WotC Third party, DNDBeyond and potential bad side effects.

[Micah Sweet]

IMO. It really shouldn’t be that way though.

But part of that is that digital can be soo easily copied and shared. So as soon as one can freely do what you describe, it’s also available for the whole world.

To accommodate both interests probably need some legal provision mandating that digital works become public domain after so many years regardless of corporate interests.

Such a legal provision would undoubtedly be blocked by said corporate interests.

 

[FrogReaver]

Such a legal provision would undoubtedly be blocked by said corporate interests.

At some point it’s likely many will screw over people enough that they will demand something be done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

At some point it’s likely many will screw over people enough that they will demand something be done.

Maybe, but it's been quite a while at this point and it hasn't happened yet.

 

[nevin]

It doesn't take a very long post, because it's both simple in the generality, and complex in the specifics.

As a general rule, we are moving toward a "licensing" economy when it comes to digital. Think of this in terms of car ownership. With the vast majority of digital products (aka, those that we get access to "on the cloud" or "through a service" or purchase "in a game" or whatever), we are, in effect, leasing a car. We are paying to use the vehicle. We don't own the vehicle.

It's complex, because different licensing will have different rules, different expectations, and different enforcement mechanisms. But when people keep talking about companies making money off of "services," that's what they're talking about. Getting people to pay a little money, regularly, to access stuff. You don't get to own the Audi/BMW/Lexus, but you get to drive one for a while.

This approach, as we've seen, necessarily gives more control to the entities that own the marketplace. To switch for a second- Amazon is able to control who gets to be on Amazon. They get a cut of the products that other people sell. They know the analytics for other products. They also get to leverage their control to make their own products better able to compete. Finally, they can extract further money simply by manipulating the marketplace- which products get shown first, which products get returned in searches, etc.

or as amazon has been accused of many times, squeeze players that don't accept thier deals out by making sure that thier content rarely get'
s viewed. digital licensing is to take Snarf's analogy even further, like buying the car but the dealer can turn it off permanently because you used it wrong, or it's simply end of life and time for a new one. And since most digital licenses have a clause that they can be modified at any time by the licensee, it gives the licensee a Lot of power to do a lot of bad things.

 

[nevin]

At some point it’s likely many will screw over people enough that they will demand something be done.

really? we are still waiting on costs of medicine to be fixed in america, which required fixing massively abused copywright law, monopolies and collusion on a world scale. Might be awhile before anyone cares about game licensing.

 

[darjr]

Sure, but it usually does help mitigate it to some degree.

It’s an alternative to piracy. Sure. But I’m not so sure it mitigates it any better than something downloadable.

 

[Clint_L]

Oh, yeah, I don't see any chance of legislation specifically aimed at DDB. For one thing, I don't think it remotely approaches normal definitions of monopolistic. For another, it's way too small potatoes. Any challenges will have to be grassroots, but I don't see resistance to DDB getting the same traction as the OGL debacle, for a variety of reasons: many folks basically agree with WotC's position, many folks directly benefit (right now) from the increased value, many see it as a separate issue from the OGL, etc.

A lot of 3PP will have to shift to digital platforms of their own, if they have the resources, or make a deal with existing platforms, if they can. This could rapidly become a survival issue for many small companies.

Speaking for myself, I simply won't buy a new system that doesn't have a digital platform, unless the game system is dead simple, like Dread or something. DDB has spoiled me.

 

[darjr]

I must say though that the share ability of the dm subscription probably does help mitigate some piracy.

 

[darjr]

Oh, yeah, I don't see any chance of legislation specifically aimed at DDB. For one thing, I don't think it remotely approaches normal definitions of monopolistic. For another, it's way too small potatoes. Any challenges will have to be grassroots, but I don't see resistance to DDB getting the same traction as the OGL debacle, for a variety of reasons: many folks basically agree with WotC's position, many folks directly benefit (right now) from the increased value, many see it as a separate issue from the OGL, etc.

A lot of 3PP will have to shift to digital platforms of their own, if they have the resources, or make a deal with existing platforms, if they can. This could rapidly become a survival issue for many companies.

I think they meant legislation in general for stuff purchased that you can’t download. Like the Sony videos.

 

[Parmandur]

I must say though that the share ability of the dm subscription probably does help mitigate some piracy.

The absolutely best way to fight piracy is to make the above-board option painless and convenient.