References to Barbarian playtest vanished?

[fissionessence]

I'm not a conspiracy guy and I don't think WotC has ulterior or suspicious motives in changing, cancelling, and putting out poorly edited content. I just don't think they are well organized.

I'm not into conspiracies either, but I do think that unless Wizards posts an actual reason why they completely changed barbarian release plans, it is clear that they're intentionally pushing the hyped content into an issue for which fans will have to pay. I don't have any problem with them charging for their magazine, as it is awesome content (IMO) and I will most likely be subscribing, but I do have a problem with them underhandedly pushing content that they said they would release into an issue where they will be essentially forcing more people to buy into the magazine.

I would not have a problem if they, from the get-go, had announced that the first paid issue would include the barbarian, using that as an incentive up front.

I would not have [much of] a problem if they announced, "hey, something went wrong with the barbarian article, and here's why it's not out like we said it would be." I especially wouldn't mind this if they then released the article for free since it was originally announced to be available in the month prior to subscriptions.

Given that, I think your reaction is a good example of at least one potential reason why WotC was/is loathe to release an overview/proper overview of SoW. Now that they have done so, they will be criticised should they deviate from the overview, a la the reaction to them changing the content of Dragon re the barbarian.

I would have respected Wizards's decision either way in terms of the adventure path overview. I think it would have been a better decision (with my opinion weighted heaver than others') for them not to release the overview, since, yes, I would now be disappointed to see anything change from what they originally said. Then again, this is hypothetical since I haven't and don't plan to read the overview. On the other hand, I would still be much more understanding of a change in what is purely a creative realm (ie the adventure story), than I would be of a change in a release schedule.

The biggest problem I have with this is that WotC is doing you a SERVICE above and beyond the normal and that is incredibly innovative in the industry... they are providing you a view of the magazine as early viewed content rather than making you wait until the month's compiled publish date.

This seems irrelevant. Even if employed the 'compiled magazine at the end of the month' structure, I expect they still would have hyped the barbarian as much as they did beforehand. And, still, they would have pulled it (given that everything else is the same).

As was noted earlier by other posters, the release of articles in a magazine issue (and newspaper, news TV, and various other media) is a highly volatile and often changing process. Its a fact of the industry. Period. This is how it works, not how just WotC works. There is no conspiracy, no malice.

Then they should put up an announcement and an apology for what happened, and all would be well. I can't think of any reason that they wouldn't post such an explanation except that an error of this sort is not what happened; instead, they pushed it back intentionally to put it into a paid month. Once again, I wouldn't have a problem with this article being in a paid month, except that they said initially that it wouldn't be, and now they've posted no reason as to why it's changed.

I am sad to see that potentially subscription-paying customers have no qualms with this sort of practice.

In that quote from my previous post, the 'practice' of which I am speaking is not simple scheduling changes, but rather schedule changes with no explanation that defy previously made announcement and which result in a negative impact on the fan base (in this case, not getting the article for free as expected).

Also, for the record, I don't really care about the barbarian preview, as I've never been a barbarian fan. It's not about the content for me. This would be a totally different situation if it were the druid they were denying me

EDIT: One more thing: This would be a totally different scenario if they hadn't hyped the barbarian article the way they did. If this were a previously unannounced article that went up in the table of contents and was pulled within a few days, I would consider it an internal screw up as others have described and not think one thing or the other of it. However, if they're going to hype up an article the way they did with the barbarian for a couple weeks beforehand, they'd darn well better have it ready.

~ fissionessence

 

[Maggan]

which result in a negative impact on the fan base (in this case, not getting the article for free as expected).

I'll go out on a limb here, and claim that the negative impact on the fan base due to the barbarian preview being delayed is as close to zero it can be without actually being zero.

Unless of course you're real name is The Fan Base, in which case I apologise!

/M

 

[catsclaw227]

I'm not into conspiracies either, but I do think that unless Wizards posts an actual reason why they completely changed barbarian release plans, it is clear that they're intentionally pushing the hyped content into an issue for which fans will have to pay. I don't have any problem with them charging for their magazine, as it is awesome content (IMO) and I will most likely be subscribing, but I do have a problem with them underhandedly pushing content that they said they would release into an issue where they will be essentially forcing more people to buy into the magazine.

It is a conspiracy theory to state that the reason they have pushed back the release was intentionally to move it into a pay-for issue. It isn't clear that this was the reason, and we don't even have a clear indication that October will be paid only.

It is a conspiracy theory to call it an underhanded attempt to force people to buy the magazine.

Then they should put up an announcement and an apology for what happened, and all would be well. I can't think of any reason that they wouldn't post such an explanation except that an error of this sort is not what happened; instead, they pushed it back intentionally to put it into a paid month. Once again, I wouldn't have a problem with this article being in a paid month, except that they said initially that it wouldn't be, and now they've posted no reason as to why it's changed.

