D&D General Hey, are we all cool with having to buy the same book twice, or what?
- Thread starter eyeheartawk
- Start date
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
@LordEntrails sums it up nicely. Over 400 posts in, and the answer to the original question still seems to be "yes, we're cool with it." Even when we argue about what is and isn't a "book." Even when we argue about what "buying" means and doesn't mean.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
WAIT...we still have to argue over what "we" is.
Jester David
Hero
But what if we really, really want digital copies.
But none of those silly PDFs that require a proprietary Adobe program to edit and makes copying-and-pasting text difficult with random line breaks.
Those are dumb.
And PDFs only last as long as you have a hard drive and can't be replaced if they service you download them from ceases to be. We NEED physical copies of our digital books.
I DEMAND the return of the rules on CD-ROM optical discs!!
After all, TSR did it back in the day:
So it's not impossible. And it had the rules in easy-to-use .RTF format, which makes them easy to use on Word and free programs like Open Office. And it resizes, so you can use them on any device, both desktop and mobile.
How long will we stand for the anti-consumer practice of not releasing core rules on the prefered digital format of true gamers??
But none of those silly PDFs that require a proprietary Adobe program to edit and makes copying-and-pasting text difficult with random line breaks.
Those are dumb.
And PDFs only last as long as you have a hard drive and can't be replaced if they service you download them from ceases to be. We NEED physical copies of our digital books.
I DEMAND the return of the rules on CD-ROM optical discs!!
After all, TSR did it back in the day:
So it's not impossible. And it had the rules in easy-to-use .RTF format, which makes them easy to use on Word and free programs like Open Office. And it resizes, so you can use them on any device, both desktop and mobile.
How long will we stand for the anti-consumer practice of not releasing core rules on the prefered digital format of true gamers??
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
I want it on a Zip drive. (I still have mine.)
Jester David
Hero
USB A or C?
I had mine.
I just spent like 30 minutes looking for it for the photo and had to go with a picture I took back in February because I have no forking idea where I stored it.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
The "rent vs own" issue is frequently one I think is based on principle rather than practical use.
I think there are a lot of "rented" services that reasonably last so long that they cover the likely lifetime usage of your average user. The usage someone would want beyond that time frame is typically a "maybe I'd still want to play some day" or "maybe I want to hand it down to my kids some day" type usage, which practically speaking often doesn't happen even if it's owned. Not even accounting for destruction or loss that happens naturally over time to a lot of people.
I can understand the principle behind "I want to own it" but I think sometimes people shoot themselves in the foot focusing too much on the principle and took little on the practical use they'd get out of the likely time frame they will have the use.
For example, let's take the 4e D&D Insider. It was rented by users, but only ended a few months ago after a 13 year run. Probably 95%+ of the users of that platform were not using it anymore. They had already moved on to other games, and whatever they were going to get out of that platform they already got.
You might argue "but I'd have gone back to use them in future games" but...come on. We both know that for most people, that's very rare, and even among those who do get some use for future editions, the usage is pretty low and easily replaced most of the time.
And then there is the question of how many people experience theft or destruction of their physical books after that long a period of time? My guess is more than 5%.
The remaining 5% or so of the renters did indeed run into the rent vs own issue, but I think a lot more than 5% objected to the model when it was proposed. Most people who objected to the model on principle ended up never experiencing the predicted harm in any practical way - they were finished with it before it was taken down anyway.
I think practically speaking, there isn't really much of a rent vs own issue people experience. What issue there is, is often exaggerated based on the principle of the thing. And I am not sure what value there is to a principle which has so little utility as a practical issue.
I think there are a lot of "rented" services that reasonably last so long that they cover the likely lifetime usage of your average user. The usage someone would want beyond that time frame is typically a "maybe I'd still want to play some day" or "maybe I want to hand it down to my kids some day" type usage, which practically speaking often doesn't happen even if it's owned. Not even accounting for destruction or loss that happens naturally over time to a lot of people.
I can understand the principle behind "I want to own it" but I think sometimes people shoot themselves in the foot focusing too much on the principle and took little on the practical use they'd get out of the likely time frame they will have the use.
For example, let's take the 4e D&D Insider. It was rented by users, but only ended a few months ago after a 13 year run. Probably 95%+ of the users of that platform were not using it anymore. They had already moved on to other games, and whatever they were going to get out of that platform they already got.
You might argue "but I'd have gone back to use them in future games" but...come on. We both know that for most people, that's very rare, and even among those who do get some use for future editions, the usage is pretty low and easily replaced most of the time.
And then there is the question of how many people experience theft or destruction of their physical books after that long a period of time? My guess is more than 5%.
The remaining 5% or so of the renters did indeed run into the rent vs own issue, but I think a lot more than 5% objected to the model when it was proposed. Most people who objected to the model on principle ended up never experiencing the predicted harm in any practical way - they were finished with it before it was taken down anyway.
I think practically speaking, there isn't really much of a rent vs own issue people experience. What issue there is, is often exaggerated based on the principle of the thing. And I am not sure what value there is to a principle which has so little utility as a practical issue.
I have one floating around...shame its so much smaller than the portable usb drives I have now...wow!!!
Jester David
Hero
And even then it ended not because it wasn't worth financially supporting or licensing issues but because the program needed to run the service was discontinued.
Yeah. Every now and then I consider running OD&D or 1e, to see what they were like. But there are brand new games on my shelf I haven't had a chance to play but want to, and they take priority...
eyeheartawk
#1 Enworld Jerk™
Does the reason why the service is no longer accessible matter?
Luckily, in the case of Insider it was just tools and issues of Dragon that were included with just a base subscription.
In this case people have spent hundreds of dollars on purchasing books as well, and I would imagine for a fair amount of them they would also be their sole copies.
Them eventually becoming unavailable is a very valid concern. One that I think is just flippant to dismiss with "Nobody plays old games anyway, lol".
Similar Threads
