WOTC: Making a statement is not making a promise

[The Little Raven]

At some point they should have a final design to inform about.

They do: the day it is sent to print.

 

[CountPopeula]

I think the bottom line is, no matter how much you may want to be apologist for Wizards of the Coast or shift the lame to Hasbro or whatever, when a company says they're going to do something and they don't do it, it reflects poorly on the company. Even if you like the company, the very best light you can cast this sort of thing in is that they were irresponsible in making statements about a game that wasn't done yet.

A lot of the sentiment seems to be "Well, they can say whatever they want about what their products are going to contain, and if you get mad it bears no resemblance to the end product, then you're being an ass."

When a company makes a statement about what the product they're selling to you for money is going to be, it's just bad business if it doesn't. And saying that they don't have to be held to anything they say about a product until the final product is 100% complete... well, things do change, but I know if a company said "this book will contain X" and I was really looking forward to X, then two days before it came out they said "Oh yeah, we got rid of X" I wouldn't buy it, no matter how good the final product was.

I certainly wouldn't go on the internet and defend the company's right to use something as a selling point and marketing tool for months and months to build hype for their product and then fail to deliver it.

 

[Mister Doug]

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.



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...

Of course, when WotC didn't release preview information, fans treated that as if WotC were hiding something from them, saying that 3e had more preview material, and the lack of information was a Sign of Something Sinister (tm). Once they released things, people didn't like what they saw, and that was a Sign of Something Sinister. When they changed things in response to feedback from playtesters and fans, that was a broken promise and a Sign of Something Sinister. It's sounding more and more like nothing Wizards can do will every make people accept what they do as anything but a sign of the approaching D&D apocalypse.

Changing plans isn't bad business or unethical if those changes come as part of a reasonable process like (for example) playtesting and market sampling. If you are working on a better product than your preview, you would hope there would be changes and improvements, right?

 

[Mister Doug]

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?

Well, what we may be talking is a company facing more difficulties in web and software development, process planning, and starting up new ventures than they anticipated, probably complicated by funding priorities and support from the parent company.

Bad planning? Probably. Calling them on this in order to get a better picture of what is really in the future is reasonable. But while this should make people cautious about the kinds of promises the company is making, I wouldn't call this necessarily an outright deceptive practice. Just a sign that the company may be underestimating the demands of new ventures.

 

[catsclaw227]

I think the bottom line is, no matter how much you may want to be apologist for Wizards of the Coast or shift the lame to Hasbro or whatever, when a company says they're going to do something and they don't do it, it reflects poorly on the company. Even if you like the company, the very best light you can cast this sort of thing in is that they were irresponsible in making statements about a game that wasn't done yet.

First, I don't really think anyone here has positioned themselves a apologists for WOTC. And my OP didn't say anything about whether changing development plans has reflected poorly on them.

It's obvious by the way people have reacted that it has reflected poorly. But I think that has more to do with HOW people reacted to the changes than the changes themselves.

A plan is not a promise. My experience on both sides of a similar issue has proven that to me.

A lot of the sentiment seems to be "Well, they can say whatever they want about what their products are going to contain, and if you get mad it bears no resemblance to the end product, then you're being an ass."

Not my sentiment at all. They haven't said "whatever they want". They have been open about timelines and candid about the difficulties they have faces and have owned up to the delays.

I certainly wouldn't go on the internet and defend the company's right to use something as a selling point and marketing tool for months and months to build hype for their product and then fail to deliver it.

They haven't failed to deliver it. DDI has not been canceled. It has been delayed. In the meantime, they have been giving Dungeon and Dragon for free. There have been lots of adventures, articles, conversion ideas, new powers, items, etc. And this doesn't count the stuff that I feel should be free anyway, like previews.

 

[Tewligan]

Wizards hasn't released anything with promised features that people have paid money for and then waited for those features to be patched in.

Yes, they have - the 4e books. Judging from what a lot of people were saying online (and no, I'm not going to go back to dig up specific examples), one of the big draws for 4e was being able to play it online, either with friends who couldn't be there in person or just forming new groups. A lot of people (again, according to posts at the time that I'm not going to hunt for) preordered based on that feature. I know that my old group in Kentucky did so, and would not have bought the books without that promised feature. WotC did not even start to make it known until a month before 4e's release that DDI would not be ready. Of course, they did a better job of announcing the status of DDI conveniently right after the books had gone on sale, and admitted themselves in that announcement that they had not done a very good job of letting people know.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes, they have - the 4e books.

D&D Insider's Gaming Table is not a feature of the 4e books. It is the feature of an entirely separate product which nobody has been charged for.

 

[Vocenoctum]

A plan is not a promise. My experience on both sides of a similar issue has proven that to me.

Then the next semantics arguement is when something is a "plan" and when it's a "preview" of material.

 

[Tewligan]

D&D Insider's Gaming Table is not a feature of the 4e books. It is the feature of an entirely separate product which nobody has been charged for.

Nonsense. It's a feature of D&D, and has been touted as such all along since this edition was announced. It's not an "entirely separate product", and you know it.

 

[resistor]

For what it's worth, I work for a major computer and consumer electronics company, whose products are typically highly hyped and anticipated.

All of out external communications are very very careful controlled because of exactly this issue: if we mention anything we plan to do in the future, people that it as a promise, and then our stock price takes a hit if we don't deliver. All employees have it drilled into them that they are never, EVER to mention planned features in any external communication, nor to mention dates or even broad time frames. All trade show presentations are proofed three or four times to make sure nothing gets out, and special "handlers" are present during Q&A whose purpose is to deflect any questions that we can't answer because of this.

Information is only released when we are absolutely completely certain it is ready.

Any large corporation, especially one that's banking on the power of hype for a marketing campaign, should be aware of the challenges it incurs. We can argue all day about whether or not taking things are promises is right or not, but the fact of the matter is that it still happens. It's a reality of the consumer mindset, and any well-thought out marketing plan should account for it.

So, I still fault Hasbro's marketing department for not controlling this well enough, and hence creating a backlash because of "broken promises."