| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1guivreSep 02, 2008 22:04:55 | It's September, the new issue of Dragon is (sort of) up. Yet August's issue isn't compiled, worse, not everything listed in the table of contents has been released. The Role versus Roll article for August and September is listed as the same. Finally, why the hell aren't the columns hyper-linked in the table of contents for an issue. This is sloppy and not something people are going to pay for. It doesn't matter that it's free now, it's a preview and what you're previewing is the inability to put out material in a timely manner. |
| #2hawkeSep 02, 2008 22:19:19 | Yeah... they still haven't sold me on a paid model yet. I hope they don't say "Okay, we fixed all our issues, now we're charging!" without giving us the proof. |
| #3NivedSep 02, 2008 22:30:51 | Uh yesterday was a national holiday, tends to hold things up. Don't hold a gaming company to higher standards than your bank. |
| #4tsuyoshikentsuSep 02, 2008 23:20:33 | Uh yesterday was a national holiday, tends to hold things up. Don't hold a gaming company to higher standards than your bank. And what, pray tell, did they do today? Or, in the case of not linking articles, the past few weeks? |
| #5koukSep 02, 2008 23:39:02 | Or, in the case of not linking articles, the past few weeks? They went to conventions and forgot to leave a "To do" list for the tech guys I'll wager. |
| #6guivreSep 03, 2008 2:53:29 | Uh yesterday was a national holiday, tends to hold things up. Don't hold a gaming company to higher standards than your bank. Bzzt try again. There are articles missing from last months issue as well as blatant errors. Nor is there any reason a single day holiday should interrupt the schedule. Labor Day wasn't a surprise that came at them out of nowhere. It certainly shouldn't push off getting the compilation done. I'll hold them to whatever standards I want, this is the evaluation period for a product they want us to pay for. |
| #7Kryptonian_ScionSep 03, 2008 7:41:08 | It's September, the new issue of Dragon is (sort of) up. Yet August's issue isn't compiled, worse, not everything listed in the table of contents has been released. Expeditionary Dispatches and Confessions are all that's missing. I love Eberron, but that particular article series has been horrible compared to the old Dragonshards. I'm betting you don't HONESTLY care about Mazzanoble's "Confessions" column that much. Roll vs. Role is up, it's just not hyperlinked. Claws of Tyranny features a troll overlord and is one of my favorite RvR articles to date. Design & Development and RPGA Report are also available, and not linked. So there are some copy and paste errors on the new Table of Contents. Big deal. I'm sure they'll be fixed shortly after the first article of September is published. As for the compiled issue, just chill out. Perhaps they're still editing the articles and fixing errors like half the squeaky wheels on this forum have been moaning about over and over. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, right? The crusade against online Dungeon and Dragon is getting really old. I miss the print products that we used to get from Paizo, too. I miss coming home to a shiny, plastic-wrapped magazine stuffed into my tiny mailbox once per month just as much as you do. Accept the reality, though. They are not coming back. |
| #8mudbunnySep 03, 2008 9:06:27 | Please stick to debating the topics and discussing things and do not attack other posters. |
| #9ArtifactSep 03, 2008 9:33:37 | They do seem to be "behind the curve". The preview has improved remarkably with #364 (first 4e issue) but there's a way to go before I'll consider paying. I don't expect perfection of course ;) but I do think they could do better. Missing links on the contents page, missed articles (even "Confessions" ;)) are just sloppy (as has been noted) and detract from an otherwise fine effort. I'm willing to pay for a solid product but this is not it. |
| #10mudbunnySep 03, 2008 9:34:52 | This is not in response to Artifact, my post just happened to appear immediately after his(??). Again, please stop with the personal attacks. With Dungeon and Dragon (soon to be) moving to paid-viewing only, it is expected that people will have expectations of higher standards of quality for the product that is being put out. Seeing as how the magazines are no longer in dead-tree format, but digital, the quality of the product includes the web-pages leading to the articles. People will have different expectations as to what, for them, constitutes quality. Please refrain from attacking someone because they have a different level of quality that is required for DUngeon/Dragon to be quality products. |
| #11shadowlanceSep 03, 2008 10:09:46 | Again, please stop with the personal attacks. Umm, there isn't even the hint of a personal attack in Artifact's entire post. As for the topic at hand, I agree that they are falling a bit behind and that they really need to work on their quality control. My chief concern remains that the rules that they present smack of hastily slapped together house rules more than carefully tested and considered official rules. But quality of the work (editing etc) is a close second. |
| #12mudbunnySep 03, 2008 10:11:25 | My post isn't a reference to Artifact. There have been a number of posts that have been edited and/or removed due to flaming. This resulted in my post coming directly after Artifacts post. I will make my post clearer. |
| #13ArtifactSep 03, 2008 11:07:37 | I realize it wasn't in referrence to my post but thanks for the clarification anyway, mudbunny ;). Back on topic: I wonder if an online format makes it *easier* to miss deadlines but still move ahead with the issue anyway. Deadlines are always important; do they hold the same kind of importance online as in print? Seems like it would be easy to post an article late online. Just curious. |
