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

[dcas]

It comes from Paizo, the same people that list the circulation of the magazines. If one number is flawed, why wouldn't the other number be flawed? We have the same source for both numbers, so I am going to trust them to be as accurate as we are going to get.

Because they know exactly how many magazines they print every month and exactly how many subscribers they have.

They certainly don't have similar data on D&D's active player base.

 

[Agamon]

They certainly don't have similar data on D&D's active player base.

Yeah, I don't remember Paizo listing the current number of D&D players anywhere....

 

[Dross]

o_0

No. But it certainly tells you if the guy making the call has the same connection to the brand and the product that the customer base does.

Answer? Clearly Not.

Which is so patently obvious a point - I cannot believe you genuinely missed it. I must conclude that you are trolling.

And I must conclude that you are trolling yourself if you cannot accept a different point of view. :\

Having someone who admits to not being a life long gamer does not mean that they do not care about the game or magazine, or that they do not want to do what is best for the game or magazine.

Coming from outside may just mean that fresh eyes found the best way to move forward.

Now I don't know if this is true or not, only time will tell if it is a good move.

But not living in the US (and not a subscriber) meant that the paper copy had the magazine arriving at least a month after it came out (sometimes to several months delay) and often stores were not provided enough copies so it became first in first served.

An electronic copy would solve that.

I'd rather have the hardcopy to use persnally, but just maybe this is the right way to go about things.

Or maybe not. :\

 

[Scylla]

Because they know exactly how many magazines they print every month and exactly how many subscribers they have.

They certainly don't have similar data on D&D's active player base.

Agreed. (And I can't believe I've returned to these boards after a day to find people still chewing over these numbers! Holy smoke! But I respect your tenacity. Do you guys ever sleep? )
As previously mentioned, I'd like to see the hard data used by Paizo (and don't get me wrong, I love the company) to get the 5 mil. number. I mean, how does anyone really know? I there a registry I missed somewhere? If I decide, here in the privacy of my home, not to play anymore it's 5 million -1 -- but who's to know? If I teach a friend to play tomorrow and they use my materials, it's +1, but again, who's to know? It's an estimate, and, unlike the magazine numbers, probably a very rough & possibly exaggerated one at that.

Even if it is 5 million, the number has little bearing without further data to examine. How many of those players are still playing 1e or 2e with their old TSR books? How many don't buy game books anymore? How many wouldn't buy a WotC product? How many copies does a successful WotC book sell? What is a realistic "success" percentage for a gaming magazine? How many dislike e-content, don't have Internet access, or simply don't get content online (I have fellow players that are Internet savvy -- one works as a network admin -- and yet never to go Wizards' website or EnWorld)?
Too many variables to proclaim anything based on the limited data available, it would seem.

Bottom line: Some people may think this was a good business decision for WotC, and they are entitled to that opinion. Maybe it is. Others may argue simply because they feel WotC is being judged rashly. Maybe it is (although I beg to differ).
But this decision has certainly upset a great many people, as proved by the overwhelming negative response we've seen -- I can't conceive of anything short of a 4e announcement or actual cancellation/selling of the D&D game itself causing such a stir. Implying that all these people somehow constitute an unimportant fraction of D&D players isn’t valid, and doesn’t promote any sense of community. Many folks are saddened or angered by this news because it does affect them, and feel the need to express it among their fellow gamers. Their feelings are sincere (if at times extreme); please let them grieve.
I enjoy Gen Con on the rare occasions I can go, but it wouldn’t personally kill me if the show were cancelled – but I’m aware that others feel very, very different. And I respect that deeply. The attendance of Gen Con Indy is even less than that 1% of 5 million quoted so often, but if the show were cancelled tomorrow (perhaps replaced by an online version to reach more people?) I wouldn’t be at all surprised to read the posts reflecting the anger and sorrow and memories. And I’d respect those feelings, because the show, like the two magazines, is more than a simple product. It too is a gaming icon with a rich tradition founded in the very fabric of the game we profess to love.

Just my two coppers; thanks for reading this long missive.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, I don't remember Paizo listing the current number of D&D players anywhere....

It's part of the Piazo stat sheet they use to persuade people to advertise in the magazine. It's used right along side the distribution stat.

By they way, their distribution stat is also not 100% accurate, as it is based on print run and shipping to distributors, without the returns numbers factored in.

Bottom line, if you trust these people for one stat, you should trust them for another. And even if you think they are off by a factor of two for the larger stat, it STILL means the distribution of these magazines is infinitesimally small compared to the number of players. Heck, it could be off by a factor of TEN and still result in these mags being really small relative to the whole.

