WotC puts a stop to online sales of PDFs

[Breschau of Livonia]

I'm pretty sure WotC has actually lost some customers forever over this.

joe b.

I can't imagine you being mistaken in this. If there is one customer who is a pdf-only customer they no longer have a product for him. Nothing to do with a boycott. They just won't sell to him.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The problem isn't WotC. The problem is Hasbro's lawyers. I'm a big WotC defender, 4e fanboy, what have you, and I've defended the claims of "hands off" management from Hasbro. I still think this is the case in terms of the product development at Wizards. Unfortunately, I don't think they have an independent legal department. I think when legal issues, (GSL, Piracy lawsuits) come up, WotC gets put into "Order 66" mode and their hands are tied.

 

[Fenes]

I can't imagine you being mistaken in this. If there is one customer who is a pdf-only customer they no longer have a product for him. Nothing to do with a boycott. They just won't sell to him.

Correct. I was planning to buy a number of 3.5 PDfs in addition to the ones I already own, and now I can't. I am not interested in 4E, so they just lost a customer.

I'll spend the money on Pathfinder instead.

 

[Psion]

WotC took some old products off the market, and eliminated the availability of products in a particular format. Companies do that all the time. But you'd think WotC had been setting people's cats on fire.

Companies shoot themselves in the foot all the time. That doesn't make it not a bad thing.

I don't know how this affects 4e's bottom line. If 4e loses a few fans over this, I won't say I'm sad about that. But plenty of people never game using pdfs.

But as for me, WotC was getting my money whenever I felt like picking up an classic tsr product or 2 or a dozen. Now they won't. And considering how many old-school and retro-clone fans there seem to be out there, I certainly not alone.

How significant this was, I don't know. It may well be that what they lost in 4e product piracy is greater than what they are making off classic products. But if that was the problem, they could have taken 4e products down and let the rest remain.

As it is, they have a corporately-typical ham-fisted blanket policy that throws money away.

Don't cast this as a smart move. It's not.

 

[Fenes]

Yeah. For all those who claim this was done because piracy was hurting their sales: 3E and older material is not sold anymore as books by WotC. They have no sales to be hurt by piracy, other than PDFs - which they just cancelled themselves.

It's a stupid move, and it does look like "Buy 4E, nothing else will be offered" was at least part of the reason this was done.

 

[avin]

In my head I'm officially seeing Wotc as Laibach's "Life is Live" videoclip.

 

[Breschau of Livonia]

btw anyone with experience in such things... I know WotC indicated they are "looking into alternatives". Assumging they mean selling pdfs themselves - which it may not (for example they may also feel the sales of older editions is hurting 4e sales) - how long would it take to get an online store into place. Their DDI obviously isn't sufficient for it as it stands now - I know they had all sorts of problems with autorenewal. And this was for a store that had just one product for all intents and purposes, at least from a purchasing perspective. They'd need the storage, the servers, customer support, billing, etc. I'm guessing we're talking at least several weeks if not months.

 

[Arivendel]

I know this is completely unfounded, and in no way does it justify Hasbro's (Yes im agreeing with Gene here in that this is Hasbro's Palpatine Order 66 command), but after reading Trevors post for like the fiftieth time today it finally hit me: Could it be that this has nothing to do with the current lawsuits but instead is a direct response to RPGnow's policy of "we will keep them for you to redownload later"?

Think about it, Trevor said "...illegal copying and distribution (piracy) of our product..." and most people assumed he was referring to the standard Torrent/Piracy issue. However what if the "(piracy)" was just a explanation? in which case the statement would read "...illegal copying and distribution of our product..." why do i point this out? because isnt what RPGnow is doing effectively this? they are letting you buy a PDF, after that they are keeping a "copy" of said PDF (which is watermarked i assume) and storing it for later distribution, so as far as i can tell producing this "copy" is illegal since RPGnow is in no way paying WotC for this secondary "copy" or even for the ability to "copy" said file, whats more RPGnow is effectively allowing said "copy" to be redownloaded at no cost (which translates into Wizards not earning any more money) in case any number of issues arise with the buyer, so basically they are buying one book but getting 4 free, this are 4 extra books/pdfs which WotC make no cash from.

Of course I know not what kind of Contract WotC and RPGnow signed, if they signed a contract in which RPGnow detailed the use of such a distribution/storage system and Hasbro's Lawyers approved it then this whole post is a crazy conspiracy theory, however if this distribution/storage module was never drafted/explained in the contract it could be grounds enough for Hasbro's lawyers to jump on this (again this doesnt excuse the reaction made but it does put a different angle to the situation, and angle i havent even seen considered yet since most RPGnow buyers are used to the system and wouldnt even consider it being possibly the reason for why this came about).

I would like to add this is was perhaps a "why didnt i think of this sooner?" moment, but im still quite surprised after 18 pages hasnt even once been considered, i blame it mostly on the fact Trevor's message plus the lawsuit against the PHB2 leakers came in such a short and sequencial manner and people just added this and took it as fact and didnt consider other angles.

 

[Urizen]

Contracts do not work that way.

Electronic media does not work that way.

Think it through.

I write a song, which will be sold exclusively through your online music retailer in mp3 form. I give you a copy of the mp3, and you allow people who pay you money to download that mp3. Then we split the money.

Lets say that our contract requires 30 days notice before cancellation.

How can I "pull the plug?" Lets say I order you to stop selling the mp3, and I don't give you 30 days notice. What do my words accomplish? You still have the mp3, and the right to sell it. What can I do? Its not like the data is piped from my master server to your customer. I can't turn it off like water from a faucet. I can't sue you either since you have a valid contract. My words are just talk.

One of the following scenarios happened.

1. WOTC didn't have a 30 day notice clause for terminating the license. They had a much shorter period, maybe even 24 hours, which they followed. I suspect this one as most likely.
2. WOTC did have a 30 day notice clause, and offered RPGNOW and the other retailers a new, more lucrative contract in the future if they agreed to cancel this contract now. RPGNOW decided that breaching their contracts with their customers was the better choice, terminated their current contract, and accepted the new one.
3. WOTC did have a 30 day notice clause, and gave notice 30 days ago. No one told the customers until today.

And I suppose, for the sake of argument, we can include:

4. No one at WOTC, Paizo, or RPGNOW has any clue what their licensing agreement says.

Just got back to the comp.

OK that makes perfect sense.

 

[Mottokrosh]

Boo, Wizards of the Coast, boo!

PDFs are simply great when preparing adventures on the computer, and on the go. They make my life as DM so much easier.

Once again we have a radical announcement (like the sudden Dragon and Dungeon magazine withdrawal) without a solution, replacement, or remedy. Instead we get a vague announcement of "we're looking into it", and are left hanging in the air.

Have you considered having solutions ready before acting out like this?