WoTC Mike Mearls & Chris Perkins recently said at DDXP 2011 during a Q&A Seminar (docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1COLESXZ...) that they'd look into having Dragon/Dungeon Magazine compiled again if enought people were to Post, demand, Tweet, write CS etc...
I have E-mailed Customer Services to ask them to reconsider and many did i am sure. Many many consumers Posted in favor of the compilation return (community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...). Especially a whole lot of new Posters, coming out of the shadows to express their displeasure. Enought people showed that despite how they were donwloading the magazines, viewing the daily publications a lot more than downloading the Monthly issue in compiled form, that didn't remove the fact that wanted to have a compiled Dragon/Dungeon available. It doesn't take a lot of time and will satisfy thousands of customers that subscribes to DDi in part because of Dragon/Dungeon magazines.
I don't follow Tweeter and other Social media Netword to speak for them, but i am sure the vibe was the same everywhere. You had the time to reconsider
Now, i'd like to know what is the decision about them ? We want them back. Its not that hard to do it and its what a majority of Subscribers want. I don't think that many would not be in favor.
So you went on a bad business decision based on erronenous or distorted datas, realised you did a mistake by pulling the Compilation and see the displeasure it generated. Now its up tp you to return it. Nothing wrong here. People will only rejoice.
You can still produce Web Article exclusively for DDi for content that was originally destined for publication like the Class Compendium if you don't want to float around in PDF form. I'd understand and many would. But the rest of the magazines at least would be compiled.
Please give us back the compilation.
Thank you
Plague.
DDXP 2011 Q&A Seminar
D&D Insider
- Web Metrics show that the compiled PDF was seldom being downloaded - most of the audience didn’t grab the PDFs.
- Far more downloads of the articles - which weren’t updated
- Much of the work was also going into the Compendium
- Can re-exam putting compiled issues together if/as needed.
- Could also move to a .zip file download of all articles
- No compilations means only one place to update - instead of article (old/unfixed version) and the issue (updated/fixed)
- Q: How do we tell you if we’d prefer Compilations
- A: That’s why we’re here. We knew it was something of an issue before we got here, thanks to the message boards and the like.
- A: Community Forums, Facebook, Twitter - if the conversation is going on we’ll hear about it.
- A: Don’t forget Customer Service as well.
- Suggestion: Mark on the Article if/when it was last updated
- Suggestion: Tags and Keywords to make searching the archives easier
DMapple thx, linky stolen. I've added it to the OP.
So, I guess I'm a +1, but I think a far higher priority should be getting out of the tailspin they're in right now.
Caught up on reading through December and came back for another dose only to find the compilations were gone . . . one more dissappointment in life. Here I am building my own compilations, trying to figure out the best way to combine the editors comments and the rest into a whole PDF I can put on my iPad & iPhone to go.
Please help save what little time I and others have to spend on D&D with life, work & kids by compiling the magazines for us. We are truely a needly lot and deserve your love.
So +1, for all the good it'll do.
I think it works like this ... people want their Dragon and Dungeon complilations like they want to their hardcover books. Even though they don't reference them all the time, knowing they "can" adds to their value. I'm sure it also helps consumers to feel like they are getting their money's worth. Take away the compelations, and people start to feel short changed.
-G
Add me to the list. After 2 months of having to download articles individually, i've determined it's a huge pain in the butt.
-G
Agreed.
+1 to bringing back compilations!
Please do your best to get Dragon/Dungeon on track. My subscription expires in April. I won't renew unless I feel there's some improvement.
In any case, I'll join in the chorus expressing interest in seeing the compilations return.
So, please start compiling the "magazines" again. I've not downloaded a thing since you quit in January and likely won't until they're compiled. Just not worth the effort. Seriously considering bailing on my sub soon because of this.
Throw in a #DND while you're at it.
People should consider tweeting @Wizards_DnD talking about this.
Throw in a #DND while you're at it.
