D&D General Hey, are we all cool with having to buy the same book twice, or what?

[Lanefan]

Software as a Service. Basically when you access something via a web browser, you are using a that as a service. The forum here at ENWorld is a SaaS offering. Just one we are very familiar with. And one that Morrus has no obligation to provide to us.

To those who don't contribute, correct.

But to those who do contribute, I'd say there is some obligation there; though in the case of EnWorld greatly mitigated by the contribution being completely voluntary.

Roll20 and DDB are Softwares that are provided as a service as well, and they have specific terms of use that you agree to when you use them. Which also include statements that they have no obligation to continue to provide that service to you.

However, there I'm specifically paying for a service, it seems, rather than an actual end-use product. I'm renting, as it were, instead of owning.

I'm talking about situations where in theory I'm paying to own, not rent.

The law disagrees with you. Both in that what you buy on Roll20, DDB, and FG are not PDFs (and why would you ever think they were? Wanting something to be a PDF does not make it a PDF) and that you are entitled to access DDB and Roll20 in perpetuity.

Again, rent vs ownership.

Think about how unfeasible such a statement is... So now that you have bought something from a website, for the rest of eternity that website and that content has to be available?

No, I expect to have my own copy of whatever I've bought, if I'm buying an end-user product (such as a pdf) rather than renting a service. At that point, I'm responsible for its upkeep.

But if someone's selling me an end-user product but not allowing me to have my own copy of it then yes, they're obligated (and should be forced by law) to keep it accessible for as long as I or any other purchaser wants it.

Because in 100 years that server is still going to be working. We are still going to be using urls and web browsers. And in some manner they are now not even allowed to go out of business. How is that going to work?

It doesn't, really, which is just my point: as soon as I'm denied access to something I've in theory paid for, I've been ripped off. The analogy would be buying a book and then having the publisher come to my house in five years demanding it back, or stealing it.

"Sorry, I know your business is no longer profitable, but you have to keep running it. Yea, we know you already sold all your possessions to pay for that server, but you need to some how keep it going since you sold access to something like a PDF on it once upon a time. Well, yes, we know it was your great-great-great grandmother who started the company 200 years ago, but your obligated because the descendants of Lanefan still want to access their RPG content you sold them access to." (Silly I know!)

Over-the-top yes, but I get your point.

However, all of those issues Go Away if I'm just provided the pdf in the first place. Then storage etc. becomes my headache, just like I have to find shelf space for a physical book.

Now, with FG I can give my content to my children, because it resides on my computer. But even that is unlikely to be usable as is in a hundred years, because operating systems are going to be very different than they are today and FG won't "run" on such platforms. But, the content will certainly be accessible since it's just a file on a computer.

And here you've hit on another of my serious issues with many things digital: backward compatibility. IMO this is something that should and must be enforced such that something that works now will work in perpetuity, rather than having consumers forced to re-buy content every time the technology advances. Just like - if I owned one - I could still take my Model-T Ford for a spin on today's roads; I wouldn't be able to keep up with today's cars but my Ford would still function much like it always has.

Example: I have some old PC games on my shelf here that I simply cannot run any more; both because they on physical media (floppy disks) the drives for which pretty much no longer exist, and because the current version of Windows isn't backward-compatible enough.

Now, how does that compare to a printed book? Books can last a long time. If they are printed on quality paper with quality ink. But of course they are susceptible to water, fire, bugs and other hazards. Which if you properly backup your digital files are not.

Two things there:

If you backup on site (i.e. in your own computer or a different drive in your house) then the hardware used is every bit as vulnerable to those same hazards as is a physical book.

And if you backup off-site e.g. in "the cloud" then your data is at the mercy of whatever service you've used for that backup. (and the physical hazard risk, though less, is still present too e.g. the backup provider's machines could go up in a fire - a company I worked for had this happen once, much to its dismay)

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Neither of these incurs virtually any expense or additional overhead.

Yes, they do. Making content available in an easily-shared format leads to more theft and fewer sales. That is an expense to a company. I imagine WOTC's decision takes this expense into account, along with all of the other legal, ecomonic and technical issues with digital publishing.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I can think of a half dozen reasons they aren't selling PDFs. None of them are particularly nefarious. Basically it boils down to providing a PDF would be overhead they don't want to deal with given the structure of their supply chain and they don't think it would be profitable.

There's no evil plot to make you suffer, PDFs simply aren't a justifiable expenditure on return. If it were they would sell them.

Sure, that's likely what it comes down to.

No reason to assume occult reasons when rational explanations have been provided. PDFs are not a great interface.

The given explanation was very diplomatically customer-focused, when I think the real reason is the bolded one above. That sort of irritates me.

Define "good reason", in a way that does not imply that you know their business better than they do.

Well how are we going to have internet discussions with that sort of crazy requirements?

