clearstream
(He, Him)
I see this less in terms of a Hasbro-specific process, but as a global transition from selling customers physical products, to offering them a licence to use a digital service or product for a time. Where once a DVD, book or CD was an object that the publisher could not rescind, publishing business models are becoming all about selling transitory access via microtransactions.
On the good side, this can mean that updates are built into the price. The design team is funded (by the success of subscriptions) and has every motive to continuously improve the underlying IP. In many ways this is an improvement over former cycles of invest-recoup-invest, and can benefit both business and customer. In particular, it allows companies to move away from formal editions that are commercially obligated to make previous editions redundant. That is one of the implications contained in "OneD&D".
On the down side, it means that the wealth of customers is not increased by say their collection of rare books or pristine vinyl. They can only enjoy the IP so long as they pay for it, and there is nothing to pass on to their successors. There is no Alpha Black Lotus in MtG Arena, and - in terms of a comparable object that can be exchanged on a secondary market - never will be (barring illicit account transfers.) On the other hand, few customers ever had such objects or collections in their possession, nor do their successors necessarily give a fig for their outdated interests; so the benefits (of permanent ownership) may be overstated.
That isn't something limited to Hasbro and to cast it as a watershed breach of faith by one corporation is blind to the commercial / economic context we live in. If it is a breach of faith, it is a breach of faith by publishing corporations generally. And it rests upon far more extensive and material evils than whatever happens to GLs.
This is not to ignore that in fact, the salient trust lost is with producers. Not customers.
Last edited:
