WOTC: Making a statement is not making a promise

[Umbran]

I beg to differ.

Fine, you want to continue the semantics...

I'll buy the idea that an intentional, knowing statement of falsehood with intent to deceive is a lie. I will not buy that a statement can retroactively become a lie.

For example, in 1945 the statement, "The Empire State Building is the tallest building in the world," was true. All the people who said that in 1945 did not suddenly become lairs in 1972 when the World Trade Center's North Tower was completed. They simply became incorrect.

 

[Nadaka]

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

This is my definition of the word as well.

Exactly. And that is why most of this thread is so much hot air. There are legitimate grievances with how WotC handled D20 modern and its community in the lead up to 4e/GSL/Gleemax and afterwards. We WERE lied to.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

Actually I didn't lie, I changed my mind. If I had the intention of buying a blue car all along, and then told you I was going to by a red one, then this would be a lie.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

See, that's the thing, it's all about semantics. If they say PHB2 will contain druids and then change plans, it doesn't matter.

"I'm mad, they promised us Druids and I wanted druids!"
and
"I'm mad, when they said it'd have druids and I wanted druids, now my expectations have caused me to be disappointed with what they actually followed through on!"

It's the same thing. By focusing on "promises", you're ignoring the actual complaint and argueing about the semantics of the phrasing.

The person was told druids were in, druids are not in, the person is mad over it. Telling that person "well, it wasn't a promise" doesn't further the discussion, it just targets the persons arguement and inflames the situation.

 

[catsclaw227]

It's the same thing. By focusing on "promises", you're ignoring the actual complaint and argueing about the semantics of the phrasing.

The person was told druids were in, druids are not in, the person is mad over it. Telling that person "well, it wasn't a promise" doesn't further the discussion, it just targets the persons arguement and inflames the situation.

Maybe. Maybe so. But I guess I am not just arguing semantics, I am also discussing tone.

"They've broken promise after promise."
and
"They've had to change their plans to suit some changes in business needs and development schedule."

Could be just semantics, or it could also be a difference in tone and attitude. This is what I mean when I say that I didn't want to argue semantics.

Two people reading the two statements above would get wildly differing opinions of WOTC in the absence of any additional information.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Maybe. Maybe so. But I guess I am not just arguing semantics, I am also discussing tone.

"They've broken promise after promise."
and
"They've had to change their plans to suit some changes in business needs and development schedule."

The thing is there, you're removing the expectations, it's two difference vantages.

"They've broken promise after promise."
and
"WotC keeps changing their plans after they announce them."

Those are a bit closer in vantage.

Could be just semantics, or it could also be a difference in tone and attitude. This is what I mean when I say that I didn't want to argue semantics.

Two people reading the two statements above would get wildly differing opinions of WOTC in the absence of any additional information.

The thing is, it's pretty easy to see "broken promise" and "WotC lied!" as hyperbole. The only tone they impart is the tone the poster intended to use to display his anger, really.

As for reflecting on the company, "WotC has changed their plans" reflects poorly also. At some point they should have a final design to inform about. I've never been receptive to the false hype tossed around, so that may just be me.

On one hand it's good to see that they want to change stuff based on fan reception, on the other hand that gives the louder voices more pull.

On one hand it's good that they show early work to preview what's to come, on the other hand, it shows that the material isn't developed enough to be helpful...

 

[13garth13]

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

So glad to be of service....I find playing with synonyms most helpful when all that's really being bandied about (apparently) is semantics

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

Ah, but that would be because it's completely irrelevant....if id software says feature X will be present in their latest game, but it takes until 6 months later for a patch to show up that finally introduces it, are they not still foolish/negligent/doing a disservice to their fans/whatever you want to call it? Should they not still be taken to task for boldly stating that a feature would be present and then failing to deliver it in a timely (i.e. when they said it would be ready) fashion?

In addition, it's irrelevant because only a certain subsection of complaints on the previous thread (and my memory may be going here) seemed to be specifically about the DDI....there seemed to be several other issues in regards to broken commitments and partial deliveries of "promised" features.
Perhaps I should go and re-read it....

Further, if you state boldly and in as many outlets possible (including your own packaging) that feature X WILL BE AVAILABLE upon launch and it is not....well then perhaps you either should have not made such a grandiose statement in the first place, or you should have made a retraction AS SOON as you knew that there wasn't a snowflakes chance in Gehenna that it would be available in the fashion that you promised.

I'm sorry, but that's good customer relations, and while some may think that it's better to say something that you can't possibly back up rather than say nothing at all (and I disagree to a certain degree) I think you should also put out fires before they arise, and that included being OPEN with your customers.

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.

