I just spotted this thread indicating that if account notifications were turned off, you might not get notified of the VT beta.
I just noticed that my notifications were turned off. Does that mean that my name might have been selected but I missed out? That would be a bummer.
Rob
P.S. I have turned my notifications back on now.
I am finding out what effect the opt-in/out settings will have.
Hoping for next round of invites.
The invitations were definitely limited. Right now, it looks like there is a little under 200 people in the group, split between Staff and DDI subscribers.
Well it was said friends and family. Staff I can understand. Does this mean that the DDi subscribers picked are friends of staff? If there was some other system to pick these people other then random sounds like favoritism.
Well it was said friends and family. Staff I can understand. Does this mean that the DDi subscribers picked are friends of staff? If there was some other system to pick these people other then random sounds like favoritism.
Does that really matter?
Stop letting them lie to you, I doubt there is any beta testing, it will be as bad as the online CB release.
Wow. You don't believe there is any beta testing going on? Are all the posts/screenshots being posted by the beta testers in this very forum all one big lie?
Wow. You don't believe there is any beta testing going on? Are all the posts/screenshots being posted by the beta testers in this very forum all one big lie?
:tinfoilhat:
We already know all of their faulty play testing is done "in house," why should faulty beta testing for a program that's 3 years late be any different.
Stop letting them lie to you, I doubt there is any beta testing, it will be as bad as the online CB release.
Just by watching twitter I've seen that several D&D bloggers are in on the beta - so it's hardly a "staff only" or "in house" affair.
Several VCLs are also in - and while we volunteer, we're also not staff, and certainly not "in house".
[EDIT]
Blog post from some people who definately aren't "in house": www.myrpgame.com/2010/11/22/virtual-tabl...
Well it was said friends and family. Staff I can understand. Does this mean that the DDi subscribers picked are friends of staff? If there was some other system to pick these people other then random sounds like favoritism.
Does that really matter?
No one likes favoritism, save possibly the person being favored.
I think since they declared it to be such right off the bat the, the fact that those invited are people like myself, and popular bloggers, and names I recognize from the RPGA (though there are more than a few people I've never seen before) shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone.
If this were the ONLY level of beta-testing being done, I'd also agree about the lack of random inclusivness.
However, we're being told that over time more people will be invited - and since there's a beta application to fill out, it seems reasonable to assume that the bulk of future invitees will come from those who've applied.
For my part, I fail to see the problem in the selection - when viewed against their plans for beta testing as a whole.
For those worried, missing the first set of VT invites does not mean you will miss the next - make sure you opt in to communication!
I am finding out what effect the opt-in/out settings will have.
Nothing like requiring us to opt in to getting marketing e-mails for products we already know about in order to get an invite for something that we explicitly sign up for. Never mind that they did not check those settings when they sent out the notifications that the updates were going to be late...
For those worried, missing the first set of VT invites does not mean you will miss the next - make sure you opt in to communication!
I am finding out what effect the opt-in/out settings will have.
Nothing like requiring us to opt in to getting marketing e-mails for products we already know about in order to get an invite for something that we explicitly sign up for. Never mind that they did not check those settings when they sent out the notifications that the updates were going to be late...
Really??
You are angry that WotC didn't ignore the settings that people have for the amount of contact that they want from WotC about stuff?
I should absolutely be able to sign up for the beta without hearing about all marketing emails.
Actually, yeah, considering there is an explicit "Sign up for the beta!" link. Giving us control means that we should have control, yes?
I should absolutely be able to sign up for the beta without hearing about all marketing emails.
Agreed. The two should not be even remotely related.
For those worried, missing the first set of VT invites does not mean you will miss the next - make sure you opt in to communication!
I am finding out what effect the opt-in/out settings will have.
Nothing like requiring us to opt in to getting marketing e-mails for products we already know about in order to get an invite for something that we explicitly sign up for. Never mind that they did not check those settings when they sent out the notifications that the updates were going to be late...
Really??
You are angry that WotC didn't ignore the settings that people have for the amount of contact that they want from WotC about stuff?
Really??
So I should be fine with them ignoring it when they feel like it - but not when it is something I have explicitly asked for? Under what set of logic does that make any sense?
Really??
You are angry that WotC didn't ignore the settings that people have for the amount of contact that they want from WotC about stuff?
Really?? You think this makes sense?
A long time ago I indicated that I didn't want unsolicited emails from WotC, then I sign up for a beta and you really think that it makes sense for the former to override the latter?
I don't think anyone can realistically justify that as the most sensible way to go. Having said that, everyone makes mistakes. We live in an imperfect world. Sometimes people leverage existing mechanisms that have built in limitations that they either forget about or deem not worth changing for a specific usage. I expect that was what happened here. Someone used an existing email mechanism that automatically excludes people who have opted out of unsolicited emails.
I'm not "angry" that such a thing happened, I'm disappointed that I may have missed out on an opportunity to play with some software that I'm both curious and excited about.
I'm not going to get my shorts in a knot because a) there will be other invites, and b) there are more important things to knot my shorts over, however I don't think anyone should be trying to defend this as anything other than an unfortunate mishap.
A long time ago I indicated that I didn't want unsolicited emails from WotC, then I sign up for a beta and you really think that it makes sense for the former to override the latter?
But you didn't sign up for this beta. I'm pretty sure the sign-up to test the software is for the next round of invites, and had absolutely nothing to do with the first round. I think that's what is being missed here, by everyone who is complaining.
I imagine, for the first round of invites, they sent them to various people they felt would be useful beta testers, including VCLs, active posters, D&D bloggers, etc*. Those invites were unsolicited, and not connected to any 'sign-up' for the beta testing, hence why those who had WotC solitifications turned off... may have had invites blocked.
*I don't know what their actual specifications were, but I'm imaging something along those lines. There really isn't any reason to send out 'random' invites for the first round of testers - the goal of the invites isn't to 'reward their friends' or randomly select any posters in the system, it is to find people who will be useful and involved beta testers.
The info came across as "we're holding a closed beta by invitation only" and "sign up here for a chance at an invitation". I don't believe I was the only one who misunderstood.