DDI January Content Calendar "Online"

[MrMyth]

And for me, the fact that I'm paying them money for an online magazine means they can and should be held to a higher standard, and one not shackled by traditional media. For me, I expect that content comes out regularly (and for Dungeon/Dragon, that should be daily), that I know when exactly it comes out, and (generally) what it is. I expect that articles have deadlines and be complete with enough lead time to account for the unknown, because that's professional.

Bottom line, it's not enough to be trying when money is involved, which is why I think a lot of people are discontent, and a lot of people have canceled their subscriptions.

I think there are legitimate reasons to be upset over the state of DDI and legitimate reasons to cancel one's subscription.

And just to be absolutely clear - wanting a different model than WotC has (a release at the end of the month) can be a valid reason to not subscribe or to cancel one's subscription.

But it's not really a valid reason to hold WotC accountable for not having that model. They never said they had that model. The online magazine comes out at the end of the month, and they release articles early throughout the month. Those articles are not committed to any deadline except the one at the end of the month - that is how it has been from the start.

Now, you want them to have a different model. Fair enough. That's a reason to not give them money. But saying that because money is involved, they should cater to your exact tastes... unfortunately, that's not how commerce actually works. They have offered you a product. If it meet's your desires, you can purchase it. If not, you don't have to. But it isn't especially reasonable to purchase it, and then complain that it isn't some other product instead.

Regarding the content calendar not being set in stone, I find the whole "living document" idea to be a little naive. If you put dates on a calendar, your customers are going to interpret that as a release schedule, no matter what one might say. Rephrase the idea as "we might get it out by this time, we might not," and it's patently ludicrous, especially when money is involved. I think everyone expects the occasional hiccup; someone gets sick, formatting doesn't get done, wrong document gets posted; it happens. What is disconcerting for me is that these hiccups are becoming increasingly more frequent. Rather than taking a look at why that is, WotC decided to hide the issue behind ambiguity. That's the problem here - a repeated demonstration that WotC is incapable of even holding themselves to self-imposed deadlines, and a seeming unwillingness to address it.

I really can't blame WotC for customers being unwilling to take them at their word. And their word was right there on the page - the dates on the calendar weren't deadlines. To continue to insist on that... well, some customers will always expect more than is reasonable. Or blame a company for not fulfilling obligations that were never actually promised by the company, that the customer was never actually entitled to.

WotC clearly realized that the calendar was setting false expectations and that incorrect assumptions were being made by their customers. They've addressed that by taking down the calendar. I think that's a shame, but that WotC isn't the one to blame for this.

Am I saying that criticism of the magazines can never be merited? Of course not. They've had plenty of recent editing issues, poorly labelled articles, difficulty finding a proper balance of content, and had a genuine failure with the Assassin article last month.

But from the start, the calendar had a disclaimer that the dates weren't set in stone. And you say that it was 'naive' on WotC's behalf to expect their customers to read or acknowledge that disclaimer?

We're not children. (Well, I assume for the most part.) They should be able to tell us something and have us accept it. Saying that they should treat us with kid gloves and that we aren't capable of understanding basic instructions? Well.. maybe it is true, for some customers. But I don't particularly want that assumption to be part of how they operate.

I'd rather they treat us as paying customers, and provide the content that we have paid them to provide, according to the terms we were given when we paid them for the service.

 

[Klaus]

...And on the topic of what actually is on the calendar... I know some folks who are going to be happy about new Ravenloft scenarios.

However, as a father of two young D&D-playing daughters, I'm especially intrigued by this:

D&D Kids: Character Generation

I wonder if they're going to start making more of an effort to get kids into the game, following up on the Red Box and Essentials. High time, I say.

No one's posted a link yet, have they?

D&D Content Calendar for January 2011

That D&D Kids tidbit also caught my eye.

 

[Scribble]

D&D Kid's club?

Who's the leader of undeath
That's made to eat your spleen?
A-C-E-R-E-R-A-K
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You're as dead as you can be
A-C-E-R-E-R-A-K

Acererak!

Acererak!

 

[LightPhoenix]

But it's not really a valid reason to hold WotC accountable for not having that model. They never said they had that model. The online magazine comes out at the end of the month, and they release articles early throughout the month. Those articles are not committed to any deadline except the one at the end of the month - that is how it has been from the start.

