Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[Jürgen Hubert]

I wouldn't. It should be free. It should represent their commitment to quality control.

Exactly. Steve Jackson Games has done very well with their commitment to books with a high text quality - and thus their books get bought regularly even by people who despise GURPS, their house system, merely because they know that these books are well-researched, well-written, and well-playtested.

SJG has existed and owned by the same guy for more than 25 years know. Which should tell you something.

 

[Storm Raven]

would be weird if they were both true.

No, it would not be.

One one hand, WotC is going to do the best job they can to make the sale prior to release (even though a certain amount of error will not retard sales) but, on the other hand, WotC is going to do lackluster errata after release unless they can increase profit by increasing sales.

They are making the initial book to sell. They will make money from the book. Their incentive is to do a good job making the book so that it is in a condition so that it sells. That means doing the best job they can up front.

The errata, as it stands now, comes after they have sold the book. They will make no money from the errata. They will make money from other products they have in the works. Hence, their incentive to bother putting any kind of real resources into their errata efforts is quite limited, a token effort is all that they really need to do. Hence, we get a token effort, and a maze of contradictory and illogical responses concerning updates and interpretations of the rules.

Why can't we assume a consistent goal and effort of production?

Because their incentives are currently different pre- and post- publishing.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Check with previous editions on the speed of Errata, and you'll find WotC lightning-quick in relation to the glacial or non-existant pace of TSR. I don't think errata was issued for more than one or two books in the 2E days, and 1E might have had ONE (Unearthed Arcana).

That said, I agree in a couple of circumstances -- the power revisions in Complete Psionic and the spells dramatically changed in Spell compendium (such as the one that bolsters the amount of undead you can turn) should really have been issued. But I don't believe every single thing that was revised needs to be released as free on the internet. And even if they never do, it registers on a minor level of annoyance, if that. After all, they HAVE released errata on a regular basis (just most recently last year with the "alternate form" business) but I don't see it as a big issue.

I just wonder why we never see proper errata when the FAQ gets updated monthly. Really, all they would need to do is set up an update schedule (once per 6-12 months would be sufficient), have a stickied thread on the WotC boards for errata suggestions for each book released in the past year, and have one guy sort through and identify errors based on the suggestions. Then, run the proposed changes past R&D one Friday afternoon to catch potential problems, and Bob's your uncle. I think people would be happier if errata were released regularly, even if "regularly" means "predictable but not often".

I don't like the way that changes are made in newer supplements without corresponding errata added to the errata list, just because it means that there are two official versions of the rule, instead of one. That causes problems, especially if you aren't aware that something has been changed. I know I haven't gone through Spell Compendium to see what they altered, and there's no list anywhere for me to check. I don't mind them changing things, but for the sake of keeping things consistent between the DM and various players, it would be nice to know that various people in a gaming group are all working from the same rules text. Having to make surprise decisions on the fly in critical situations because of rules alterations is not something I want from a new product. I do enough of that already.

 

[Storm Raven]

May I also note that, in the post to which you were responding, I (as did several others) pointed out that WotC isn't selling their errata. They may be selling packaged information, but any info in the SRD & available free on their website can hardly be considered info you have to buy.

I know that. I was arguing that they would do a better job issuing and supporting errata if they charged a nominal fee for it.

Hence, your attempt at playing the "evil corporation/scheming villians" card falls more than a little flat.

You are the one assuming that WotC would intentionally include errors in their initial publication so as to make errata necessary. That is only supportable if you assume WotC is run by the publishing equivalent of evil overlords.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I also think it's odd when people complain about WotC books containing poor grammar and spelling in a message board post that contains poor grammar and spelling. I'm not trying to single anyone out here, because I see it happen all the time.

 

[DaveyJones]

You are the one assuming that WotC would intentionally include errors in their initial publication so as to make errata necessary. That is only supportable if you assume WotC is run by the publishing equivalent of evil overlords.

of course, this would mean they hire a bunch of mediocre hacks to write products for them. as the good designers would start their own companies and produce better less error riddled products.

 

[Aaron L]

I have a major problem with Complete Psionic, which reprinted a significant number of powers from the XPH instead of merely listing the changes, as a way to pad out a horribly lacking book.

Other than that one example, I can't think of a single book where "paying for errata" would be a valid criticism.

 

[brehobit]

I think that "errata" that shows up in things like the spell compendium should be on-line for free also.

So, I think the OP has a valid point.

That said, I think the books the the spell compendium see only a small fraction of their usefulness due to errata, it is mainly the compilation that has value to me. I just wish WoTC would also put the errata on-line in addition to the SC. I don't think NOT doing so helps sales (though they might think so...)

Mark

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

and



would be weird if they were both true. One one hand, WotC is going to do the best job they can to make the sale prior to release (even though a certain amount of error will not retard sales) but, on the other hand, WotC is going to do lackluster errata after release unless they can increase profit by increasing sales.

Bizarro Land.

Why can't we assume a consistent goal and effort of production?

There's a trend in video games these days to release poorly edited games and use the initial surge of purchasers as an unwitting beta testing squad. They complain about bugs and errors on the company message boards, and the game gets patched. More errors show up, and more patches are released. However, this cycle has become shorter and shorter. Essentially, many games never get out of beta because they stop selling before all the errors are discovered and the patches are written. Atari is a major culprit, as many gamers who have played recent D&D-licensed games can attest, but other companies like EA are also gaining poor reputations for using this business model.

The thing is, the life cycle of a game supplement is--I've been led to believe--about 90 days. After 90 days, sales drop off and the book goes into a kind of senescence where it's still available but the publisher isn't really making much money on it. There's no reason to provide "value-added" like errata for something after that date. But if buyers are willing to buy the book without that "value-added" for those 90 days, there's no reason to provide it before that date. The only reason why the publisher would want to bother with errata is to provide the customer with a sense of confidence in the company: "purchases will be supported, so I should continue to make purchases". But if this is demonstrated to have a minimal impact on future sales, there's no reason to worry about it.

I think most people do not buy books with the assumption that there are errors in them and that those errors will be provided with official fixes. They buy books because they were successfully sold on the books. So the provision of errata is probably not a big priority.

 

[occam]

If you want to call something like the Spell Compendium "errata", then yes, I agree with WotC selling "errata".