I concur. The death of the physical magazines has me more angry than the death of 3rd edition.
Same here. I miss the magazines. Editions of the game can come and go, but the mags have been a constant for decades...until now.
That is the Blunder of the century IMNSHO.
I'm not mad about the edition change, I accept that it has to happen for any game, and I'm ok with that. I don't like some changes, especially those to fluff that only seems to change because they can change whatever they want. But I am still confident the rules themselves will be an improvement.
I am mad about the magazines.... still. But this is probably due more to their half-assed PR and customer relations. (ie. the "wasting my time" quote from the inagural editorial in the DI version of Dragon)
If they came right out and openly said: This isn't making us enough money to justify the print version, or it isn't doing what we think it should be doing for 4th ed. (I've seen some WotC posts that they expect the DI versions to bring in new players, whereas the Paizo era versions were awesome for established gamers, but no one was picking it up off the magazine stand and saying "hey, I should try playing DnD for the first time". I dunno how realistic this expectation is going to be though)
But instead we get editorials/infrequent messageboard posts about how the DI is awesome, the new online dragon has so many features and its quite obviously self-evident to anyone with an IQ over 50 that paper magazines are dinosaurs that only luddites read, etc
But I've wasted enough time posting about this here and on the WotC boards. They obviously don't care about a large segment of the existing subscriber base, writing off any valid or reasonable questions as angry grognards or pissed off AD&D fanboys. I'm not sure how that makes sense to their bottom line, but its their business plan apparently.
If they were actually honest with us, or at least not condescending to a large part of their user base, I would have been fine with everything eventually.
But at this point, I'm seriously considering taking a day to download and format the SRD 4.0 into a useable version (hell, I could do this at work and not waste my personal time) and then taking it down to a Kinkos or Office Depot to have it printed in a coil binding book. I've printed other things like this, and after a quick look at the 3.5 SRD, I think it would only come to less than 50 bucks. (For the PHB/DMG type material anyways. It'd be even cheaper to make a reference version of the PHB sans spells for reference around the table)
That would give me a useable version of the 4th edition rules, minus pictures and fluff, to use with Pathfinder, Necromancer products or my existing Eberron/FR/Greyhawk material.
So to me, the biggest blunder on WotC's part is that they have pissed me off the degree where I might not even buy the core 4.0 books as a protest. (Voting with my wallet as it were)
Neither. I see both as pushing gamers to the dark side¹.
¹Any RPG not D&D.
The death of Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine has really, really pissed me off. The electronic version will never come close, since I tend to like to read a hardcopy. Hell, even at work I tend to try to print things out instead of reading them on the computer.
Killing the dead tree magazines has me more irritated than an edition change.
|
This is what I thought -- mostly because it's how I feel.
But, how could we expect differently on the Paizo boards?! I was wondering, could someone start a similar Thread on the WotC, ENworld, RPG.Net or other sites? Maybe we could get an estimated tally.
Perhaps word it differently:
Upset at cancelling the mags
or thrilled at the online format
or neutral.
Upset at the loss of 3E
or thrilled with the coming of 4E
or neutral.
I try to briefly browse those other boards once a week or so but my work barely allows me time for Paizo.com, so...
I'm upset about the magazines. They took it off the shelf and placed on the internet. I have no choice, I must get a subscription if I want to read the contents of Dragon or Dungeon. I like holding those things, possessing them. I was also accustom to the high quality of the presentation that paizo gave the magazimes. SO when October first came around, no Dragon magazine, no Dungeon. When they finally did come up with some content it, it was alright, but not what I was getting previously. I do like the "Legacy of Iggwilv", but where is Mr. Logues adventure. Both magazines are going to have to improve, if I will subscribe next summer.
As far as the lose of third edition. It's still here. It will be here five years from now. People still play 1st edition D&D. I played the 1st edition AD&D, 2nd edition AD&D, 3rd edition D&D and 3.5 edition D&D. I will play 4th edition I am sure. 3rd edition was great, but if it were perfect, we wouuldn't be debating about it on these messageboards. I have faith it can be more fun in the future. Hopefully not perfect, so we can debate on problems with 4th edition.
I'm not really angry at either.
I do think the end of the printed magazines will turn out to be a monumental blunder.
I suspect the DI may well fail, and might take D&D as a whole down with it.
But, while I don't like a number of the proposed changes for 4e, I remain hopeful that the whole might be an improvement.
One section of their consumers that they have crapped on is their military cusomters. Lots of military customers are gamers and buy the Dungeon and Dragon magazines (or did). The magazines even reached us while on deployments. Yet lots of military customers are not avid computer useres and will not see the new "online magazines." Hell, on deployment I can't even access WoTC half the time.