As I recall, they were pretty clear that they weren't going to pay much attention to the forums on this issue - didn't they say "if enough people tweet, blog, and facebook-whatever-it-is-you-do about it, we'll think about it?" (in other words, deliberately not mentioning the forums, if I'm not forgetting things?) Remember, the folks who work at WotC can't stomach the forums, so feedback here is probably shouting into the wind.
People should consider tweeting @Wizards_DnD talking about this.
Throw in a #DND while you're at it.
As I recall, they were pretty clear that they weren't going to pay much attention to the forums on this issue - didn't they say "if enough people tweet, blog, and facebook-whatever-it-is-you-do about it, we'll think about it?" (in other words, deliberately not mentioning the forums, if I'm not forgetting things?) Remember, the folks who work at WotC can't stomach the forums, so feedback here is probably shouting into the wind.
Precisely why everyone here should get twitter and twit about it :P
There's nothing to compile.
But +1 if it ever happens again.
As I recall, they were pretty clear that they weren't going to pay much attention to the forums on this issue - didn't they say "if enough people tweet, blog, and facebook-whatever-it-is-you-do about it, we'll think about it?" (in other words, deliberately not mentioning the forums, if I'm not forgetting things?) Remember, the folks who work at WotC can't stomach the forums, so feedback here is probably shouting into the wind.
Precisely why everyone here should get twitter and twit about it :P
Right! I was just agreeing with you in my long-winded fashion.
Compile my issues, please!
+1. Compilation makes tablet consumption so much easier for me.
So, if this movement would result in getting compilations but not getting individual articles updated (as was the case before they dropped compilations), then: No, no, a thousand times, NO!
Otherwise, sure, I'll support it. Why not?
As I recall, they were pretty clear that they weren't going to pay much attention to the forums on this issue - didn't they say "if enough people tweet, blog, and facebook-whatever-it-is-you-do about it, we'll think about it?" (in other words, deliberately not mentioning the forums, if I'm not forgetting things?) Remember, the folks who work at WotC can't stomach the forums, so feedback here is probably shouting into the wind.
That's a good point. Although I'm not sure how I could express my view in that manner; I don't tweet (because it seems inane to have a twitter account without something to promote), I don't blog, and I've taken to avoiding Facebook due to the sheer amount of drain it puts on the day.
Can anyone tell me if there's been much discussion of this issue on ENWorld? I rarely visit those forums anymore since it's blocked at work.
Compile my issues, please!
+1
I'll support doing compilations again if and only if they continue updating the individual articles. If it's a choice between having articles updated vs compiled, I'll choose articles any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So, if this movement would result in getting compilations but not getting individual articles updated (as was the case before they dropped compilations), then: No, no, a thousand times, NO!
Except I'm not convinced they are getting much in the way of useful updates, and we are certainly getting fewer articles in general...
I'll support doing compilations again if and only if they continue updating the individual articles. If it's a choice between having articles updated vs compiled, I'll choose articles any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So, if this movement would result in getting compilations but not getting individual articles updated (as was the case before they dropped compilations), then: No, no, a thousand times, NO!
Except I'm not convinced they are getting much in the way of useful updates, and we are certainly getting fewer articles in general...
The volume of content we're getting stinks. That has nothing to do with compilations.
And, if you're not convinced that they're getting much by way of updates, they aren't going to get much by way of updates on compilation either.
Basically, I want the individual articles to NOT be useless. They were useless before WotC canned the compilation, because they were not correct - you had to download the compilation to get the articles with corrections included. I expect to be able to get reliable information just by looking at the article, I should not have to download a compiled PDF to do so.
And then not allowing a way to have them joined together.
Very, very sloppy
+1 (00?) for compilations!
The compilations returning would be great. If nothing else it would remove the smokescreen and demonstrate just how little DDi content is being pushed out each month (March is a joke thus far).
With the quantity of articles by Robert J. Schwalb (keep up the good work sir!), if he's ever ill for a week (or takes a holiday) then nothing is going get released for a month.... Maybe i'm onto something here
Annnnnnyway!
