Huge printing error in my Eberron!

[KB9JMQ]

Crap.
I just got mine Friday from Amazon and only read 15 pages before leaving for the weekend.
I hope mine is ok. Will check tonight when I get home.

Anyone get a bad one from Amazon yet ?

Just checked mine is ok.

 

[der_kluge]

There was an Al-Qadim product that had a similar problem. I think it was Caravans, but I'm not sure. I bought it from a Hastings and took it back. The problems with that product (it was a boxed set), were so bad, that I think it's actually difficult to find a good one today.

I think in this case, they repeated a binding in the book, so something like pages 30-55 were in there twice, and another set of pages were missing as a result.

 

[Arnwyn]

I think they should just have people mail in some proof that they bought the shoddy product (like a corner of a page or something) and then offer them a discount on the corrected version.

You had mentioned "PR disaster" in your previous post in this thread - well the above would certainly be a PR disaster.

Some publisher trying a trick like that, and they'd guarantee a lost customer for life.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You had mentioned "PR disaster" in your previous post in this thread - well the above would certainly be a PR disaster.

Some publisher trying a trick like that, and they'd guarantee a lost customer for life.

I don't know... If, almost immediately after the quality complaints started rolling in, WOTC stood up and acknowledged the printing faults, outlined a multipronged attack to ensure better quality control on future gaming books, and even developed a club where those who had shelled out the money for this flawed first printing would not only get free electronic updates, but a whopping 60% off of the updated copy-- well, you'd be surprised how many gamers would consider that a PR victory.

Now, keep in mind, despite a "whopping" 60% off (the wholesale/distributor price), WOTC would still make exactly the same profit off the book-- in effect, making exactly twice the profit off the same book (only corrected, of course), from the same customer. Of course, the customer would be responsible for paying the shipping costs on the corrected version.

Wulf

 

[King of Old School]

I don't know... If, almost immediately after the quality complaints started rolling in, WOTC stood up and acknowledged the printing faults, outlined a multipronged attack to ensure better quality control on future gaming books, and even developed a club where those who had shelled out the money for this flawed first printing would not only get free electronic updates, but a whopping 60% off of the updated copy-- well, you'd be surprised how many gamers would consider that a PR victory.

Now, keep in mind, despite a "whopping" 60% off (the wholesale/distributor price), WOTC would still make exactly the same profit off the book-- in effect, making exactly twice the profit off the same book (only corrected, of course), from the same customer. Of course, the customer would be responsible for paying the shipping costs on the corrected version.

Methinks you aren't offering a serious suggestion here, but rather taking a sly dig at another publisher...

I like your style.

KoOS

 

[Belen]

I don't know... If, almost immediately after the quality complaints started rolling in, WOTC stood up and acknowledged the printing faults, outlined a multipronged attack to ensure better quality control on future gaming books, and even developed a club where those who had shelled out the money for this flawed first printing would not only get free electronic updates, but a whopping 60% off of the updated copy-- well, you'd be surprised how many gamers would consider that a PR victory.

Now, keep in mind, despite a "whopping" 60% off (the wholesale/distributor price), WOTC would still make exactly the same profit off the book-- in effect, making exactly twice the profit off the same book (only corrected, of course), from the same customer. Of course, the customer would be responsible for paying the shipping costs on the corrected version.

Wulf

That's nuts! So you advocate completely screwing the consumer. The customer has to pay for the same book twice because the first batch was defective?! What world do you live in?

First off: E-updates are a joke. Like I want to print out the updates and add loose pages to a book.

Second: The publisher gets twice the profit because they could not manage good quality control. Therefore, we need to reward them for a mistake! Heck, they might as well just produce defective books all the time. That way they can really charge 60 dollars for a 40 dollar book!

If that is your attitude, then I regret purchasing Grim Tales. That is one of the most customer-unfriendly statements I have ever heard!

 

[Belen]

Methinks you aren't offering a serious suggestion here, but rather taking a sly dig at another publisher...

I like your style.

KoOS

If that is the case, then I apologize to Wulf, but only if his comments were in jest.

 

[King of Old School]

If that is the case, then I apologize to Wulf, but only if his comments were in jest.

Given that he is describing almost word-for-word Mongoose Publishing's approach to the uproar over the editing issues in Conan, I think it's safe to assume that he's not being entirely serious. Of course, there's a key difference in that the problems with Eberron are a legitimate production defect while Conan's flaws are simply evidence of a shoddy job on Mongoose's part. Still, I think Wulf is poking fun not only at Mongoose, but at all those consumers who hailed this plan as a good thing when it came from a third-party publisher but cry foul when the shoe is on Wizards' foot.

KoOS

 

[thalmin]

Looks like I over-estimated the number of bad copies we received. It was close to 10% bad copies.
We have never had a problem with sending mis-bound books back to our suppliers, and the same holds true this time. No one (except the publisher or printer) should get stuck with a bad one.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If that is the case, then I apologize to Wulf, but only if his comments were in jest.

Have no fear for Bad Axe, this is not a strategy we would pursue. As I said earlier in the thread, a mistake like this would be a disaster for Bad Axe, simply because I don't have the testicular fortitude to make our customers pay for our mistakes...

TWICE.

Bad Axe would end up taking a loss. Our mistake, our loss, our cost to fix it with our customers-- truly fix it, not "Thank you sir may I have another!?"

Anyhow... Might I interest you in our upcoming Gamer's Guide to Subversive Sarcasm?


Wulf