To answer the question, I am more upset that they are changing the system than I am that they scrapped the magazines, as I really didn't buy Dragon as much as I did Dungeon (although I an still highly upset that they scrapped the mags).
But I think the bigger blunder was to scrap the mags as they will cut off a larger fanbase who purchased the mags than they realized.
|
Just curious, are you angrier at WotC for murdering the mags or thrashing 3E? Which, in terms of upsetting you the consumer, is the bigger blunder?
For me, it's killing the mags - particularly because 4E is on it's way. The mags would have been the perfect source for new 4E information.
I own every issue of Dungeon (except #2 or #3?) and every issue of Dragon from #67 onwards (only missing a few between #47 and #67, but access to all issues if you count the Dragon .pdf CDs). But I won't be subscribing to Dungeon or Dragon online. As a loyal long-time collector of these magazines, this kills me! WotC claim moving them online makes them more accessable to everyone? I see the online subscription model more as a barrier to access. I haven't even been motivated to read the free articles online - they just don't hold the same appeal.
After what I have learned about 4e, I want it more than ever. I was mad about the cancellation of the magazines, but that was six months ago and I got over it.
The loss of the physical magazines was the bigger mistake in my view. WOTC has had six months or more to prepare and all they have been able to show for it is a couple of articles, pitful just pitful.
I haven't been impressed by 4e yet, I hope that changes but as of right now it still seems to me that 4e is a money grab by WOTC. Time will tell.
Just curious, are you angrier at WotC for murdering the mags or thrashing 3E? Which, in terms of upsetting you the consumer, is the bigger blunder?
For me, murdering the mags is far worse than thrashing 3E.
-W. E. Ray
Yoinking the magazines is the greater evil for me personally as well.
Granted, I can understand the reasons - SJG yoinked Pyramid to an all-electronic format quite some time ago. I suspect that has been successful enough for them that someone in WoTC picked up on that and brought it up a year or so ago...
3e being 'thrashed', at present, I can live with.
|
I'm actually all right with the the magazine situation, now. Oh, I was hopping, steaming mad and perplexed, sure. But since Pathfinder came out and I've seen the pathetic attempts WotC's had with the Dragon "articles", I don't miss it at all. Pathfinder is my new monthly fix. Better than ever.
I am sad and mad however that I won't have any new support for my chosen engine, 3.5, come late 2008. That saddens me.
-DM Jeff
It's hard for me to separate the two decisions in my mind, because they both have the potential to jeopardize the long-term health of D&D as a roleplaying game. As I have said elsewhere, it looks to me like WotC is betting the farm on 4E and the strategy they have undertaken, while infuriating on many levels, is bold. In theory, this strategy could help the D&D brand a great deal and ensure a better bottom line.
But, for that to happen, lots of things have to go just right and I have a hard time imagining such a perfect alignment of the planets. Business/creative decisions of this magnitude rarely unfold exactly as planned and, from my reading of the tea leaves, WotC is working on the assumption that they will. Even then, the end result might not be a strengthening of D&D the RPG but rather D&D the brand. From WotC's -- and Hasbro's -- perspectives, the distinction is probably meaningless but, for me as a player, it isn't, hence the worry.
Just curious, are you angrier at WotC for murdering the mags or thrashing 3E? Which, in terms of upsetting you the consumer, is the bigger blunder?
I'm a little upset about the mags. Does WoTC have the manpower to produce, edit, and compile that amount of quality content on a monthly basis on top of all the push that will come in putting out a new edition? If they do, why would they have licensed them out in the first place?
My initial feeling is that I don't think that the DI will go over as well as they might think it will; things change dramatically when you start asking people to pay for internet content. Sure, a lot of people will do it but will /enough/ of them do it to make it consistantly profitable for WoTC? I sort of doubt it. Running such an operation is a huge undertaking and these were the same people that farmed out a simple character generator back when they were flush with cash because they had nothing in-house to do such a thing. When did WoTC hire all these competant and net-savvy programmers, database administrators, etc and set up their own IT department? If they did, good and fine. I still have some honest doubts about how well they're going to manage the entire DI thing. /Is/ it being done entirely in-house? If not, I must have missed something.
IF that doesn't go over well, I honestly expect them to come back to Paizo, hat in hand, to take over the magazines again. They might stay digital; I have no idea how difficult it is to restart a print publication but I suspect that the costs involved would be considerable.