They implied they had a daily model though, and they obviously set some sort of internal deadline. Otherwise, what's the point of the calendar? How would you even make it? If the intent was always to focus on a monthly e-zine, then the whole concept of the calendar is detrimental. I think we would both agree it was definitely a mistake.

WotC clearly realized that the calendar was setting false expectations and that incorrect assumptions were being made by their customers. They've addressed that by taking down the calendar. I think that's a shame, but that WotC isn't the one to blame for this...

But from the start, the calendar had a disclaimer that the dates weren't set in stone. And you say that it was 'naive' on WotC's behalf to expect their customers to read or acknowledge that disclaimer?

Yes, absolutely I'm saying that. You're absolutely right, it's on there right at the top of the page. You can ask Morrus or the other mods about how often Sticky threads get read here for a similar phenomenon. It's hardly an unknown thing.

But moreover, if they never intended the calendar to be binding, why bother having it in the first place? I would like to assume that the people at WotC are not incompetent or inexperienced. Therefore, I'm going to assume that they were based on internal deadlines, either official or self-imposed.

I'd rather they treat us as paying customers, and provide the content that we have paid them to provide, according to the terms we were given when we paid them for the service.

I think this is the main point we differ on. I find it disingenuous to post a calendar, imply stuff will be out on specific dates, and then say you're only guaranteed stuff at the end of the month, regardless of what they wrote on the website.

What's frustrating to me, and likely a source of my ire and unwillingness to bend on this matter, is that this wasn't the case before. The e-zines actually managed that daily schedule for a long while, with only the occasional expected hiccup (life/website/etc). That's clearly not the case anymore. I think the Executioner issue underscores that.

I want to be very clear in that I (mostly) don't think it's deliberate. I'm fully convinced that the problem that the e-zine part of DDI is critically understaffed. Do I think that WotC, or at least the D&D side of things, is completely out of touch with the digital age? Absolutely. However, everything I've seen over the last year suggests the real problem is that there's minimal resources allocated to Dungeon and Dragon.

We're not children.

Speak for yourself, I'm THIS 5 many!

 

[MrMyth]

They implied they had a daily model though, and they obviously set some sort of internal deadline. Otherwise, what's the point of the calendar? How would you even make it? If the intent was always to focus on a monthly e-zine, then the whole concept of the calendar is detrimental. I think we would both agree it was definitely a mistake.

Well, no.

It's really the absolute here that I'm in disagreement with. Either we can only have a calendar with absolute deadlines, or we can't have a calendar at all?

For me, having a calendar with the understanding that it isn't definite is far preferable to having no calendar at all. It provided a useful tool, as long as one didn't rely on it to be writ in stone. Having one or two articles a month shift places was less detrimental, for me, than having less advance warning about everything in the magazine as a whole.

I think the dates put on the calendar were expected days when the articles would be complete. If the article needed more work, for whatever reason, they chose to put the quality of the article over getting it out by that date. Now, perhaps they could have had better communication about those situations - either announcements when dates changes, explanations as to why, etc.

But those dates weren't deadlines in the absolute sense. They didn't set out to 'imply' any falsehood. Any implication people read into it was entirely their own failing, since the calendar came with an outright disclaimer explaining it wasn't set in stone.

Yes, absolutely I'm saying that. You're absolutely right, it's on there right at the top of the page. You can ask Morrus or the other mods about how often Sticky threads get read here for a similar phenomenon. It's hardly an unknown thing.

Sure. We've got one at the top of the forum that explains you can't post a complete copy of an article from WotC's website. But if a user went ahead and did so anyway... well, I imagine the mods would delete the offending text, and give a warning, and a reminder to abide by that rule. For a first offense, I don't think anything worse would happen.

But what wouldn't happen, I suspect, is the community suddenly getting angry at the mods for their response. The user who didn't read the sticky remains at fault - not the people who run the site.

Now, hardly an identical situation, but my feelings are largely the same. The people who ignore what the WotC calendar said are the ones being unreasonable. WotC shouldn't be held accountable for not making the assumption that their clearly posted disclaimers would be ignored.

But moreover, if they never intended the calendar to be binding, why bother having it in the first place? I would like to assume that the people at WotC are not incompetent or inexperienced. Therefore, I'm going to assume that they were based on internal deadlines, either official or self-imposed.

