print magazines is like WotC cancelling the "game" and declaring DI the "winner" by default. A lot of customers perceive that move as "unfair" (to them, not to Paizo).

 

[JustinA]

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.

"Your imagination gives you the raw tools. Make up your own rules and whatnot -- same Gygax and Arneson did. You don't need rulebooks for that!"

...

Yeah, whatever.

Those new crunchy bits aren't needed--at all--to tell stories or create memorable characters.

The core rulebooks aren't needed for that, either. And yet they're still nice tools to have.

Basically, you're arguing that -- once someone has smelted the metal for you (core rulebooks) -- you should be able to make your own shovel (supplements) in order to dig a hole.

I'd rather just go down to Sears and buy the shovel somebody else has already made for me. That lets me focus on digging the hole (telling an interesting story) -- which is what I want to be doing, not designing rules.

If no one makes a shovel I like, then I'll take the time to make one so that I can dig the hole I want to. But saying that anyone who buys their power tools at Sears is a whiny powergamer because they aren't handcrafting them...

... well, it's an interesting argument, it's just not a particularly compelling one.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'll miss Dragon and Dungeon like everyone else. But call me a sucker---call me loyal.

I still have faith in our friends at WotC. Something cool is coming.

Tell me, are all suckers loyal or does being loyal mean being a sucker?

There's nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith is another matter entirely. Wizards has made too many blunders for me to keep my faith in them.