Thanis Kartaleon |
I am wondering why this article was printed in Dragon. Unlike the Silicon Sorcery article from... #323 I believe (with the 'Riding Bird') this article has absolutely no crunch in it that I can use in my game. And all I got out of it that I didn't already know was that the game is going to be coming out for the PS2 rather than the PS3 (And I have not really been keeping track of this game's development other than some webcomic references, so that should say something).
So, can someone from the Dragon staff enlighten me? I mean, couldn't we have at least gotten the stats for a moogle or something?
TK
Alzrius |
You aren't the only one. I love articles that give us D&D-adaptations of material from books/movies/video games, but as it was, that article was a waste of pages. It shouldn't have been in the magazine at all, let alone mentioned on the cover (if it'd given us some D&D-specific material, that'd be different).
Guennarr |
Dear Dragon staff,
that "article" was not:
a) an ad (which ads feature authours?)
b) a "Silicon Sorcery" article (where was the D&D content?)
c) a game review (Dragon doesn't do game reviews, and since when do game reviews NOT contain a resume?)
d) a "first watch" article (too long, although the "effective" content of that article could fit into a first watch column).
So, please, dear Dragon staff, could you enlighten us and tell us, what these two pages of text were supposed to be?
There is always dissence about the usability of articles in Dragon or the direction the magazine should be headed to. But there are always at least some readers who can make use of your articles. Which readers are supposed to benefit from this article?
I am usually one of those people who chime in when it comes to praising the high quality of Dragon magazine lately. I am all the more (negatively) surprised by these two pages...
Greetings,
Günther
KnightErrantJR |
I have to throw this in here too . . . I don't mind the First Watch blurbs mentioning fantasy related stuff, and I actually think its great. And overall I loved this issue. But no, I don't want to see articles on Final Fantasy if it doesn't in some way relate to converting items/concepts/races/classes to D&D.
Lilith |
But no, I don't want to see articles on Final Fantasy if it doesn't in some way relate to converting items/concepts/races/classes to D&D.
I dig. I've been a hardcore FF fan since I got a shiny NES cartridge because my mom thought the game looked cool. But this article would have been so much better if something D&D had been extracted from it. :(
James Jacobs Creative Director |
Final Fantasy's certainly not for everyone. But then again, neither are mind flayers or demon lords or gnomes or dwarven barbarians. While Dragon is indeed a D&D magazine, it's also, to a certain extent, a magazine about things that D&D players like. I'm not on the Dragon staff, but as far as I understood it, the Final Fantasy article was an extended section of First Watch, which is why it appeared near the front of the magazine. Most of the content of First Watch can't be put into your game, but that's not the point. It's there to tell our readers about cool things they might or might not be interested in.
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
I mean, couldn't we have at least gotten the stats for a moogle or something?
Nooo!!!! The last thing the game needs is another super annoying race that everyone claims is not annoying when played correctly, but is in fact, even more annoying when so played.
Yes kender, I am looking at you.
Alzrius |
While Dragon is indeed a D&D magazine, it's also, to a certain extent, a magazine about things that D&D players like. I'm not on the Dragon staff, but as far as I understood it, the Final Fantasy article was an extended section of First Watch, which is why it appeared near the front of the magazine. Most of the content of First Watch can't be put into your game, but that's not the point. It's there to tell our readers about cool things they might or might not be interested in.
That's true, but only to a certain, very small degree. Usually half of First Watch is devoted to D&D books or other materials directly related to the game (such as the DVD cartoon DVDs, or new minis), with only the second half being devoted to other "D&D-esque" things.
The thing there that's usually unspoken, though, is that the non-D&D items that appear in First Watch are things you miss otherwise. The stuff in First Watch that doesn't tie directly back to D&D are the cool things that would normally fly under the radar, because they tend not to be covered in most magazines (or other media). I haven't seen an ad anywhere else regarding "A Very Scary Solstice," from the H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society, for example, or about DragonFire Laser Crafts.
