Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding a financial incentive or disincentive to increase the editing quality of the final product does work, as I am sure you know. But I guess you dislike potential side effects of such a solution...The only situation I know of where this has been tried is Donald Knuth's reward checks. Note that The Art of Computer Programming has been a work in progress since 1962 and isn't finished yet, so there are some drawbacks to producing timely work with that approach.
Maybe we should offer employees a ten-dollar bonus for every typo they find and fix!
|
But as a consumer of Paizo products, I don't agree with your assessment of 'pennies'. At least for me, there's a limit for editorial oversights. Below that limit, a double period at the wrong place is worth nothing. Ten are worth nothing. But as soon as there are enough small mistakes that I notice them while browsing an rpg book, it hurts its value way more than the fraction of letters the errors comprise.
Hey, I have something better than Monster Manual 3! Magic Item Compendium.
7 pages of errata.
OUTRAGEOUS.
Such...total and utter failure of quality control by the Illustrious Industry Leader! Whom did they pay to make this book! How could anyone even cash a dime for this atrocity!
How could they even publish a book like this! Surely the customers were outraged! Certainly, there was a loud and clear voice of disapproval! Let's check some reviews, starting with Amazon.com.
48 reviews, with an average of 4.8 out of 5.
Hmmm.
Do I understand this right? You think that rewarding outstanding work and punishing subpar results does not work? Really?The day that Paizo starts talking about "punishing" employees is the day I find a new job. Rewarding good results, that's different. I find the notion of an employer having the power to "punish" a grown human being, like they were a child or a criminal, outright offensive.
But that's what most companies do. They fire less productive people, give them no or small bonuses and reward better people with promotions and larger bonuses. My suggestions was merely a more fine-grained version of this idea with the added benefit of improved product quality.
But I'm happy for you if Paizo can afford to be different in that regard, and I'm sure you guys (the employees) appreciate that :)
Maybe we should offer employees a ten-dollar bonus for every typo they find and fix!
Or, as a serious alternative, give a 1$ (or so) gift code to the first customer who notices a typo in a product he bought and mentions it in the appropriate section of the website.
Magic Item Compendium.
Again the comparison to WotC. But I'll just ignore that and say that I do find the Magic Item Compendium to be a bad product. Not because of the editing, but because it contains items that are simply too easily abused. I've also never played in a game where MIC (and it's close friend, the Spell Compendium) were generally allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's what most companies do. They fire less productive people, give them no or small bonuses and reward better people with promotions and larger bonuses.
Aww shucks that's cute. Misguided, but cute.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one notices the thousands of errors the editors fix. They only notice the one error that slips past them.
Anyone with limited knowledge of InDesign should be able to make typo changes with the associated skills to keep the page format in place with the use of tracking and kerning, etc.Any time we make any changes to files that may be sent to the printer, more than one person is going to do it. Specifically, a developer/designer would need to request the change; then, any number of people might be able to enter it, either in InCopy or InDesign but, either way, a layout person would need to check it in InDesign to ensure that it didn't cause text flow problems, and an editor (who wasn't the person who made the change in the first place) would have to make sure that it was entered correctly. So a minimum of three people would have to put their hands on any file, for any change. And that does turn into exactly the scenario that deinol identified, where a bunch of tiny changes add up to hamper our efforts making our *new* books as error-free as possible.
And that's just the start of it.... if you then wanted that PDF to go out to customers, another person would have to spend several hours making the new PDF (and checking it), and then we'd have to send an email to thousands of people letting them know that it has changed, and then everybody who has the PDF in their downloads can come pound our site for the next few days to download gigabytes of data to each get a sentence fixed.
(Also, I'm pretty sure that folks would want a public changelog, so we'd have to spend time implementing and maintaining that too.)
It's far more efficient—for you *and* for us—if we just post that new sentence on the FAQ, and when we go to reprint, we can make a bunch of changes all at once, and give you a handy compiled errata doc to bring your edition up to the current one.
I understand that process from a reprint aspect. The majority of your products do not have that luxury and at this point the whatever level of support provided. Nowhere have I said that each error should be updated as it is noticed. Just that it should be updated in some form as opposed to not at all in most cases. I suggested a schedule, be it 1 month is Companion updates, next is Module updates, and so forth. Even every 2 months or by quarter would work. A changelog would be part of the whole update process, get x number of updates for a given product and it is time to go forward with pushing a pdf file update on the set schedule. I hear some aren't good at taking notes by their own admission at PaizoCon and I think a changelog might fall into that category.
