Years after completely ditching the system, WotC makes their move!

[Androrc]

Immoral?

Yes. They are hurting the common good (even if not much) for their own exclusive gain. While until some years ago they were benefitting everyone - they provided books, we bought them, they had profit, we had entertainment, that is no longer the case. They are purposefully trying to make their previous books less enjoyable (by denying us the possibility to buy supplements that would make them more fun) so that we buy their new products. They are doing everything to devalue the very product they sold to us. It's as if I sold you a house and then started a noisy factory right next to it, so that your house would be devalued and living in it would be a worse experience, so that you would be pressured to buy a new one from me. That to me cannot be termed as anything but immoral.

Androrc, welcome to the boards! Also, you're re-treading a debate we've had here since the time it happened. Nothing new. Nonetheless, I'll bite at the bait in a hopefully-friendly manner of debate.

For me, I don't really view what they did as immoral, even though I hate that they did it. To me, immorality is too strong -- it describes corruption, which I don't see here. However, I do see the move as perplexing in the best of light, and downright stupid when I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Here's the thing: Removing the previous versions from sale doesn't force me to go into 4th edition, because I'm not buying it, ever. It's been out for years, I've played it a bunch, I hate it a bunch, and things like the Essentials publications aren't winning me back. So the speculation that older editions might be cannibalizing 4th edition sales doesn't wash with me, because they made the old version sales go away and I still didn't buy.

I will concede that maybe a vast majority of other people saw the removal of old PDFs and decided to go right into 4th edition. If so, Wizards of the Coast may have made a brilliant financial decision. Having conceded that such a thing is possible I must also say that I do not find it probable at all. Every person I know that even dabbles in 3.5 or Pathfinder will not go near 4th edition. The idea that the 100 or so people I know in my area who play 3.5 edition are an anomaly seems... well, unlikely IMHO.

So here's what I'm left with: a bunch of people who liked the older editions and were buying the PDFs now no longer have a viable outlet. Some of these people have pirated (not advocating, just noting the reality), some have turned to free old-school RPGs like Basic Fantasy, and some have turned to the SRD or eBay for materials. Oh, and more & more of them are turning to Pathfinder. Like, a lot of them. This is a loss for just about everyone except Paizo! People who were legitimate paying customers are now infringing copyrights instead, or going to competitors. In fact, it kinda feels like Wizards of the Coast is pushing previous customers into Paizo's arms.

And that really doesn't make sense to me at all.

You know who does it right? En World. Right now, they're running a sale -- "stock up on new 4E stuff, or older 3.5 stuff." They have moved on to 4th edition right along with Wizards of the Coast, but their 3.5 edition materials all still exist and have zero cost now. Every sale is just a bonus for them. And more importantly for the market, since they're offering 3.5 edition materials, they retain me as a customer and I'm giving them money tonight that otherwise they wouldn't receive. That just makes sense. So I do not get the "We ban PDFs! No options!" kind of thinking from WotC.

I agree that it was probably a stupid decision, and they are leaving those of us who don't like fourth edition with little option. Right now, even though it is unlikely, I wish WotC would go away, so that maybe a better company would take care of the license.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the word you are looking for is "unethical".

And, while the ethics are open to debate, I would agree that as a society we have become increasingly tolerant of unethical behaviour.....Indeed, we seem on many occasions to laud it (and reward it!) as though it were the paragon of virtue.


RC

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think the word you are looking for is "unethical".

And, while the ethics are open to debate, I would agree that as a society we have become increasingly tolerant of unethical behaviour.....Indeed, we seem on many occasions to laud it (and reward it!) as though it were the paragon of virtue.


RC

This. The fact that all that matters to most people is whether this is a "sound business decision" with no regard to how it hurts the (former) fan base demonstrates this quite well. Success itself is treated as a virtue now. Success is great, any company or individual should want to achieve it out of self interest. But a virtue it is not.

 

[billd91]

Immoral? Unethical?

How about this: It's unethical for anybody to distribute IP that isn't theirs. (edit: without permission to do so, that is)

The unethical ones here are not WotC. What they are being is uncharitable, not immoral nor unethical.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Immoral? Unethical?

How about this: It's unethical for anybody to distribute IP that isn't theirs. (edit: without permission to do so, that is)

The unethical ones here are not WotC. What they are being is uncharitable, not immoral nor unethical.

I think that you are confusing "illegal" with "unethical". From an ethical philosophy POV, what should be considered IP, as well as how long that "P" in IP should apply, are directly related to the ethics involved.

Societies grant IP rights in order to benefit the society. Arguably, if the IP laws do not benefit the society, it is not unethical to oppose them. Indeed, where a law itself is damaging to society, it may be unethical to support it.

I am not saying that this is the case here; I am saying that it is not clearly not the case here.

In any event, it is unethical to support people distributing your IP (including directing people to those distributing it) until you are longer interested in that IP. If you forge a symbiotic relationship, only to remove your end once you have what you want, that is unethical.

It is not, however, illegal. And it is often rewarded.


RC

 

[billd91]

I think that you are confusing "illegal" with "unethical". From an ethical philosophy POV, what should be considered IP, as well as how long that "P" in IP should apply, are directly related to the ethics involved.

I'm not confusing anything. There's nothing at all unethical in WotC asking for their IP to be taken down, regardless of how long it has been out there. There's nothing ethical in distributing IP beyond fair use that isn't yours without permission. There's nothing unethical about the copyrighting of the materials in question nor the duration of the copyright held so far (it's not like WotC is trying to extend their copyright duration like Disney's maneuvering over Mickey Mouse).

Calling WotC's actions immoral or unethical is baloney, to use a polite term, if you ask me.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There's nothing at all unethical in WotC asking for their IP to be taken down, regardless of how long it has been out there.

--snip--

There's nothing unethical about the copyrighting of the materials in question nor the duration of the copyright held so far

--snip--

Calling WotC's actions immoral or unethical is baloney, to use a polite term, if you ask me.

If you believe that "money is God", then sure. There is nothing more important in the world, in life? Well then, right you are.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Calling WotC's actions immoral or unethical is baloney, to use a polite term, if you ask me.

Agreed 100%.

As a business, their first duty is to make money within the legal strictures of the society in which they operate. They have duties to their owners & shareholders.

There is absolutely zero moral duty for any business to release or continue to offer a product into the stream of commerce that does not positively save lives. IOW, while you might have a case if WotC were the world's sole supplier of seatbelts and flu vaccines, you have nothing upon which to base calling the control of sales of a pure luxury item immoral. That's pure nonsense.

Assuming no discrimination, your right to experience pleasure isn't EVER going to trump their right not to sell to you- that's a complete non-starter.

Or to put it a different way, you have no moral right to someone else's stuff.

 

[billd91]

If you believe that "money is God", then sure. There is nothing more important in the world, in life? Well then, right you are.

Frankly, I don't believe money is god at all. But the nerdrage over this is incandescent in its stupidity and futility.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Can't wait so see this headline:

"This just in: McDonald's removal of McRib from menus called 'immoral' and 'unethical'...Film at 11."