Two pages devoted to FFXII was too much coverage for any single First Watch item, and it was for an item that only a complete and utter non-gamer would miss. It's been thoroughly covered in many other magazines, internet sites, and other outlets. It is, in short, very hard to miss - ergo, Dragon covering it is redundant, especially to the tune of two full pages.
As others, including myself, have said, that article should have been pitched as a Divine Inspirations (or whatever it's called now) article with some D&D-related mechanical content. As it was, the article was simply a missed opportunity.
F. Wesley Schneider Contributor |
Dear Dragon staff,
d) a "first watch" article (too long, although the "effective" content of that article could fit into a first watch column).
That's actually exactly what it is.
The Final Fantasy XII piece kicks off a new subsection of First Watch starting that month and continuing after that. For a long time we've wrangled with how to handle video game coverage in the magazine. Enough good console and computer games release every month that a simple eighty word blurb cannot encompass the bulk of releases, yet to do a whole write-up on each game detracts from the table-top and D&D news that is our priority. Hence the addition.
Typically, the section will be one page featuring two write-ups and several pictures from the games being covered (as you'll see in #350). Games that are D&D-related but aren't huge events, like the upcoming D&D Tactics, will recive a spread. D&D games that are major endevors, like D&D Online or FR: Demon Stone were, will probably get more feature-sized pieces. In addition to these, role-playing games that are major industry events and have definite fantasy and D&D themes (like a new Final Fantasy game undoubtedly does) will also receive spreads. So, that's what it is!
If your into games, this setion will tell you about some of the biggest D&D/fantasy titles hitting that month (with room to show more than a single lonely screenshot or undetailed cover). If your not, we're hoping to point you toward some of the better fantasy titles available, which just might be perfect inspiration for your next adventure.
Check out next month for a one-page piece on Zelda: Twilight Princess and Pox Nora.
KnightErrantJR |
I think you guys are great, but I have to tell you the following. I'm a big Zelda fan, and yet, if I want to see articles about Zelda, one page or not, I'll pick up EGM or some other magazine of that nature. It just my opinion, and this was a rather strong issue . . . that having been said, I'd hate to skim over those pages if I were less than pleased with the rest of the content.
If I had my way, I'd rather just see the short blurb in First Watch rather than the extended pages.
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
I agree w/KnightErrant, I liked the short blurb format for first watch. Back in the early days of Dragon, when a handful of videogames were released each year, it made sense to track that market. They were a fellow niche market. Now that they are a behemoth on par with movies and television, it doesn't make sense to tell us about anything less than the smallest niche game. We know zelda is coming out, we know final fantasy is coming out, we don't need a long article about it.
Joshua J. Frost |
We know zelda is coming out, we know final fantasy is coming out, we don't need a long article about it.
Just playing Devil's Advocate here:
What would you say if we approached this from a different vector and said that adding one or two pages a month of video game coverage generated additional advertising dollars from video game agencies and that we could use that revenue to further improve content and add-ons? Would that page then be worth it?
KnightErrantJR |
If its a business decision, I completely understand. If it generates more revenue to say to video game company X that your audience likes a certain type of game, and that they can reach them by advertising in your magazine, and you point to this coverage, I get it entirely.
I just want to point out that I would rather know this up front than to not hear that its part of an overall marketing plan. Trust me, I want you guys to make money, but I'm usually more annoyed when people won't just come out and say they are trying to generate revenue when that is what they are trying to do.
I just don't want the magazine staff to think that everyone wants this kind of coverage, for one thing, and I want to make it clear that while I loved this issue, and the overall quality of the magazine has been pretty high lately, if there were a drop in quality and I felt that some pages were being wasted, then there might be some problems with my continued patronage. That isn't the case right now.
Thanks for taking the time to ask though. I do appreciate it, and it does seem that every one on Dungeon and Dragon are both pretty candid about their motives and preferences, and are pretty receptive to their audiance.
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
I think it's well established that I am against any measures that may contribute to Paizo's profitability. ;-)
Seriously, KnightErrant said it better than I could. I actively root for Paizo's success and there are worse things you could print on that page than information about a new and popular videogame (*cough* Wil Save *cough*). I'm on board, and I appreciate the honesty of your response.
