That's good, but it doesn't reestablish trust in us customers that the problem is actually going to be addressed. It also doesn't address a few other issues that seem to be on the rise with these products. I thought I'd bring up at least a few of these issues here:
Proofreading: One of the first and easy to find issues is that of a lack proofreading in recent supplements. There are repeated instances of "page XX", or similar references, in recent books. Sometimes, there are several such mistakes in a single book.
While this might could be attributed to undermanned editing departments, a portion of the blame still falls on those who were there. Assuming that the texts of these books are being written using some form of word processing program, a simple Find on "XX" could turn up these problems. If there is time, search for all "page", "pg.", or similar references, and just look for the numbers (and, if necessary, the notation of the book to look in).
Most all word processing programs have an array of functions built in to catch these kinds of mistakes. To not use them seems wasteful.
Completeness: Many tables and other entire entries get left out completely from a book. It seems rather unusual that this would not be caught upon reading the final draft of a supplement, because they normally make up a pretty sizable part of the thing. It's not easy to simply miss most tables, or entries that cover more than a quarter or so of the page. Perhaps the most cursory skimming of a work might cause something to be missed, but to actually look for various items in their place would turn it up easily enough.
Mechanics: This is, naturally, where many errors can occur, because it involves the actual use of the rules that the supplement provides. To actually check this takes playtesting, to some extent, which itself takes time.
Yet this is the one area in which I tend to be more unforgiving, because it is assumed that, in the case of "core accessories" (such as the Complete series), a person who writes such rules is careful to maintain the balance and integrity of the game. The fact that some rules are intentionally altered after publication to correct a balance issue is rather irritating. If it was obvious to the average customer that something was a problem, how could it not have been caught by professionals?
To be fair, there are a number of reasons (not excuses) why these things can happen. To point to a single cause and heap blame and scorn on it is foolish; errors almost always tend to be compounded by other issues, which contribute to the problems a person has with a given supplement. Not all are even human issues; some can be the work of outside, impersonal forces.
Often, I have found that in nearly any industry or business, the first and basic problem is communication. While working on a project, it is easy for folks to forget to keep each other updated on what is going on. While this isn't a character flaw (anyone can, and usually will, make this mistake), it is a mistake that should be looked out for, and avoided.
Many errors caused by conflicting rules, for example, might easily be avoided if there was communication by those who are/were involved with developing those rules. This can make sure there is a certain continuity in the game, no matter how many versions or editions of it are created.
Another problem is that some communication is often misunderstood. This isn't easily corrected, however; people have misunderstood each other since ancient people were drawing stick figures on cave walls. The only real solution is dilligent verification of things, to make sure that all is as it was intended to be. But, this is an easy process to interrupt, especially if time and/or resources are lacking.
The third communication problem is one of technical failure. I'm sure every single person reading this can understand the frequency with which computers and other devices can fail us. To add to that the fact that people making our games depend almost totally on this technology to do their work means that, almost certainly, something gets missed or left out of the loop.
Aside from communication, errors can arise from a misunderstanding of rules. Considering how often the online community debates and discusses the rules, it is a wonder than any person can know enough about them to be a professional game developer. But while it isn't necessarily realisitic to expect someone to have perfect memory of all rules for a game, there should be some research done to ensure that the rules are cohesive and logical.
Another problem can arise from one person having to complete multiple projects at once. It can cause parts of various things to become neglected, which in turn cause things to be left out or only partially explained.
As noted by some in other places online, if a company doesn't hire enough folks to ensure quality control in their products, and pressures it's staff to meet deadlines with this sad lack of personnel, then mistakes will happen. Perhaps they can evade them in a few cases, but the more that is produced, the more likely that major problems will arise.
As a customer, I do not consider it unreasonable that any company I do business with give me a product worth the price I am charged to obtain it. That means that should I find problems with the product, I be allowed to return it for a refund, or that the product be repaired. If the company doesn't do so, then they should not be surprised if I take my business elsewhere.
In this case, WotC is in a precarious situation. The OGL means that anyone who adheres to the terms of the license can produce diverse supplements that will meet my needs, even if it is better than the things that WotC themselves produce. If a product is almost totally defective, they should offer rebates to replace it with a new product, or, failing that, fix the errors with errata, and take in-house measures to keep such from happening again. While gaming is a very different type of business from any other, it is still one in which a company can fall apart by not providing the quality that they imply their products have.
And very often, that level of quality can be found in other companies, who charge equal or less for superior products. I am finding it harder and harder not to give in to the urge to simply invest more money in the works of other companies, becuase as time goes on, I'm not seeing any effort being made to address the fundamental issues that are causing complaints to come in.
This isn't exactly a blanket statement; a good many WotC folks have come online to take back the ground that has been lost. Problems are being listened to, errata is being made, and concerns are being addressed. There are also indications that they are working on the long-term problems, including the hiring of additional staff.
But perhaps more than this, it is necessary to slow down, and work not on pushing out another book quickly, but on giving us a range of books eventually that will fit perfectly with each other, and with existing material. This will make it more favorable for some of us customers, who want to have plenty of options in our games, to continue investing in a company that we have high hopes for, even if those hopes are balanced with a healthy dose of practical pessimism.
I believe for the most part the game is quite robust for being so complex. When a new rulebook comes out I can usually tell ahead of time what rules are going to be headaches, and I find Wizards publications to be less likely to give headaches in this respect than almost any 3rd party d20 publisher.
But... oh, the typos.
When I opened up a copy of Complete Divine, I was stunned and impressed by the artwork, stunned and pleased by the new options available, and stunned and disappointed in the poor quality editing. I haven't picked up Eberron yet, but it seems that the trend with recent publications is getting worse, not better. Little things such as using a vampire as an example in a spell that vampires are immune to are forgivable in moderation. But magic items that reference spells that don't exist are not.
Errata are goodnesses, but they are also band-aids slapped on festering decapitation wounds. It's no secret that post-production development (i.e., playtesting) is the longest and most expensive (and most important) process in creating any product, but the nature and frequency of the typographical errors detected even after a single day on these message boards strongly imply that they could easily have been avoided had proper error-checking measures been implemented. It's no doubt a conceited recommendation for Wizards to impress volunteers from the D&D forums to proofread new publications, nondisclosure issues notwithstanding. But surely it would not be too difficult to form a specialized team of editors to catch these errors before the final product is released. It is becoming, sadly, a situation reminiscent of Microsoft and its legions of angry customers in the wake of releasing inadequately tested products.
But not exactly like Microsoft, thankfully. The OGL enables the consumer to have a real choice in the matter, since we're all empowered to purchase our fluff-and-crunch elsewhere, or write our own if we so choose. I don't think any of us really want to do this; Wizards of the Coast has been an extremely positive influence on D&D and will no doubt continue to be so.
But even the fiercest loyalist to Wizards' products (such as myself) begins to think twice after shelling out $30 apiece for not one, but several books riddled with so many errors. I think this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed at length on all sides.
Unfortunately, I think it will get worse long before it gets better.
As an example, I have not bought a single FR accessory since Silver Marches as none of them have been up to scratch. Previously, I was buying every single one that came out. Once again, complements on putting such a sensitive issue so well and a request to all members of the company to read this article and have a really good think about the direction the company is taking.