In that quote from my previous post, the 'practice' of which I am speaking is not simple scheduling changes, but rather schedule changes with no explanation that defy previously made announcement and which result in a negative impact on the fan base (in this case, not getting the article for free as expected).

Again, as stated many times already, they don't need to apologize. This is a relatively common occurrence.

Instead, fans would be better served to understand that previews are not cut in stone, and they could be changed.

I noticed in the latest DDI column, Randy had to even explicitly state that the barbarian stuff might change and it would be a "beta" version. This is so they don't get pummeled by nerd-rage when they make improvements based upon user feedback. They seem to be slowly learning how to deal with the unreasonable expectations of their customer base.

 

[Rechan]

They would publish the "In the Next Issue" section of their magazine as well, but sometimes that changed. It was rare for any MAJOR article to be late, since it was freelancer-death to be late, and most times they kept two months ahead of schedule with their calendar, but things slipped each month.

They never sent emails or posted apologies or whatever when something didn't appear in an issue, they simply moved it to another month and that was it.

It isn't rude to change the editorial schedule, nor is it rude to fail to apologize for it or explain why. It is part of the business.

Did your magazine announce at the Dieting or Exercise Magazine Con that the article would appear in X month, before the magazine was going to be for pay?

When they make announcements at GenCon, I expect them to follow through with them.

 

[catsclaw227]

Did your magazine announce at the Dieting or Exercise Magazine Con that the article would appear in X month, before the magazine was going to be for pay?

When they make announcements at GenCon, I expect them to follow through with them.

I believe they would say things like "in an upcoming issue". So they could be non-committal. But, they would say things like "...and November is Flu Awareness Month for us and you'll see more supporting articles...." to let people know what their general calendar looked like.

Admittedly, they're more polished at the process and avoid the Dungeon/Dragon PR gaffs.

I don't know, maybe I am more tolerant because of my prior experiences in the online magazine publishing industry.

 

[fissionessence]

It is a conspiracy theory to state that the reason they have pushed back the release was intentionally to move it into a pay-for issue. It isn't clear that this was the reason, and we don't even have a clear indication that October will be paid only.

Personally, I prefer the term 'sneaking suspicion' to 'conspiracy'

Again, as stated many times already, they don't need to apologize. This is a relatively common occurrence.

I might agree, except, as I said, for all of the hype and buildup they did for this particular article.

I noticed in the latest DDI column, Randy had to even explicitly state that the barbarian stuff might change and it would be a "beta" version.

Yes, this is the correct way to announce things that aren't set in stone, and I appreciate the tactic. On the other hand, when several weeks' worth of interviews and GenCon announcements state that the barbarian will be coming in a particular issue, then it SHOULD be set in stone.

Also note that this DDI column was after all of the barbarian references had been subtly pulled from the September Dragon page, and Buehler shamelessly plugged the barbarian for October without so much as a mention of the fact that it had been previously announced for September.

They seem to be slowly learning how to deal with the unreasonable expectations of their customer base.

I really don't feel like I'm being unreasonable. I have no problem with things not arriving as long as an arrival date isn't stated. I'm not asking for schedules (although that would be nice, it's apparently impossible). If it isn't already ready, then don't start announcing dates. If you hype something up a lot, then it turns out you can't release it, then apologize for hyping it up so much and explain what happened. If you're not completely sure you're going to be able to release it, then don't hype it up.

Really, though, at this point it doesn't matter. The barbarian preview isn't coming this month, and we really don't know if October will be the beginning of subscriptions (although they did say the subscriptions will be 'very soon'). I would still like to see an explanation for what happened, but if October is paid, and the barbarian is the feature article in it, I think the clues will speak for themselves that this really was the intention from the moment Wizards pulled the barbarian from their September table of contents.

~

 

[Fifth Element]

The barbarian preview isn't coming this month, and we really don't know if October will be the beginning of subscriptions (although they did say the subscriptions will be 'very soon').

That's right, we don't know. That being the case, why are you so quick to suggest the only reason they would push the preview back is for this reason?

 

[Shroomy]

Eh, I've already decided to pay for a year subscription, so if they start charging next month, it won't affect me much.

 

[fissionessence]

That's right, we don't know. That being the case, why are you so quick to suggest the only reason they would push the preview back is for this reason?

Because I can't think of another reason. If it were a simple internal 'glitch' between authors or a realization that the barbarian just can't be sent out as-is, then there clearly should have been a post serving as an explanation and apology for all of the previously built-up hype about the coming article. Since there is no such explanation, I have to think of another reason that they would do it.

The only reason I can think of is to force the barbarian into subscription zone, and this would also serve as a reason Wizards wouldn't want to explain what they'd done.

~

 

[Scott_Rouse]

The Barbarian is still bouncing back between design and editing and needed more time before it was ready for prime time.

Sorry, it will be ready for Oct.