Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
DDI January Content Calendar "Online"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5413790" data-attributes="member: 61155"><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Just to clarify, here, the reason I object to calling them disingenous is because it indicats (to me) that they <em>are </em>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. </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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 <em>why</em>) is probably one of the best ways to actually send a message to them. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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 <em>lot </em>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." </p><p> </p><p>It comes off in a <em>much </em>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!" </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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!" </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5413790, member: 61155"] 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. Just to clarify, here, the reason I object to calling them disingenous is because it indicats (to me) that they [I]are [/I]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. 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 [I]why[/I]) 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 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 [I]lot [/I]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 [I]much [/I]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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
DDI January Content Calendar "Online"
Top