Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kramodlog" data-source="post: 6600383" data-attributes="member: 55961">When the team that worked/is working on it gets the news it won't be published? Considering WotC sent the cover art to a retailer three weeks before the cancellation was made public and the AP was officially announced, I would say the work was done by then.And you'll wait a long time. Sure.&nbsp; Yeah, Defcon1's comment is a terrible starting point. It is the son of a strawman and a drunken hyperbole. It exist only by itself. Mearls response to the cancellation was the problem. Not the cancellation itself. Saying people acted like 2 years old is a personal attack, not an argument. Who acted like a 2 year old in this thread? DDI was aggravating because it didn't provide what it advertized to paying customers. That is a breach of confidence. A pretty clear bad interaction. If you want to argue otherwise, please explain why refunds were needed at one point. Cause too many paying customers were poopie 2 years old?I responded to you who was responding to your question. I provided a list of which only one point as been contested. Not too shabby. And if we avoid acting like two years old, so what if we admit WotC had bad interactions with fans? The idea is not to make it go bankrupt. It is to share the displeasure generated and maybe prevent other butthurt. Butthurt is a serious condition that affect more and more Westerners, you know. What is the sense it is being used?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kramodlog, post: 6600383, member: 55961"] When the team that worked/is working on it gets the news it won't be published? Considering WotC sent the cover art to a retailer three weeks before the cancellation was made public and the AP was officially announced, I would say the work was done by then. And you'll wait a long time. Sure. Yeah, Defcon1's comment is a terrible starting point. It is the son of a strawman and a drunken hyperbole. It exist only by itself. Mearls response to the cancellation was the problem. Not the cancellation itself. Saying people acted like 2 years old is a personal attack, not an argument. Who acted like a 2 year old in this thread? DDI was aggravating because it didn't provide what it advertized to paying customers. That is a breach of confidence. A pretty clear bad interaction. If you want to argue otherwise, please explain why refunds were needed at one point. Cause too many paying customers were poopie 2 years old? I responded to you who was responding to your question. I provided a list of which only one point as been contested. Not too shabby. And if we avoid acting like two years old, so what if we admit WotC had bad interactions with fans? The idea is not to make it go bankrupt. It is to share the displeasure generated and maybe prevent other butthurt. Butthurt is a serious condition that affect more and more Westerners, you know. What is the sense it is being used? [/QUOTE]

Verification