I dunno; things might turn out fine. It just has that... that /taste/ that the ventures of the mid-90's had, where we were all going to be ordering groceries online and our refrigerators would call the store over the internet when the butter was low. And your office would be paperless.
I'm not mad at WoTC for thrashing 3E. 3E needs a good thrashing so it can sit up straight and eat it's vegetables and do what it's told to do. In other words, there are - as will always be the case - fixed to be made and they needed to make them. The only people that are going to be truly upset are the grognards, but eh. Couldn't care less if they're upset.
|
WOTC has had six months or more to prepare and all they have been able to show for it is a couple of articles, pitful just pitful.
Good point. They've been planning this for how long, and those few articles (some of which are pathetic) are all they have to show for it? It makes me worry about the future of the games sometimes.
Sure, a lot of people will do it but will /enough/ of them do it to make it consistantly profitable for WoTC? I sort of doubt it.
We'll be able to track exactly how successful the DI is based on how essential it becomes to 4E. If it remains, as planned, a supplement -- nice to have but not really needed -- then WotC has made enough money from subscriptions to justify its existence. On the other hand, if we see future 4E releases more or less require the DI to be used fully, that's a pretty good indication that it's not doing so well and something needs to be done to beef up its numbers.
We'll be able to track exactly how successful the DI is based on how essential it becomes to 4E. If it remains, as planned, a supplement -- nice to have but not really needed -- then WotC has made enough money from subscriptions to justify its existence. On the other hand, if we see future 4E releases more or less require the DI to be used fully, that's a pretty good indication that it's not doing so well and something needs to be done to beef up its numbers.
More or less a hostage situation.
I sure won't support that.
|
I'm a lot more ticked off at the death of the magazines than the death of 3.5. Of course, they are linked so closely that it really doesn't matter. The magazines died so they could roll them into the DI and have one more reason for people to shell out 10-15 bucks a month for it. Getting rid of Dungeon as competition with their printed adventures was an added bonus. The DI is one of the primary motivations for both the death of the print versions of the magazines and the edition change. What all of this really boils down to is that they believe they have to get a portion of the MMO crowd to convert to D&D. They want them so bad that they are willing to lose a large portion of their existing customer base to get them. If you look at how many idiotic decisions realting to 4E that are ticking off long time D&D fans, this becomes very easy to see.
More or less a hostage situation.
That might be a bit strongly worded but it's not completely off-base.
My personal guess, based on nothing but instinct, is that the DI was conceived as a way to ensure steady, consistent revenue tied to the D&D brand. It gives WotC much more "even" sales over the course of the year, because they can count on X number of subscribers paying $10/month or whatever rather than a more hit or miss print publication schedule. Likewise, it allows them, in theory anyway, to pare back their print releases to fewer, bigger, and more important "essential" products that (again in theory) all 4E players will buy, kind of like it was back during the 1E era.
In the late v.3.5 period, hardcover books were effectively periodicals anyway. So many were released each month and very few were intended as "evergreen" products that would stay on the shelf very long beyond their initial print run. I expect WotC didn't find this model profitable enough to keep it up, so the DI was conceived as a way to bridge the gap. I don't think it will work, because the DI is neither a real magazine nor a MMO, the two subscription-based products that work best on this model, which is why I fully expect, within a year or 18 months that the DI will become more important to the actual play of 4E than it's intended to be.
I hope I'm wrong, though.
Agrees, but it is not as straight forward anymore.
It is hard to imagine that Paizo could have put so much heart and soul into Gamemastery and Pathfinder if they still had the magazines...
Excellent point! I too am mad at WOTC for cancelling the print magazines, but I'm so excited about this new universe that Pazio is creating that I would much rather have them work on it than the magazines now.
I just spent a lot of time on the ENWorld 4th Edition info page
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
and really sat down and did some hardcore reading. Although I hate to admit it, I was wrong about 4th Edition. I like a lot of the changes I'm seeing as far as the game mechanics go (not convinced on the fluff/cosmology changes at all, but since no matter what, my group is going to be playing in Golarion, I don't care what WOTC does to their universes). I've not been happy with WOTC's PR campaign now, but that ENWorld page does a good job of just presenting the info we all were wanting about 4E.
On the one hand I look at my big collection of 3rd ed stuff and start mentally totaling up the dollars spent. On the other hand, I am seeing how much smoother, easier, and more fun the game could be, especially to run as a DM.
To be honest ... neither. I really enjoyed the magazines and 3.5E.