Several hours to make a pdf, really? I could probably reproduce a whole book in that time let alone spit out a few updates and a finalized pdf file.
As for the many people downloading, sure that will happen but that is why things could be done on a staggered schedule as above. This is not an mmorpg where everyone has to update it on the same day. Most people would probably update at their leisure. You already have an email system in place that could easily add in there that x products have seen new pdf file updates. No need for a standalone email.
For me the Faq is not proving to be efficient and never will be for my tastes, especially in the realm of products that will never see a reprint and thus only get hidden away forum support or pointed Q&A style responses in the Faq, if that.
But that's what most companies do. They fire less productive people, give them no or small bonuses and reward better people with promotions and larger bonuses.Aww shucks that's cute. Misguided, but cute.
Care to elaborate?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several hours to make a pdf, really? I could probably reproduce a whole book in that time let alone spit out a few updates and a finalized pdf file.
Oh, I get that in my job as well.
"Several hours to read and analyze a legal document, really? I could probably read that during one toilet break! Are you guys lazy or what, it's just a few pages of bloody text!"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, with the number of publishing and management experts in this thread, it's surprising that there aren't more top-tier RPG companies.
Several hours to make a pdf, really? I could probably reproduce a whole book in that time let alone spit out a few updates and a finalized pdf file.Oh, I get that in my job as well.
"Several hours to read and analyze a legal document, really? I could probably read that during one toilet break! Are you guys lazy or what, it's just a few pages of bloody text!"
My comments have been in relation to updating already existing, thus proofread, and released pdf files, not new unreleased products. I could go and make 20 in place updates to a pdf right now in less than an hour if not far less and still retain the format. Even if I had to reproduce those 20 pages by hand it would still take less than an hour. The only thing that would stop me from doing that with Paizo releases is the lack of official errata for all products.
Care to elaborate?
Certainly.
With fourteen post-college years toiling for corporate america, including multi-year stints at two fortune 500 companies, what I've in actually seen is promotions and bonuses going to sycophants and backstabbers. Nine times out of ten, ruthless self-aggrandizement, not productivity, is the key to success at "most companies."
I'll take Paizo's way, thank you very much. Not that I'm bitter, or anything. ;)
For the record, though, I do not buy that there is no relationship between scheduling pressure and editing errors, but that's another story...
You know, with the number of publishing and management experts in this thread, it's surprising that there aren't more top-tier RPG companies.
Ugh, no implicit appeals to authority please.
You know, with the number of publishing and management experts in this thread, it's surprising that there aren't more top-tier RPG companies.
Indeed, since the TTRPG business is known as such a source of great wealth, steady, stable incomes and rapid career advancement.
Ok, the last point might actually be true, considering WotC's occasional layoff sprees - reminiscent of Star Trek Redshirts or Darth Vader's Generals, to go back to that reference...again.
I'll take Paizo's way, thank you very much. Not that I'm bitter, or anything. ;)
Yeah, lets not get into a capitalism / managers suck discussion, and instead enjoy that Paizo is such a happy loving family. Not even occasional editing hickups can change that!
;)
I'll take Paizo's way, thank you very much. Not that I'm bitter, or anything. ;)Yeah, lets not get into a capitalism / managers suck discussion, and instead enjoy that Paizo is such a happy loving family. Not even occasional editing hickups can change that!
;)
Probably wise. For the record, I don't hate capitalism...I just don't think fear of punishment is a very good motivator. But as you say, this is dangerously close to politics (which I've avoided here for many weeks now...I highly recommend it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like the functions of a FAQ is being mixed up with Errata... There has been mumblings of changes to the FAQ/Errata process, possibly allowing Errata to be dealt with before new printings are issued... Is any more clarity for Errata vs. FAQ planned? For issues which really just are an update of the RAW (i.e. Errata, not FAQ), it seems like there should be a separate presentation, since the issue is not reading or interpreting the RAW, but what the RAW is (or should be).
Some FAQ answers aren´t making clear that they conflict with the current RAW, and presumably presage an Errata... Though for some stuff (like ability score bonuses at different levels), I had gotten the impression that Paizo considered some Errata too much of a pain in the ass to actually do, so it just won´t be issued as Errata (it seems that a decision was made to simply not issue Errata which might affect page number references, for example... and I take it that efforts to ´trim´ surrounding text to enable a longer Errata under such restrictions aren´t in the cards, either).
