WOTC: Making a statement is not making a promise

[13garth13]

I can't believe I'm actually responding to this thread.....*sigh*

For all those posters getting righteously indignant about the use of the phrase "broken promises" when statements are made about features to be included which then are not......would calling them broken commitments be okay? How about mispoken avowals? I mean, c'mon....

Let's say that id software says in an interview that "Doom 4 will feature destructible environments", and then in another interview a spokesman gets highly excited talking about how much they're looking forward to finally getting more interactive environments, and so on and so forth. And then when the game is released there's nothing more than bullet hole decals, and not even glass windows can be broken.

Did they "promise" as in actually use the phrase, "We promise on a stack of holy tomes, swear on our mother's graves, and vow by all that is righteous and good with the universe that this game will feature destructible environments"?

Heck no.

Should people purchasing the game let them off the hook and not complain about broken promises and failed commitments?

Heck no! They stated (in this hypothetical example) that they were working on a feature, and hyped that feature in (presumably) a genre publication and that means that unless they have come forth and stated that the feature is no longer to be available and give a decent explanation as to why the public have every reason to expect that feature to be present and should be indignant and as loud as they want to be (well, within reason) about "broken promises"

I can't believe that some people expect a pinkie swear before we are permitted to complain about unmet "promises".

If you talk about a feature (say, a monthly Dungeon and Dragon, which will be compiled into a downloadable PDF) and then you don't follow through (switch to bi-monthly with barely a whisper made about the change in plans, and then still don't bother compiling any of the older Dungeon and Dragons that you released over the spring) I think it's safe to say that a corporation deserves a great deal of criticism for such a failure to deliver on a "stated" commitment. Sure, NOW they're following through, but I guess all those previous months didn't count? Give me a break... ....

If you want to get your knickers in a twist because they didn't actually use the word promise, then hey, whatever floats your boat, but let's not act as if people and businesses shouldn't be taken to task for saying something would be done/present and then it's no where to be found.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The problem with saying a company lies is that most of the time, they are stating their plans. But they are not selling you these plans.

If someone would have said "We plan on having two classes for each role in the PHB", it is just not a lie or a broken promise if in the end, it turns out to be different.

It becomes a lie if you buy the book after someone says you: "The book contains two classes for every role".

Actually, it becomes a lie when they say "The book will contain two classes for every role."

Plans do not always work out - see Sing Tsu. But a statement such as this is false, and therefore, a lie.

 

[Mark]

People are blowing the word "promise" out of all proportion with the hyperbole that some how the posters that say "promise" mean that a solemn oath was sworn.

Classic strawman argument. You might as well start ignoring people who use such tactics because they are bound to marginalize your position to make their own position seem reasonable. Just point it out and move on with more enjoyable gaming message board pursuits. There is precious little enough time to devote to the hobby without getting bogged down in arguments with people who are compelled to twist your words simply to "win."

 

[Umbran]

Actually, it becomes a lie when they say "The book will contain two classes for every role."

Plans do not always work out - see Sing Tsu. But a statement such as this is false, and therefore, a lie.

It is a lie if they knew the book wouldn't contain the classes when they spoke.

Facts sometimes change - a statement based on earlier facts does nto become a lie when the facts later change.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If I tell you I am going to buy a red car, and I see a blue one I like instead,

But if you buy the blue car, you have still spoken an untruth. A harmless little lie, but it' still a lie. I wouldn't therefore refuse to trust you because of it. But if you told me you were going to produce a hot new line of red cars, and when I arrived at your store to find only blue cars, I would be less inclined to believe your word in the future.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It is a lie if they knew the book wouldn't contain the classes when they spoke.

Facts sometimes change - a statement based on earlier facts does nto become a lie when the facts later change.

I beg to differ. The statement made stands. If I tell you "I will pick you up at the airport at 6:00" and I show up at 6:30, I have, in fact lied. It may be an excusable falsehood - maybe I couldn't predict the pileup on the highway that delayed me 30 minutes, or something else beyond my control. The fact remains that I lied. I'm not saying people should get their torches and pitchforks out over any WoTC statements, but those claiming they have told nothing but the truth are sadly mistaken. Whether or not it's a big deal is for the individual to decide.

 

[catsclaw227]

But if you buy the blue car, you have still spoken an untruth. A harmless little lie, but it' still a lie. I wouldn't therefore refuse to trust you because of it. But if you told me you were going to produce a hot new line of red cars, and when I arrived at your store to find only blue cars, I would be less inclined to believe your word in the future.

I am not a linguist and I don't want to get into an argument over semantics. I never intended this to be about semantics.

I am talking about the difference between a predictive statement about the future and future plans based upon current information -- "This is what we have planned for the DDI" -- and a lie -- "The DDI is done, we're just cleaning up a few bugs" (for the next six months).

All I was bringing up is that a lot of people seem to label plans as promises. In the business world, these things are fundamentally different and it is either ignorant, immature or ingenuous to turn around and beat someone over the head with "broken promises" when plans change or development schedules are altered.

 

[Mark]

The fact remains that I lied.

Being mistaken is not the equivalent of lying. Lying requires the intent to purposefully deceive.

 

[catsclaw227]

I can't believe I'm actually responding to this thread.....*sigh*

For all those posters getting righteously indignant about the use of the phrase "broken promises" when statements are made about features to be included which then are not......would calling them broken commitments be okay? How about mispoken avowals? I mean, c'mon....

Oh... well then thank you for stepping in and clearing all this up. Everything's better now.

And you forgot to add the word "yet". Features that aren't included, yet.

I can't believe that some people expect a pinkie swear before we are permitted to complain about unmet "promises".

I can't believe that some people act like WOTC gave them a pinky swear when all they did was lay out a editorial/development schedule for DDI (Dungeon, Dragon and the online tools). Editorial and Development schedules change more often than they don't.

If you want to get your knickers in a twist because they didn't actually use the word promise, then hey, whatever floats your boat, but let's not act as if people and businesses shouldn't be taken to task for saying something would be done/present and then it's no where to be found.

Do you believe that the consumers have a right to take them to task over this? They aren't dogs to be broken or punished.

 

[Rel]

Being mistaken is not the equivalent of lying. Lying requires the intent to purposefully deceive.

This is my definition of the word as well.