+1 for complilations.
Heck, I wouldn't mind getting an email with a link to remind me of the compiled issue.
Thanks.
I'll support doing compilations again if and only if they continue updating the individual articles. If it's a choice between having articles updated vs compiled, I'll choose articles any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So, if this movement would result in getting compilations but not getting individual articles updated (as was the case before they dropped compilations), then: No, no, a thousand times, NO!
Except I'm not convinced they are getting much in the way of useful updates, and we are certainly getting fewer articles in general...
The volume of content we're getting stinks. That has nothing to do with compilations.
And, if you're not convinced that they're getting much by way of updates, they aren't going to get much by way of updates on compilation either.
Basically, I want the individual articles to NOT be useless. They were useless before WotC canned the compilation, because they were not correct - you had to download the compilation to get the articles with corrections included. I expect to be able to get reliable information just by looking at the article, I should not have to download a compiled PDF to do so.
The problem is that now, you have fewer articles than when they were comp[iled(because they went to a new schedule that allows them not to post articles when they left the compilation model) and they are useless anyway. there is no way to tell when an article is updated, (other than downloading the whole thing again, and at that point, I might as well download a compilation). Should they have put updates in both the compilation and the individual articles? yes. Still, I would find a compilation a thousand times more useful than the "updates" they have been giving the articles.
I absolutely would not use the compiled issue, but I vote for it to be done anyway simply to shut these whiners up. There's been a constant wail of moaning since the cancellation was announced, and it's really getting old.
Nothing will shut the whiners up. They will find something else to whine about.
I do have a serious question those for all that want the compilations back. Please choose between the following:
1) Corrections in the compilation
2) Corrections in the individual articles
By getting rid of the compilation not only do they avoid copy/paste errors, but there is one single source for the content. Update the content (individual article) and update the CB/MB/DB for the online tools. If they update the compilation then they have to re-lay out the entire month depending on the change which ultimately is what I think they're trying to avoid.
I absolutely would not use the compiled issue, but I vote for it to be done anyway simply to shut these whiners up. There's been a constant wail of moaning since the cancellation was announced, and it's really getting old.
Nothing will shut the whiners up. They will find something else to whine about.
I do have a serious question those for all that want the compilations back. Please choose between the following:
1) Corrections in the compilation
2) Corrections in the individual articles
By getting rid of the compilation not only do they avoid copy/paste errors, but there is one single source for the content. Update the content (individual article) and update the CB/MB/DB for the online tools. If they update the compilation then they have to re-lay out the entire month depending on the change which ultimately is what I think they're trying to avoid.
If I were a subscribin' man, I'd say #1. Seemed to work okay for a while, at least - there was never any confusion about where to find the final form of the article, and you got a convenient single download if that was the sort of thing you wanted.
If that requires them to re-layout the magazine, tough **** - that's just work they have to do.
I absolutely would not use the compiled issue, but I vote for it to be done anyway simply to shut these whiners up. There's been a constant wail of moaning since the cancellation was announced, and it's really getting old.
Nothing will shut the whiners up. They will find something else to whine about.
I do have a serious question those for all that want the compilations back. Please choose between the following:
1) Corrections in the compilation
2) Corrections in the individual articles
By getting rid of the compilation not only do they avoid copy/paste errors, but there is one single source for the content. Update the content (individual article) and update the CB/MB/DB for the online tools. If they update the compilation then they have to re-lay out the entire month depending on the change which ultimately is what I think they're trying to avoid.
Note: the following is just my opinion, based on what works for me--feel free to disagree.
Personally? I'd rather they didn't add major corrections, and if they do, only do it once. By this, I mean that I'd rather they playtest the stuff, and have it out in individual articles for a month or 2, so they know what they need to change before it reaches compilation stage.
