Dragon 397 - Table of Contents

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's only two pages per encounter if they persist with the Delve format. Now, two things about that format:

1) It's a distinct contributing factor to the poor quality of WotC adventures since it was introduced. Except for the "zero-prep Delves" I listed, I would strongly advocate they stop using it (and not just for eDungeon).

2) Even if they do persist in using the format, the vast majority of the text in those "2 pages per encounter" is simply copy-and-paste material - monster stats from their database, and environmental conditions from previous encounters in the series.

I don't think the format that encounters are drawn up in has much to do with the quality of adventures. In fact I would observe that the quality of ENCOUNTERS in 4e is considerably higher than that in current Paizo products. Paizo spends more effort on non-quantifiable RP aspects of major characters and in many ways their adventures are stronger on an overall level, but they really are kind of hapless at encounter design if you ask me. Both could learn from the other. Nor do I think the encounter design template that WotC uses is perfect, it probably could be improved.

As for 'the vast majority of the text in those [2 pages] is simply copy-and-paste material' we will have to disagree. Many of the monsters are unique or variants, often tweaked for the specific situation. Other material seems quite needed to me and I don't see where it is cut and pasted from anywhere. The whole format seems pretty lean to me. Even if a stat block is reproduced now and then I really would rather not have to go through and find it in order to play, and of course it is ZERO COST OR EFFORT for them to paste in those stat blocks. It ain't like there's a printing cost involved... Removing them would do nothing for anyone.

Paizo did two magazines per month, containing several meaty articles and 3 adventures per month. The magazines were extremely well-regarded. (Quality is, of course, subjective.)

WotC should be able to match this. They have access to the same freelancers. They have access to the mass of 4e gamers (many of whom one would have thought would be keen to get into 'print', and some of whom must be quite talented). They have access to their in-house designers, some of whom are the best in the business. And they have greater resources than Paizo.

In addition, WotC seem to believe that the future of the game is primarily online, via DDI subscriptions. The magazines should be a major selling point for the DDI. They certainly could be. Are they, honestly?

Paizo did 2 magazines a month back in a different time period and a different market. This is now, that was then. We cannot assume that WotC has currently the resources to do more than they are doing. In fact I'd argue that what they are doing now is prima facia evidence that they lack the resources to do what Paizo was doing before. Remember, the current DDI magazines are really a completely different beast than the print ones were. Those print mags sold advertising, DDI doesn't. We also don't know how much WotC was subsidizing Paizo's magazines with sales of their other products, so not all those resources were necessarily coming from Paizo.

Sure, the magazines are one of the selling points of DDI, but not the only one, and maybe not even the major one. In fact the Compendium and other tools are IMHO the major draw for DDI. Sure, having online exclusive game content is a nice extra benefit, and MAYBE I might not pay for DDI without it, but there's still quite a bit of decent stuff coming out in the magazines.

Also, there is a sort of funny thing going on here. When LOADS of the game's content starts to be only existing behind a paywall there's the danger that it will actually drive people away from the game. In a perverse way DDI may actually turn out to be bad for D&D in the long run. There are a lot of things to consider there, and WotC may not feel that it is a smart idea to put vast amounts of content in the magazines all the time. Sure people can pay a month and grab it all, but in a weird way the whole 'Insider' thing isn't really a big invitation to more casual gamers.

 

[Imaro]

Hmmm, but since we're in the online world calling it '2 magazines' or '1 magazine' is pure semantics. Dragon is the area of the site that has player articles, Dungeon is the part that has DM articles. Nobody ever guaranteed X amount of content. You can be satisfied or dissatisfied, and obviously we'd all be happier with more quality and more volume of content. Nothing wrong with people pointing out that what they're getting is not sufficient for them in either way, but I'd say make the complaints to WotC or stop subscribing and they'll pay the most attention.

Emphasis mine... actually you are wrong, at least in so far as Dungeon magazine is concerned. The blurb on the WotC site for Dungeon states...

"The magazine for Dungeon Masters. Get tips, advice, new monsters, and 2-3 new adventures every month. " ...

Now it seems pretty cut and dry that they are advertising a certain amount of content in Dungeon for potential subscribers (and after this past month I'm starting to wonder if that's false advertising.)... right?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Emphasis mine... actually you are wrong, at least in so far as Dungeon magazine is concerned. The blurb on the WotC site for Dungeon states...

"The magazine for Dungeon Masters. Get tips, advice, new monsters, and 2-3 new adventures every month. " ...