But I´m mostly just baffled at how some questions, which Paizo HAS long ago answered on the boards, still aren´t on the FAQ list. Attack Action is a one, that confused MANY people immediate after the printing, yet tons of people continue to post on the boards based on an understanding of Attack Action that diverges from Paizo´s preferred readsing. (There is also an Errata issue in that general attack roll rules, like for Crits, Ranged Attacks, etc, are placed under the Attack action rather than Attack Roll earlier in the chapter)
Why is this not answered, yet ´Can you Take 10 when using Contact Other Plane?´ is?
Likewise, compare the rules for cave-ins to those for avalanches... I will remove the info on how they are spotted and their dimensions of area of effect, to concentrate on the effect and how one extricates themselves from them.
Characters take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage per minute while buried. If such a character falls unconscious, he must make a DC 15 Constitution check each minute. If it fails, he takes 1d6 points of lethal damage each minute until freed or dead.
Characters who aren't buried can dig out their friends. In 1 minute, using only her hands, a character can clear rocks and debris equal to five times her heavy load limit. The amount of loose stone that fills a 5-foot-by-5-foot area weighs 1 ton (2,000 pounds). Armed with an appropriate tool, such as a pick, crowbar, or shovel, a digger can clear loose stone twice as quickly as by hand. A buried character can attempt to free himself with a DC 25 Strength check.
Buried characters take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage per minute. If a buried character falls unconscious, he must make a DC 15 Constitution check or take 1d6 points of lethal damage each minute thereafter until freed or dead.
Avalanche is also badly layed out: The section stating you automatically notice an approaching Avalanche when it reaches half the starting distance from you should logically be right next to the information on an Avalanche´s speed, yet they are at opposite ends of the Avalanche rules, not to mention both visual and auditory Perception checks (at different DCs and different ´notice distances´) should be located next to each other rather than be separated by the ´auto notice at half distance´ info, or that the info on ´area of effect´ of bury zone and slide zone should precede, or be ´integrated´ with, the description of the effects for the bury zone and slide zone (as the Cave-In rules do), rather than being at opposite ends of the section.
I reported this after the 1st printing, yet nothing has been done.
How can anybody look at both passages and NOT think there is a problem with the Avalanche rules?
Was the original Core Rules Errata thread not actually dealt with, and forgotten when the Errata/FAQ flag system was initiated? (I also find it interesting that Paizo is implicitly saying that they are interesting in seeing which issues their players want to see a FAQ for, but not for actual Errata issues)
Magic Item Compendium.
7 pages of errata.
I was just going to thank you for pointing this out, as I didn't know it existed. Went to the site and found a bunch of other errata I didn't have. Up to this point, a bit off-topic for this thread.
But it occurred to me looking at that one webpage dedicated to all the errata for their products, that such a page here at Paizo might be an improvement over the current way errata is found. Or am I confusing the FAQs w/ errata?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
But as a consumer of Paizo products, I don't agree with your assessment of 'pennies'. At least for me, there's a limit for editorial oversights. Below that limit, a double period at the wrong place is worth nothing. Ten are worth nothing. But as soon as there are enough small mistakes that I notice them while browsing an rpg book, it hurts its value way more than the fraction of letters the errors comprise.
I get that, and you are, of course, free to set your own limits and tolerances of how many is too many.
If we make too many errors and if our product no longer seems worth the price to you, you will stop buying. If enough people make that decision, then we have serious problems that require better solutions than the ones we already have in place.
While I hate errors in our products probably more than anyone posting to these boards (and have replaced staff members to reduce them in the past), I do not yet feel that enough people have made that calculation at the present time to warrant draconian staff "punishments" or an alteration in our publishing business model along the lines you propose.
I will continue to focus the attention of the editorial staff on making sure that our products remain strong values filled with work we can be proud of as professionals, and that continue to draw the interest and custom of readers. So far things are looking good on that front, though, of course, there is always room for improvement.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Again the comparison to WotC. But I'll just ignore that and say that I do find the Magic Item Compendium to be a bad product. Not because of the editing, but because it contains items that are simply too easily abused. I've also never played in a game where MIC (and it's close friend, the Spell Compendium) were generally allowed.
Nice to know that, despite our disagreement earlier, you and I see eye to eye exactly in this instance! :)
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we should offer employees a ten-dollar bonus for every typo they find and fix!
