[Macworld]

Post your comments for Square Enix releases new tower defense game for iPhone, iPod touch here

[Uncommon]

Actually the price for the full version is $8.

[Peter Cohen]

Uncommon said:

Actually the price for the full version is $8.

No, actually. The price of the full version is $5. You may be confusing this with the first Crystal Defense game, which is $8. But if you follow the link in the first paragraph, you'll find that the price set on the U.S. App Store is $4.99 (and we routinely round up to the nearest dollar amount for prices like that).

[Uncommon]

Ah, I see the real mistake - your link for the Lite version actually goes to Crystal Defenders Lite. That's how I got confused.

[Lentako]

@ No, actually Peter Cohen:
You guys mess up and put the wrong link on, and, as usual, you guys are corrected. Also, as usual, your 'team of experts' is unable to take any sort of criticism from your readers without a jerky reply. Why is that?
I know it is the reason I no longer subscribe to your magazine. I hope others stop paying for anything from you guys as well. Your 'can't be wrong' attitudes here at MacWorld suck, and in the times published magazines and newspapers are facing with today's economy, one would think you would have the intelligence to know when you should just suck it up and admit you made an error.

[AnubisIV]

Lentako said:

You guys mess up and put the wrong link on, and, as usual, you guys are corrected. Also, as usual, your 'team of experts' is unable to take any sort of criticism from your readers without a jerky reply. Why is that? ...one would think you would have the intelligence to know when you should just suck it up and admit you made an error.

From what I can see, an incorrect factual claim was made by a reader. Peter corrected that claim since it was most certainly made in error. As for the second claim, regarding the links, I can't check to see if they've been fixed (or were wrong in the first place), but he never denied that the links may have been incorrect. Might I suggest re-reading the interchange that occurred?

To offer an over-complicated analogy, it'd be like if a cop errantly pulled someone over for doing 80 when they were doing 50. Then, after the officer was corrected by the driver, the cop pointed out that the civilian had gone through a stop sign anyway. Your post is the equivalent of the cop's partner jumping out of the squad car and yelling at the driver for trying to correct the first officer's mistake about the driver's speed. How does that make any sense? If someone made a criticism of your work that was based on incorrect information, isn't it your right to defend your work and point out the places where there claims are mistaken? That a different mistake is found later has no bearing on the first claim and the subsequent defense.

As for the "jerky reply", how is a polite and informative response ever a bad thing? The reader was confused, and Mr. Cohen offered him the necessary information to correct one source of his confusion, while at the same time not showing any frustration in dealing with him. Considering just how often they have to deal with annoying and frustrating people in their line of work (I'm not suggesting Uncommon is either annoying or frustrating, just pointing out that they have to deal with those sorts of people, which can color their interaction with others), that sort of thing is downright commendable, if you ask me.

[Peter Cohen]

Uncommon said:

Ah, I see the real mistake - your link for the Lite version actually goes to Crystal Defenders Lite. That's how I got confused.

Good catch! I didn't see that myself until you pointed it out. I'll make sure that gets fixed.