Now it seems pretty cut and dry that they are advertising a certain amount of content in Dungeon for potential subscribers (and after this past month I'm starting to wonder if that's false advertising.)... right?

I really have to question whether that qualifies in any sense as 'advertising'. You're also going to have to decide what constitutes an 'adventure'. Is Andok Sur an adventure? If so then 2 adventures were scheduled for Dungeon #187. Granted we haven't seen the other one, and Andok Sur might not strike either one of us as much of an adventure but happens you know. If you go tell WotC CS you aren't happy, they will give you a refund, they're very good about that. Trying to make them out like they're dishonest is low if you ask me.

Like I said upthread, there's nothing wrong with people saying "we want more for our money" and being dissatisfied. I think they could do better too and I've said so, but lets keep a little perspective here.

 

[delericho]

I don't think the format that encounters are drawn up in has much to do with the quality of adventures.

It shouldn't, but the evidence to date indicates the contrary. The post-Delve adventures I have read and played (3.5e and 4e) have almost universally been badly put together railroads. ("King of the Trollhaunt Warrens" and "Sceptre Tower of Spellgard" were particularly bad in this regard.)

There's a certain logic to this. DMs will obviously want to get the most use from their purchase, and if each encounter is two pages instead of four paragraphs, then each skipped encounter will be a higher percentage of utility lost.

Of course, the best way to reduce this is to force PCs to deal with the encounters in a chain. IOW, put them on a railroad.

As for 'the vast majority of the text in those [2 pages] is simply copy-and-paste material' we will have to disagree. Many of the monsters are unique or variants, often tweaked for the specific situation. Other material seems quite needed to me and I don't see where it is cut and pasted from anywhere.

Each encounter in a Delve-format adventure has a sidebar giving the environmental conditions that apply. However, very often those conditions are common across the locale - a flooded dungeon will describe the 'flooded' effect with every encounter.

This is a good thing - it prevents the DM having to flip pages or reference other books. But it's also a lot of copy-and-pasted text.

Even if a stat block is reproduced now and then I really would rather not have to go through and find it in order to play, and of course it is ZERO COST OR EFFORT for them to paste in those stat blocks.

But that's my point exactly! If the stat block is repeated at zero cost, and if the environmental conditions are repeated at zero cost, then the cost of putting together X pages of adventure material is much lower than it would seem.

Again, this repetition is the strength of the Delve format. But the copying and pasting means that the cost of producing X pages of adventure material in the Delve format is less than the cost of producing X pages in the 'traditional' format.

Paizo did 2 magazines a month back in a different time period and a different market. This is now, that was then. We cannot assume that WotC has currently the resources to do more than they are doing.

I find it interesting that I don't particularly like 4e, and yet I have a higher opinion of WotC's team than you do.

Those print mags sold advertising, DDI doesn't. We also don't know how much WotC was subsidizing Paizo's magazines with sales of their other products, so not all those resources were necessarily coming from Paizo.

Pathfinder doesn't sell advertising, and certainly isn't being subsidised by WotC. In February, Paizo produced 52 pages of adventure material (for the equivalent of the Epic tier) in the 'traditional' format, for the Pathfinder product. How many did WotC produce again?

Sure, the magazines are one of the selling points of DDI, but not the only one, and maybe not even the major one.

Sure, but every time WotC lower the bar, and every time they fail to meet their lowered bar, they lose a few more subscribers. Most likely, they will never get those people back. D&D could find itself dying by inches.

Also, there is a sort of funny thing going on here. When LOADS of the game's content starts to be only existing behind a paywall there's the danger that it will actually drive people away from the game. In a perverse way DDI may actually turn out to be bad for D&D in the long run.

I happen to feel that concentrating on the DDI is a massive mistake, just as it would have been to concentrate on the minis a few years ago.

But WotC seem to feel differently. They've cancelled a number of books recently, and repurposed that material for the DDI. That suggests strongly that they are focussing on the DDI, and they do think it's the way forward for the game.

That's their call, but they can't have it both ways. If they're going to pull the print products to instead focus on the DDI, then the DDI needs to be match the raised expectations. And yet they seem to reducing their output there as well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It shouldn't, but the evidence to date indicates the contrary. The post-Delve adventures I have read and played (3.5e and 4e) have almost universally been badly put together railroads. ("King of the Trollhaunt Warrens" and "Sceptre Tower of Spellgard" were particularly bad in this regard.)

There's a certain logic to this. DMs will obviously want to get the most use from their purchase, and if each encounter is two pages instead of four paragraphs, then each skipped encounter will be a higher percentage of utility lost.