If we did that, I'd lower my standards of Pathfinder Society authors considerably to increase my own bottom line.
It's in bold, near the bottom of the product description:Errata for the first printing of the Adventurer's Armory is available as a free download (860 KB zip/PDF).
The errata docs for the Pathfinder RPG line are listed on the Pathfinder RPG Resource Page.
The FAQs are listed in the box in the upper right corner at http://paizo.com/paizo/faq. (You can even see at a glance when they were last updated.)
Okay, that's 2 for 3, so I'm much better off than I was. For some reason the link to the Resource page keeps defaulting to the Store Blog, even when I type url in manually.
|
Senior Software Developer
|
Okay, that's 2 for 3, so I'm much better off than I was. For some reason the link to the Resource page keeps defaulting to the Store Blog, even when I type url in manually.
Maybe this link will work better. (I think Vic dropped a terminal "s".)
Edit: I've fixed Vic's link in his original post.
Ugh, no implicit appeals to authority please.
Sorry, just amused at multiple threads of late of people that know how to run Paizo better than Paizo itself.
|
Releasing more products well bring the total page count to the same if not more as when they had issues. This is what the reasoning for reducing the page count of the books were by their admission.To get that page count back to the equivalent doesn't seem good to me. Then to release more products seems like they are countering why they said they reduced the page count in the first place of the hard covers.
Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic are 256 pages because that seemed like the right number of pages for the content, and while the reduction in page count has the add-on value of making them marginally easier to produce, that wasn't really the goal.
Incidentally, all of our $39.99 hardcovers are priced as if they were 256 pagers. In the case where you get 320 pages for $40, it's mostly us thinking that $39.99 is a more attractive price point than $44.99. So it doesn't even have much to do with a book's price.
If we ever feel that a topic would be better treated with 180 pages, we'll make the book 180 pages (and charge a lower price).
I am sorry I could of swore it was mentioned by either Sean K Reynolds or James Jacobs on the forum that reducing the number of pages was due to the staff killing themselves over releasing so many hard covers with so many pages. Hence the reason for reducing the page count.
Think that was also mentioned further up on this thread and now that its happened should be able to stay on schedule easier.
Sean
I'm pretty sure the discussion about hardcovers killing them was that trying to do 4 in one year was too much. So don't expect another one in the Chronicles line for some time to come.
|
CEO
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry I could of swore it was mentioned by either Sean K Reynolds or James Jacobs on the forum that reducing the number of pages was due to the staff killing themselves over releasing so many hard covers with so many pages. Hence the reason for reducing the page count.
Well, no matter what you heard and from whom, I can tell you that 100%, we did NOT reduce page count on any product due to staff killing themselves. That never ever entered into the equation. I was in those meetings where page count was determined and it was ALWAYS based on the content that we felt was needed for that book. Nothing else. If the staff is killing themselves, then we need to hire more staff. Or distribute the workload better. But page count is never the sacrificial lamb. Ever. Not as long as I own this company.
-Lisa
|
If we apply this thinking to WotC products, given the amount of "updates" some books get, a customer should be actually PAID for having the book in the first place. ;-)
While I was reading this, the image of the two shelves full of 3.X "official" books that are in my home came up to my mind, and I almost (almost!) snorted the coffee out on the keyboard.
Man, I wish that was true. By now, I'd have kept my two other subscriptions.
I think the problem lies more with people who are still hallucinating that a complex RPG can be handled like a board game in the sense that each and every rule must be totally clear and brisk and encompass all the possible implications.
Or was the OP saying that Paizo should cut down because of the typos?
Do I understand this right? You think that rewarding outstanding work and punishing subpar results does not work? Really?The day that Paizo starts talking about "punishing" employees is the day I find a new job. Rewarding good results, that's different. I find the notion of an employer having the power to "punish" a grown human being, like they were a child or a criminal, outright offensive.
Heheheh
Hell, I have this argument all the time in reference to a 17-year-old. It's not like he's five and I can make him sit in the corner for bad grades. I cannot imagine treating an adult that way :)
Again the comparison to WotC. But I'll just ignore that and say that I do find the Magic Item Compendium to be a bad product. Not because of the editing, but because it contains items that are simply too easily abused. I've also never played in a game where MIC (and it's close friend, the Spell Compendium) were generally allowed.Nice to know that, despite our disagreement earlier, you and I see eye to eye exactly in this instance! :)
And it's always the same stupid handful of spells/items.
