Chris Cocks says it makes sense to move D&D to a "live service" model, but Hasbro will always make physical books

Chris Cocks isn't shy about plans to move Dungeons & Dragons to a more live service model of gaming. In a recent interview with GamesRadar, Cocks explicitly said that "it makes sense" for players to shift their mindset towards a live service due to the high amount of players using digital services, but assured the interviewer that books will still be produced by Hasbro. When asked if Wizards was moving away from books in favor of a more piecemeal release schedule, following the announcement of D&D Beyond's new Drops service. "Books will always be an important part of D&D," Cocks said. "It will always be kind of like a special totem that you can collect. I have a big bookshelf of D&D books myself."

"But we see what's happening – almost everyone who plays D&D uses D&D Beyond, like a super high percentage uses it," Cocks continued. "A very high percentage use Foundry VTT or Roll20, and so it just makes sense that you should start to migrate your thinking about the way you play to more of a live service where you don't have to wait 18 months for us to build a book. We can start to release components or aspects of that book over time, and you don't have to buy everything all at once. You can buy chapters or segments of it over time. That makes a ton of sense to me. That said we will still have big moments. We will still have like, 'hey, ta da, here's a huge campaign.' You can expect there'll be more around that, both from us and from all the creators in the world that can leverage a platform like D&D Beyond to share their content as well."

Broadly speaking, Dungeons & Dragons has always been a "live service" game, as the game's core business model involves continuously releasing new content in the form of new rulebooks or campaigns. However, it seems that Cocks is principally interested in shifting this model around more frequent releases. We'll note that the business model suggested by Cocks was already rolled out in a manner of speaking. The Dhampir species rules were released as a "digital DLC" for D&D Beyond subscribers who digitally ordered a Forgotten Realms book bundle, but a physical version of the rules are being released via the upcoming Ravenloft: The Horrors Within book. However, a la carte purchases were removed from D&D Beyond several years ago in order to force users to purchase entire books instead.

 

[Umbran]

Mod note:
Folks,

Don't make me pull this thread over. Treat each other with kindness and respect, or go do something else, please. Thanks.

 

[AlViking]

What specifically about my post that you quoted makes you think that I have a problem with it?

I did not intend to indicate that you personally had a problem with it. Some people seem to. I meant no offense.

 

[Stormonu]

I am mot the sort who incessantly builds characters, but as a practical matter, how many do you really need active at a given time?

D&DB allows you to export characters to pdf. So, you build it, fiddle with it for a while, then export it to free up the space without losing the information.

I don't know about others, but for a while I was keeping quite a few.

I had my character (for multiple campaigns - up to about 3), my two son's characters and wife's characters in DDB. I'd use my ipad at the table and the others would have printed out copies. Every so often (usually after leveling) I'd go back and update equipment, items and abilities on their characters and reprint.

I also kept "spare" characters for each in case the main character met an untimely end. They were kept leveled with their primary characters for quick print out if needed.

On top of that, for the games I DMed, I had a copy of the other players characters so I could test out encounters between games or just look up what they had/could do.

I also kept some "spares" for new players coming into the game, or as quick replacements for mid-session deaths until a player could create their own replacement.

I also kept some one-shot characters for my Ravenloft Halloween games - in multiples, so if someone got killed mid-adventure they could switch to another and not be twiddling their thumbs for the rest of the evening.

Currently, I've got 25 or so characters stored in DDB for various activities - that's after having cleaned some out a little while ago. About 5 are my own characters from games in various states of hiatus or are active, not including the ones that got killed off.

 

[Umbran]

I don't know about others, but for a while I was keeping quite a few.

Sure. But you aren't the use-case we are talking about here - this was directly in reference to a person who is building characters for the sake of the fun of building characters, and whether the free offering handles that.

You are working as a GM, and someone running several different campaigns out of their account really shouldn't expect to do so with a free offering.

Though, in many of those cases you mention above, you were keeping characters in your account that you did not really have to - those could have been in free accounts held by the players, attached to your campaign, and you'd have the same access to them.

 

[mamba]

I had my character (for multiple campaigns - up to about 3), my two son's characters and wife's characters in DDB.

why were those not in their own separate, free accounts?

For that matter, what is stopping me from creating an additional free account when I run out of character slots (general question, not specifically for you)?

 

[pemerton]

The OGL is not a contract, it's a license. They are not the same thing.

The OGL is a contract where the consideration that flows in one direction is the grant of a licence (see clause 4). The consideration flowing in the other direction is the agreement to adhere to the terms of the licence (this is genuine consideration, because it involves waiving permissions that the licensee would otherwise enjoy, such as the use of certain indications of compatibility).

It's pretty common for a licence to be granted as consideration in a contract.

If a file is hosted by someone on the internet, and you do not download it, you are not guilty of pirating it. That is trivially obvious, yet that is the part you chose to bold and claim is wrong.

the question revolves around what constitutes a copy. Is me indirectly creating a copy of the PDF in RAM, because the program I use to read it does that, a copy under the terms of the law.

If it is that means I cannot read the PDF book I bought without violating the law (low risk, but still in violation).
If it isn’t, then why not / what more does it take to make it a copy that the law would recognize as one.

I don’t think / am not aware that this has ever been settled in this detail.

If X hosts a file and Y never interacts with X's hosting, then obviously Y has not pirated anything. I'm not sure why you think that it is important to state that. But (as I think @bss posted) if Y interacts with the hosted file in some way (eg navigates to it online and views the file) then Y may well be guilty of piracy.

I don't find your attempt at reductio from "if that means I cannot read the PDF book I bought without violating the law" very persuasive. At a minimum I would think that there is an implied licence to create that copy. And at least in Australia, there is also an express provision in the Copyright Act that permits the creation of that copy:

Section 43B Temporary reproductions of works as part of a technical process of use

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the copyright in a work is not infringed by the making of a temporary reproduction of the work if the reproduction is incidentally made as a necessary part of a technical process of using a copy of the work.​

(Section 47B is a similar provision dealing expressly with computer programs, which - as defined in s 10 of the Act - I think would also include PDF files.)

It's also worth noting that the subsection 43B(2) exclusions from this permission include (at para (b)) "the making of a temporary reproduction of a work as a necessary part of a technical process of using a copy of the work if that use constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work". The law clearly distinguishes between incidental copying that is part of permitted (ie non-infringing use, and infringing use, where the creation of incidental copies (eg in RAM) is itself an instance of unauthorised copying.

I would not be surprised if US law draws some comparable distinctions.

Isn’t that still a matter of license terms? There is enough software out there that you are allowed to install on multiple machines as long as only one copy is actively used at a time.

Is your take that if the license were to say nothing on that point and the law kicks in, that second copy on a separate PC I own and installed the software on for convenience (so I can use it on either, but since it is just me, only one install is used at a time) is piracy?

Yes. The point of the licence is to grant you additional permissions that you otherwise would not enjoy (in this context, "licensed" and "permitted" are basically synonyms).

It’s still at least indisputable a second copy though, which in the ‘view only’ scenario was still somewhat of an open question

I don't think it's an open question. When you view the file you create a copy, and if you are not the copyright holder and don't have permission from the copyright holder (whether express or implied) and don't have a statutory permission (such as that conferred by s 43B(1) of the Australian Copyright Act) then you are infringing.

 

[Stormonu]

why were those not in their own separate, free accounts?

For that matter, what is stopping me from creating an additional free account when I run out of character slots (general question, not specifically for you)?

Because the free accounts would not have had access to various book content I bought.