However, since that's not practical(apparently) and given that this edition, at least, thrives on eratta, I have to say, I'd still prefer it was in the compilation. with individual articles, there is no final product, which means that they can continue refining them indefinately. I can see the appeal here, but in reality, if I am actually going to use it for play, there really needs to be a point where I say, this is what we are using--it isn't fair to anyone to change the way an item, power, class, or race works between one session or the other. they need to be at least as static as the core books--if this means that a seperate page where article eratta is posted, then fine, do that.
Having it in a compilation is both a sign that no further major changes are planned, it doesn't require any kind of notice that things have been changed, it makes it easier to find a given individual article, and it enforces a deadline. Against the ability to update it indefinately, I have to say I value these more.
I do have a serious question those for all that want the compilations back. Please choose between the following:
1) Corrections in the compilation
2) Corrections in the individual articles
By getting rid of the compilation not only do they avoid copy/paste errors, but there is one single source for the content. Update the content (individual article) and update the CB/MB/DB for the online tools. If they update the compilation then they have to re-lay out the entire month depending on the change which ultimately is what I think they're trying to avoid.
It's my opinion that both corrections in the individual articles and the compilation are feasible. While I have no inside knowledge, it's my assumption that the reason the updates are taking so much time for Wotc is that they are using processes that are intended for print publishing that are causing restrictions and bottlenecks when applied to web publishing.
If I were a subscribin' man, I'd say #1. Seemed to work okay for a while, at least - there was never any confusion about where to find the final form of the article, and you got a convenient single download if that was the sort of thing you wanted.
But it didn't work - at least not for me, and especially not with Dungeon content. I was routinely downloading adventures or other content and getting frustrated with it not making any sense as written.
And yes, there absolutely was constant confusion about where to find the final form the article. Regulars around these forums knew that the final content was only available in the compilations, because it was frequently being pointed around here... because people frequently needed to be told so. People would ask why such and such an element isn't in the Compendium after months, why some elements had different rules when there had been no errata, and would need to have explained why their cool character concept didn't work by RAW even though (as far as they could tell), they were using the most up to date rules sources and had applied all of the errata to it.
The simple truth is that, until you've banged your head up against it, there is absolutely no reason anyone would think that the article they just downloaded is not the final version of the article.
As for me, I never downloaded compilations, unless I found some skill challenge or something that was obviously in error or didn't make sense as written. Having compilations downloaded wasn't useful to me. If I have every compilation downloaded, it's still necessary to go online every single time I need to reference them to find out which issue I need to look at, so... why not just grab the material online at that time to begin with?
All in all, I think it's asinine to regard Dragon and Dungeon as "magazines." The paradigm just doesn't make sense to me. But, hey, some other people like monthly compilations, and I'm not so egocentric that I'll argue against their existence just because I find them useless. I will, however, argue against having what I find useful taken away.
If I were a subscribin' man, I'd say #1. Seemed to work okay for a while, at least - there was never any confusion about where to find the final form of the article, and you got a convenient single download if that was the sort of thing you wanted.
But it didn't work - at least not for me, and especially not with Dungeon content. I was routinely downloading adventures or other content and getting frustrated with it not making any sense as written.
See, I never ran into any trouble with it, and thus my answer. I knew how the process worked, I knew that articles were not necessarily final, etc. I didn't download the compilations frequently myself, but I was asked to choose between the two. Personally, I'd have chosen both - correct the articles and the compilation, and if that's a lot of work, well...that's why it's a job.
If I were a subscribin' man, I'd say #1. Seemed to work okay for a while, at least - there was never any confusion about where to find the final form of the article, and you got a convenient single download if that was the sort of thing you wanted.
But it didn't work - at least not for me, and especially not with Dungeon content. I was routinely downloading adventures or other content and getting frustrated with it not making any sense as written.
See, I never ran into any trouble with it, and thus my answer. I knew how the process worked, I knew that articles were not necessarily final, etc. I didn't download the compilations frequently myself, but I was asked to choose between the two. Personally, I'd have chosen both - correct the articles and the compilation, and if that's a lot of work, well...that's why it's a job.
ditto. in fact, within a day of joining ddi, I knew about it, and to be honest, I came in and assumed that the compiled version was the "print" version.
