Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fissionessence" data-source="post: 4461662" data-attributes="member: 63357">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.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.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).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).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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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</blockquote>

Verification