D&D General Interview with D&D VP Jess Lanzillo on Comicbook.com

[Clint_L]

I don’t see an issue as long as people know what they’re buying.

I don’t see an issue, period. I start from the premise that we should just respect how other people choose to spend their money.

The tone of your responses in incredibly condescending. For example, after I explained the appeal of Wizkids blind boxes and why many buy them, including myself, you dismissed them as “junk.”

Well SORRY if my pastime doesn’t meet your high standards. I’m a very highly educated professional with a good income, and if I want to spend my money on miniatures, in blind boxes or otherwise, it’s nobody else’s business. And it’s not your business if I want to buy them digitally, either. Not everyone is stuck on the idea that digital possessions aren’t real.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don’t see an issue, period. I start from the premise that we should just respect how other people choose to spend their money.

That's fine. I don't think shouting down people for being critical of a company is cool either.

 

[Oofta]

You're really downplaying the fact that for some people gambling is an addiction, and that there are these currently existing digital products that exploit that addiction. It's not an open and shut case that loot boxes = gambling but research point to a very plausible connection. Courts in Europe have already ruled that they are gambling.

Now, if WOTC wants to get into the gambling sector, that's up to them. It's legal in many places. But even in those instances, it will absolutely be up to them and to various regulatory agencies as to what sort of products they can sell and who they can sell them to. We live in a society!

So the random prize you used to get in Cracker Jacks was also akin to gambling?

Dude, I'm done with this conversation.

 

[Imaro]

So are we up in arms about the unsubstantiated possibility that WotC may introduce microtransactions into their, as of yet unfinished VTT... or are we up in arms about the unsubstantiated possibility that WotC may introduce lootboxes into their , as of yet unfinished VTT... or are we up in arms about both being possibly introduced into the, as of yet unfiished VTT??

 

[Oofta]

So are we up in arms about the unsubstantiated possibility that WotC may introduce microtransactions into their, as of yet unfinished VTT... or are we up in arms about the unsubstantiated possibility that WotC may introduce lootboxes into their , as of yet unfinished VTT... or are we up in arms about both being possibly introduced into the, as of yet unfiished VTT??

We're up in arms because in theory they could possibly maybe do something that makes the VTT something some people don't want. I think.

EDIT: removed bit that was a bit too sarcastic.

 

[TiQuinn]

We're up in arms because in theory they could possibly maybe do something that makes the VTT something some people don't want. I think. Also, "Think of the children!"

And don't forget that some people can't help but shout down people who voice their displeasure over something even if it has nothing to do with their ability to purchase either.

What's good for the goose and all that.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don’t see an issue, period. I start from the premise that we should just respect how other people choose to spend their money.

The tone of your responses in incredibly condescending. For example, after I explained the appeal of Wizkids blind boxes and why many buy them, including myself, you dismissed them as “junk.”

Well SORRY if my pastime doesn’t meet your high standards. I’m a very highly educated professional with a good income, and if I want to spend my money on miniatures, in blind boxes or otherwise, it’s nobody else’s business. And it’s not your business if I want to buy them digitally, either. Not everyone is stuck on the idea that digital possessions aren’t real.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see your edit.

At no time did I respond directly to you regarding your opinions. This started because you responded directly to my post saying you didn't like what I said. If you like their product, that's fine. I personally feel like that stuff is junk. Maybe stop trying to police what I say. There's a handy little ignore feature too if you don't like my posts.

 

[LordEntrails]

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't "personally insulting" someone, my guy, he was responding to your post, and didn't go into areas you didn't.

Well aren't you a hypocrite. And apparently one that doesn't follow threads either. It may have been a response to my post, but I wasn't the one who brought it up either of the subject that my response included.

 

[clearstream]

But the company is publicly traded corporation, not a non-profit or a government organization. If they can find a way to rent our imaginations back to us, they totally would and I think they're going to try. It's their legal responsibility.

Arguably that's the job of any working creative. The legal responsibility of a company is to profit limitlessly in doing so.

 

[Imaro]

And don't forget that some people can't help but shout down people who voice their displeasure over something even if it has nothing to do with their ability to purchase either.

What's good for the goose and all that.

But what exactly is displeasure being voiced about? Were lootboxes and microtransactions even mentioned in the article?