And again, those changes should be announced....that's not hopeless idealism, that's good customer relations. If you say that Dungeon and Dragon will be fully downloadable as complete issues and they're not (only the most recent ones are) and you say on the back of some of your latter 3.5 hardcovers (e.g. Elder Evils) that material for conversion will be available online (many, many, many months ago) and it's STILL not up, that indicates either incompetence or a failure to realize the magnitude of what you have promised (which is still incompetence of a sort).

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.

Good gracious, I wasn't aware that I was advocating smacking them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper or shoving their nose in their leavings.....

Look, all sarcasm aside, you either believe that a customer of a business has a right and a privelege to hold a company/business to task for making claims that it has not delivered on or you don't.

I think that that might be where the disconnect lies....I see the right to complain to a company/about a company's practices on fora and other media outlets as integral part of the system. If a company doesn't deliver on something (or doesn't seem to be doing it in a timely fashion), then absolutely YES, they deserve to be held accountable, publically for things that they publically commited to.

You seem to think that it's just people being WOTC haters (and don't get me wrong, there may be some part of that in all this....heck there's probably no MAY about it) but there is a middle ground between shameless backing of a corporation no matter what they do/don't do and the shameless tearing down of said company.

Holding someone/something accountable is not a bad thing (unless of course your idea of doing so is public flogging ).

Oh, and for the record, I certainly wouldn't classify it as lying.....letting your mouth write cheques that your tuchis can't cash isn't the same as maliciously misleading someone with deliberate, malign intent. It might be foolish or very poor business sense, but it's not lying.

Cheers,
Colin

P.S. What are the odds that six months from now, all aspects of the DDI will be fully operational? And even if it is (because, as I said, all the Digital Tools stuff is only part of what was commited to, and frankly I don't even care about it.....I'm more concerned about the principle of the thing), what are the odds that they have all the back issues of Dragon/Dungeon from earlier this year compiled as they said they would, and what are the odds that the supplemental material for Exemplars of Evil, etc. is up?

 

[evilref]

Exactly. And that is why most of this thread is so much hot air. There are legitimate grievances with how WotC handled D20 modern and its community in the lead up to 4e/GSL/Gleemax and afterwards. We WERE lied to.

Links, Screenshots?

 

[evilref]

Ah, but that would be because it's completely irrelevant....if id software says feature X will be present in their latest game, but it takes until 6 months later for a patch to show up that finally introduces it, are they not still foolish/negligent/doing a disservice to their fans/whatever you want to call it? Should they not still be taken to task for boldly stating that a feature would be present and then failing to deliver it in a timely (i.e. when they said it would be ready) fashion?

I'm glad you brought up the computer gaming industry because in general it's a good analogy here. Your use in this post is flawed however. Wizards hasn't released anything with promised features that people have paid money for and then waited for those features to be patched in.

Wizards have said 'we will be doing X', they're still doing X, X is not out yet. You haven't paid for X, the timeline for X has been continually communicated to people waiting for X and expectations for X have been managed throughout the process.

Further, if you state boldly and in as many outlets possible (including your own packaging) that feature X WILL BE AVAILABLE upon launch and it is not....well then perhaps you either should have not made such a grandiose statement in the first place, or you should have made a retraction AS SOON as you knew that there wasn't a snowflakes chance in Gehenna that it would be available in the fashion that you promised.

You mean like all the updates that happened about the progress of DDI. They may have gotten briefer around the time of the launch, however I ceretainly knew that we weren't having the game table at launch. And I knew because wizards said so. And, perhaps I missed it, but certainly I didn't see anything in the three months leading up to 4e's launch saying 'Game Table will be there at launch'.

I'm sorry, but that's good customer relations, and while some may think that it's better to say something that you can't possibly back up rather than say nothing at all (and I disagree to a certain degree) I think you should also put out fires before they arise, and that included being OPEN with your customers.

It is good customer relations. And they did it. There have been numerous messages about the DDI. Whether that amount of communication is good enough for you is another matter, but this is an industry that enjoys an almost unprecedented level of communication between creators and consumers.

 

[Umbran]

The thing is, it's pretty easy to see "broken promise" and "WotC lied!" as hyperbole. The only tone they impart is the tone the poster intended to use to display his anger, really.

The question is - how often is it just a word-choice hyperbole, and how often is it that the speaker really feels like there was a promise made? I would expect anger from a broken promise. I would expect disappointment from repeated changes in plan that reduced scope. The strength of the responses often seems to indicate either a misapprehension on the part of those who are angry, or a disproportionate response.

As for reflecting on the company, "WotC has changed their plans" reflects poorly also. At some point they should have a final design to inform about.

I am not sure this is nearly as true as folks suspect in modern smaller business. Lean manufacturing and agile software development, for example, don't work quite that way. Things can change right up until the last minute, these days.