While I have no inside knowledge, it's my assumption that the reason the updates are taking so much time for Wotc is that they are using processes that are intended for print publishing that are causing restrictions and bottlenecks when applied to web publishing.
I agree with this. I think those that want compilation really want the printed magazine back and are unwilling to accept the complete move to the online format. I have very little use for the magazine content so I don't really have a horse in the race as it were. That said, it seems like WotC is trying to incrementally move to the all web format and dropping the compilations is the first big move in the process.
While I have no inside knowledge, it's my assumption that the reason the updates are taking so much time for Wotc is that they are using processes that are intended for print publishing that are causing restrictions and bottlenecks when applied to web publishing.
I agree with this. I think those that want compilation really want the printed magazine back and are unwilling to accept the complete move to the online format. I have very little use for the magazine content so I don't really have a horse in the race as it were. That said, it seems like WotC is trying to incrementally move to the all web format and dropping the compilations is the first big move in the process.
That would be a better argument if there was any relevant amount of web content. Dragon/Dungeon are obviously in shambles right now, and it has nothing to do with any of the issues we're discussing.
While I have no inside knowledge, it's my assumption that the reason the updates are taking so much time for Wotc is that they are using processes that are intended for print publishing that are causing restrictions and bottlenecks when applied to web publishing.
I agree with this. I think those that want compilation really want the printed magazine back and are unwilling to accept the complete move to the online format. I have very little use for the magazine content so I don't really have a horse in the race as it were. That said, it seems like WotC is trying to incrementally move to the all web format and dropping the compilations is the first big move in the process.
That would be a better argument if there was any relevant amount of web content. Dragon/Dungeon are obviously in shambles right now, and it has nothing to do with any of the issues we're discussing.
The level of content doesn't change the arguement one way or the other. At some point they'll bring content level back up or lose all those who were here for the ezines. The other (unthinkable) option is that they'll get rid of the ezines completely and of course then the compilations will be a moot point.
As a programmer I know what it's like to have two functions that do the exact same thing and having to keep them in "sync" with each other. It's much easier to only have one version such that any updates only have to be done once. As it stands right now they have at least 3 or 4 copies of every article they produce:
1) The individual article
2) The compilation* (being removed)
3) Compendium
4) Character Builder or Monster Builder depending on the type of data.
I can only imagine the maintenance nightmare this is for them. Think how many people are affected by a change in this. The writer has to edit his original work. An editor has to review the changes and R&D has to approve the change. Once you get that through they have to edit any appropriate databases (compendium and CB and/or MB) and make possible code changes if the element was changed in a way that requires it.
*Note that I don't know for sure if 3 & 4 are the same or different, but from what I've read here about mistakes in one place but not the other I'm inclined to believe that they are separate. What they need is to have a single DB that supports compendium, MB, and CB to remove data duplication and reduce mistakes as well as workload. Removing the compilation is just one step in that process.
I do have a serious question those for all that want the compilations back. Please choose between the following:
1) Corrections in the compilation
2) Corrections in the individual articles
By getting rid of the compilation not only do they avoid copy/paste errors, but there is one single source for the content. Update the content (individual article) and update the CB/MB/DB for the online tools. If they update the compilation then they have to re-lay out the entire month depending on the change which ultimately is what I think they're trying to avoid.
In theory, the slow pace of articles recently (and the low numbers of articles) has been because of more thorough checking before the article is published.
Ideally, I'd say neither, and keep the compiled issues. But, in the event something needs to be corrected, I can't imagine fixing both sources would be too onerous.
-O
In theory, the slow pace of articles recently (and the low numbers of articles) has been because of more thorough checking before the article is published.
...
-O
I'd believe this if they had a little bit of crunch in the magazines to look at. I mean what are they doing taking a week to check the grammar?
...
So how's March's Dragon looking so far?