Of course, the best way to reduce this is to force PCs to deal with the encounters in a chain. IOW, put them on a railroad.

This has always been true though, and encounters are always the bulk of an adventure product. Even if combat encounters per-se aren't the bulk of it, the logic is still the same. If the party doesn't encounter X then anything related to X is wasted. Thus it is rare for published adventures to be non-linear. At best they may turn out to be 'do these 5 things in any random order', which is better but still makes player choice a bit of an illusion. I haven't read Spellguard, so I certainly can't comment on it, but Trollhaunt Warrens didn't seem terribly railroady to me. You have a large area of wilderness and various encounter locations therein. The party can proceed to tackle them in various ways and orders. It was presented such that the party will generally go from A to B to C, but it isn't mandated.

Each encounter in a Delve-format adventure has a sidebar giving the environmental conditions that apply. However, very often those conditions are common across the locale - a flooded dungeon will describe the 'flooded' effect with every encounter.

This is a good thing - it prevents the DM having to flip pages or reference other books. But it's also a lot of copy-and-pasted text.

But that's my point exactly! If the stat block is repeated at zero cost, and if the environmental conditions are repeated at zero cost, then the cost of putting together X pages of adventure material is much lower than it would seem.

Again, this repetition is the strength of the Delve format. But the copying and pasting means that the cost of producing X pages of adventure material in the Delve format is less than the cost of producing X pages in the 'traditional' format.

Copying and pasting aside we already KNOW that the cost of production for PDF vs paper is much lower just on general principles. There are very low distribution costs as well. This is why print magazines invariably contain a lot of advertising. I was only commenting on the post I responded to. There was a desire for X amount of adventure material and my response amounted to "X is a lot, maybe it is more reasonable to ask for Y, I think we should get Y, not X." All further discussion about how X isn't really too much to ask for is fine, but given that we have pretty much shown that none of us is in a position to know exactly how much is reasonable it is simply a difference of opinion. Maybe someone could make a table of how many encounters have been in each issue of Dungeon, that would at least be some factual information...

I find it interesting that I don't particularly like 4e, and yet I have a higher opinion of WotC's team than you do.

Huh? I am not expressing a low opinion of anyone. Whatever the WotC team is going to do is going to require resources. If they are given X resources, they can Y amount of stuff with them. If they are given X/2 resources we can be pretty sure they are not going to still be doing Y amount of stuff with them, but something less than Y and that is not a reflection on the competency of their staff. It is simply a statement about how the world works.

Pathfinder doesn't sell advertising, and certainly isn't being subsidised by WotC. In February, Paizo produced 52 pages of adventure material (for the equivalent of the Epic tier) in the 'traditional' format, for the Pathfinder product. How many did WotC produce again?

You're talking about how much they RELEASED in Feb. Now I don't know if Feb was a big month for Paizo, an average month, or a slack month. I know it was a slack month for WotC. So what am I comparing to what? Are you suggesting that there are no months where WotC doesn't ever produce more material than Paizo? My guess is that would be inaccurate. It also isn't taking into account that the two companies produce a different mix of material. You can criticize WotC for not producing more adventure stuff INSTEAD OF whatever other things they put out, that's legitimate. OTOH I could criticize Paizo for putting out such a tiny trickle of crunch or other material that they don't focus on which WotC does more of. How many crunch books has Paizo put out for PF again?

Sure, but every time WotC lower the bar, and every time they fail to meet their lowered bar, they lose a few more subscribers. Most likely, they will never get those people back. D&D could find itself dying by inches.

Except we can track DDI subscriber numbers pretty well. We know for a fact that they've been growing steadily. I don't disagree that if they were to keep making a crappier product at some point they will lose people. I'm not convinced that we're at that point yet. I also think that what WotC did was make a big push in D&D in '08 and '09. They basically said "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." knowing they were investing in the game at an unsustainable pace but with the idea that the best way to go was to rapidly get a large set of material out there and bring as many people on as customers as quickly as possible. Maybe they thought that the business would grow to a level to sustain that output on into future years, but maybe not. Here we had '10 and they simply could not continue to burn money at the same rate on the product. So now as we come into '11 we have fewer releases and somewhat less content. That doesn't mean where we are at now isn't a healthy sustainable level. The lack of layoffs coming into this year kind of says to me they are trying to hit a steady-state maintenance level and have a good idea of sales that will support where they are at now. Once the dust settles we'll see where things stand.