Alzrius |
Just playing Devil's Advocate here:
What would you say if we approached this from a different vector and said that adding one or two pages a month of video game coverage generated additional advertising dollars from video game agencies and that we could use that revenue to further improve content and add-ons? Would that page then be worth it?
I know that'd be enough to quiet my grumbling, though I'd still regard it as a necessary evil. There's nothing wrong with ads, since they generate revenue for the magazine, but I prefer ads to at least look like ads. Advertorials aren't something I like.
That said, my biggest gripe about the article isn't that it was there; it was that it didn't have any D&D content. If you'd left the FFXII article as it was, but added a third page to it that had racial stats for the viera (the bunnygirls in the game), I'd be shouting from the rooftops that this was one of the best issues of Dragon I'd seen in the last few months.
There's nothing wrong with articles about video games (or whatever else) in the magazine, but if it's going to get pages all to itself, please put some space aside to tie it back to the game we all know and love.
Abinadi |
When I read the article, marketing immediately came to mind. It makes sense that the makers of 'product X' would want to advertise in 'magazine Y' if they think it will boost sales for that product.
Unfortunately (and I don't have the magazine in front of me to clarify this, so I don't know who actually wrote: Dragon staff or game company) it read like an actual Dragon article instead of an advertisement. I've run across this before in other magazines. Fitness mags, such as Msucle & Fitness (I think that's the name) is more ads than articles. Even some of their articles are actually ads if you look closely enough.
Example: There's an article in M&F about a specific product. Looked cool and it must be really great if the staff of M&F was devoting a whole article on it. But it wasn't written by them, it was written by the manufacturer (no author was mentioned and in the corner of each page it said 'Special 6 Page Ad'). M&F gets a lot of money selling space in their magazine, meaning savings for the subscriber or off-the-shelf buyer. Unfortunately, the mag is mostly ads with very little unbiased-opinion articles.
I don't want to see Dragon become like M&F. I want more article content than ad content. Even if the FFXII was an article written by Dragon staff, it's still on the side of an ad; I can even go as far as saying a biased-opinion piece.
I see this "article" as the white spec on top of chicken crap. What's the white-spec on top of chicken crap, you ask? It's chicken crap, too.
I don't mind a few pages mentioning new products and such. Most magazines have them. It lets me know what else is out there relating to my hobby (and I can make a very strong argument that role-playing is vastly different than video games; not the same hobby). Once you start trying to be everything to everyone, you lose your focus. And you lose your hardcore fans. I haven't even gamed in several years, yet I still subscribe because this is the official D&D magazine. Keep it that way.
We pay more for this magazine then others of its size because of the lower/cheaper ad content. That's a price I am willing to pay. I even wrote to scale mail a couple months ago stating that I would be happy to pay one or two more dollars per issue for an extra 8 to 16 pages of content.
Isn't FF sci-fi/fantasy? I remember machines and guns and robots in the last one I played. D&D is fantasy.
I'll not be looking forward to reading about Zelda next issue. Even though it is just fantasy, an article on it has no place in Dragon magazine unless do something like create some stats for his sword (weapon of legacy?) or something like that.
I hope that's enough, but I would be more than happy to defend my arguements. I would even be happy to start researching this topic for anybody interested.
Guennarr |
Guennarr wrote:Dear Dragon staff,
d) a "first watch" article (too long, although the "effective" content of that article could fit into a first watch column).
That's actually exactly what it is.
(...)
Thank you for this explanation.
I am one of those readers who think, though, that computer game reviews aren't exactly Dragon's strengths. And I feel that two pages are too much just for telling me that there is a new computer game out there that *could* be worth looking at. There are computer gaming magazines which do the same job - cheaper and more detailed.
I would like to see a Dragon specific approach, though - or just a short one or two column description of the game. You don't spend more space on other first watch items, do you?
Maybe something resembling Silicon Sorcery wouldn't be such a bad idea? It doesn't have to be a new race for D&D. What about a closer look at plot structures, villain characterizations, or new feats/ spells ... ?