But they are killing both. I'm just disappointed in them. Their attitude mainly. I would expect this from a young (see inexperienced & arrogant) company but not one that I had previously received so much enjoyment from. I mean 2e to 3e needed to happen. Same with 3.5e to 4e. I mean maybe not right now, but it needed to happen in the next couple years. They had already started to do 3.5 what TSR did to AD&D. All those extra rules, and I mean what they hell is a swift action? Stances? Martial powers (grayskull anyone?). I don't even allow some of the recent books in my campaigns. It has come to the point where I have to screen WotC products as much as 3rd party products.
The cancellation of the magazines still has me hopping mad. The new edition actually has many changes that I approve of (apart from some cosmological blips), but the DI is a waste of time for me. I won't support it, and I think it will be a failure for WotC.
Not angry. Regarding the magazines, disappointed. Regarding 4e, neutral, mildly interested. I had the rare opportunity this morning to walk my daughter to school. Overheard a small group of ~8 yr old boys talking about "hit points", "fire strike", and "leveling"; it finally hit me that I really am not the target audience anymore. The end of the print magazines is the end of an era for me. D&D is an old friend, whether from TSR or WOTC, and I will likely buy 4e out of loyalty and interest, (old friends get latitude for bad behavior, i need latitude myself sometimes). I suspect I'll never play though.
4/e doesn't upset me -- that was sure to happen, and I think they may actually improve the game.
Cancelling Dungeon and Dragon does. I'm standing by the assertion that they've been cancelled; what WotC offers (so far, IMO) are not credible successors -- indeed, they seem to offer very little more than they did before (they've just tacked on the magazine names).
My ire really comes from what I consider heavy-handed and clumsy attempts to consolidate their hold on the game -- pulling Paizo's license is just one example. There are plenty more.
PS as far as the magazine names go, I'm reminded of Schwinn bikes. The name was sold in 2001 -- while the new owner puts the Schwinn name on their mediocre, mass-produced bikes, they're still mediocre mass-produced bikes.
Overall I think the bigger blunder is the magazines. I'm not really angry about either, although I like 3.5 and really feel no reason to switch. The thing about the online magazines for me is I hate to read online material (forums excluded ;p) and prefer something that I can read in bed or on the go and mark up if needed. Add to on top of that that the quality of WotC materials verses the Paizo materials and my monthly D&D spending is going to Paizo. They have made more of a competition of monthly material with a company that has in my opinion far better quality than WotC. I most likely will not even look at the DI material and only buy the 4e books out of habit or if the group I play in switches. Granted if Paizo switches then I'll probably have to switch.
...Granted if Paizo switches then I'll probably have to switch.
I agree -- and Paizo will have to switch.
I'm not "angry" at either.
I'm very disappointed in both, however.
I am not angry at WotC for cancelling the magazine. Nor am I angry at them for bringing out a new edition. I am disheartened at the loss of the magazines. While I did not get every issue these days, I did look at each one and decide if I wanted to buy it or not based on the content. I also got them for the advertisements, which really helped me know about new products on the market.
I am saddened, in a way, at the new edition of D&D, especially what I have seen so far. For me, it looks like they are taking a game I have enjoyed since 1980 in a direction I do not wish to follow. Too many changes just for the sake of change. Too many things being done just because it's "cool."
So, am I angry? No. I am more disillusioned than anything else. One of my favorite games is going on a trip I do not feel I can take, and I doubt it will ever return. It's a good thing I don't have to go with it, and I can stay with what I have and what I am currently enjoying.
I'm not upset about an edition change.
I'm very upset about the death of the print magazines.
I'm absolutely devastated and livid by the decision to radically alter the rich history of the game.
Personally, I'm most angry about Wizards slaying The Dragon and dynamiting the Dungeon and posting the resulting carcass and rubble on their website. The change in edition I can live with -- I have the core books for all three editions either in dead-tree versions (1st and 3.5) or PDF (1st and 2nd -- domo arigatou gozaimasu, Paizo-sama!), so If I don't like 4th, it's not going to be a hardship for me at all to go to any of the other editions I love (unless a housefire holding a hard-drive crash makes an unannounced visit).
But as a history buff, antiquarian, and dead-tree luddite, It pains me that Wizards decided to pull the plug on a piece of D&D history that was not only surviving, but out-and-out thriving under Jacobs' and Mona's care. One magazine had been in constant publication since Gary Gygax himself edited issue 1 in Lake Geneva in 1976. To say "well, we're going to loot the nameplate for our shiny-new interwebnet thingamadoohickey," casually tossing out 32 years of history (and I doubt that those issues will ever resurface on anything like the now-impossible-to-get Dragon Archive CD-rom once the back issues stop circulating) is a kick in the nuts to players young and old.
