DnD Shorts final video
- Thread starter S'mon
- Start date
They've done more damage than 4e ever did.
darjr
I crit!
For those that dint know or remember
www.enworld.org
The Failure of Gleemax
Wizards of the Coast has had a chequered history when it comes to electronic products and support for its games. Some things have worked very well, such as the Magic: the Gathering site. Other things have been buggy and problematic throughout, but have generally been positively received, such as...
www.enworld.org
The Stray
Hero
I've been using the #FireChrisCao hashtag on twitter. I wonder what it would take to make him Twitter's main character for a day.
MockingBird
Hero
I'm glad I saw this before I took the OGL survey. Now, I see no other way but to vehemently defend 1.0a.
rcade
Hero
Hasbro/WOTC doesn't need to touch the OGL to win that battle. It just has to launch its own VTT and use its power as market leader to drive players to it.
When Microsoft Teams launched in late 2016, Slack had 5 million users. By late 2020 Teams had 75 million and Slack had 12 million.
The Hasbro board has two former Microsoft vice presidents on it, so they know how to win that game.
Scribe
Legend
rofl what?
'Want to cast Fireball? That will be $2 to add to your spellbook!'
Legit?!
DarkCrisis
Legend
Long story short: Corp is gonna Corp.
And they are never your friend
And they are never your friend
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Wow. What an absolute shambles.
For those questioning D&D Shorts' "journalistic integrity" find the bit in the video where he goes into all the juicy tabloid details about Ray Winninger's story. That's more integrity than most journalists ever show.
For those questioning D&D Shorts' "journalistic integrity" find the bit in the video where he goes into all the juicy tabloid details about Ray Winninger's story. That's more integrity than most journalists ever show.
The Stray
Hero
Oh, god, Gleemax. I forgot all about that! Did that actually do any damage? I always just saw it as kind of a joke that fell apart. I didn't HATE it the way I do this.
I don't think it did any direct damage, but the indirect damage by siphoning off resources into what due to unfortunate events became a black hole certainly didn't help.
DarkCrisis
Legend
Making the books secondary means damage to the local mom and pop gaming stores. Though Ive always heard MtG (and Pokemon?) are the bread and butter of a gaming store.
Mine has a large section of it for D&D products and it would be interesting to see what books minis maps paints etc are for "real collectors" would actually do to those stores.
Greg Benage
Legend
Nah. If you want to make your fireball green, that will be $2.00.
Clint_L
Hero
I have subscribed to D&D Shorts for a long time. I really enjoy it; Will makes fun videos and is super charismatic.
That said, he's not a journalist, and this is not good reporting. There is a story here, and I want to know what it is, but he is not responsibly assessing his sources or digging for verification the way any reputable reporter would. For example, he is heavily relying on sources that have already been shown to have misrepresented facts (i.e. by insisting that survey responses were never read, etc.). The way those facts were misrepresented, and the confidence with which they were misrepresented suggests an agenda. A journalist would be (rightly) much more cautious about those sources going forward, whereas his response has been to simply drop those allegations but otherwise rely on those same sources' other claims.
So are their other allegations accurate? Maybe. It's impossible to know from this reporting. Much verification is needed, though the broad strokes (D&D moving to a much more digital platform) seem pretty uncontroversial. This video seems more about DnDShorts trying to salvage his own reputation than it is responsible journalism, which is understandable: he's a YouTube content provider not a journalist.
That said, he's not a journalist, and this is not good reporting. There is a story here, and I want to know what it is, but he is not responsibly assessing his sources or digging for verification the way any reputable reporter would. For example, he is heavily relying on sources that have already been shown to have misrepresented facts (i.e. by insisting that survey responses were never read, etc.). The way those facts were misrepresented, and the confidence with which they were misrepresented suggests an agenda. A journalist would be (rightly) much more cautious about those sources going forward, whereas his response has been to simply drop those allegations but otherwise rely on those same sources' other claims.
So are their other allegations accurate? Maybe. It's impossible to know from this reporting. Much verification is needed, though the broad strokes (D&D moving to a much more digital platform) seem pretty uncontroversial. This video seems more about DnDShorts trying to salvage his own reputation than it is responsible journalism, which is understandable: he's a YouTube content provider not a journalist.
MonsterEnvy
Legend
Why are people treating this video as fact?
Dustin Cooper
Explorer
Yeah, this. And I keep wondering why anyone would risk their job to get some of this info out. Like the OGL 1.1 was something that threatened the hobby, the core game, and people's jobs if it passed as it was. I could see an employee or someone under an NDA thinking it was important enough to take the risk to stop it from happening. But exact price points of a VTT? The AI DM/DMless adventure thing? Who thinks to themselves "I think that's a tad high for a subscription, and some people won't like this optional feature. I better risk my job to tell some random Youtuber about this?"
The Stray
Hero
Perhaps because there are multiple sources quoted, along with the verifiable information of our own two eyes with regards to what WotC has done over the last few years?
Why? Do YOU have any contrary sources? Or are you just here to bash on DnD Shorts again?
MonsterEnvy
Legend
D&D Shorts has been wrong several times. So I don't put stock in what he puts out.
The Stray
Hero
He was wrong once. And not even completely wrong, just wrong because his information came from someone with a skewed perspective of the internal situation.
Or are you talking about his prior content, which is just harmless white-room theorycrafting?
Just to be clear: are you saying none of the information presented in the video is likely true?
Similar Threads