Greetings,
Günther
Thanis Kartaleon |
Indeed. I appreciate that Dragon needs to have advertiser dollars, but I still think that the article could have easily been a Silicon Sorcery article AS WELL AS an ad. But then, I'm not on the publishing end of the magazine - I don't know what it would take for the article to be both. I just wish it were.
TK
Krypter |
What would you say if we approached this from a different vector and said that adding one or two pages a month of video game coverage generated additional advertising dollars from video game agencies and that we could use that revenue to further improve content and add-ons? Would that page then be worth it?
If it generates more revenue to pay for 1-2 additional pages of D&D-related content, then great. I know you guys have to attract advertisers to make a profit. But if all it does is bulk up the magazine with ad-like articles, then I'll be skipping that section and registering my negative reaction. I can get more detailed previews on the dozens on websites that cater to videogamers.
Germytech |
I pretty much agree with the assessment of most of the previous posters. I don't particularly mind the FF article (I am an FF fan), but it did take me by surprise.
It was technically an article, as it had an author's name in the top corner.
This article would have been far more appreciated if there was D&D content attached. A third page that had game statistics for an FF race, spell effect seen in the game's intro, or any number of other things would have made the first two pages that much more valuable.
I love Silicon Sorcery: the collosi from your Shadows of the Collossus article as well as chocobos from the Final Fantasy article a year or so back have seen much use in my games.
If you decide to stick with this video game review format, please tack on just a little D&D content.
Guennarr |
Just playing Devil's Advocate here:
What would you say if we approached this from a different vector and said that adding one or two pages a month of video game coverage generated additional advertising dollars from video game agencies and that we could use that revenue to further improve content and add-ons? Would that page then be worth it?
I'd say that spending two more pages of quasi ads in order to achieve even more ad entries into your magazine would turn Dragon into something closely resembling an ad catalogue. ;-)
Seriously: I am sure that your ad customers appreciate an authentic treatment of their products. They don't have to fear criticisms about the technical aspects of their game anyway (that part of a game is definitely not Dragon's area of expertise). So why not give it a try and give their games a "Dragon approach" (see all our postings above)?
Just playing Readers' Advocate here:
You certainly realized that Dragon readers aren't fooled easily. Calling this "ad article" (a contradiction in itself!) an extension of your first watch columns is an utter lie - or even worse: discrediting the whole first watch section of your magazine.
And playing Paizo's Advocate:
Combining your and your readers' interests shouldn't be that hard. Or do gaming publishers really expect complaisance articles by you?!? That could easily turn out into damaging your authourity in the D&D industry (taking into account your high article standards when it comes to D&D in contrast to that game's treatment)...
Greetings,
Günther
P.S.
Sorry for my barely held back irritation. I am thankful for you honesty in laying out your plans about Dragon. It is only partially caused by the subject of this thread. I am really growing tired of my postings getting lost after hitting the submit button! :(
DeadDMWalking |
I fully admit that when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons, I get crotchety. I like D&D. I don't mind paying money for D&D products. When a product is good, I like to pay for it even if it is unlikely to see use in my game. I know that I have to support game publishers if they're going to be around to publish articles that I can use in the future. I consider buying a product that I'm not entirely happy with something I should generally do to keep the hobby healthy.
Now, this is a dangerous proposition. If I pay money for products that I'm not entirely in love with, I may encourage the production of other such materials, instead of those that match my high standards.
For me, the litmus test for whether to buy a product or not has to do with what I believe are the intentions of the publishing company. Sure, you guys are a business. I work for a business too. Making money is important. If, at the end of the day, you're losing money, you can't keep doing what you want to do. But that's the essential point. You should want to make a kick-ass product that players of D&D will love.
Now, figuring out how to both make money and make a kick-ass product is not easy. Every nickel and dime you save on production costs is great as long as it doesn't turn away readers. Every nickel and dime you can get from advertisers is great as long as it doesn't turn away readers.
