Why no SRD pre-release?

[Cheiromancer]

I think WotC should have published the 3.5 SRD, waited for thousands of alert gamers to spot the errata and points needing clarification, and then published the core 3.5 books in hard-cover.

Wouldn't that have been a sensible way to ensure virtually error-free books?

 

[Umbran]

Wouldn't that have been a sensible way to ensure virtually error-free books?

No. Because there's a great deal of text in the actual books that doesn't exist in the SRD. The vast majority of errata are misprints, and you won't find those by looking at a different text.

 

[KnowTheToe]

No, not a good idea. You do not want people to get used to using the free material, it will reduce your sales.

 

[coyote6]

I don't think it would work. In addition to what Umbran said, many of those thousands of gamers would disagree over what was errata and what wasn't, and many heated arguments would break out over those things. The noise would be such that picking the useful signal out of it all would be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Agreed. Not only would users get too comfy with using free distributions, but many people might feel put out by being essentially beta testers for the new edition.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Agreed. Not only would users get too comfy with using free distributions, but many people might feel put out by being essentially beta testers for the new edition.

But it would have been nice if there had been some more playtesting beyond their 'in house' group.

3.0 had, what? 600 playtesters? 3.5 gets 6? What the Hell is that?

While more playtesters or 'beta' testers wouldn't have eliminated errata some of the most glaring things probably would have been caught.

Note thati don't think the best way to have done this would be a pre releaseof the SRD. The 'white noise' it would generate would be worthless as critical feedback. Maybe they should have used some of those original beta testers from 3.0 to give 3.5 a good shakedown before putting the books on the market.