Again, I think it is the term 'deadline' that is a problem here. Yes, they probably had these as basic goals during the month, and put them on the calendar to give customers a sense of what content would be available when. Insisting that this is worthless unless they can commit to treating these as absolute deadlines... I just don't agree.

Now, due to how the subscription works, there are times when customers could face genuine difficulties due to an article shifting its time - if they subscribed assuming they would get an article on a specific date, and the article is moved back a week and their subscription runs out.

The one time I remember hearing concerns along those lines? WotC extended the subscriptions of everyone who complained about it as an issue. That seems a more than reasonable response to me.

I think this is the main point we differ on. I find it disingenuous to post a calendar, imply stuff will be out on specific dates, and then say you're only guaranteed stuff at the end of the month, regardless of what they wrote on the website.

Ocne more - I think its seriously uncool to accuse them of being disingenuous when they say up front that the dates aren't absolute!

They aren't trying to imply or hint that stuff will be out on a specific date, and then using that to trick anyone. They are saying up front, "Hey, this is when we plan to have these articles out. The dates might change - stuff happens." No deception at all - as made clear by precisely 'what they wrote on the website'.

What's frustrating to me, and likely a source of my ire and unwillingness to bend on this matter, is that this wasn't the case before. The e-zines actually managed that daily schedule for a long while, with only the occasional expected hiccup (life/website/etc). That's clearly not the case anymore. I think the Executioner issue underscores that.

I'm not so sure about that. We've had shifts like this from the beginning - that's why the disclaimer is in there. Early on, we had a major article pushed back, like the Executioner - and that's when they offered the extra month for those who complained about it. Last month, we had the Executioner pushed back - and, this time, they gave refunds to those who complained about it.

Honestly, the issue with the Executioner was the lack of oversight in posting what was apparently an unfinished draft of the article, and the lack of communication between the magazine staff and the design team. Feel free to complain about the unprofessionalism of that debacle. But I still don't see any validity in complaints over minor adjustments made to the schedule itself.

I want to be very clear in that I (mostly) don't think it's deliberate. I'm fully convinced that the problem that the e-zine part of DDI is critically understaffed. Do I think that WotC, or at least the D&D side of things, is completely out of touch with the digital age? Absolutely. However, everything I've seen over the last year suggests the real problem is that there's minimal resources allocated to Dungeon and Dragon.

Oh yeah, wouldn't be surprised there - I get the feeling everything DDI is understaffed. Not sure how much so it is for the magazines, but it is certainly true to that schedule readjustments (and some of the other issues they've had) don't bode well for what is going on behind the scenes.

I'd just... rather see concerns aimed at that directly, rather than the issue focusing on them breaking theoretical promises to their readers, when no such promises have ever been made. All that does is get them to abandon a useful tool for the rest of us, and certainly doesn't help address whatever underlying problems might actually be involved.

More than that, every time complaints are waged about something like this - where their behavior has been essentially in the right - it makes it easier and easier for them to dismiss concerns over areas where they are genuinely letting down their readership. And that, really, is the reason for this atrociously long response.

 

[avin]

DDI has failed, miserably.

 

[LightPhoenix]

It's really the absolute here that I'm in disagreement with. Either we can only have a calendar with absolute deadlines, or we can't have a calendar at all?

Fair enough. I think at this point we just fundamentally disagree on points and we're getting nowhere. I think this is an either/or choice, and you don't.

I think the dates put on the calendar were expected days when the articles would be complete. If the article needed more work, for whatever reason, they chose to put the quality of the article over getting it out by that date. Now, perhaps they could have had better communication about those situations - either announcements when dates changes, explanations as to why, etc.

But those dates weren't deadlines in the absolute sense. They didn't set out to 'imply' any falsehood. Any implication people read into it was entirely their own failing, since the calendar came with an outright disclaimer explaining it wasn't set in stone.

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree. If I say "I want to get something done by Friday," that is a deadline. Is it set in stone? No. It's still a deadline.

I understand where you're coming from - it's like saying to your boss, "I'll get that done by the end of the week." Except, in this case, it's WotC, and it's the end of the month. I agree that is a deadline. I just think the former is also a deadline.

Now, hardly an identical situation, but my feelings are largely the same. The people who ignore what the WotC calendar said are the ones being unreasonable. WotC shouldn't be held accountable for not making the assumption that their clearly posted disclaimers would be ignored.

