I've never played Magic, so I can't say for certain what sort of errors they have or how often.  I have heard that they generate a decent amount of errata though.  Whatever.  Magic is almost a thing unto itself.  FFG is mainly a boardgame company so that's probably the closest comparison.

For example, a couple of games I've been following lately...

War of the Ring is a reprint with updated rules for better balance.  Most everything is going well, but a few people have reported missing models in their box.  And some people have claimed that wording is unclear in a couple of rules.  Frankly, this is impossible to prevent, SOMEONE will always say your wording is unclear no matter how you write it, because someone is always trying to bend the text to say something different than what it really does.  But one or two of them have a legitimate point which may be updated in the next print run.

A Few Acres of Snow is a wargame using a deckbuilding mechanic something like Dominion, except you get the cards primarily by conquering regions on the map.  There's been a big fuss over a supposedly near-unbeatable strategy for the British side involving a specific opening and keeping your deck as small as possible to cycle a specific card.  The designer of the game just put out some errata/changes to specifically address this issue.  The game worked really well in general, and is otherwise highly rated, but had a problem in this one degenerate case.  Sloppy playtesting?  Players not playing the game in the spirit it was intended?  You make the call.

I could name others, but mainly the "complaints" are just people wanting games to be other than what they are.  Flash Point (firefighting game) doesn't include rules for tracking the players oxygen supply.  It's not intended as a simulation, it's supposed to be a fun quick game.  Elder Sign (another FFG title) is too easy, there should be difficulty levels or rules for ramping up the difficulty.  OK, possibly legit, but it's not that hard to adjust it by simply starting with some Doom tokens in play - basically giving less time to deal with the Great Old One before they show up.

Unclear rules = misprints in most people's minds, and half the time "unclear" just means that it was perfectly clear already and they were trying to twist what it said into something else.  Or if nothing is unclear, they'll complain about how the rules are arranged, it should have been explained in a different order or they had to flip around looking for the answer.  Every game has questions, complaints, and so forth.  As long as they're minor or the company deals with them well it doesn't really bother me.

Back to Clarney...  It's true that if you stick with the Core set or only pick up minimal expansions that he won't fade into insignificance, it's not really fair to assume that most players will want to collect more of the game.  Personally, I feel like he should have been errataed back to Miskatonic and replacement cards made available.  Maybe if it had happened today it would have gone that way, I think FFG has learned something about better service since then, but it's too late to change it at this late date.  And that's why if someone wanted to play him as Miskatonic I wouldn't object to it since I know it was originally a misprint.

Rince said:

- Forget about CoC and continue playing MTG

- Treat Steve Clarney as belonging to the Miskatonic faction

If you'd like to make it known to FFG that you aren't satisfied with the quality of their products, this forum is _not_ the right place. You should use the User Support link at the bottom of the page for that.

 You can't possibly have played MtG long if you think WotC doesn't make mistakes, not just in game design/balance, but in editing and copywriting. Check out the list of errata there are tons of little fiddly things caught after the fact. Part of what gives the impression though is Magic uses a rotation which removes most of the cards from circulation so it is easy to forget unless you play in the format where "everything" is legal.

But these things happen. We either learn to accept it or we just become more frustrated and avoid games that otherwise for these oversights is remarkably well done and a ton of fun.

I hope you'll stick around and play the game, it is crazy fun. ;)

FYI - I've never found Miska really got the short shrift by losing out on Clarney in the Core Set, even if that is all you play. It is certainly frustrating, but ultimately it does not affect game balance in a meaningful way.

jhaelen said:

Why is it not the right place?

FFG reads the forums religiously. Whenever I see Damon Stone at FFG Event Center he is reading these forums on his iPad constantly.

Just because they do not respond here doesnt mean that they dont read them. Thats what these forums are for, is free consumer feedback in an interface they entirely control.

Now if you want a response to criticisms pointed towards FFG, then post at BoardgameGeek. Christian Peterson cannot help himself from trolling there.

Hellfury said:

Sifting through the forums is incredibly inefficient compared to looking over customer feedback provided using the channels that are dedicated to that kind of thing.

I'm working for a software company and we experience exactly the same (stupid) customer behaviour: Instead of getting in contact with support which would guarantee them a response within 24 hours, they post rants on some obscure user forum which we (the developers) find out about weeks later (if at all). Had they used the official channels their questions and problems would have been dealt with a long time already.

It's funny really: People are complaining all the time over bad support but they don't even try to actually get it in the most effiicent way. Imho, that's because people actually enjoy complaining.

And this is the second time in my life I actually agree wholeheartedly with jhaelen.

While much could be said on FFG in general and CoCLCG in particular, in the last six months I've received prompt and excellent answers when I got through the assistance channels.