All I am seeing is a whole lot of excuses, avoidance, and dodging over this issue. Look, I get that you want to feel that the magazines were a significant part of D&D as a whole because they were a big part for you. But it's narcissistic to believe that your experience is representative of the whole based on what we know of this hobby (and given some of the extreme reactions mentioning physical pain, rape, the death of children, traitors to collective consciousness, etc.. that we have seen in this thread, narcissism does in fact seem to be a distinct possibility). Can't you guys accept at least the vague possibility that these magazines were not in fact reaching the better part of the D&Ders out there, and that digital distribution has some potential for reaching more people?

In the very least you can see numerous reports of distribution problems overseas, and expensive shipping costs overseas, which were reducing distribution in those regions. Those people will be able to access this information now, in an online format. And that has to have some meaning.

I guess we will wait and see. But I think it's a distinct possibility that, in a few years, we will see distribution numbers much higher for these mags than they currently are. And given the long term trend of distribution shrinking (it was 3 times the current distribution about 12 years ago), that is a good thing for this hobby.

 

[Thurbane]

I enjoy Gen Con on the rare occasions I can go, but it wouldn’t personally kill me if the show were cancelled – but I’m aware that others feel very, very different. And I respect that deeply. The attendance of Gen Con Indy is even less than that 1% of 5 million quoted so often, but if the show were cancelled tomorrow (perhaps replaced by an online version to reach more people?) I wouldn’t be at all surprised to read the posts reflecting the anger and sorrow and memories. And I’d respect those feelings, because the show, like the two magazines, is more than a simple product. It too is a gaming icon with a rich tradition founded in the very fabric of the game we profess to love.

Good analogy, and well said.

 

[Thurbane]

Bottom line, if you trust these people for one stat, you should trust them for another.

Well I'm sorry, but for me that is simply not the case. Gauging how many players there are worlwide would be a LOT more guesswork than figures based off your own sales figures.

And even if you think they are off by a factor of two for the larger stat, it STILL means the distribution of these magazines is infinitesimally small compared to the number of players. Heck, it could be off by a factor of TEN and still result in these mags being really small relative to the whole.

Let's look at that. For the sake of argument, we'll say it is off by a factor of 10 (I don't believe this to be so, but bear with me). All of a sudden the magazine readership is 10% of the player base. Then lets also assume that, for Dungeon at least, 1 DM buys it to run for 4 players - that's 5 players per magazine. All of a sudden that 10% (50,000 of 500,000) jumps to a staggering 50% that have been affected by the cancellation of the magazine. Lets go even further and imagine that of the 500,000 players worldwide, only about 50% are regular buyers of WotC product - the rest play with borrowed books or with SRD. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at - this guesstimated 1% figure could be significantly higher than you are crediting.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, I'm one of those guys who is the "Buyer/Librarian" for the group. Everyone buys some stuff, but I'm the one they borrow from when they don't get "product X"- which is usually the case. I even have dupes of some books, like the PHB, since some of the players are so casually involved that they only supply their pencil, paper, and brains.

In our group of 10 or so gamers, I'm the only subscriber to Dragon or Dungeon (or any other gamer mag, for that matter), but someone is always borrowing an issue of one or the other.

I told a buddy of mine- a non-buyer- about the demise of the print versions of the 2 mags.

He hadn't heard the news, and he designs websites, so he's always online for some reason or another.

He looked at me like I'd kicked his family jewels.

And, according to him, once the print version is gone, he won't be reading it if I don't subscribe, since I'm the one he borrows the mags from, and he won't bother paying for it online for himself.

So that's one subscriber and at least 1 additional reader gone. I wonder what will happen as the news filters down to the others in the group?

(I'm not being snarky, I honestly don't know)

 

[Vigilance]

Well I'm sorry, but for me that is simply not the case. Gauging how many players there are worlwide would be a LOT more guesswork than figures based off your own sales figures.
Let's look at that. For the sake of argument, we'll say it is off by a factor of 10 (I don't believe this to be so, but bear with me). All of a sudden the magazine readership is 10% of the player base. Then lets also assume that, for Dungeon at least, 1 DM buys it to run for 4 players - that's 5 players per magazine. All of a sudden that 10% (50,000 of 500,000) jumps to a staggering 50% that have been affected by the cancellation of the magazine. Lets go even further and imagine that of the 500,000 players worldwide, only about 50% are regular buyers of WotC product - the rest play with borrowed books or with SRD. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at - this guesstimated 1% figure could be significantly higher than you are crediting.

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

Dude!!!

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sammael]

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.

Last I looked, most people in Russia and China had a lot less disposable income than those in the US (and it is unlikely this situation will change in the next 15 years or so). Also, they were a lot more likely to pirate just about everything. Speaking of subscription-based services, WoW is happily running on free bootleg Russian and Chinese servers 24/7.