No, I agree, it wasn't a good example. Perhaps a better example would be video game release dates being broken.

Again, I think it is the term 'deadline' that is a problem here. Yes, they probably had these as basic goals during the month, and put them on the calendar to give customers a sense of what content would be available when. Insisting that this is worthless unless they can commit to treating these as absolute deadlines... I just don't agree.

Again, I think this is just fundamental disagreement. If they didn't want to commit to dates, they could have started out doing what they're doing now - a weekly schedule. Or just go monthly with the mags, if they wanted the traditional magazine model.

The one time I remember hearing concerns along those lines? WotC extended the subscriptions of everyone who complained about it as an issue. That seems a more than reasonable response to me.

I want to say here, that I'm not faulting WotC's customer service. I think they've done an excellent job in what is clearly a tumultuous time for them and their customers.

Ocne more - I think its seriously uncool to accuse them of being disingenuous when they say up front that the dates aren't absolute!

Again, fundamental disagreement. I feel it is disingenuous to say "This is out release schedule this month, but we retain the right to ignore it completely. Thanks for paying for the month!"

They aren't trying to imply or hint that stuff will be out on a specific date, and then using that to trick anyone. They are saying up front, "Hey, this is when we plan to have these articles out. The dates might change - stuff happens." No deception at all - as made clear by precisely 'what they wrote on the website'.

Again, I want to reiterate: I don't think it's deliberate. I think there's a lot of problems behind the scenes we're not privy to. Like I said, I don't think they have enough people on the project to really be taking it seriously. I think there's a couple people working tirelessly behind the scenes to keep up with the e-zines, but they just don't have the resources to keep it up.

I'm not so sure about that. We've had shifts like this from the beginning - that's why the disclaimer is in there. Early on, we had a major article pushed back, like the Executioner - and that's when they offered the extra month for those who complained about it. Last month, we had the Executioner pushed back - and, this time, they gave refunds to those who complained about it.

Again, I think WotC Customer Service has been great. And for the record, I am a yearly subscriber, and did not ask for a refund. I truly want to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's just getting very hard to do that.

Honestly, the issue with the Executioner was the lack of oversight in posting what was apparently an unfinished draft of the article, and the lack of communication between the magazine staff and the design team. Feel free to complain about the unprofessionalism of that debacle. But I still don't see any validity in complaints over minor adjustments made to the schedule itself.

I don't believe that for a second, to be frankly honest. I freely admit it may be true, and I'm full of bunk. Still, at this point, WotC has lost enough of my goodwill that I'm not going to take their word for it.

Oh yeah, wouldn't be surprised there - I get the feeling everything DDI is understaffed. Not sure how much so it is for the magazines, but it is certainly true to that schedule readjustments (and some of the other issues they've had) don't bode well for what is going on behind the scenes.

I'd just... rather see concerns aimed at that directly, rather than the issue focusing on them breaking theoretical promises to their readers, when no such promises have ever been made. All that does is get them to abandon a useful tool for the rest of us, and certainly doesn't help address whatever underlying problems might actually be involved.

Absolutely. I really want to see WotC embrace the digital side of things, because for the most part we fans have. I suspect most of us want that as well. Obviously we're passionate about it, regardless of our views. I think that's a large part of the general discontent about DDI.

More than that, every time complaints are waged about something like this - where their behavior has been essentially in the right - it makes it easier and easier for them to dismiss concerns over areas where they are genuinely letting down their readership. And that, really, is the reason for this atrociously long response.

Nonsense. WotC obviously is listening to complaints, as evidenced by increased communication regarding the CB, with regards to CustServ being (IMO) generous with refunds and gifts, with regards to their products, and so forth. They're doing a great job with it too, IMO. If people don't complain, WotC doesn't realize anything is wrong, perceived or real, legitimate or not.

I'd argue what's really needed is more people who are willing to be vocal about saying, "Hey, I think you're doing this right." It's not the steady deluge of negative feedback that causes a company to ignore their customers; it's the lack of positive feedback.

 

[MrMyth]

Fair enough. I think at this point we just fundamentally disagree on points and we're getting nowhere. I think this is an either/or choice, and you don't.