In theory, the slow pace of articles recently (and the low numbers of articles) has been because of more thorough checking before the article is published.
...
-O
I'd believe this if they had a little bit of crunch in the magazines to look at. I mean what are they doing taking a week to check the grammar?
Or if the crunch articles didn't require pretty obvious errata that was picked up within minutes of going live.
In theory, the slow pace of articles recently (and the low numbers of articles) has been because of more thorough checking before the article is published.
...
-O
I'd believe this if they had a little bit of crunch in the magazines to look at. I mean what are they doing taking a week to check the grammar?
Or if the crunch articles didn't require pretty obvious errata that was picked up within minutes of going live.
Really! They need to subcontract out to the char-op board or something... things would be so balanced it would hurt...
Compilations are about ease if local management of content for me, and ease of reading when time precludes reading the articles on a day by day basis.
Finally I am now discovering compilations made it easier to track updates to articles.
I would happily wait a month for a compilation to give ample time for updates.
It should be a magazine, not a series of articles, please, WotC.
Give it back to us please.
I think the best approach might be to bring back the compilations but do them a month later, when they have had more than enough time to fix all of the articles -- including the ones posted near the end of the month. That approach should address the problem that I think they were trying to address by not doing the compilations at all.
Looking at the state of 4e and DDI, I don't think time is in ample supply. They may even make more mistakes because no one remembers what needs to be fixed by then.
Either way, looking at this month's calendar for Dragon, I can't help but think may be they don't compile because they don't think there will be much to be compiled.
I agree that updated article is more important then errata. Just yesterday I got a friend asking me about a monk power that has since been corrected in the compilation but not in the article.
I think the best approach might be to bring back the compilations but do them a month later, when they have had more than enough time to fix all of the articles -- including the ones posted near the end of the month. That approach should address the problem that I think they were trying to address by not doing the compilations at all.
Looking at the state of 4e and DDI, I don't think time is in ample supply. They may even make more mistakes because no one remembers what needs to be fixed by then.
Either way, looking at this month's calendar for Dragon, I can't help but think may be they don't compile because they don't think there will be much to be compiled.
I agree that updated article is more important then errata. Just yesterday I got a friend asking me about a monk power that has since been corrected in the compilation but not in the article.
At that point, they should be looking at compiling it bi-monthly, then.
I think the best approach might be to bring back the compilations but do them a month later, when they have had more than enough time to fix all of the articles -- including the ones posted near the end of the month. That approach should address the problem that I think they were trying to address by not doing the compilations at all.
Looking at the state of 4e and DDI, I don't think time is in ample supply. They may even make more mistakes because no one remembers what needs to be fixed by then.
Either way, looking at this month's calendar for Dragon, I can't help but think may be they don't compile because they don't think there will be much to be compiled.
I agree that updated article is more important then errata. Just yesterday I got a friend asking me about a monk power that has since been corrected in the compilation but not in the article.
At that point, they should be looking at compiling it bi-monthly, then.
Yes, compile please. Much easier for mel Thanks.
If you want change quit DDi and then go campaigning by word of mouth. Explain to everyone you know how DDi sucks and encourage them to quit it too. Get enough quitters and they may go back to compiled issues...
Don't you people get it? they aren't going to do it.
If you want change quit DDi and then go campaigning by word of mouth. Explain to everyone you know how DDi sucks and encourage them to quit it too. Get enough quitters and they may go back to compiled issues...
See, therein lies the problem. If I quit, then it's going to be at least 6 months, and more likely years before I can be convinced to even consider putting money into this cluster*%! again.
Really, it comes down to value, and as I have said before, they are right at the point where it won't take but a look the wrong way to get me to immediatly cancel and demand my money back. Right now, the effort required to do that outweighs the frustration of remaining a member.
Compile my issues, please!
+1. Compilation makes tablet consumption so much easier for me.
+1. This way I can tell myself it's still a magazine, sort of.
+1
Just chiming in...