WotC How much does Hasbro / WotC impact your feelings towards D&D?

[AnotherGuy]

Oh, that is an odd take. Sorry if you took it that way. That is not what I was implying. I was just bragging about how lucky I've been.

Thanks. To be clear my issue has been with the mechanics of the game, particularly at the higher levels - but many here have expressed no such issue. It may just be my personal preferences with how I'd like things to work.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

So this comes down to you don't like it but your friends do, and your friends are pressuring you to use it and use the VTT that is coming.

No, they don't. Please don't try to reduce my position to some made-up scenarios and armchair psychology

So what is the problem? It would be worse for your hypothetical if they did make a good product. So if a bad product causes this, and a good one would be even worse, what is WotC to do?

I would potentiually be because it would make more people fall for boilingthe frog methd through which chokepoints get you hooked - present great experience, make sure people get too used to go without it, and then begin enshitiffication to ramp up the prices and ward of base functions behind a paywall.

So my question remains. What do you want from WotC? It seems like your only solution, at least that makes sense, would be for WotC to just not have DnDBeyond.

Yes, I do not think company that makes a product should also control a platform through which huge chunk of fanbase interacts with the product.

No they aren't a chokepoint.

For Kickstarter, there's the alternative in Backerkit.

There are retail outlets - your FLGS. Bookstores. Noble Knight Games. Amazon.

And these days, e-commerce is not all that difficult. Paizo, Monte Cook, Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Magpie, Modiphius, Chaosium - all have their own storefonts! They are not "choked" - you can buy direct from them, no middleman.

There's individual creators out there on Patreon where you can get their wares.

How many ways around the chokepoint do we need to show before we recognize it isn't really a chokepoint?

You are confusing chokepoint with a monopoly right now, Besides, look at Netflix, which is a chokepoint because not one of its competitors has enough reach to really matter and/or struggles financially like a stone giant on clay feet

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Yes, I do not think company that makes a product should also control a platform through which huge chunk of fanbase interacts with the product.

This has far reaching implications for many store brands and generics. Not to mention the overarching regulatory expansion that would be required. But that discussion is not for here.

I appreciate you clarifying your position. I think you are presuming ill-intent, and that is a very strange position in a free market. But you do you.

 

[TiQuinn]

You are confusing chokepoint with a monopoly right now, Besides, look at Netflix, which is a chokepoint because not one of its competitors has enough reach to really matter and/or struggles financially like a stone giant on clay feet

Do you have numbers on this? I mean, what defines a chokepoint versus "not a chokepoint" in a measurable way? Because if we're just talking anecdotally, I don't know of anyone who only has a single streaming service at this point. Amazon and Disney are both in the same stratosphere of subscribers (greater than 200 million subscribers), Max has a substantial number and that's before you get to what I would consider also-ran streaming services.

Does the term "chokepoint" exist in common parlance outside of Doctorow and Gilpin's book?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I appreciate you clarifying your position. I think you are presuming ill-intent, and that is a very strange position in a free market. But you do you.

Free Market is a place where you should ALWAYS presume ill-intent. And after OGL debacle in particular, any attempts from WotC at creating or owning a platform should be seen first and foremost as a new scheme to gain control they failed to grab with that craven attempt.

Does the term "chokepoint" exist in common parlance outside of Doctorow and Gilpin's book?

That book has been around for two years, it's freaking obvious term like that didn't have a chance to spread int othe mainstream. And honestly, the "it's not popular/well-know issue, so it MUST be a bunch of malarky" argument you're attempting here is a fallacy.

Do you have numbers on this? I mean, what defines a chokepoint versus "not a chokepoint" in a measurable way? Because if we're just talking anecdotally, I don't know of anyone who only has a single streaming service at this point. Amazon and Disney are both in the same stratosphere of subscribers (greater than 200 million subscribers), Max has a substantial number and that's before you get to what I would consider also-ran streaming services.

Please notice all of those are either struggling or are massive money sinks only backed by near infinite wallets of Mickey and Bezos. I do not tihnk Max is going to survive for long, I'm surprised it haven't died already. Even if it's going to boil down in the end to three huge services - Prime, Disney+, netflix - or even 4 with Max, that is just the monopsy scenario. There are bussinesses in which technically there is competition, but each competitor is so huge, they are effectively monopolies.

 

[TiQuinn]

That book has been around for two years, it's freaking obvious term like that didn't have a chance to spread int othe mainstream. And honestly, the "it's not popular/well-know issue, so it MUST be a bunch of malarky" argument you're attempting here is a fallacy.

What fallacy? You were the one who distinguished between chokepoint versus a monopoly. You’re also the one who is dismissing a straightforward question by saying the answer is “freaking obvious.”

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What fallacy? You were the one who distinguished between chokepoint versus a monopoly. You’re also the one who is dismissing a straightforward question by saying the answer is “freaking obvious.”

So ... I actually wasn't familiar with that particular book or term, and I looked it up quickly.

It appears that they are popularizing a term (chokepoint) that is normally called "monopsony" in economics.

Admittedly, when I was interested in the subject it was more about employment, labor, and wages. But it should apply just as much to the issue of a single firm having buyer power over sellers; a company that isn't exactly a river in South America may come to mind.

The distinctions between different anti-competitive practices are important, but can be elusive at times.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

With that said, and with a brief understanding of the these and understanding the issues (and the examples used in the book) .... Hasbro, and WoTC ... is not a monopsony. Not close. So not sure why this has come up?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

What fallacy? You were the one who distinguished between chokepoint versus a monopoly. You’re also the one who is dismissing a straightforward question by saying the answer is “freaking obvious.”

I'm talking about you trying to dismiss the chokepoint as a concept because it is not more well-known, it's a fallacious argument - a form of reversed appeal at populum

 

[TiQuinn]

With that said, and with a brief understanding of the these and understanding the issues (and the examples used in the book) .... Hasbro, and WoTC ... is not a monopsony. Not close. So not sure why this has come up?

Which is kind of my point. It’s been a long time since I took economics in college and I remember monospony vaguely. Even with THAT definition, we’ve been talking about customers, I.E. the fan base not having choice - which isn’t the case with Hasbro. I’m not saying these things don’t exist - it’s just that not every company has this power or can simply attain it.