I happen to feel that concentrating on the DDI is a massive mistake, just as it would have been to concentrate on the minis a few years ago.

But WotC seem to feel differently. They've cancelled a number of books recently, and repurposed that material for the DDI. That suggests strongly that they are focussing on the DDI, and they do think it's the way forward for the game.

That's their call, but they can't have it both ways. If they're going to pull the print products to instead focus on the DDI, then the DDI needs to be match the raised expectations. And yet they seem to reducing their output there as well.

I think DDI is a two-edged sword and D&D is going through a big transitional period right now. How that will turn out is anyone's guess. WotC has bet on the future with a new system and DDI. Paizo has essentially bet on the past with an old system. You can see where both of them are trying to hedge their bets and keep one foot in each world, but the real question is does the game move forward or does it stay the same? Either company could end up being the going forward one, but I'll venture to guess that one or the other of them will fade rapidly in the next few years. WotC could end up with a real winning online centered formula, or Paizo could win with old-school conservatism and just making everything available as PDFs. Paizo could create their own equivalent of DDI, or WotC could give up on it and make mint off of boxed sets and accessories. Who knows? What seems clear is the old basic TSR sell a new book every month or two formula is pretty much dead.

 

[the Jester]

Hmmm, but since we're in the online world calling it '2 magazines' or '1 magazine' is pure semantics. Dragon is the area of the site that has player articles, Dungeon is the part that has DM articles. Nobody ever guaranteed X amount of content.

Actually they did. As has been cited above. Which citation you basically said, "Oh, that doesn't count." But it does; it's from WotC, on the subject, giving a monthly amount of content that they will deliver. Except that they haven't been.

Lets see: 2 delves = 6 encounters. 3 adventures, hmmmm. If an AP runs 9 months for 15 levels, that's 5/3rds of a level per month, at say 7 encounters per level that's roughly 10 encounters making an 'adventure' by your reckoning. So we're up to 36 encounters per month, at say 2 pages per encounter that's 72 pages of content right there. I'm going to venture the opinion that 72 pages of adventures per month is probably quite a bit more than WotC can manage to churn out, quality be damned.

What? Why do you think that? They have done it plenty, even in 4e for months and months. The early issues of Dungeon; the months that adventures have been released; the various mini-lairs and delves in other products... they've done it plenty.

It is a nice theory, but lets assume realistically they can do 30 good pages of adventure a month, or around 15 encounters. That would get us say 2 delves and one adventure. I like the idea of doing one thing for each tier roughly, though honestly in the long run epic IS going to have less demand. So maybe they do one delve length AP thing every month, meaning they can do what, maybe 5-6 levels in a year, so maybe they supplement that sometimes to get in a tier every year or a bit more, so maybe 15 levels in 12 months. Then they can do a stand-alone adventure and maybe another delve depending on if they can put out a bit extra that month or put a bit less into the AP that month. Actually, if you think about it, that's not far off from what they've BEEN doing, though there have been some months that have not lived up to that. So there you go, WotC, give us 30 pages of adventures a month.

30 pages a month, with 75% of the monsters simple cut and pastes from books I have and a bunch more of the terrain features repeated again and again, with crap maps thrown together from Dungeon Tiles, is not a product worth paying for. I could pick tiles and minis out of a hat and come up with something as good as most of the encounters WotC publishes in Dungeon. I can scribble a map with pen and graph paper in two minutes and have it look better and serve my purposes better than tile-made maps. It sounds like your argument is, "Well, 30 pages a month is all they can do, so that's fine."

The problem with that is that we are paying for content. We are not getting it for free, we are paying real money for it. If WotC wants our money, they have to earn it.

If 30 pages of adventure a month are all they can put together, they are providing me with insufficient product for my money. It's as if I was buying a deck of cards, but it was missing all the 3's, 7's and hearts. Why would I pay for that?

Really overall I think the magazine complaints are mostly getting a bit overblown, but we do pay a fair amount for this stuff, so they can afford to do something for us.

We pay for it, so they damn well better provide content. If you buy a new comic and it's 15 pages long, you're likely to be annoyed. Sure, the comic doesn't say "32 pages of badass!" on the cover, but there is nothing unreasonable in expecting to get what you pay for. Right now, we are not.

This has always been true though, and encounters are always the bulk of an adventure product. Even if combat encounters per-se aren't the bulk of it, the logic is still the same. If the party doesn't encounter X then anything related to X is wasted. Thus it is rare for published adventures to be non-linear.

Dude, what?

