Do you agree with WotC selling errata?
- Thread starter Razz
- Start date
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Dr. Awkward said:
Why? I can't write software but I expect the software I buy to work. Why shouldn't we expect the people putting out products to sell to be putting out quality products? The fact that some of us make mistakes in our written communication doesn't get them off the hook with their written communication. We are the professionals at it, they are.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Wow, I thought that someone had stolen my supply of Cranky Pills (tm), but I didn't know that they had swallowed them all at once!
They are not selling errata, they are selling a book that contains errata, a major difference. If you are reprinting the information anyway the why not include the errata? Do you really think that people would prefer to get the information with the mistakes still intact? This is a very badly biased poll, and it is a shame that it was posted.
The Auld Grump, who has obviously found a new supply of Cranky Pills (tm).
They are not selling errata, they are selling a book that contains errata, a major difference. If you are reprinting the information anyway the why not include the errata? Do you really think that people would prefer to get the information with the mistakes still intact? This is a very badly biased poll, and it is a shame that it was posted.
The Auld Grump, who has obviously found a new supply of Cranky Pills (tm).
To me its about Wizard is trying to justify keeping D&D on the books with it's parent company by increasing their income- cause we all just buy the books we need and once in a while someone buys a new book. Now you don't have to buy the books you mentioned, you can do without (our table is (for example) core only where spells are involved unless okayed by the GM). If you don't want certein books or spells or whatever in your game then restrict the books, tell your players no. You have my sympathies, but I understand Wizard's POV too and I think it sucks that they need to do such a thing.
Michael Silverbane
Adventurer
Those guys at WotC sure do have some nerve, trying to make things better. That really pisses me off! Aargh! [/sarcasm]
No, really. Not only does Wizard's have the right to sell anything they darn well please... AND they release free eratta and have a FAQ and a free message board and have a customer service department that answers questions for free. But the ALSO try to make improvements upon their products based on feedback from the customers. How can you think that those are bad things? Really...
Later
silver
No, really. Not only does Wizard's have the right to sell anything they darn well please... AND they release free eratta and have a FAQ and a free message board and have a customer service department that answers questions for free. But the ALSO try to make improvements upon their products based on feedback from the customers. How can you think that those are bad things? Really...
Later
silver
Raven Crowking
First Post
Storm Raven said:
No....their incentive is money. I.e., so that it sells.
I don't think many people would agree that
"[M]aking the book...so that it sells...means doing the best job they can up front."
I think most people would agree that, instead,
"Making the book so that it sells means meeting a minimum standard of usefulness up front."
Now, if you knew that you were going to sell your errata afterward, then it makes sense that you would want the errata to be as important as the book itself. You would want, in essense, to ensure that sales on your errata as well as sales on your book would be as strong as they could be. You may classify this as "evil"; I would classify this as no different than the car salesman selling you add-on products after you've agreed to the price of the base model.
On the other hand, I think (and WotC seems to think, based on their publishing errata free on their website and in the SRD) that the "selling your errata" model hurts the goodwill you have from your customer base, and since you want to sell to them considerably more often than Joe Average buys a new car, it is better to not charge for your mistakes.
Storm Raven said:
If you know that you'll make money off your mistakes, you are less likely to do a good job the first time out. You simply have less incentive to care. If you know that you'll have to fix your mistakes without getting paid for it down the line, you're a lot more careful about what mistakes you might make.
Not "evil overlords" -- simple human nature.
Again, this "evil overlords" stuff is some sort of Bizarro Land hyperbole.
Good luck with that.
Last edited:
3catcircus
Adventurer
amaril said:
How does the fact that he didn't have to buy "anything" make any difference?
I think his argument is with the fact that he bought something that was broken and they are selling him the fix, when they should be like any other company who has a broken product - if you sell something that is broken, then you have an obligation to fix it.
That being said, I don't consider Spell Compendium, et. al, to be errata only.
That *also* being said, if they fixed/changed/updated a spell in Spell Compendium and *didn't* release errata for the original source of the spell, then WotC *is* remiss in their obligations.