| #14WolfStar76Sep 03, 2008 11:37:36 | I realize it wasn't in referrence to my post but thanks for the clarification anyway, mudbunny ;). Let me propose the flip-side of that coin. Is it possible an online format makes it easier for the reader to notice late/missed deadlines? In a print publication the only preview you typical have of the next issue is one or two highlighted articles "next month, check out ecology of the whuffle, and don't miss how to play a Widget-breaker!" So, if I'm working on a non-advertised article "State of play: Your Mom's Basement, pros vs cons" and I miss my deadline, sure I get a talking-to from the editor, but when it comes time to format/layout the issue, we just skip my article and (hopefully) insert it next month. Now we're getting an entire issue's list of contents before the content is necessarily finished. So, I suppose, the question to me is - did/does traditional publishing provide a layer of abstraction in which to "hide" deadlines that we're missing in the current digital format? I'll admit, the easy counter to this would be to prep issues two-months in advance (IE - start compiling articles for October now, and have Septembers articles already "in the can" and ready to just hit "publish" on), but while that's a good idea in theory, I don't know how well it would hold up in practice. ~shrug~ |
| #15samwiseSep 03, 2008 12:16:43 | I'll admit, the easy counter to this would be to prep issues two-months in advance (IE - start compiling articles for October now, and have Septembers articles already "in the can" and ready to just hit "publish" on), but while that's a good idea in theory, I don't know how well it would hold up in practice. ~shrug~ You mean how they have to printed publications at the printers 3 months ahead of time? Which means they need print products finished 6 months ahead of time? If they are capable of keeping a print product schedule they must be capable of keeping a e-zine schedule. Or I guess that should be "should be capable", as apparently they are not. Rather than the e-zine format making the problems stand out more, it actually conceals a multitude of sins. If this were a print product people would be getting magazines missing whole sections, or weeks or months late. That would be beyond obvious. Based on the speed I have seen the web guys work, I have to strongly suspect the problems are on the end of the people publishing, editing and writing the material. Since the editors and publisher are supposed make sure all the deadlines are met, that pretty much gives a pass to the writers. So . . . who is missing their deadlines? |
| #16anaroSep 03, 2008 12:36:16 | This isn't a comment about the quality, or lack thereof, of the current online magazines, as I've not read them too thoroughly. What I find amazing, is that this discussion completely mirrors discussions from the Winter/Spring earlier this year. It even has many of the same proponents. "It's free, so no worries." I think that pretty much sums it up. Only at this point, we're past the 4e launch, and whatever failings still exist are much more hard to wave away. I'm really pleased with the level of communication recently, especially from Randy B., but the OP is correct regarding Wizards' still being "Behind the curve", and folks are bound to be much less forgiving this time. I'm also surprisingly happy with the 4e ruleset and have enjoyed playing it. I do agree with the intent of the OP's post - Wizards really needs to dedicate more staff time (particularly regarding editing), if they ever hope to reach their aspirations towards making these magazines better than ever. Even though the quality has certainly improved, there's no reasonable excuse for not releasing the compiled PDFs on schedule. |
| #17theoinodaemonSep 03, 2008 12:47:40 | I'll be the first to admit WotC would have to knock my socks off before I'll pay for online content, but I've been pretty disappointed thus far. Maybe things will get better once they've decided to charge for Dragon (as it generates money maybe it will receive more of an investment in man hours), but I doubt it. Every time I see a new "issue" of Dragon I keep thinking "They killed the magazine for this?" |
| #18ArtifactSep 03, 2008 13:05:23 | Let me propose the flip-side of that coin. Gotta agree with you there. Putting the entire table of contents up as a hyperlinked page seems to be the very thing you're talking about; it's hard to overlook when something is "missing". With the print mag, all we had to go on was the "Next Month In Dragon" blurbs. They'll prolly want to stick with the hyperlinked contents page (it's a perk of the online format) but it's harder to slip stuff by the readers this way. * * * If they can make this format work (and I believe they can) I'll support it (it's been difficult coming to this point ;)). It's just disappointing because it feels (to me) like they haven't quite worked out all the bugs out yet. The preview period has to be ending soon, so I hope the bug hunt ends sooner rather than later. |
| #19theoinodaemonSep 03, 2008 13:21:10 | With the print mag, all we had to go on was the "Next Month In Dragon" blurbs. They'll prolly want to stick with the hyperlinked contents page (it's a perk of the online format) but it's harder to slip stuff by the readers this way. Then they need to get their articles together months ahead of time, print magazines do it, why can't they? They announced that they were killing the magazines in April, then had til September to get their stuff in gear. They should be one or two issues ahead, but they're not. |