Seriously though, here's what it comes down to, as I see it:

1) They probably don't think they would make very much money doing it. Some people have the money to buy DND Beyond and virtual table top versions of the content, and do so, when all they really want is a pdf. If those people bought less expensive pdfs instead, they would lose some money. They most likely estimate that the number of people who will buy basic pdfs who won't buy that other stuff is not high enough for it to be a net positive to their bottom line.

2) They may or may not be right. My gut tells me it can probably be done profitably. Especially now that they've established these other digital means. Maybe they'll put them out in another year or two once they have little fear they'll lose potential DND Beyond, etc customers. Maybe that was the plan all along.

3) Making reasonably priced pdfs available is a goodwill builder. Unless they will actually lose money doing it, they should do it for that alone, even if they only break even with it.

Now, it's quite possible that they've considered all of that, and their best estimates are telling them to wait late 2021/early 2022 to release pdfs to maximum establishment of their digital licenses before losing too much goodwill over lack of pdfs.

Personally, I think prioritizing goodwill over other considerations (ie, even being willing to take a tiny loss of profit if you can handle it) is just the right way to do business. WotC has been doing better with that during the 5e era than they (and TSR) had for a long time, probably because the 5e D&D design/development team was essentially begging both the corporation to let them make the game, and us to buy it. Early 5e development was almost like some sort of small press thing. But I feel like now it's shifted from "How do we best capture the essence of D&D that people want in a way that they will want with careful awareness of our stewardship over this D&D thing that is bigger than any of us?" to "Now that we're wildly succcessful, just focus on continually growing that bottom dollar." It's really hard to keep goodwill unless you are actively focusing on it.

 

[Parmandur]

The given explanation was very diplomatically customer-focused, when I think the real reason is the bolded one above. That sort of irritates me.

Why should the explication of the cause somehow be in conflict with the obvious effect...?

 

[eyeheartawk]

Yes, they do. Making content available in an easily-shared format leads to more theft and fewer sales. That is an expense to a company. I imagine WOTC's decision takes this expense into account, along with all of the other legal, ecomonic and technical issues with digital publishing.

That horse bolted from the barn, literally before the game was released. For years now, the only PDFs available are less than savory ones, which also happen to be free and extremely easy to find. How could this be any easier than it is now, if they slap up the PHB on Drivethru?

That line or argument is DOA, imo.

 

[Fenris-77]

That line or argument is DOA, imo.

Yeah, the PDFs really couldn't be easier to find. I think the fact that the actual books sell so well is a testament to how little some people like PDFs, or how much they prefer to have an actual hard copy or something easier to access kicking around.

 

[Guest 6801328]

1) They probably don't think they would make very much money doing it. Some people have the money to buy DND Beyond and virtual table top versions of the content, and do so, when all they really want is a pdf. If those people bought less expensive pdfs instead, they would lose some money. They most likely estimate that the number of people who will buy basic pdfs who won't buy that other stuff is not high enough for it to be a net positive to their bottom line.

Reminder that WotC does not own D&DBeyond, so they only get a cut of each D&DB sale, and neither you nor I know the terms of that license so really we have no idea whether PDFs would be more or less profitable.

2) They may or may not be right. My gut tells me it can probably be done profitably. Especially now that they've established these other digital means. Maybe they'll put them out in another year or two once they have little fear they'll lose potential DND Beyond, etc customers. Maybe that was the plan all along.

I'm betting their spreadsheets have a more accurate estimate than your gut.

3) Making reasonably priced pdfs available is a goodwill builder. Unless they will actually lose money doing it, they should do it for that alone, even if they only break even with it.

What's your theory about how this "goodwill" would help their business? People would buy extra books just for that warm fuzzy feeling? When a telecom is trying to persuade people to write to their senators decrying the imagined horrors of net neutrality, goodwill matters. Why does WotC need "goodwill"?

Now, it's quite possible that they've considered all of that, and their best estimates are telling them to wait late 2021/early 2022 to release pdfs to maximum establishment of their digital licenses before losing too much goodwill over lack of pdfs.

It's also quite possible they have no intention of ever doing so.

Personally, I think prioritizing goodwill over other considerations (ie, even being willing to take a tiny loss of profit if you can handle it) is just the right way to do business. WotC has been doing better with that during the 5e era than they (and TSR) had for a long time, probably because the 5e D&D design/development team was essentially begging both the corporation to let them make the game, and us to buy it. Early 5e development was almost like some sort of small press thing. But I feel like now it's shifted from "How do we best capture the essence of D&D that people want in a way that they will want with careful awareness of our stewardship over this D&D thing that is bigger than any of us?" to "Now that we're wildly succcessful, just focus on continually growing that bottom dollar." It's really hard to keep goodwill unless you are actively focusing on it.

Personally I think letting me make all major design decisions, especially vis a vis Warlords and Psions, is just the right way to do business.

Unfortunately, neither your nor my opinion on this matter carries much weight.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Why should the explication of the cause somehow be in conflict with the obvious effect...?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. Let me clarify my comment.