Beyond that, like I said, I can survive the edition change. I'll either adapt, or (more likely) become a newly-minted grognard ranting "About those durned kids and their fourth edition..."
I'm more disappointed by the edition switch. The magazine fiasco would probably rate equally high, but Paizo's taking the hit and coming back swinging with Pathfinder and Gamemastery more than made up for their loss in my book.
However, I believe WotC's poor handling of the magazine issue was unfortunately a clear indicator of things to come. The poor execution of the 4e PR-campaign (condescending attitudes, weak criticism of their own products, unimpressive relaunch of Dragon, etc.) seems like a natural progression from the magazine debacle.
I think this is where WotC is really not getting it. Over on ENWorld, I saw a thread where Scott Rouse (I hope I got his name right) was complaining about the negative response received thus far and almost a "what more do you people want?" attitude.
I'll tell you what I (and I think a lot of other people) want:
The class and commitment to customers exhibited by Paizo.
The loss of Dragon and Dungeon could have been a critical blow. WotC handled it poorly. Paizo went out of their way to portray WotC in the best possible light given the situation (and continue to do so to this day). Rather than suffer the loss and lick their wounds, they redirected their energies into new products, producing Pathfinder and Gamemastery modules. In my opinion, in doing so, they have become the high-water mark by which I compare other RPG companies.
Sorry to take things off topic a bit, but I don't think it's about just about Dragon, Dungeon, and 4e. Quality and customer focus speak for themselves, and for this gamer of 20+ years, that is where WotC is falling far, far behind companies like Paizo.
The 4th edition I am mainly ambivalent about.
It will either be good, and I'll switch, or it will suck, and I will stick with 3.x
Even though canceling the magazines had the silver lining of Pathfinder being born from it, the whole Digital Initiative thing pisses me off much more.
Neither. I see both as pushing gamers to the dark side¹.
¹Any RPG not D&D.
That, by the way, is not a bad thing.
There are several reasons why killing the mags was the worst blunder.
1. The Dead Tree Format needed to be superior quality to sell, so it was for the most part.
2. The mags were ways to alow people to transition into newer versions of the game.
3. The mags drew people into the local hobby shops which was always a good thing.
I am sure there are other reasons, but those are the main 3 as far as I am concerned.
That, by the way, is not a bad thing.Neither. I see both as pushing gamers to the dark side¹.
¹Any RPG not D&D.
No it isn't. Not at all.
....the now-impossible-to-get Dragon Archive CD-rom once the back issues stop circulating...
I got those CDs ohh yaahh. HMMMMHMMMM. That's right. Be jealous! Be jealous.
I think it was a mistake to dump Dungeon and Dragon magazine the way WotC did it. I could be wrong and someone at Paizo can correct me, but the magazines made money. That said, it is a BAD business practice to scrap something profitable like the printing of Dungeon and Dragon magazines, for something new that has yet proven to make you money. BIG MISTAKE.
I understand the desire to attract new blood into the D&D game, that way they can sell the product (D&D is a product ask any Hasbro executive) well into the future. But to alienate the core D&D hobbyist, who have been supporting the D&D game for over 30 years, to gain new players, thats a mistake. Some one like me grew up with Dungeon and Dragon Magazines. I have the first Dungeon magazine. I remember when they decided to go with a magazine with just adventures, I was so excited. Before that Dragon magazine used to print one adventure in every issue. I am a loyal customer and hope to be playing D&D until I no longer can communicate effectivly with others. After that I will probably playing D&D in La-la land until death.
So I have 30-40 years of purchasing D&D products in the future. I have proven my loyalty. To alienate me and others like me to attract some young punks, doesn't seem like a good business plan to me. Alienate me, a loyal D&D hobbyist for over 25 years, for some young punk who may just give up D&D when he discovers girls, not smart.
IF you want young blood in D&D hobby, you should encourage older players to teach younger ones, not alienate them. That's how hobbies are past on from generation to generation. The psycographics, the DDI, the green brains in a jar at Gleemax (thats bad), are used to attract new blood. But is it worth alienating the old gaurd?
I'm not the oldest of the old school, but they haven't alienated me. I set aside my anger and adapted to the new situation, principally because I like what I hear about 4e and also because I see all kinds of potential in the web format (art and map integration into the digital table-top, hyperlinks to other articles both inside and outside of the DI, searchable indexes, the ability to integrate errata, etc. etc.) What good does being PO'd for months on end do anyways?