| #20anaroSep 03, 2008 13:37:34 | Then they need to get their articles together months ahead of time, print magazines do it, why can't they? They announced that they were killing the magazines in April, then had til September to get their stuff in gear. They should be one or two issues ahead, but they're not. April? They announced the print mags demise mid-2007, and technically started a preview period I believe in August of 2007. |
| #21mudbunnySep 03, 2008 13:41:17 | It will take a while for them to get a proper backlog of articles. Don't forget, the rules have only been out for a little under 3 months now. It will take a while for their to be enough good quality articles submitted for them to be able to be ahead of the curve. |
| #22theoinodaemonSep 03, 2008 13:48:50 | April? They announced the print mags demise mid-2007, and technically started a preview period I believe in August of 2007. The announcement was in April I remember it was around the same time as the Tech shooting (I went to school there). The last print magazine was in August, and WotC started in September. I remember because it was a disappointing Halloween issue. I know 4th is relatively new, but they had the rules pretty much set in January (I seem to remember reading that somewhere, if I can find the quote I will post it). They could have taken the time to get some articles together, maybe even get some the play testers to submit something. |
| #23sirvimesSep 03, 2008 14:03:56 | It will take a while for them to get a proper backlog of articles. Don't forget, the rules have only been out for a little under 3 months now. It will take a while for their to be enough good quality articles submitted for them to be able to be ahead of the curve. Sorry, I don't buy that excuse one bit. Some of the same people that developed 4th edition are ones also writing for Dungeon and Dragon. Granted, outside contributors didn't have the same amount of time to learn the new rule system, but when one of the reasons announced for the moving of the magazines in house was, if I remember correctly, to have D&D developers/designers write for the magazines to make it a more official source, lack of time to get familiarized with the rules isn't an excuse they get to use. |
| #24KentinalSep 03, 2008 14:28:01 | Sorry, I don't buy that excuse one bit. Some of the same people that developed 4th edition are ones also writing for Dungeon and Dragon. Granted, outside contributors didn't have the same amount of time to learn the new rule system, but when one of the reasons announced for the moving of the magazines in house was, if I remember correctly, to have D&D developers/designers write for the magazines to make it a more official source, lack of time to get familiarized with the rules isn't an excuse they get to use. I get the sense that the rules are still bing adjusted, also WotC still appears to have a need to know policy (or did until fairly recently). Shelly trying out as DM appeared to report PHB2 classes/races were used when she had not yet seen PHB2 in even draft form. If all the play testers do not have final rules, what makes you believe every writer has a current set of rules? Many of the adventures already put out had things in them that conflicted with the core books printed. |
| #25inflictionSep 03, 2008 14:52:01 | After reading all of the points on both sides of the argument, I can tell its not going to go too far. Message Boards have always seemed to be for complaining, which is fine. I only hope that sometimes these complaints dont fall on deaf ears. WOTC moderators have responded in this thread and I can only hope that will mean something... In any case, I actually enjoy dragon and dungeon. I am still new to the game and really never got into purchasing the printed issues. Whether some of the articles seem to be late, or if they just stop releasing it article by article and just start releasing them issue by issue once a month makes no difference to me. My only concern is if they are only going to be a part of D&Dinsider. I have heard the price for D&Di is going to be around 14.99. Not sure if its true or not. To tell you the truth, out of all of the content to be included in D&Di, I am solely interested in Dungeon and Dragon Magazines. Does anyone know if we will be able to ala carte these? I seriously have no interest in ANY of the other conent. I seriously only want access to Dungeon Magazine and Dragon Magazine. If not, I refuse to pay the full price on D&Di just for them. If this info or thread has already been posted, I appologize and please link. If not, I would appreciate real information and not speculation. Thank You. |
| #26mudbunnySep 03, 2008 14:56:58 | My only concern is if they are only going to be a part of D&Dinsider. I have heard the price for D&Di is going to be around 14.99. Not sure if its true or not. To tell you the truth, out of all of the content to be included in D&Di, I am solely interested in Dungeon and Dragon Magazines. The option for a Magazine-only subscription is going to be available, about $5 a month if you pre-purchase a 12-month subscription. See http://www.wizards.com//default.asp?x=dnd/insidernews/20080806 for the pricing details. Edit to add - I am not a moderator. See my sig for what exactly a VCL does. |