I already wrote a letter to scale mail complaining about the last issue. I didn't specifically mention this "article" but it was in my mind. I don't buy Dragon for information on computer games. I don't want information about computer games in Dragon. I want information on D&D. I have other interests, and I get all the information I need from those other interests.
Why does Dragon promote the computer games? Is it because they think I'll have a genuine interest? That they're providing an essential service? Is it part of making a kick-ass product?
I'd say it doesn't help in that regard. Considering it is not an extension of the product I want to buy I certainly hope it is generating revenue for you. But, if it is an "ad" it should say so clearly. In newspapers they always print "special advertising section" on the bottom of the article. The same was true of the "Gen Con" special report from the "extra big Dragon magazine". I didn't like that when it came out and called it an ad, and I like it less when I feel the magazine is being duplicitous.
My subscription has two more issues. I am not planning to renew my subscription at this point. It isn't this one issue or that one issue. The reason is an overall feeling that Dragon is no longer listening or responding to reader concerns. Yes, you're a business. Yes, you need to make money. But, you also need to make a kick-ass product that we want. That has always been a strength for the magazine in the past because you responded to customer feedback. I know you can't make everybody happy all the time, but I'm tired of hearing that "you've heard the complaint, but we have to do this to make money".
As I've said, the money isn't the object for me. I'll pay what I have to, as long as I'm getting a product that focuses on my interest (D&D) and the publishers will listen to feedback from readers.
PS - The final straw for me on this particular decision was the subscription card attached deep in the binding without perforation. It didn't serve any purpose but to annoy since it could not be easily removed from the magazine, assuming I wanted to send in the card.
Abinadi |
Out of curiosity, will there be an actual Silicon Sorcery on FFXII in the near future? And if not, can we submit one?
Sure, submit one, but two FFXII articles in one year would be pushing my limits. I have three issues remaining in my subscription and I am glad I have waited to renew. We'll see how good the next couple are.
I usually don't mind small changes to the magazine, even if I don't agree with them, but this seems to be the start of something larger happening, like less D&D content and more ads/articles related to video games.
Guennarr |
... and that's it?
The threat has been dormant for three days by now.
I am one of those irritated readers who have to contemplate whether to prolong their subscription or not - in my case in this very month.
I am feeling extremely irritated by
- the apparent lack of interest of Paizo representatives authorized for stating the future intents about this new "article" format.
- the fact that I don't have the least idea what Dragon is supposed to be headed to during the next twelve months.
FF XIV looks like a general new approach to Dragon, not just favouring one campaign world over another and similar less consequential discussions of the past...
Maybe someone official will eventually feel free to answer to this thread...
Greetings,
Günther
Mike McArtor Contributor |
I'm not sure what more you want us to say about this. For clarification, we never once intended the FFXII piece to be a review. We never once called it that. It is a preview. It is simply something we thought our readers might be interested in. That it might also help us generate ad revenue so we don't have to raise the cover price to $10 or more is an added bonus. Right? :)
Joshua J. Frost |
It ought to be made quite clear that this piece on FFXII was NOT an ad. It was not paid for by an advertiser, it was not written by an advertiser, it was paid for by Paizo and was written by a contributor. The preview was an extension of the First Watch section.
We have the integrity to tell you when something is an ad if it's not discernably so.
Hopefully that's clear.
Yasumoto |
I am an avid video/computer gamer, so I didn't read anything new in the article. However, I do appreciate the First Watch section a great deal. I really like being able to see and read about things I may not otherwise know about.
My problem with the two-page spread on FFXII is that it's all information that can be gathered on a place like 1up.com. I think that having a product or two 'showcased' each month could be intersting. In this case, however, the game is about as high profile as is possible, and has almost too much coverage already.
We'll see how things shape up over the coming months (with different products).
DeadDMWalking |
Well, Mike McArtor must have succeeded on his diplomacy check. It seems he's willing to admit that the article is likely a "mistake" in that it hasn't been well-received by the target audience. However, we might be stuck with it (or a similar version) until they decide if that kind of article can bring in video game advertisers.
