Wizards' DnD Downloads Dead?

[Mark CMG]

But, yes, I was referring to the second list that Mark CMG posted the link to. The link to the various works that are in public domain that were being hosted on the WOTC site and not the TSR material that was in the first link.

The link I posted is not to public domain texts. It is to a thread in the Media Forum that discusses essays formerly housed on WotC that are *about* various fantasy texts. The other thread is very clear about that, which I why I asked you to reread it. It's worth mentioning, though, that most of the texts which are subject of the various essays are not in the public domain. Certainly, the essays themselves are not in the public domain.

I think you already know which list Hussar is referring.

(. . .)

And I find it hard to believe that anyone in this thread truly misunderstood him on the topic.

The crux of the problem is in not understanding what the second list actually is, as explained above.

Sorry Mark, but Project Gutenberg is 100% legal. And totally awesome.

Online Book Catalog - Overview - Project Gutenberg

I'm with you, jonesy, but this is about something else (see above).

It could be a simple misunderstanding.

Perhaps more than one.

 

[malraux]

Out of question, how long should a company keep material on its website? Most of the material from 2000 to current is still there. That's an impressive amount of archiving, given that much of that material is no long generating money for WotC.

 

[Mark CMG]

Out of question, how long should a company keep material on its website? Most of the material from 2000 to current is still there. That's an impressive amount of archiving, given that much of that material is no long generating money for WotC.

I wish you'd start another thread for that discussion. I have a feeling it will be a bit of a donnybrook and this thread already has more than its share of arguing over things not outlined in the OP.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The crux of the problem is in not understanding what the second list actually is, as explained above.

Plus he was responding to someone talking about the RPG files which are still on WotC's servers (but not linked to) and assumed they were talking about the Classics of Fantasy articles.

Basically, he was wrong in every single possible way that he could be wrong.

But let's move on.

Silver lining / hopeless optimism time: WotC deliberately pulled these links because they're redesigning the website to include all of the legacy PDFs as part of a DDI subscription.

(And, yes, that would be an excellent way to get my money.)

 

[AllisterH]

Again...I think the most obvious answer is that the web links got broken unintentionally...

A lot of people complain about WOTC's website and the fact that it is hard to find stuff....without realizing that there simply IS a lot of stuff that the web team has to keep active links to.

 

[Beginning of the End]

A lot of people complain about WOTC's website and the fact that it is hard to find stuff....without realizing that there simply IS a lot of stuff that the web team has to keep active links to.

The WotC website was badly designed from Day 1. It's a rickety edifice built on a shaky foundation. Massive failures like the conversion to and from Gleemax didn't help matters.

I have no surprise that they have difficulty maintaining that monstrosity. But that's because the monstrosity should never have existed in the first place.

 

[Thanael]

Seems like there is more stuff newly unavailable -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/media-lounge-off-topic/76014-classics-fantasy.html

Guys iirc the classics of fantasy was a series of excellent review articles not the books themselves.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know what? I read the link that Mark CMG provided - or rather skimmed it - referencing the "Classics of Fantasy" and reacted badly, thinking that it was providing links to the works, most of which really are easily available in many locations, not to essays about the works, which are not.

However, despite claims to the contrary, I never did advocate any piracy towards the module end of things. That's entirely your own misreading.

But yeah, went off like a bomb, and I'm actually sorry about that.

 

[Joshua Randall]

The Classics of Fantasy links have been broken for around 3-4 years.

 

[jonesy]

Wow. This whole thread reads like a massive misunderstanding. People talking past each other as if someone had combined several unrelated threads together.

The WotC website was badly designed from Day 1. It's a rickety edifice built on a shaky foundation. Massive failures like the conversion to and from Gleemax didn't help matters.

While I no longer post at the Wotc messageboards I did find comments (some as early as 2002!) by me complaining that many of the links were broken, links lead to wrong material, entire sections were missing or out of date, some of the Dragonlance stuff was mistakenly in the Eberron section, the Greyhawk section didn't have all the material listed, the novels section had interviews and reviews in incorrect sections etc.

So yeah, you are absolutely correct. The website was always a mess.