I'd say that probably sums it up - and I did want to say that I appreciate the fact that, despite having a fundamental difference on the topic, we've been able to have this as a civil conversation.

Since it sounds like the main difference is over the deadline issue itself, I'll leave that as an area where we can agree to disagree - but just wanted to offer a few comments on one or two other areas.

Again, fundamental disagreement. I feel it is disingenuous to say "This is out release schedule this month, but we retain the right to ignore it completely. Thanks for paying for the month!"

...

Again, I want to reiterate: I don't think it's deliberate.

Just to clarify, here, the reason I object to calling them disingenous is because it indicats (to me) that they are doing this deliberately. That active deceit is at work. I don't think that's the case. You feel that if they put out dates as goals for articles, they should commit to them absolutely - they don't feel that way, though, and have never pretended that is the case.

I can accept disagreeing with that structure - and, clearly, others feel the same, hence why they are changing it. But I don't think there was ever any goal of giving customers a false impression. If there was, that disclaimer would never have existed.

Again, I think WotC Customer Service has been great. And for the record, I am a yearly subscriber, and did not ask for a refund. I truly want to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's just getting very hard to do that.

I've actually gotten 3 or 4 months of refunds from them this year, which might make it somewhat ironic that I'm defending them in this case. I do think, though, that asking for refunds (along with a good explanation of why) is probably one of the best ways to actually send a message to them.

In the end, though, I don't think anyone should remain a subscriber simply to give them the benefit of the doubt. Either the service is worth it, or it is not - that should really be the only factors that matter.

I don't believe that for a second, to be frankly honest. I freely admit it may be true, and I'm full of bunk. Still, at this point, WotC has lost enough of my goodwill that I'm not going to take their word for it.

I tend to believe their explanation about the Assassin mix-up because... well, because as an 'excuse', it comes off a lot worse than the only other likely scenario. If they actually released the November article as the final version, and people complained so much they decided to fix it? I have to think they would have gotten a lot more credit by saying, "You know what, you guys are right - we screwed up, and we'll send it back to the lab and get you all a proper version in December."

It comes off in a much worse light to instead say, "We have no idea what we are doing, and published an unfinished interim article, because we thought we had a November deadline for this and the designers thought it was a December deadline. Whoops!"

I tend to believe them on this account not out of respect for their word, but because I have to imagine if they did try to cover up what went wrong, they could at least come up with something that didn't make them look so completely incompetent.

Nonsense. WotC obviously is listening to complaints, as evidenced by increased communication regarding the CB, with regards to CustServ being (IMO) generous with refunds and gifts, with regards to their products, and so forth. They're doing a great job with it too, IMO. If people don't complain, WotC doesn't realize anything is wrong, perceived or real, legitimate or not.

Oh, sure, I think they are listening - but I do kinda wish that it was easier to focus them on the things that matter. And, admittedly, 'what matters' is something that will change from person to person - but in this case, we have them shifting the editorial calendar in a way that deprives functionality to some users (such as myself) in order to satisfy the concerns of others. Now, I don't know for sure that more people will be happy with this change than will be disappointed with it, but it strikes me as overall a 'lose-lose' situation for the customers.

That's kinda the problem with ultimatums. We had customers who said, "Sorry, WotC, we are sick of you changing the schedule on us. If articles don't come on time, we are going to quit!"

The goal was obviously to get WotC to make sure the schedule was absolute, and articles always came out on their scheduled date. Instead, they removed the schedule entirely. I just don't see any actual benefit to that.

Anyway, all that said... I do tend to remain optimistic. As much of a fiasco as DDI has been these last few months, I think that once we have gotten past the bumpy transition period, things will improve. They certainly do seem to be trying to respond to customer concerns as best they can - I suppose we'll see how successful they are in doing so.

 

[ggroy]

That's kinda the problem with ultimatums. We had customers who said, "Sorry, WotC, we are sick of you changing the schedule on us. If articles don't come on time, we are going to quit!"

WotC has probably heard enough gamers "crying wolf" over and over again over the years, without drastically affecting the D&D cashflow coming in. Enough people are still buying WotC products.

With this knowledge, they figure they can just get away with shoddy stuff repeatedly. What's another "boy who cried wolf" going to do?

 

[JoeGKushner]

If 'enough' people are buying WoTC products, why does it at least seem that things keep getting shaken up?