Wizards: Musings on the new DDi disaster

[tuxgeo]

I was tempted to suggest that changing the thread title to refer to a "Debacle" instead of a "Disaster" might ease some tensions and soothe some feelings, on the grounds that "Debacle" is a slightly less loaded or hyperbolic word than "Disaster"; but I am slowly coming to the realization that recent disputes really aren't so much about the specific words used, here, as they are about the current state of the product, and the very act of complaining.

So, yeah: changing the thread title won't help any. We still end up getting a clear sense of how incensed some people are, plus another clear sense of how amazed some others are at the fact that some are incensed.

All I have left to offer to this thread is some of what I like to flatter myself as being "perspective":
It's going to get better. Yes, WotC was ham-handed in the release of the buggy online Character Builder; yes, customers shouldn't have to pay to do their Beta-testing for them.
However, WotC does appear to be learning from their mistakes, however slowly they do so: Gleemax fell off the map without further support; but then the online Compendium is still working (even if some functionality has been removed), and is still being supported. Yes, the VTT was announced and then cancelled; but the online CB might just be a first step to tight integration of many good products; and we cannot easily see, at this stage, how that will all play out. A year from now, things will be clearer.

Overall: Rant away! Enjoy it, get it off your chest. I enjoy mocking WotC as much as some, so I can sympathize (at least a little bit). Once the dust settles, though, it's going to be good to look back on this and realize that the outrage, while justified right now, will also pass, as everything temporal must. A year from now, we can look back on this and enjoy the outrage as an art-form.

 

[Piratecat]

It's going to get better. . . Once the dust settles, though, it's going to be good to look back on this and realize that the outrage, while justified right now, will also pass, as everything temporal must. A year from now, we can look back on this and enjoy the outrage as an art-form.

Agree on all counts. I'm still irked, though.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but also because we love D&D and really, really want the publisher of that game to do things that benefit that game.

And what better way to show that love than to keep posting here on ENWorld that everything they do sucks and you have no faith in them ever doing anything right. It's that kind of constructive criticism that just warms the heart.

We asked you to stay on topic and not mock people. 2nd strike and you're out. The time for sarcasm is not after a moderator has asked you to ratchet it down. - PCat

 

[Sunseeker]

Let's see here. The launch of CB2 was a disaster as software launches go/

What exactly defines a "software launch disaster"? I don't know about you, but only a small few reported the program did not work at all. Most people reported only a few problems, and some people reported many.

This is hardly surprising for a software launch.

From experience it would seem that WotC can't do anything right in the digital arena.

"Right" is a moral judgement. If it's your opinion that you don't think WotC can do things right, great. But that certainly doesn't make it the fact you're presenting it as.

And, personally, I have no faith in the company to improve. I don't seem to have any spit in my face at the moment, but WotC have certainly lied in the face of their customers.

Why does everyone take things so personal? I swear, it's posts like these that make me wonder is Wizards is really eating babies and burning down homes.

No, I'm not all right with that. Not at all. We have every reason to be worked up, not only because we paid money to WotC for their service, but also because we love D&D and really, really want the publisher of that game to do things that benefit that game.

What benefits the game seems to greatly depend on who you ask. Wizards can never satisfy that kind of customer base. I'm certain their increasing stock value benefits "the game" more than pleasing a few customers who have excessive demands.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'm certain their increasing stock value benefits "the game" more than pleasing a few customers who have excessive demands.

In general, expecting a version of software (or any other product) to work out-of-the-box, as advertised, with zero crashes, and with at least as much functionality as the previous version is not an "excessive demand".

 

[Sunseeker]

Expecting a version of software to work out-of-the-box, as advertised, and with zero crashes, and with at least as much functionality as the previous version is not an "excessive demand".

I've seen people crash notepad. It's been out for over a decade.

 

[Imaro]

I've seen people crash notepad. It's been out for over a decade.

The question is do majority of users experience multiple crashes with notepad?

 

[Sunseeker]

The question is do majority of users experience multiple crashes with notepad?

I dunno, go back to it's launch day and ask.

 

[Imaro]

I dunno, go back to it's launch day and ask.

Ahh, so your statement is not really relevant to the CB 2 at all.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I've seen people crash notepad. It's been out for over a decade.

Umm, yes, and CB2's been out a few days. So? All software crashes eventually for all kinds of reasons (often not even related to the software).

Point is still that expecting that software not to crash, and expecting it to be as functional as whatever came before it is most certainly not an "excessive demand", especially for a paying customer. Imxp, assuming the client will have those two standards is just good software delivery practice, and (I'd assume) good business practice.