I am sorry I could of swore it was mentioned by either Sean K Reynolds or James Jacobs on the forum that reducing the number of pages was due to the staff killing themselves over releasing so many hard covers with so many pages. Hence the reason for reducing the page count.Well, no matter what you heard and from whom, I can tell you that 100%, we did NOT reduce page count on any product due to staff killing themselves. That never ever entered into the equation. I was in those meetings where page count was determined and it was ALWAYS based on the content that we felt was needed for that book. Nothing else. If the staff is killing themselves, then we need to hire more staff. Or distribute the workload better. But page count is never the sacrificial lamb. Ever. Not as long as I own this company.
Okay, time to figure out how to make Lisa immortal.
If we apply this thinking to WotC products, given the amount of "updates" some books get, a customer should be actually PAID for having the book in the first place. ;-)While I was reading this, the image of the two shelves full of 3.X "official" books that are in my home came up to my mind, and I almost (almost!) snorted the coffee out on the keyboard.
You and me both :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I get that in my job as well."Several hours to read and analyze a legal document, really? I could probably read that during one toilet break! Are you guys lazy or what, it's just a few pages of bloody text!"
This.
You all need to get some serious perspective. Take a public offering of securities. Those documents are reviewed by the highest caliber lawyers and bankers, and a series of regulators. The process is adversarial in that each party involved has their own team of lawyers looking for mistakes in order to protect (and show off to) their client. These offerings can be for hundreds of millions of dollars and a mistake in these documents can result in significant financial and, potentially, criminal liability.
They are very, very, very close to perfect. But not 100% perfect; they will have typos. Plus, they cost well over a million dollars to draft.
That's what perfection looks like - it takes two to three dozen people, six months of time, and over a million dollars. And it's still not perfect.
Welcome to the real world folks. I'm sure you could also throw touchdown worthy passes every time you tried, but your perfect abilities and position of authority from the comfort of your armchair are unimpressive and egotistical.
I removed a post. Sniping at other members of the community is unnecessary.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I get that in my job as well."Several hours to read and analyze a legal document, really? I could probably read that during one toilet break! Are you guys lazy or what, it's just a few pages of bloody text!"
This.
You all need to get some serious perspective. Take a public offering of securities. Those documents are reviewed by the highest caliber lawyers and bankers, and a series of regulators. The process is adversarial in that each party involved has their own team of lawyers looking for mistakes in order to protect (and show off to) their client. These offerings can be for hundreds of millions of dollars and a mistake in these documents can result in significant financial and, potentially, criminal liability.
They are very, very, very close to perfect. But not 100% perfect; they will have typos. Plus, they cost well over a million dollars to draft.
That's what perfection looks like - it takes two to three dozen people, six months of time, and over a million dollars. And it's still not perfect.
Welcome to the real world folks. I'm sure you could also throw touchdown worthy passes every time you tried, but, your perfect abilities and position of authority from the comfort of your armchair, are unimpressive and egotistical.
Making an RPG rulebook is kind of like preparing due diligence reports:
- it has several authors,
- not all of them are mavericks of the written word,
- some of them are overworked with other duties, meaning they have too little time for proofreading/editing,
- some of them are "I will do it my way" freelancers who cause problems due to missing deadlines or being stuffy experts who can afford to be a PITA,
- there are a lot of numbers and tables,
- the deadlines are always fugly,
- there's sometimes disconnect between the original draft author, the editor, and The Boss who gets his final say on what's in,
- there's a lot of things to triple-check, from the law itself to making sure the document conforms to your corporate identity standards,
- the customer is always b%%##ing about the result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sebastian & Gorbacz: Those replies hold up if the original comments made were in relation to unreleased products being a breeze to work on. That is not what any of my comments have been about. I have clearly pointed out numerous times that my comments relate to updating already existing pdf versions of released products. In my experience with working on various types of existing pdf updates, it does not take that long to update info even if certain portions of a file require full page recreation. The main reason for speed is that the base info is already in place and just requires tweaks. I just don't find updating an InDesign document with a few changes and the creation of an associated pdf file from it as taking hours to achieve.
|
|
Sebastian & Gorbacz: Those replies hold up if the original comments made were in relation to unreleased products being a breeze to work on. That is not what any of my comments have been about. I have clearly pointed out numerous times that my comments relate to updating already existing pdf versions of released products. In my experience with working on various types of existing pdf updates, it does not take that long to update info even if certain portions of a file require full page recreation. The main reason for speed is that the base info is already in place and just requires tweaks. I just don't find updating an InDesign document with a few changes and the creation of an associated pdf file from it as taking hours to achieve.
