Going Nuclear:1D&D

[Jadeite]

All hobbies are monetized.

But are they sufficiently monetized?

 

[Demetrios1453]

For me, it's the fact that this situation has so dominated this forum that nearly every other thread is about it, and is leaking into a lot of other threads. I get that it's of great importance to many people, but it is a bit overwhelming if you just want to read and talk about other things.

And to add onto this, it is literally every other thread. Of the 20 most recently posted to threads, 11 were OGL related.

 

[Umbran]

But are they sufficiently monetized?

Sufficient... for what?

Sufficient to slake the desires and fears of a multi-billion dollar corporation that's had a bad year with its leading product?

 

[eyeheartawk]

All hobbies are monetized.

Sure?

But, you know, there's a difference between charging for rulebooks and branded dice or whatever and doing what Hasbro is doing now, yeah? It seems like lots of people are saying that's too far, not just me.

 

[Umbran]

Sure?

But, you know, there's a difference between charging for rulebooks and branded dice or whatever and doing what Hasbro is doing now, yeah? It seems like lots of people are saying that's too far, not just me.

Yes, but it is important to attach that to the right words.
All hobbies are monetized - if they aren't you cannot buy things to support your hobby.
Ergo, "monetization" in and of itself, is not the issue.

 

[halfling rogue]

I don't know why people would care for a company that doesn't care about you. In fact, they even hate some of their customers. Care about the quality of their products? Care how their failure would have ramifications elsewhere? Sure. But even then, why would I want to see a company succeed financially when I care more about their product than they do? Naw, WotC/Hasbro has made their bed and they need to lie in it.

 

[Velderan]

Yes, but it is important to attach that to the right words.
All hobbies are monetized - if they aren't you cannot buy things to support your hobby.
Ergo, "monetization" in and of itself, is not the issue.

You're not wrong, but to be fair they did specify "general cynical monetization" so I think the issue most take with WotC is the perceived short-sighted approach to monetization that hurts the overall market.

 

[Michael Linke]

I will never understand the drive of people who see a discussion about people being upset and affected, knowing people's livelihoods are in danger, their children might go hungry... and decide this is the best time and place to loudly trumpet how little they care for those people's plights.

But the thread isn't about caring about their plights, it's about boycotting Hasbro and "going nuclear on 1D&D". What about all the people who work at Hasbro whose kids have mouths to feed too? Why are the people who want to boycott hasbro to protect independent creators innocent, while the people who suggest those independent creators can probably just as easily make different content that has nothing to do with Hasbro are the bad guys?

The third party D&D publishers have got a good 20+ year easy start, and one year of warning before that sweet deal goes away. If these people are good at what they do, they'll apply that know-how to keep producing great content. The ones that produce great content but can't adapt, and see no way forward other than to continue selling D&D compatible content under unfavorable license terms... well, like I keep saying, i don't think those exist. The venn diagram of "people who make good content" and "people who can not make content without the OGL" has no intersection in my opinion. If you can name a content producer that literally CAN'T make a book worth buying without the OGL, then I will confidently bet that their content sucks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But the thread isn't about caring about their plights, it's about boycotting Hasbro and "going nuclear on 1D&D".

Boycotting them because....?

 

[Jadeite]

Sufficient... for what?

Sufficient to slake the desires and fears of a multi-billion dollar corporation that's had a bad year with its leading product?

That depends on whether that bad year happened because they thought that the leading product was undermonetized.