I'll look at the next issue. If nothing offends my sensibilities outright, I'll turn in a subscription for another year (using an online payment - so you don't need to print those stupid subscription cards in the binders).
In general, however, I don't like first watch. I don't want to see it expanded. There are a few items over the last year or more that I thought were "pretty cool". I haven't really bought any of them. I don't see why First Watch can't be kept down to a page or two. If nothing else, I think we might be best served by an actual review. Not every item needs a review (stuffed Cthulu dolls, for instance) but some of the mechanical aids might deserve one.
I also don't like Silicon Sorcery. I don't play a lot of computer games. When I do play computer games, I usually play "old games". I still own an original Nintendo. I'm twice as likely to play a console game on that than any other system. I did recently get into NeverWinterNights, but I didn't like that as much as I liked the original Eye of the Beholder. I'd certainly be interested in a review of a game that provided the feeling of D&D (a party dynamic), and I am fond of playing single-player games. If my friends are available, we play face-to-face role-playing games. Even when we're spread across the country. Our current weekend game has one player telecommuting from the next state. I don't need computer games in my Dragon Magazine.
What I want most is material that I will find interesting as a player. I want a combination of fluff and crunch that I want to work into a character. One of the best issues of all time was #301 (swashbuckling). What was that, three years ago? The issue had things that I found inspirational for my characters.
The most recent article had a huge spread on a region of the Forgotten Realms. That just doesn't strike me as the best use of Dragon magazine. I believe in the mantra that Dungeon is for DMs, and Dragon is for Players. I don't like Forgotten Realms content in general, but I love articles like "Cities of the Realms". I can use them in most any campaign. The only problem is the author is too verbose and some elements are too specific (making them harder to adapt to another campaign). They could still be best in a magazine like Dungeon.
But an article like that is a good article, and since I want plenty of adventures in Dungeon, I'm willing to sacrifice pages in Dragon for good material. I don't need geography, though. I don't care about the names of towns or the names of mountain ridges. My campaign already has those things. I don't need an overview of a culture - my campaign already has those things. For an article like that to be useful, it should have some "meat". I would not have minded a FR article that detailed one of the cultures. Perhaps offered some special regional feats etc.
Let's face it, there are a lot of races to play in D&D. I'm tired of the difference between one race and another being their stat modifiers. Instead of making a unique race I like to see a unique culture. A way of describing a people, their habits and their customs to make them unique from every other race of humans (or what have you). I don't need a dozen sub-races of elves, but I could certainly use more information about an elf's homelife. Seriously, how long are elf children infants? Do they suckle for 40 years? Are they toddlers at the age of 2? Do they just spend years in puberty? Those are the kinds of questions Dragon should answer. They make the game more interesting, provide useful information for players, and expand the depth of the game rather than the breadth.
And hopefully you're telling the truth when you say you're listening.
Guennarr |
(...) The most recent article had a huge spread on a region of the Forgotten Realms. That just doesn't strike me as the best use of Dragon magazine. I believe in the mantra that Dungeon is for DMs, and Dragon is for Players. I don't like Forgotten Realms content in general, but I love articles like "Cities of the Realms". I can use them in most any campaign. The only problem is the author is too verbose and some elements are too specific (making them harder to adapt to another campaign). They could still be best in a magazine like Dungeon.
I think differently.
Dungeon is for adventures, that is true. But even now there is not exactly much space left for DM advice. Where to put additional campaign specific information? And where is your complaint about the adventure path campaign information to be found in Dragon? ;-) There are many readers out there (compare other threads on these boards) who are very eager for additional information for their favourite campaign setting. Most message board readers seemed to like the idea of reading an Eberron or FR centred article every few months.Seriously: Back to this thread's topic.
I just read Mike Mc Artor's posting. It confirms what was said above and I understand that you want to test this new format. Part 1 of the test obviously failed. Subscriber respond on this board so far is over all rather negative.
I will have another look at the next few issues (even though I have to decide about my subscription now.
I am still quite positive that there is a way to combine both interests: creating more attention by the computer gaming industry while staying true to the aim of being a rp magazine (but I am repeating myself, same as some people above ;-)).