You realize that after the designer decides on an update, an editor must proof the changes, a developer has to check if the changes are OK, the art director has to check if it REALLY looks like it should, and the publisher has to give a green light for everything, do you? :)
You realize that after the designer decides on an update, an editor must proof the changes, a designer has to check if the changes are OK, the art director has to check if it REALLY looks like it should, and the publisher has to give a green light for everything, do you? :)
In some cases of course that would be required but not in all cases such as minor changes such as typo fixes or short form changes (those requiring little word count change with little to no on page format change), the Editor in Chief would be the ideal person to handle such updates as I have suggested since they should be able to lower the number of people in the chain. If I have to outline a whole process I could but what is the point when Paizo clearly seems to not want to support updating their existing products unless a reprint happens. That is their choice even if I do not agree with it.
An alternate or extension option if the above was in place, which I have suggested elsewhere, is pdf supplements which would be a great addition while not requiring the scope of editorial oversight a complete book to produce. Earlier in the thread is a post on the rules for Avalanche and Cave-ins and how they seem to be off in design. Long form errata such as that might cause an issue if you want to keep in place edits from effecting the format of an existing document. That is where a pdf supplement file can go a long way in the correction process. Look at how the removal of 0-level spells from Ultimate Magic was handled as a blog post, where a pdf supplement would have been more useful to the community as a whole.
Sebastian & Gorbacz: Those replies hold up if the original comments made were in relation to unreleased products being a breeze to work on. That is not what any of my comments have been about. I have clearly pointed out numerous times that my comments relate to updating already existing pdf versions of released products. In my experience with working on various types of existing pdf updates, it does not take that long to update info even if certain portions of a file require full page recreation. The main reason for speed is that the base info is already in place and just requires tweaks. I just don't find updating an InDesign document with a few changes and the creation of an associated pdf file from it as taking hours to achieve.
Our PDFs do require some manipulation before we release them to the general public (this occurs after export). While you may not know the process, rest assured that there is one. :)
Our PDFs do require some manipulation before we release them to the general public (this occurs after export). While you may not know the process, rest assured that there is one. :)
Super secret manipulation, such a teasing comment! So without that knowledge I can not really comment especially in how it relates to human interaction with the pdf file itself as opposed to an automated process, such as 3rd party watermarking, which might be used.
Our PDFs do require some manipulation before we release them to the general public (this occurs after export). While you may not know the process, rest assured that there is one. :)Super secret manipulation, such a teasing comment! So without that knowledge I can not really comment especially in how it relates to human interaction with the pdf file itself as opposed to an automated process, such as 3rd party watermarking, which might be used.
I believe the watermarking software Paizo uses was developed in house.
Paizo has procedures for changes in place for a reason. They have almost a decade of publishing experience as a company. Most of their senior staff have much more than that from previous employments. No change happens without a 2nd and 3rd person verifying the change is correct so that the final product is less likely to have mistakes. Because leaving it to one person will inevitably lead to mistakes.
I work as a software developer. The same sorts of procedures exist at large development firms where you have build -> test -> test more -> deploy. Sure, a single developer in a small house can quickly make changes. But once your company grows beyond a pair of programmers you need to have quality assurance processes in place.
Paizo is far more active supporting and helping their customers than most RPG companies. If a customer spots an actual error or an inconsistency in a product, they can usually get a staff response fairly quickly in the forums. Compare that to FFG's development of the 40k RPGs. About every 6 months we get an update document which may touch on a couple of the supplements, but mostly just deals with the core rulebook. I've never seen a staff member post on their forums, except for the occasional product announcement.
Releasing more products well bring the total page count to the same if not more as when they had issues. This is what the reasoning for reducing the page count of the books were by their admission.To get that page count back to the equivalent doesn't seem good to me. Then to release more products seems like they are countering why they said they reduced the page count in the first place of the hard covers.
This is not really accurate. Our hardcover books do not have a formally "set" number of pages.
Rather, we give the books the number of pages we believe they need to do justice to their topic.
The Core Rulebook, for example, is 576 pages because that's how many we needed to include all the rules between two covers.