Are you familiar with pre-4e adventure design?

Look at stuff like Red Hand of Doom, Of Sound Mind, the Secret of Bone Hill, etc, etc. Not linear at all. Heck, I haven't followed Pathfinder stuff, but I'd be willing to make a bet, without checking them, that over half of their adventures are fairly to very non-linear.

You're just straight up wrong here.

Too-linear-adventures are poorly designed.

Saying, "Well, there are a lot of other bad movies out right now" doesn't make Tip Toes a good movie.

I was only commenting on the post I responded to. There was a desire for X amount of adventure material and my response amounted to "X is a lot, maybe it is more reasonable to ask for Y, I think we should get Y, not X." All further discussion about how X isn't really too much to ask for is fine, but given that we have pretty much shown that none of us is in a position to know exactly how much is reasonable it is simply a difference of opinion.

I do know that WotC gave us a lot more in the early days of DDI than they do now. I do know that I'm not interested in supporting a business model that amounts to "We'll keep lowering the bar as long as you keep lowering your expectations along with it!" And really, suggesting that is how we should respond to poor content quantity and quality is just encouraging WotC to keep on lowering that bar while periodically increasing the price.

You go right on ahead, but I won't.

Except we can track DDI subscriber numbers pretty well. We know for a fact that they've been growing steadily.

We can? We do? I'd like to see a cite on that. AFAIK we are all guessing how many subscribers DDI has, gains or loses. Are you referring to information that you have or are you making stuff up?

I don't disagree that if they were to keep making a crappier product at some point they will lose people. I'm not convinced that we're at that point yet.

Anecdotally at least, they are losing subscribers in droves and have been for months. Is this a real trend or one that loudmouthed Intarwebz posters are making look bigger than it is? I dunno. But saying that they aren't losing subscribers at this point flies in the face of pretty much every DDI thread I have seen since about October of last year.

I also think that what WotC did was make a big push in D&D in '08 and '09. They basically said "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." knowing they were investing in the game at an unsustainable pace but with the idea that the best way to go was to rapidly get a large set of material out there and bring as many people on as customers as quickly as possible.

Are you suggesting that they knowingly sold DDI with the intent to lower the quantity and quality of content over time? That's... pretty damning. I'm not sure how else to interpret your statement here.

If your suggestion is that they did this and it's okay, I'm afraid you are more comfortable getting taken for a rube than I.

The worst thing about the e-zines is that Dungeon and Dragon used to be a great way to stimulate the interest of non- or lapsed gamers. As we see how easily WotC will throw the quality and quantity of the Dungeon and Dragon content under the bus, I am becoming more and more bitter about them having gone to an e-zine format. They no longer attract anyone, since they are behind a paywall, and they are starting to actually drive people away from paying for gaming stuff for the first time that I am aware of.

If they were still print products, I am convinced we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. There would never be a 32-page month or an issue of Dungeon with no adventures. If sales were down, they would go bi-monthly or be cancelled. But going content-starved and useless? It would never have happened. Even at its worst- and towards the end of 2e it was BAD- Dragon had more to offer than the last few months of DDI.

 

[Imaro]

I really have to question whether that qualifies in any sense as 'advertising'. You're also going to have to decide what constitutes an 'adventure'. Is Andok Sur an adventure? If so then 2 adventures were scheduled for Dungeon #187. Granted we haven't seen the other one, and Andok Sur might not strike either one of us as much of an adventure but happens you know. If you go tell WotC CS you aren't happy, they will give you a refund, they're very good about that. Trying to make them out like they're dishonest is low if you ask me.

How exactly is there any room to question whether this is 'advertising' or not? It's on their website and is the first thing that pops up if a non-subscriber scrolls over the Dungeon magazine icon... what exactly is unclear about this? I mean are you saying WotC has no idea they have this up on their companies website or something?

On the second note, I am not arguing what was scheduled... I am arguing what was provided...2-3 adventyures were not provided in February plain and simple... and the ToC is up for 188... I mean sheesh, even Mearls stepped up and admitted they didn't provide any adventures in this month's Dungeon... so I guess the company itself admitting they didn't provide what they claimed to offer also isn't enough proof?

Finally, it's not about whether they offer you a refund if you ask for it (they should actually give an automatic refund to customers if they failed to provide what they advertised as services provided), that's still incoveniencing me and creating extra work that I have to do to right something they did wrong. Honestly they are being dishonest in their advertising of Dungeon right now and it is in no way "low" to call them on it... WotC isn't my buddy or friend it's a company that took my money for services it was suppose to provide... services according to their own advertisement and admission (by Mearls) they didn't provide.