Last edited:
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
I don't think it gets them off the hook. Rather the opposite.billd91 said:
Apparently only a few here understand where I am coming from in this. A lot of people here really don't and simply bash me for expressing a very solid opinion.
For example, if I buy a PS3 and I bring it home and it doesn't work, does Sony turn to me and say,"Sorry. If you want the bugs and problems fixed, you'll have to wait until an upgraded PS3 comes out and buy it all over again. Oh, and by the way, the newly upgraded PS3 will come with 2 new games and a Sony coffee mug! Next!"
No, they take it and give you a new one that should work the way it was supposed to work.
The same goes for spells that needed errata. Instead of posting errata a good month or two after a book comes out, they wait until a million spells come out while ignoring the cries for fixes. Then they decide to make a book that simply takes those spells and puts it in one place for easy use and make changes on over 50% of them.
I have looked through my Spell Compendium and compared it to their original sources. Most of them have been altered, and significantly. The fixes or changes that should've been done for free online has all been put in one place and you have to cough up $40 to do it.
That's what I don't understand. It just sounds like a cheap ploy to get more money from gamers. And then ya got a fan-boy based group on here brainwashed into thinking otherwise and bashing me for it.
They're about to do it again with Rules Compendium. I'm just surprised many people think you should have to pay for errata (though the poll states otherwise). I am glad most businesses don't run that way or our economy would fall really quickly.
It's also really hard to talk to a fellow gamer outside your D&D group about something with he/she saying,"This is what it does." and I go "No it doesn't, it does this." And they appear confused until I tell them there was errata for it. "Where was the errata? On their website?" they ask.
"No, it's in this book. If you want the errata to this and some other stuff you'll have to purchase it."
You should've seen the looks on some of these people's faces.
And here's the ironic part!
The Spell Compendium itself needs errata. A lot of it, from what I've seen and many others have been crying for. Yet has WotC released one yet? No. Will they release one? Yes. When? Most likely when they're trying to sell you Spell Compendium II. You'll have to buy a book that has errata to a previous book that had errata to previous books.....where does the line get drawn, really?
For example, if I buy a PS3 and I bring it home and it doesn't work, does Sony turn to me and say,"Sorry. If you want the bugs and problems fixed, you'll have to wait until an upgraded PS3 comes out and buy it all over again. Oh, and by the way, the newly upgraded PS3 will come with 2 new games and a Sony coffee mug! Next!"
No, they take it and give you a new one that should work the way it was supposed to work.
The same goes for spells that needed errata. Instead of posting errata a good month or two after a book comes out, they wait until a million spells come out while ignoring the cries for fixes. Then they decide to make a book that simply takes those spells and puts it in one place for easy use and make changes on over 50% of them.
I have looked through my Spell Compendium and compared it to their original sources. Most of them have been altered, and significantly. The fixes or changes that should've been done for free online has all been put in one place and you have to cough up $40 to do it.
That's what I don't understand. It just sounds like a cheap ploy to get more money from gamers. And then ya got a fan-boy based group on here brainwashed into thinking otherwise and bashing me for it.
They're about to do it again with Rules Compendium. I'm just surprised many people think you should have to pay for errata (though the poll states otherwise). I am glad most businesses don't run that way or our economy would fall really quickly.
It's also really hard to talk to a fellow gamer outside your D&D group about something with he/she saying,"This is what it does." and I go "No it doesn't, it does this." And they appear confused until I tell them there was errata for it. "Where was the errata? On their website?" they ask.
"No, it's in this book. If you want the errata to this and some other stuff you'll have to purchase it."
You should've seen the looks on some of these people's faces.
And here's the ironic part!
The Spell Compendium itself needs errata. A lot of it, from what I've seen and many others have been crying for. Yet has WotC released one yet? No. Will they release one? Yes. When? Most likely when they're trying to sell you Spell Compendium II. You'll have to buy a book that has errata to a previous book that had errata to previous books.....where does the line get drawn, really?
Last edited:
