D&D Beyond admits that blocking Drops sharing "was not the right decision," will release yearly bundles of Drops content for sale for non-subscribers

D&D Beyond is addressing complaints about its new Drops programs. Today, D&D Beyond made a new post providing some updates about its D&D Beyond Drops program, which releases weekly content exclusive to subscribers. The updates were intended to address major complaints about the new program, namely that subscribers could not share the content with their campaigns and that non-subscribers had no way to purchase Drops content outside of a subscription. "It’s become clear from your feedback that there were two main things we got wrong with D&D Beyond Drops: content sharing and non-subscriber access," the post reads.

In the post, D&D Beyond admitted that not allowing Drops content to be shared via campaigns "was not the right decision." Although no immediate solution was announced, D&D Beyond stated that they expected to have more information about content sharing in the coming weeks. Additionally, D&D Beyond also announced that they would be releasing Drops content on their marketplace for sale via a yearly bundle, with the first bundle set to be released next May. This content will be available to all D&D Beyond users, regardless of their subscription status.

 

[SothFan]

not allowing Drops content to be shared via campaigns "was not the right decision."

Really, they just now learned that a business model based on discrimination of the poorer people is a bad one? The whole point of Master was to allow fairness for all players, the DM could share anything so all players in that game had equal access. Making something unable to be shared to all players creates a caste system of haves and have-nots. Like CAG member Ted said:


I do not see it said yet here so from this non-gamer, I will say thanks to @LaTia J for playing go between since this started bringing notes here from WotC people and taking them back to WotC. May you keep your job as long as you can stand to do it.

The non-sharing route they took originally proves Chris Hasbro CEO Cox goal, to squeeze everything from players possible even if it means envoking the Mr. Doktrow method.

 

[GPyromania]

Really, they just now learned that a business model based on discrimination of the poorer people is a bad one? The whole point of Master was to allow fairness for all players, the DM could share anything so all players in that game had equal access. Making something unable to be shared to all players creates a caste system of haves and have-nots. Like CAG member Ted said:


I do not see it said yet here so from this non-gamer, I will say thanks to @LaTia J for playing go between since this started bringing notes here from WotC people and taking them back to WotC. May you keep your job as long as you can stand to do it.

The non-sharing route they took originally proves Chris Hasbro CEO Cox goal, to squeeze everything from players possible even if it means envoking the Mr. Doktrow method.

FWIW, LaTia isn't the only one keenly paying attention to y'all (as well as everywhere across the internet). (◕‿◕✿)

 

[Remathilis]

FWIW, LaTia isn't the only one keenly paying attention to y'all (as well as everywhere across the internet). (◕‿◕✿)

Well now you're just opening yourself to being @'ed!

 

[SothFan]

FWIW, LaTia isn't the only one keenly paying attention to y'all (as well as everywhere across the internet). (◕‿◕✿)

I am sure plenty are watching, and even reading my review of the Ravenloft show because this just happened:

But I only recall interacting with Miss J so far in a few instances. One such seems to have upset her because she gave me a "WOW" reaction.

Just remember, "who watches the watchers?"

Now back to the finale, because this show is sinking FAST!

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I like WotC’s responsiveness to these issues. I hope this trend continues.

 

[gban007]

FWIW, LaTia isn't the only one keenly paying attention to y'all (as well as everywhere across the internet). (◕‿◕✿)

While good to hear, the above also sounds vaguely threatening

 

[Whisper-Kitten]

While good to hear, the above also sounds vaguely threatening

Or like a stalker girlfriend.

 

[Dire Bare]

Huh, and here I was told that complaining about what WotC was doing was just being excessively negative, and did nothing to actually effect change.

Nobody told you that.

What some of us did tell you (and others), over and over again . . . is to please stop with the overly hyberbolic and toxic negativity. There's an ocean of difference.

 

[Dire Bare]

Trying to be reasonable here, WotC did a thing that a lot of people didn't like. They reconsidered it and changed course.

It's not as if they didn't come up with something people didn't like first, and the reason they changed it was because people were upset. But the end result is a pretty good thing.

Now I'd argue it would be better if we could have skipped right to that part from the beginning. And I'd like to think that lessons could be learned from this, but I don't expect that to be true.

This is definitely neither a "WotC is evil" nor a "wow, WotC is awesome" moment; it's just another questionable thing that they pivoted on.

And I'll argue that members of the gaming community who love D&D having a say at what happens would be a net good thing. Not quite "Enworld should run WotC," but rather the evil mastermind "one of my advisors will be an eight-year-old boy. If he can see a hole in my plan, I'll do something different." (If you remember the Evil Overlord list, this one was on it).

You're right, companies, and the decision-makers within them, just shouldn't make mistakes. Then they wouldn't need to correct for them!

 

[Alzrius]

Nobody told you that.

Right, absolutely no one said things like "Hate on dude, hate on" when people brought up WotC's pattern of bad behavior, or made comments such as "I think the odds of getting companies to change T&Cs is zero as an individual and only slightly higher if you could start a larger movement."

But I'm sure you'll say that those are completely different from what I was talking about.

What some of us did tell you (and others), over and over again . . . is to please stop with the overly hyberbolic and toxic negativity. There's an ocean of difference.

And what some of us have told you (and others) is that we don't find your characterizations of what's "overly hyperbolic" and "toxic negativity" to be justified. Quite the opposite, we're the ones asking you to please stop acting as though you're entitled to not hear any opinions that you disagree with, and to stop trying to paint people who don't agree with you as "toxic" and "hyperbolic" in an effort to shut them up.