Like I said upthread, there's nothing wrong with people saying "we want more for our money" and being dissatisfied. I think they could do better too and I've said so, but lets keep a little perspective here.

Really are we really painting with the "perspective" brush?? So is there anything wrong with people saying they would like the amount of material that was stated on WotC's advertisement on their site for Dungeon, that they saw before signing up? I mean you can try and paint this as blowing things out of perspective if you want but when money is involved it's all business... I don't fund WotC out of the kindness of my heart the same way I don't expect them to give me stuff for free... it works both ways.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How exactly is there any room to question whether this is 'advertising' or not? It's on their website and is the first thing that pops up if a non-subscriber scrolls over the Dungeon magazine icon... what exactly is unclear about this? I mean are you saying WotC has no idea they have this up on their companies website or something?

On the second note, I am not arguing what was scheduled... I am arguing what was provided...2-3 adventyures were not provided in February plain and simple... and the ToC is up for 188... I mean sheesh, even Mearls stepped up and admitted they didn't provide any adventures in this month's Dungeon... so I guess the company itself admitting they didn't provide what they claimed to offer also isn't enough proof?

Finally, it's not about whether they offer you a refund if you ask for it (they should actually give an automatic refund to customers if they failed to provide what they advertised as services provided), that's still incoveniencing me and creating extra work that I have to do to right something they did wrong. Honestly they are being dishonest in their advertising of Dungeon right now and it is in no way "low" to call them on it... WotC isn't my buddy or friend it's a company that took my money for services it was suppose to provide... services according to their own advertisement and admission (by Mearls) they didn't provide.



Really are we really painting with the "perspective" brush?? So is there anything wrong with people saying they would like the amount of material that was stated on WotC's advertisement on their site for Dungeon, that they saw before signing up? I mean you can try and paint this as blowing things out of perspective if you want but when money is involved it's all business... I don't fund WotC out of the kindness of my heart the same way I don't expect them to give me stuff for free... it works both ways.

No, but when they have given you what you wanted for all this time since whenever it was you signed up for DDI and then along comes February 2011 and for whatever reason, which is probably totally out of the control of the guys putting together Dungeon, an adventure doesn't show up or maybe it shows up late they are suddenly lying cheating scum? ZOMG!!!!!! Yes, I am saying get some perspective. If it is beyond some level of tolerance that you have then YUP it is on you to go and tell THEM that you're dissatisfied and ask for your money back. You could have subscribed month-by-month if you didn't want to ever be in that position, the option was available to you.

What I'm suggesting is that when you buy something regularly and at some point in time you buy that thing and its quality is less than usual for some reason that this is not always some evil plot by the providers of that thing to rip you off. Don't buy it anymore if you feel you can't get the quality you like. Calling people names is just crap. What is this, grade school?

Notice, Mike Mearls didn't make a single excuse for Feb Dungeon. He just manned up and said it didn't live up to standard, and that they're aware of that and that they are making every attempt to deal with it. We don't know what constraints they operating under or what invocation of Murphy's Law may have come around to cause that to happen. It doesn't matter, and Mike, being classy, isn't whining or making excuses or trying to explain it away. So either cancel your subscription or cut him some slack.

As for DDI Subscription numbers we've all been over this before. Sorry, but you actually CAN get an iron-clad minimum number by just going to see how many accounts on the WotC Community site are in the DDI group. It may be possible that this number only captures SOME of the subscribers, but EVERY SINGLE account that is active in the Community that belongs to a subscriber is in that group and if you drop your subscription you get removed from the group. This has been factually established (I can attest to this personally). So yes, the number of DDI subscribers has been going up, sorry to disappoint anyone on that, but it is true.

Now, maybe it will go down if they don't put out more better articles, we don't know. Obviously we all want the best content we can get for our money but each subscriber is going to have to decide for themselves what that constitutes. I am not a 'rube' or some kind of idiot or fool because I choose to subscribe when maybe some of you wouldn't. My opinion about how much adventure content they can put in the magazine is my opinion and just because it differs from that of some other posters does not either make me an idiot, fool, rube, etc. Again, what is this, kindergarten? If you want to all go calling each other names, fine, leave me out of it, I don't appreciate it.

 

[Imaro]

No, but when they have given you what you wanted for all this time since whenever it was you signed up for DDI and then along comes February 2011 and for whatever reason, which is probably totally out of the control of the guys putting together Dungeon, an adventure doesn't show up or maybe it shows up late they are suddenly lying cheating scum? ZOMG!!!!!! Yes, I am saying get some perspective. If it is beyond some level of tolerance that you have then YUP it is on you to go and tell THEM that you're dissatisfied and ask for your money back. You could have subscribed month-by-month if you didn't want to ever be in that position, the option was available to you.

Hyperbole for the WIN!!!

First off WotC didn't "give" me anything...In the end WoTC failed to provide the services that they took many people's money for (after advertising that one would in fact recieve these services as part of a subscription)... then left it upon those people to ask for a refund instead of taking the initiative and responsibility to refund their customers money for February...

Also, whether you subscribe yearly or monthly is irrelevant since you would have had to pay for February beforehand and wouldn't have known they would not meet their obligations until February was over... thus you would be in the same situation.

What I'm suggesting is that when you buy something regularly and at some point in time you buy that thing and its quality is less than usual for some reason that this is not always some evil plot by the providers of that thing to rip you off. Don't buy it anymore if you feel you can't get the quality you like. Calling people names is just crap. What is this, grade school?

No one said anything about an "evil plot" or called any person a "name"... but again hyperbole for the WIN!!!

What I do expect however is that if you have taken my money beforehand for a thing you do not then provide... I shouldn't have to inconvenience myself in getting back my money... unless you are unaware of the lost quality (which WotC by their own admission are fully aware of). If you are aware that you did not provide what was promised and in fact choose to keep my money... well what would you call that? I call it a rip off.

Notice, Mike Mearls didn't make a single excuse for Feb Dungeon. He just manned up and said it didn't live up to standard, and that they're aware of that and that they are making every attempt to deal with it. We don't know what constraints they operating under or what invocation of Murphy's Law may have come around to cause that to happen. It doesn't matter, and Mike, being classy, isn't whining or making excuses or trying to explain it away. So either cancel your subscription or cut him some slack.

Why should I cut him some slack... if my bank account didn't have the money to pay for my DDI account... would Mearls or WotC "cut me some slack"? Would they let me get a subscription until I could work up the money to actually pay for one? I don't think so.

What I see is a company who knows they didn't live up to their end of the bargain, but also aren't taking a pro-active appproach in giving back their customers the money that was given to them in exchange for the product. IMO, manning up isn't just about saying the right thing... it's about doing the right thing as well.

As for DDI Subscription numbers we've all been over this before. Sorry, but you actually CAN get an iron-clad minimum number by just going to see how many accounts on the WotC Community site are in the DDI group. It may be possible that this number only captures SOME of the subscribers, but EVERY SINGLE account that is active in the Community that belongs to a subscriber is in that group and if you drop your subscription you get removed from the group. This has been factually established (I can attest to this personally). So yes, the number of DDI subscribers has been going up, sorry to disappoint anyone on that, but it is true.

Well as has been proven and stated on the WotC boards there is actually a 1-2 week delay in being removed from the group once your subscription expires... so the numbers still aren't exact and could very well be inflated. That said could you post the number of subscribers in the group as of right now, it would be interesting to compare this number to the between 45 and 50,000 members I remember being stated a few months ago... how much has it grown from that point.

Now, maybe it will go down if they don't put out more better articles, we don't know. Obviously we all want the best content we can get for our money but each subscriber is going to have to decide for themselves what that constitutes. I am not a 'rube' or some kind of idiot or fool because I choose to subscribe when maybe some of you wouldn't. My opinion about how much adventure content they can put in the magazine is my opinion and just because it differs from that of some other posters does not either make me an idiot, fool, rube, etc. Again, what is this, kindergarten? If you want to all go calling each other names, fine, leave me out of it, I don't appreciate it.

Where did anyone in this thread call you names?? If they did you should report it to the mods as personal attacks aren't allowed... or are you possibly just taking everything a bit too personal...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hyperbole for the WIN!!!

First off WotC didn't "give" me anything...In the end WoTC failed to provide the services that they took many people's money for (after advertising that one would in fact recieve these services as part of a subscription)... then left it upon those people to ask for a refund instead of taking the initiative and responsibility to refund their customers money for February...

Also, whether you subscribe yearly or monthly is irrelevant since you would have had to pay for February beforehand and wouldn't have known they would not meet their obligations until February was over... thus you would be in the same situation.

Then subscribe when you see that there's content you want. It is pretty easy to go find out what people think of the content for month X, Y, or Z and it isn't like you have to have it right now today site unseen.