The Bestiary is 320 pages because we figured that was a good number to get a lot of core critters into the first one without making too many terrible sacrifices. Since then, we've stuck to 320 pages for these types of books.
The GMG is 320 pages because we figured that was the right number of pages for that book.
Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic are 256 pages because that seemed like the right number of pages for the content, and while the reduction in page count has the add-on value of making them marginally easier to produce, that wasn't really the goal.
Incidentally, all of our $39.99 hardcovers are priced as if they were 256 pagers. In the case where you get 320 pages for $40, it's mostly us thinking that $39.99 is a more attractive price point than $44.99. So it doesn't even have much to do with a book's price.
If we ever feel that a topic would be better treated with 180 pages, we'll make the book 180 pages (and charge a lower price).
Also notice that the pages are multiples of 16 for hardcovers (except for the 180-page example ;) ). So no complaining about "ad filler" and such in the backs of the books. Stitchbound hardcovers must have page-counts in multiples of 16 for technical reasons involved in the printing.
Also, no disrespect to the OP, but your circle of friends who discussed this obviously contains no one who edits for a living or this post wouldn't exist. <grin>
Sebastian & Gorbacz: Those replies hold up if the original comments made were in relation to unreleased products being a breeze to work on. That is not what any of my comments have been about. I have clearly pointed out numerous times that my comments relate to updating already existing pdf versions of released products. In my experience with working on various types of existing pdf updates, it does not take that long to update info even if certain portions of a file require full page recreation. The main reason for speed is that the base info is already in place and just requires tweaks. I just don't find updating an InDesign document with a few changes and the creation of an associated pdf file from it as taking hours to achieve.Our PDFs do require some manipulation before we release them to the general public (this occurs after export). While you may not know the process, rest assured that there is one. :)
Don't you also hyperlink the PDFs? That eats up quite a bit of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the OP, yes they should, I would like to give them more money. They should release books faster.
I also find myself getting through my order before the next one arrives :P
I find myself getting through my order by the time it arrives...
(Since being in the middle of the ocean it regularly takes 12ish days to get here... BTW, I love the .pdfs that I get to read in the meantime.)|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Don't you also hyperlink the PDFs? That eats up quite a bit of time.Sebastian & Gorbacz: Those replies hold up if the original comments made were in relation to unreleased products being a breeze to work on. That is not what any of my comments have been about. I have clearly pointed out numerous times that my comments relate to updating already existing pdf versions of released products. In my experience with working on various types of existing pdf updates, it does not take that long to update info even if certain portions of a file require full page recreation. The main reason for speed is that the base info is already in place and just requires tweaks. I just don't find updating an InDesign document with a few changes and the creation of an associated pdf file from it as taking hours to achieve.Our PDFs do require some manipulation before we release them to the general public (this occurs after export). While you may not know the process, rest assured that there is one. :)
The hyperlinks are already done. But just exporting the PDF of the Core Rulebook takes several hours of processing time. It's a very complex document.
The hyperlinks are already done. But just exporting the PDF of the Core Rulebook takes several hours of processing time. It's a very complex document.Don't you also hyperlink the PDFs? That eats up quite a bit of time.Sebastian & Gorbacz: Those replies hold up if the original comments made were in relation to unreleased products being a breeze to work on. That is not what any of my comments have been about. I have clearly pointed out numerous times that my comments relate to updating already existing pdf versions of released products. In my experience with working on various types of existing pdf updates, it does not take that long to update info even if certain portions of a file require full page recreation. The main reason for speed is that the base info is already in place and just requires tweaks. I just don't find updating an InDesign document with a few changes and the creation of an associated pdf file from it as taking hours to achieve.Our PDFs do require some manipulation before we release them to the general public (this occurs after export). While you may not know the process, rest assured that there is one. :)
I can imagine. I'm already assuming that it's a Book document and with hyperlinks done in InDesign... wow, that file must be huge-mormous.
I can imagine. I'm already assuming that it's a Book document and with hyperlinks done in InDesign... wow, that file must be huge-mormous.
Computers (and the art department) weep as it consumes everything in its path.
|
|
I also find myself getting through my order before the next one arrives :PI find myself getting through my order by the time it arrives...
(Since being in the middle of the ocean it regularly takes 12ish days to get here... BTW, I love the .pdfs that I get to read in the meantime.)
I would do that if I weren't so much of a bibliophile. I can't read pdfs. Sure their awesome for certain people but I hate reading off a screen, give me a book any day.