MichaelSomething
Legend
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Emphasis mine again.You don't seem to understand how D&D Beyond's forums work. The purpose of the link is purely educational. To preemptively answer the question that everyone asks on D&D Beyond. Not to tell people not to want/ask for digital copies with physical purchases, but to tell them that currently, no, they are not entitled to a digital book because they bought a physical version.
The whole whataboutism of boycotts is only helpful to bad actor companies. "You say you don't want to eat salt because it's unhealthy and yet you eat sugar!?" kind of stuff is not to your benefit.
We do have a voice. But that does not mean it's a negotiation.We clearly have "a voice". If we didn't, WotC never would have heard the outcry against the leaked OGL. We might not have as direct of a way to get tell WotC what we want, but they obviously have some idea that the community does not want the leaked 1.1 OGL.
I'm glad you agree with the OP, but the second part is unfair. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Most companies on the planet harm some people in some way (pollution, harmful products, and exploitative worker conditions, for example). None of us can be "perfect" with avoiding harmful companies, because basically every company is harmful in some way. Protesting the bad actions of one company while still being forced to give money to other harmful companies is a hypocrisy that we're all damned by because that's how the system is designed.Funny thing, there probably are people claiming they now will never buy things from Hasbro/Wotc again who have not bought from wotc for a while now.
I also think there are peole boycotting hasbro and buy things from companies that are actually doing real harm to people... like every smart phone producer... many food companies and a lot of cheap cloth companies...
You said that it couldn't be a negotiation because we didn't have a voice. Now you say that we have a voice, but it isn't a negotiation. Which is it? Those are contradictory statements.We do have a voice. But that does not mean it's a negotiation.
We clearly have "a voice". If we didn't, WotC never would have heard the outcry against the leaked OGL. We might not have as direct of a way to get tell WotC what we want, but they obviously have some idea that the community does not want the leaked 1.1 OGL.
I'm glad you agree with the OP, but the second part is unfair. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Most companies on the planet harm some people in some way (pollution, harmful products, and exploitative worker conditions, for example). None of us can be "perfect" with avoiding harmful companies, because basically every company is harmful in some way. Protesting the bad actions of one company while still being forced to give money to other harmful companies is a hypocrisy that we're all damned by because that's how the system is designed.
"No to the 1.1 OGL" is good. "No to anything you ever make, forever" is unhelpful to achieving the goal of the first "no".Yes but we only have one, because it is as lacking in nuance as possible.
Its "NO." stated plain, loud, and often.
So let me clarify.You said that it couldn't be a negotiation because we didn't have a voice. Now you say that we have a voice, but it isn't a negotiation. Which is it? Those are contradictory statements.
Because we can't. There's no spokesperson. As a community, we kind of can't have one. We just have to keep making it clear that we're dissatisfied, and won't let up until WotC gives us what we want. The point was that saying "you're not getting my money now, no matter what you do" harms our already limited ability to "make demands" of WotC. We have a hard enough time now telling them what we want. It will be even harder if a ton of people refused to engage in the only medium of "negotiation" that we have.But they have not engaged in a conversation about our issues in a meaningful way that would be construed as a negotiation. (the second definition of voice above).
Sure, but a lot of people are announcing that they're boycotting WotC forever. And I'm not sure what effect they want to have by doing that, but it definitely won't help with the goal of getting WotC to give us what we want. If they wanted to help with that, it would actually be more beneficial to just cancel their D&D Beyond subscriptions without saying that they were inflexible, permanent cancellings, because then WotC wouldn't be able to tell if they were people that they could win back or if they were gone forever.In theory this is all accurate, but it’s not like WotC can tell the difference between someone who cancels their DnDB subscription with the intent to resubscribe under certain conditions and someone who cancels their sub with no intention of resubscribing ever. All they see is people are mad about the OGL and they’re hemorrhaging subscriptions.
They absolutely can.Because we can't. There's no spokesperson. As a community, we kind of can't have one. We just have to keep making it clear that we're dissatisfied, and won't let up until WotC gives us what we want. The point was that saying "you're not getting my money now, no matter what you do" harms our already limited ability to "make demands" of WotC. We have a hard enough time now telling them what we want. It will be even harder if a ton of people refused to engage in the only medium of "negotiation" that we have.
"No to the 1.1 OGL" is good. "No to anything you ever make, forever" is unhelpful to achieving the goal of the first "no".
My last several purchases: Van Richten's Guide (bought on Christmas sale), Curse of Strahd (received as a Christmas gift), lots of official minis (I bought for my nephew as a Christmas present).Funny thing, there probably are people claiming they now will never buy things from Hasbro/Wotc again who have not bought from wotc for a while now.
I also think there are peole boycotting hasbro and buy things from companies that are actually doing real harm to people... like every smart phone producer... many food companies and a lot of cheap cloth companies...
That's literally what I was saying to do in the OP. It needs to be a quid pro quo. "I will leave forever, unless you give me what I want". The whole point of the OP."No to the 1.1 OGL, and unless you 100% reverse course, no to anything you do in the future."
The first sentence of your post is a quid pro quo. That's a type of negotiation. WotC might not think of it as a negotiation, but it is. If they get enough backlash from the community, they normally try to undo that thing (Hadozee, 1.1 OGL, etc).Again, this is not a negotiation. Its Wizards seeing how much they can take, how far they can go, before the target complains.