Just as a general comment when you engage in a business relationship with someone you as a consumer do have some responsibilities. You have a responsibility to decide if the thing you are buying is the thing that you want and if it has the quality you desire. You have the responsibility to shop intelligently. You also have some obligation to make your lack of satisfaction known to the purveyor of the good or service when you feel that you haven't received proper value for your money. Life is always a two way street and there are no rights without obligations.

No one said anything about an "evil plot" or called any person a "name"... but again hyperbole for the WIN!!!

What I do expect however is that if you have taken my money beforehand for a thing you do not then provide... I shouldn't have to inconvenience myself in getting back my money... unless you are unaware of the lost quality (which WotC by their own admission are fully aware of). If you are aware that you did not provide what was promised and in fact choose to keep my money... well what would you call that? I call it a rip off.

I simply think that you are taking a rather unfair stand with WotC. First you assume they are trying to rip you off and not themselves subject to the constraints of the real world where contributors fail to produce material on deadline or whatever other things could happen ONCE that would cause them to fail to provide the one article that they have stated they should have provided. Sure, it is grounds for complaint, I'm not arguing that it isn't. OTOH it isn't like you went to the store and bought a DVD player and got home and found a brick in the box. You subscribed to a service that has some service level. Exactly what that constitutes isn't super easy to define in general either since the service consists of a number of components. Sometimes WotC provides service that is beyond the minimum they've established, and ONCE in 3 years one aspect of it was below par and you found it unacceptable. Heck, they could have NOT published some adventure way back when and held onto it in case they had a problem so they could toss it in. You'd have no grounds to call that a 'rip off' yet you'd have had overall a worse product. This kind of thing you see is not as simple as you make it out to be. Be dissatisfied, exercise your responsibility as a consumer to act on that dissatisfaction, but just realize that it isn't all on them all the time.

Why should I cut him some slack... if my bank account didn't have the money to pay for my DDI account... would Mearls or WotC "cut me some slack"? Would they let me get a subscription until I could work up the money to actually pay for one? I don't think so.

What I see is a company who knows they didn't live up to their end of the bargain, but also aren't taking a pro-active appproach in giving back their customers the money that was given to them in exchange for the product. IMO, manning up isn't just about saying the right thing... it's about doing the right thing as well.

No company on Earth in this kind of business has ever, to my knowledge, felt obliged to give people refunds that they didn't ask for. Do you pay them extra money when they give you more than 3 adventures? I seriously doubt it. Do you pay them extra money if they give you a tool they didn't promise you to start with? I doubt it. Lets be real here. You wouldn't give them money for nothing and they aren't going to give you something for no money either. If you want to pay on credit then go to the bank, thats what they're in business for.

And again, when you VOLUNTARILY enter into a business relationship with someone you DO assume the responsibility to decide whether or not you're being served in the way you feel you've paid for or not and do something about it if you aren't. You're right that the company has an obligation to provide you with what they promised. It simply isn't always super straightforward to say 'this is the line between what was promised and something lesser.' You have a legitimate reason to complain about not getting enough adventures last month, but you actually do have an obligation to bring that up with them if you're having an issue with it.

Well as has been proven and stated on the WotC boards there is actually a 1-2 week delay in being removed from the group once your subscription expires... so the numbers still aren't exact and could very well be inflated. That said could you post the number of subscribers in the group as of right now, it would be interesting to compare this number to the between 45 and 50,000 members I remember being stated a few months ago... how much has it grown from that point.

Well, I haven't been accumulating the group membership number on a regular basis, but back when this discussion was had before 2-3 months back the number was around 44k and change. It is 48k and change right now today. Did it go above 48k and drop back down? I don't know. I can only state that the trend at a granularity of something like 12 weeks has been up for as long as people have been paying attention to the number. If anyone has historical numbers it would be interesting to see.

Where did anyone in this thread call you names?? If they did you should report it to the mods as personal attacks aren't allowed... or are you possibly just taking everything a bit too personal...

"I'm afraid you are more comfortable getting taken for a rube than I." A little backhanded, but yeah it was getting a little personal there. Maybe take a step back a bit and look at the tone of the responses I've gotten in this thread. No biggie, but yes it does feel rather personal taken together. I've said my piece and I'll just let it stand, but the discussion would be more productive if it veered in a bit different direction, IMHO. If you think I'm being over sensitive, well OK. I kind of think some people are being overly critical too. Just letting people know. I didn't think it required a mod to come and slap anyone on the hand.