I'm not saying that it is untrue that they believe these other media provide a better user experience than pdfs. I am saying that choosing that particular element to emphasis might cause one to see their motivation as goodwill based (as in "we want our players to have the best experience, and not have to mess around with that messy outdated pdf crap") when the underlying primary motive seems to me more likely to be profit based than goodwill based.

Communicating it that way makes perfect sense, and I don't have a problem with the communication itself. I'm not intending to make an accusation of dishonesty. But since we are discussing the matter, it is worth digging down into the the various motives and considerations, and from that stand point, I think the diplomatic response isn't the most informative response.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. Let me clarify my comment.

I'm not saying that it is untrue that they believe these other media provide a better user experience than pdfs. I am saying that choosing that particular element to emphasis might cause one to see their motivation as goodwill based (as in "we want our players to have the best experience, and not have to mess around with that messy outdated pdf crap") when the underlying primary motive seems to me more likely to be profit based than goodwill based.

Communicating it that way makes perfect sense, and I don't have a problem with the communication itself. I'm not intending to make an accusation of dishonesty. But since we are discussing the matter, it is worth digging down into the the various motives and considerations, and from that stand point, I think the diplomatic response isn't the most informative response.

For a game company, goodwill and profit are identical. User experience translates directly to lower or higher profits in the short run, let alone the long run. So, yeah, they think PDFa will be suboptimal for them in terms of profit, but the causal explanation of "bad customer experience" is plausible for the forseen effect not lowered profits. More plausible than pearl-clutching about piracy.

 

[LordEntrails]

Often times I agree with you on things Lanefan, but I think you're missing some big pieces here and picking and choosing what you want to be true in bits and pieces.

However, there I'm specifically paying for a service, it seems, rather than an actual end-use product. I'm renting, as it were, instead of owning.

Yes, renting is a fine understanding.

I'm talking about situations where in theory I'm paying to own, not rent.

But you are not. you might want to be buying, but you are only renting. That's why I said it was so important to read the legal terms when you buy something.

Again, rent vs ownership.

No, I expect to have my own copy of whatever I've bought, if I'm buying an end-user product (such as a pdf) rather than renting a service. At that point, I'm responsible for its upkeep.

But if someone's selling me an end-user product but not allowing me to have my own copy of it then yes, they're obligated (and should be forced by law) to keep it accessible for as long as I or any other purchaser wants it.

You're picking and choosing to suite your own desires. And not in accordance with what is actually being offered for sale.

DDB & Roll20 are not offering to sell you a product. They are offering to rent you access to one.

FG is offering you a product to own to use has certain pre-requisites. It is up to you to maintain the hardware needed to run the program and access the content.

However, all of those issues Go Away if I'm just provided the pdf in the first place. Then storage etc. becomes my headache, just like I have to find shelf space for a physical book.

Again, just because you want a PDF doesn't mean one is for sale.

And here you've hit on another of my serious issues with many things digital: backward compatibility. IMO this is something that should and must be enforced such that something that works now will work in perpetuity, rather than having consumers forced to re-buy content every time the technology advances. Just like - if I owned one - I could still take my Model-T Ford for a spin on today's roads; I wouldn't be able to keep up with today's cars but my Ford would still function much like it always has.

Example: I have some old PC games on my shelf here that I simply cannot run any more; both because they on physical media (floppy disks) the drives for which pretty much no longer exist, and because the current version of Windows isn't backward-compatible enough.

Nobody is selling you backwards compatibility. They sell you a digital product that works on a certain platform. Even a PDF has platform requirements that will someday not be supported. Those games where sold to work on DOS 3.3, Windows 98, or XP, or whatever. If you don't have a platform that runs that o/s then that is your responsibility that you upgraded to a new PC and bought Windows 7 or 10 etc. Or that you didn't buy spares to maintain the hardware.

Can you imagine how stiffed the computer and software industries would be if current hardware and operating systems had to be able to run DOS 1.0 programs? You home PC would be stuck in the 80s, your phone would not be 'smart'. Maybe that's ok to you, but that would have huge socio-economic impacts the world over. That's why no government even tries to mandate such a bad idea.

Two things there:

If you backup on site (i.e. in your own computer or a different drive in your house) then the hardware used is every bit as vulnerable to those same hazards as is a physical book.

And if you backup off-site e.g. in "the cloud" then your data is at the mercy of whatever service you've used for that backup. (and the physical hazard risk, though less, is still present too e.g. the backup provider's machines could go up in a fire - a company I worked for had this happen once, much to its dismay)

Sure, and I worked for a major international company that kept their corporate servers in the basement because it was the least desirable space. No one wants an office in the basement so put the servers down there, they won't complain. Worked great until the city had record rains, and the corresponding flooding. Servers don't work well under 8 feet of water.

Decisions have consequences. But at least with a digital product you have options and possibilities for disaster proofing that you can never have with a printed book. After all, what did we lose with the fire in the Alexandrian Library?