Blog posts on DDI should be free

[Mark]

I have not seen many people who have access to the pay content claim that the quality of material is lacking. Have you, and if so could you provide links to those claims?

I've heard that they make very regular changes to the rules they put in the compendium.

 

[carmachu]

Hang on a tick though.

I read my e-stuff on my Ipod touch using Stanza. How is that so different than the physical book/magazine I used to read? I still read in the same places (yup, that one too), still read by holding something in my hand and turning pages.

So, how is an e-book not a book?

((Not looking for a fight here, just honestly curious about this. I've never really thought of the fact that I read REH's books both in paper and e-format as being very different.))

Unlike a real book, in an e-reader type(say kindle) The manufacturer or provider or content can go into it and delete your content w/o permission.

See Kindle debacle online. Where they went in and deleted books that they had sold, but aparantly their subsidy didnt have permission to sell(1984 was one, and another Orwell story or two, ironicly). They did refund the money, but the very fact that they can do that? Pretty much turned me off e-readers pretty much for good.

(for the record, I dont buy gaming PDF's either)

 

[Dire Bare]

I've heard that they make very regular changes to the rules they put in the compendium.

If by changes you mean errata . . . then yes, they do this all the time.

I think that is a positive of the service!

 

[Mark]

If by changes you mean errata . . . then yes, they do this all the time.

I think that is a positive of the service!

Errata are typos or misprints, not rules that have been found to be inadequate or "lacking" as someone said above. Not the same thing at all.

 

[Hussar]

Unlike a real book, in an e-reader type(say kindle) The manufacturer or provider or content can go into it and delete your content w/o permission.

See Kindle debacle online. Where they went in and deleted books that they had sold, but aparantly their subsidy didnt have permission to sell(1984 was one, and another Orwell story or two, ironicly). They did refund the money, but the very fact that they can do that? Pretty much turned me off e-readers pretty much for good.

(for the record, I dont buy gaming PDF's either)

Well, that's certainly not universal for all e-readers. That's a Kindle thing and, to be fair, Amazon did eventually come pretty clean about it. But, yeah, I can totally understand your point.

Errata are typos or misprints, not rules that have been found to be inadequate or "lacking" as someone said above. Not the same thing at all.

That's a pretty limited definition of errata which runs counter to how the term has been used for a number of years. It's certainly true that by strictly literal dictionary definition, you're probably right. However, most people lump rules fixes into errata too and have done so for some time.

 

[Mark]

It's certainly true that by strictly literal dictionary definition, you're probably right. However, most people lump rules fixes into errata too and have done so for some time.

Even misuse of the word doesn't change the meaning of why the rules changes are necessary, in that they are apparently poorly conceived and not working with the whole. And, apparently, it happens on quite a frequent level. Is it commendable to fix rules that do not work? I suppose. Is it commendable that they do not work so often as happens? I think that's the complaint that is being defended above. We can leave the semantics aside.

 

[Hussar]

Well, that's a bit of a different kettle of fish. If you think that rules should be carved in stone upon release and never changed, then, yup, I can see people not liking frequent rules changes.

But, what does that have to do with being a subscriber to DDI and not liking it, which, I thought, was the question on the table?

 

[Mark]

Well, that's a bit of a different kettle of fish. If you think that rules should be carved in stone upon release and never changed, then, yup, I can see people not liking frequent rules changes.

But, what does that have to do with being a subscriber to DDI and not liking it, which, I thought, was the question on the table?

The discussion turned toward whether the material was lacking. Claiming that it is well enough if shoddy in the books but fixed if you pay the extra for the online corrections seems a poor approach to publishing. Seems like hairsplitting to defend such practices based on that difference.

 

[Gimby]

The discussion turned toward whether the material was lacking. Claiming that it is well enough if shoddy in the books but fixed if you pay the extra for the online corrections seems a poor approach to publishing. Seems like hairsplitting to defend such practices based on that difference.

Well, the errata are free: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Official D&D Updates)

The paid online resource includes these updates, but isn't the only source of them.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, totally not seeing where you're getting this:

/snip
Seriously, if WotC had plenty of quality material to put into their e-magazines we wouldn't have the debates on why this or that isn't actually free. Seriously, getting DDI subscribers to pay for product pitches, how lame can it get?

I have not seen many people who have access to the pay content claim that the quality of material is lacking. Have you, and if so could you provide links to those claims?

I've heard that they make very regular changes to the rules they put in the compendium.

The discussion turned toward whether the material was lacking. Claiming that it is well enough if shoddy in the books but fixed if you pay the extra for the online corrections seems a poor approach to publishing. Seems like hairsplitting to defend such practices based on that difference.

Mistwell's question isn't about people who are not subscribers, but, rather to those who are unhappy with what they get for subscribing. Windjammer claimed that there is a serious lack of material in the DDI subscription.

IMO, you are not addressing Mistwell's point which seems to be, "who is doing the complaining? People who are not subscribers or people who are?"

See, to me, if subscribers are complaining, that indicates a problem with the service. If people who are not taking advantage of the service are complaining, one wonders why they are complaining in the first place.