Greetings,
Günther
Krypter |
Subscriber respond on this board so far is over all rather negative.
Let's put it another way. Would you rather be complaining about 2 pages of videogame previews or about a $1 increase in the cover price? Because in real terms the price-per-page-of-content has gone down, and both Dungeon and Dragon are due for a price increase...
Mike McArtor Contributor |
Hey, Josh, what's the rules on Silicon Sorcery articles? Is it a submission-based category, meaning a wanna-be author can submit an article for it?
Silicon Sorcery is by commission only. It's also probably dead, but you never know—we might decide to resurrect it. Of course, I might win the lottery, as well. ;D
(PS: If I win the lottery, it's cookies for everyone!)
Germytech |
I would like to clarify that I will remain a firmly entrenched subscriber of Dragon and Dungeon for years to come. I appreciate and enjoy both magazines as a whole, and see these issues as only very tiny bumps along the road: not glaring, horrible offenses in the least.
I also know that the magazines do not pander to my personal tastes. Luckily, I am the kind of person to see value in almost anything, even if it does not fit my preconcieved view of how I want D&D to be.
I am fine keeping this type of preview in the magazine. It most likely does appeal to the majority of subscribers, if not the small subset that have replied to this thread. I think solutions to this issue can easily found.
One: Make it more obviously an extension of First Watch, or Two: Include some d20 content. I believe either or both of these approaches can quell some of the disappointment.
Guennarr |
One: Make it more obviously an extension of First Watch, or Two: Include some d20 content. I believe either or both of these approaches can quell some of the disappointment.
100% agreed here!!
I'd prefer to get all the official D&D content and the unofficial d20 content from one source. So I could live with two pages of computer game previews if there was also some additional d20 content financed by the additional ads received due to the two page article... ;-)Greetings,
Günther
Abinadi |
Well, I've decided to renew my subscription. I'm not going to allow one bad apple ruin the whole bunch. So, Paizo, you have one more year to improve yourselves.
Like I said before, I am willing to pay more for content. People will generally pay more for something that is important to them. For example, I will pay around $2 for a healthier snack bar than 50 cents for a candy bar. That's important to me.
When Dragon starts to have less content in it, it loses its importance. Leave the non-D&D material out of the magazine.
Paizo had a survey not to long ago. I don't remember what the questions were (mostly about Dungeon?), but I can't see most of the readers wanting previews (or reviews) of non-D&D material in place of game content, especially when it is NOT bringing in additional revenue (Paizo paid for this article; that's free advertising for FFXII).
Unless Dragon can prove that there is a direct corelation between what Dragon readers read about the game and them going out to buy it because of it, it has become a liability. I would love to see the results of a survey that is set up to determine that.
I'm interested in the shows "Smallville" and "Heroes." So where are the articles on those? Hopefully there will never be articles about those shows in Dragon. There is no D&D roleplaying relation between the them. Dragon is the official D&D magazine. Keep it that way.
Psion |
I like Final Fantasy. But a straight computer gaming article seems off topic to me.
I would have MUCH rather seen a Silicon Sorcery style treatment. Silicon Sorcery is one of my favorite columns (and frequent SS contributor Clifford Horowitz one of my favorite Dragon authors.) Even those for game I have no interest in. I am amazed that it received a poor response in the survey. I find it one of the freshest articles in the magazine. The fact that it draws from outside the traditional D&D sources gives the mechanics a fresh spin.
Alzrius |
Silicon Sorcery is by commission only. It's also probably dead, but you never know—we might decide to resurrect it.
I'm somewhat confused by this answer. I know that "Silicon Sorcery" is dead, having been folded (along with "Novel Approach") into the new header "Divine Inspirations," according to the writer's guidelines (as I've never seen an article titled that in print as of yet). However, said guidelines make it clear that the aforementioned "Divine Inspirations" is still an active choice to submit article proposals for. Has this changed?
GVDammerung |
One more vote for no adverticles, no matter how constructed or commissioned.