| #27sirvimesSep 03, 2008 15:27:16 | I get the sense that the rules are still bing adjusted, also WotC still appears to have a need to know policy (or did until fairly recently). Shelly trying out as DM appeared to report PHB2 classes/races were used when she had not yet seen PHB2 in even draft form. Lets take a look at the Features article writers for issue #366. We have Rodney Thompson, Bruce Cordell, Peter Schaefer, Matthew Sernett, Ed Greenwood, Dave Noonan, Mike Mearls, and Chris Sims. All of those writers, with the exception of Ed Greenwood, are credited with at least 'additional design and development' of the 4th edition players handbook. I'd certainly hope that writers that WotC turned to to help develop 4th edition would be able to get access to both the current iteration of the rules as well as whats in development. |
| #28inflictionSep 03, 2008 16:15:05 | Thank you for the link and timely responce. |
| #29WolfStar76Sep 03, 2008 17:50:19 | Then they need to get their articles together months ahead of time, print magazines do it, why can't they? They announced that they were killing the magazines in April, then had til September to get their stuff in gear. They should be one or two issues ahead, but they're not. I'd argue that they *could* but I wonder if they wouldn't be losing some of the flexibility that being digital could offer in the first place. By being digital and not having a forced lead time, yes, they run the risk of "dropping the ball" with articles from time to time. However, by not having that forced lead time it *could* also give them an opportunity to react in not-quite real time to new things (I'd say issues, but that could get confusing) that pop-up in play a lot easier than they'd have otherwise. It seems there has to be a happy medium somewhere, though without spending at least a couple weeks in their shoes, I couldn't say I know where to find it. |
| #30Shemeska_the_MarauderSep 03, 2008 18:02:09 | It will take a while for them to get a proper backlog of articles. Don't forget, the rules have only been out for a little under 3 months now. It will take a while for their to be enough good quality articles submitted for them to be able to be ahead of the curve. It would have helped them get queries/submissions now had they actually responded to the them in the first two months or so after the print magazines were killed and they were still nominally open to taking article pitches from the Paizo slush pile or otherwise. I didn't get a reply to multiple notes/emails asking about the status of a slew of queries (and one finished piece they asked to see), and so at this point I have a rather large motivational hill to climb before I even make the attempt to pitch something to them now. Plus I'm not exactly thrilled with 4e which is all they want currently, and any system-light setting material I'd love to work with hasn't gone in directions that I care for so far. Faced with that, and with material I'm working on or pitching to other publishers/games, do I really want to invest the time coming up with an article idea to Dragon/Dungeon that based on IP concerns probably couldn't be pitched anywhere else if they take a pass on it? I doubt that I'm the only person in this position. Plus it's been rather discouraging to see the vast majority of the material written in-house, and when it's not, seeing it mostly go to a select group of freelancers that were privy to doing 4e work from almost the start. It's frustrating is what it is. |
| #31theoinodaemonSep 09, 2008 10:13:56 | I'd argue that they *could* but I wonder if they wouldn't be losing some of the flexibility that being digital could offer in the first place. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Wouldn't that turn Dragon into a big FAQ? I really don't see WotC turning this new format into a "rapid response" for D&D issues as they arise. |
| #32WolfStar76Sep 10, 2008 13:08:29 | I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Wouldn't that turn Dragon into a big FAQ? I really don't see WotC turning this new format into a "rapid response" for D&D issues as they arise. Taken to an extreme, possibly. On the other hand, if they wanted to do a "playtest update" for the Artificer one month (to show a new/revamped option), having a three month lead-time would make that very difficult to do - they'd either have to submit "playtest changes" based on very little data, or wait until it was so close to release as to not matter. While I think there should be *some* leadtime (hopefully their deadline on articles is at least two weeks before publication is due), I think they have an opportunity to be more interactive here than traditional print has allowed. Whether or not they'll take advantage of this opportunity is up to them, of course. |
| #33Majoru_OakheartSep 10, 2008 20:10:38 | While I think there should be *some* leadtime (hopefully their deadline on articles is at least two weeks before publication is due), I think they have an opportunity to be more interactive here than traditional print has allowed. Well, from everything they've said, I get the impression that each member of R&D is given a number of projects at the same time: Multiple articles for DDI, multiple books they are writing, going through errata, and so on. They are simply putting articles into the ToC when they figure they are close to done. Then they put them up on the first day in the month they are finished for. Doesn't sound like they are working much in advance at all. But then again, they ARE working in more or less real time. They figure that the point of having an online magazine is that they can put ideas out as soon as they are finished without waiting. I'm sure whatever designer is working on Barbarian decided to put it online partially because they weren't sure exactly what direction to take with the Barbarian and figured they'd put one of their ideas online and see what people say about it. He probably doesn't want to wait a month and a half to get feedback after he's done the playtest document to start getting feedback. |