Vaalingrade
Legend
Proof? Examples? Multiple sources to back up your assertion?He was wrong several times not once.
Proof? Examples? Multiple sources to back up your assertion?He was wrong several times not once.
No, we definitely don't have any reason to trust DnDShorts when it comes to these particular sources. These sources have already misrepresented (at best) crucial parts of the story. And it is important that those were the parts of the story that could be verified. So what we have left are rumours from sources who seem to pretty clearly have some strong bias and have been shown to be willing to make claims that turned out to be contrary to the truth.Sure, but we have better reasons for trusting DnD Shorts, who has admitted when he's gotten it wrong and has gotten things right as well.
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.
Spot on. A responsible journalist would have stated something like 'To discuss these issues between themselves, WOTC employees had to take extra steps to make sure their communications could not be monitored by management' not 'The employees were using X feature of tool Y'. It's silly, needlessly reckless stuff that doesn't add anything to the story for the audience but can have very real consequences for the sources.
I wasn't responding to you.I'm not?
Two things can be true at once. WotC can be an unreliable source, and so can DnDShorts.
Just because we want to believe one side or the other, doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold both up to the same scrutiny.
That's what my wife immediately suggested - "Don't they know we have books?!" as she said lol.It occurs to me that one way to quietly fight this over the long term is to abandon online play completely.
There's no* microtransactions around an in-person table.
* - "who's bringing the snacks?" notwithstanding...
Not going to happen. There are reason why people have doing online TTRPG for a while now. Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 were around look before the pandemic and 5E.It occurs to me that one way to quietly fight this over the long term is to abandon online play completely.
There's no* microtransactions around an in-person table.
* - "who's bringing the snacks?" notwithstanding...
Alternately, don’t use the fancy features of VTTs.It occurs to me that one way to quietly fight this over the long term is to abandon online play completely.
There's no* microtransactions around an in-person table.
* - "who's bringing the snacks?" notwithstanding...
That is the interest fact that I still need my books for online play. It is easier from most people to read and use stuff on paper then the screen. That is why I print out most of the PDFs that I use a lot. Just easier on my eyes.That's what my wife immediately suggested - "Don't they know we have books?!" as she said lol.
There are alternatives that don't involve using any wotc software/websites.It occurs to me that one way to quietly fight this over the long term is to abandon online play completely.
There's no* microtransactions around an in-person table.
* - "who's bringing the snacks?" notwithstanding...
I can see a strategy that uses the existing D&D Beyond users to bootstrap the VTT. However, given WotC’s missteps with Magic and their desire for recurring revenue, I don’t think it’s a given that you would get everything you had on D&D Beyond. Users could be enticed to switch with offers of WotC coins (to spend on microtransactions) and discounts on subscriptions as credit for any content they ‘owned’ on D&D Beyond. Once enough have switched, then D&D Beyond can be shut down.I think it's certainly possible, but I think it's a lot less likely with WotC having purchased Beyond.
One thing you need to account for is that Beyond has 13m registered users (maybe more). Many/most of them using Google or Apple email accounts - i.e. likely main email accounts. You don't throw away something like that. These people are registered. That's an achievement.
That's also probably why WotC bought it. It's kind of a steal for that alone.
You want to keep those people registered, and you want them to perceive any future offerings to have value.
So what you'd actually do would be to keep Beyond running, but "transition" it into being "OneDnD", without cancelling anyone's subs or ditching their products or deleting their PCs/campaigns or anything. Especially as you've claimed it's compatible. Then you add higher tiers of subs that give access to 3D VTT and so on. And when people come to look or whatever, oh, look, they're already registered, and oh here's a pop-up inviting me to customize my PC, and maybe in that process I see I could do an even better job if I spent $2.99 on microtransactions, etc. etc.
I just don't see it. You don't shut down something with 13m+ registered users. Enticements won't get you very far, because that still requires some kind of active switchover which the majority of users just won't do it.I can see a strategy that uses the existing D&D Beyond users to bootstrap the VTT. However, given WotC’s missteps with Magic and their desire for recurring revenue, I don’t think it’s a given that you would get everything you had on D&D Beyond. Users could be enticed to switch with offers of WotC coins (to spend on microtransactions) and discounts on subscriptions as credit for any content they ‘owned’ on D&D Beyond. Once enough have switched, then D&D Beyond can be shut down.
That is the interest fact that I still need my books for online play. It is easier from most people to read and use stuff on paper then the screen. That is why I print out most of the PDFs that I use a lot. Just easier on my eyes.
Do you think that they're really going to be making public statements while in the middle of damage control that haven't gone through multiple people? It's not impossible they're doing it incompetently, but it's simpler that a higher up just decided to deny some things and send it through the same account that's otherwise been involved in the controversial stuff. And then why deny that their product is going to have a good feature.
Companies lie to achieve a goal. WotC is lying about the intent of the OGL 1.0a in order to justify changes they want. Why would they lie about this instead of just not address it? Heck, why not just say "yes" and hype it up further?
What major things has he been right on, and do we know which sources in the video told him the right things vs. the wrong things?
No, we definitely don't have any reason to trust DnDShorts when it comes to these particular sources. These sources have already misrepresented (at best) crucial parts of the story. And it is important that those were the parts of the story that could be verified. So what we have left are rumours from sources who seem to pretty clearly have some strong bias and have been shown to be willing to make claims that turned out to be contrary to the truth.
You cannot treat DnDShorts like he is a reporter. He is not a reporter, and he is not working for reputable news media. When he gets a story completely wrong, the only consequences are to his reputation, which is mostly as an entertainer.
There is a ton happening behind the scenes at Hasbro right now and I very much look forward to learning about it when that story finally does come out. That kind of reporting is hard. It takes time and commitment to doing the tedious parts of journalism. That's not what DnDShorts does.
Yes, I am one of Dndbeyond holdouts (I haven't canceled...yet). If WotC has plans to change it or outright kill it for some MMO thing then I'm out. I will bring this up in the survey. I have (foolishly but faithfully) invested into several books (all I already own the physical books) in Dndbeyond. Hearing that Hasbro isn't happy with it and didn't want it concerns and angers me. I WAS excited for OneD&D but I gotta say my interest in it has fallen a great deal. I've got more 5e than I'd ever need for years and years. I have expendable income for this hobby but it's been feeling like Hasbro/WotC doesn't have any interest in it.I just don't see it. You don't shut down something with 13m+ registered users. Enticements won't get you very far, because that still requires some kind of active switchover which the majority of users just won't do it.
I mean, I can't rule it out, but I can say that approach would almost certainly guarantee Sandcastle would be a financial failure from WotC's perspective.
And that's exactly what Hasbro are - quite literally - banking on.Not going to happen. There are reason why people have doing online TTRPG for a while now. Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 were around look before the pandemic and 5E.
I started playing remote years ago when I was going through chemo and it was not a good idea to game in person. Not looked back.
Unless he's lying about them using Teams to troll WotC managementMS Teams should only be used for official work business. I was surprised they didn't use something secure like WhatsApp. I was also surprised he mentioned this, as it does seem like something management could track.![]()