The whole idea is wrong headed in failing to understand the environment in which Dragon exists. There is this thing called - THE INTERNET - maybe you folks at Dragon have heard of it? You have to create Dragon content in light of this Internet-thing.
So:
Reviews or PREVIEWS of electronic games are availavle by fans and pros at numerous sites on the internet (to say nothing of speciality magazines). SO NO REVIEWS OR PREVIEWS IN DRAGON! You can't begin to compete with outlets DEDIDACTED to electronic games, so don't try.
I love the gimmicky - but we could sell more ads to electronic game companies - approach. Sure. You are a business but that business is D&D. Provide better D&D content and you will attract more customers. Attract more customers and your revenues and ad rates will both go up. Don't try to pander to electronic game companies with a two page spread every month. I can't imagine it will be effective as there are far, far better outlets for the advertising dollars of electronic games companies than Dragon and, as this thread demonstrates, you just irritate your core audience.
Your business is D&D and I'm guessing business ain't so good. So fix it. Don't try to lure electronic game advertisers; try to lure more D&D players and DMs with more appealing content. You can do this by figuring out what fans CANNOT get easily elsewhere - particularly on the internet - and providing it to them.
And this hooey about Dragon being about things that would interest a D&D player, not just D&D, is a pant load that is sure to lead you down one dead end after another. It is an excuse to avoid your inability, thus far, to find a way to make Dragon sell more. Sure. Some other content is okay but D&D is where you need to get creative to get your numbers up, not trying to reposition the magazine just to appeal to another set of advertisers.
Oh. And can we look for the page count to increase by 2 to offset the 2 page adverticles? I think not so cut the . . . about using the revenue to improve the magazine. It might improve the bottom line - maybe - but the magazine just lost two pages it will not get back.
Stop. Back up. Get a good nights sleep. Rethink.
Mike McArtor Contributor |
I'm somewhat confused by this answer. I know that "Silicon Sorcery" is dead, having been folded (along with "Novel Approach") into the new header "Divine Inspirations," according to the writer's guidelines (as I've never seen an article titled that in print as of yet). However, said guidelines make it clear that the aforementioned "Divine Inspirations" is still an active choice to submit article proposals for. Has this changed?
It is our great shame that our writer guidelines are woefully out of date. You may assume that they are still correct unless and until you read something different on our messageboards, such as my previous post in this thread.
Yes, updating those guidelines is on our list of Things To Do.
Gabriel N |
Alzrius wrote:I'm somewhat confused by this answer. I know that "Silicon Sorcery" is dead, having been folded (along with "Novel Approach") into the new header "Divine Inspirations," according to the writer's guidelines (as I've never seen an article titled that in print as of yet). However, said guidelines make it clear that the aforementioned "Divine Inspirations" is still an active choice to submit article proposals for. Has this changed?It is our great shame that our writer guidelines are woefully out of date. You may assume that they are still correct unless and until you read something different on our messageboards, such as my previous post in this thread.
Yes, updating those guidelines is on our list of Things To Do.
Bummer. Why did you stop accepting them? I mean, worse case scenario, they all suck and it amounts to the same thing, but you might also get some good ones, right? Or is there something I don't get that makes that unreasonable?
And if it's not too much trouble, would it be possible to get a quick, up-to-date list of article types you're still looking for?
Finally, I have to agree with the general opinion here. Paying for an article that doesn't contain any D&D material strikes me as kind of a mistake. I'd honestly be happier knowing you guys made money from it.
Mike McArtor Contributor |
Bummer. Why did you stop accepting them? I mean, worse case scenario, they all suck and it amounts to the same thing, but you might also get some good ones, right? Or is there something I don't get that makes that unreasonable?
There are a number of reasons, but let's go with the big one: You'll note that near the end almost all the Silicon Sorceries we ran coincided with the game's release. The only way to make that happen is to commission someone and send him the game several months before the scheduled release date.
And if it's not too much trouble, would it be possible to get a quick, up-to-date list of article types you're still looking for?
Features, Bazaar of the Bizarre, Features, Class Acts, Features, Spellcraft, and Features.