Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zoroaster100" data-source="post: 4025073" data-attributes="member: 8538">I just read Andy Collins' comments quoted on ENWorld's front newspage today explaining what playtesters were and were not allowed to say.&nbsp; I must say I am disappointed with WOTC's decision to try to provide skewed information about the game by allowing certain playtesters to comment but only if they have positive comments.&nbsp; I still trust that the freelancers who spoke out do honestly like the game, just as they stated, but now we know if there were four times as many freelancers who had nothing positive, and much negative to say, those people were forbidden from speaking out.&nbsp; I believe that is deceptive and manipulative on the part of WOTC.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm sure there are many other companies that do similar marketing practices, but that doesn't make it right.&nbsp; I read Andy's defense for the practice, which is essentially that there is no point in having negative comments shared with consumers at this point because the criticism can just be used internally to fix the problem.&nbsp; But that doesn't strike me as a legitimate defense.&nbsp; From what we've heard, most of the rules at this point are pretty much done.&nbsp; So if someone felt overall the game is not as fun with the new rules, I don't see how that could be fixed at this point.&nbsp; More importantly, if the game is still so in flux that negative comments are not relevant because things might get fixed, the same could be said for positive comments.I still have high hopes that the fourth edition rules will be fun.&nbsp; But the credibility of WOTC's marketing department has taken a beating for me this day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zoroaster100, post: 4025073, member: 8538"] I just read Andy Collins' comments quoted on ENWorld's front newspage today explaining what playtesters were and were not allowed to say. I must say I am disappointed with WOTC's decision to try to provide skewed information about the game by allowing certain playtesters to comment but only if they have positive comments. I still trust that the freelancers who spoke out do honestly like the game, just as they stated, but now we know if there were four times as many freelancers who had nothing positive, and much negative to say, those people were forbidden from speaking out. I believe that is deceptive and manipulative on the part of WOTC. I'm sure there are many other companies that do similar marketing practices, but that doesn't make it right. I read Andy's defense for the practice, which is essentially that there is no point in having negative comments shared with consumers at this point because the criticism can just be used internally to fix the problem. But that doesn't strike me as a legitimate defense. From what we've heard, most of the rules at this point are pretty much done. So if someone felt overall the game is not as fun with the new rules, I don't see how that could be fixed at this point. More importantly, if the game is still so in flux that negative comments are not relevant because things might get fixed, the same could be said for positive comments. I still have high hopes that the fourth edition rules will be fun. But the credibility of WOTC's marketing department has taken a beating for me this day. [/QUOTE]

Verification