If You're "Permanently" Boycotting WotC, They're Not Going To Listen To You

[MichaelSomething]

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

Emphasis mine again.

The link in their sig is word-for-word titled, "Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases."

Thank you for your interest, but this will be my last post in this topic. With sincere hope, I encourage you to do some research on the topic of consumer advocacy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Sorry, you are right. But still you should think about the proportions. And at some point it is not whataboutism, but bigotry...

 

[WarDriveWorley]

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.

We do have a voice. But that does not mean it's a negotiation.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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...

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

We do have a voice. But that does not mean it's a negotiation.

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.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Yes but we only have one, because it is as lacking in nuance as possible.

Its "NO." stated plain, loud, and often.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I agree that telling someone "Nothing you can do will win me back" is a waste, because you will find then they have no reason to change...

BUT!!!! (yeah I know everything before a but doesn't matter)

But, once before I heard a bunch a people swear off WotC because of an edition change... 3 to 3.5
wait, I heard it with 3.5 to 4e too.

WotC has every reason to believe that SOME (not all) people swearing off will come back someday.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I'm not going to reward them or take interest in their products until they clean the boards and unionise.

This latest stunt just made me want to actively tell others not to give them money.

I don't care if they don't listen. I want them to significantly change internally, or politely never plague us with their prescence again.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I don't say, boycot is in order. But they are not as evil as enslaving people. It is more on the level of taking away a child's lolly (speakin in a metaphor), if they don't go after the back catalogue of other companies and still allow a fair use of their rules.

It is just a step down from theopnness we are used to. It might still be a good agreement.
So boycotting until we really see what happens is a good idea. It is a bad idea to announce something like a boycot forever... just my opinion...

 

[Velderan]

And this is the reason in my DDB cancellation I clearly stated I can't give my business to a company that is pursuing a change that I view as being destructive to the hobby I am so passionate about. If they reconsider their position, I could see myself resuming my subscription again but at present I can't support them with my business.

1. I'm a paying customer cancelling my subscription where they're interested in growing.
2. I gave them a path to win back my business. They still haven't done that, but it's possible.

 

[Enrahim2]

The thing is: It is a negotiation. But it is not a negotiation between me and them. It is a negotiation between the community and them. And to them community is statistics. Each person actually deciding to never buy anything from wizards again is the community saying: Sorry, my offer just got smaller.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes but we only have one, because it is as lacking in nuance as possible.

Its "NO." stated plain, loud, and often.

"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".

 

[WarDriveWorley]

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.

So let me clarify.


Yes we have a voice that was heard that we're dissatisfied. I stand by that statement.

However in a proper negotiation all parties must be given equal voice. Which was the context of my original comment. Both are voices and both can be true and false independent of each other.

WOTC clearly listened to our collective outcry and realized there was an issue. (The first definition of voice above).

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).

That could change, but at this point it's all reactive and is not a true negotiation.

A good analogy would be a parent with an upset child. The parent may hear that the child is upset (so the child has a voice in their displeasure), but they don't listen to WHY the child is upset (so there's no voice in correcting the displeasure).

It's not an either/or situation.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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).

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

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.

If you're going to boycott WotC forever, fine. You do you. It probably doesn't help. And announcing that you're doing so is even less helpful.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

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.

They absolutely can.

As I pointed out above focus groups, surveys, and other similar means allow the fans as a whole to explain what they do and don't want.

WOTC should have engaged those means first tbh.

What they did was release something they thought would fly under the radar and it did not.

Their actions caused a reaction from the fans, the fans reaction caused a reaction from WOTC.

That is where we stand now. Both sides adjusting to the news and reactions.

WOTC needs to do this and be transparent about why they're doing it in order to rebuild trust and allow a true negotiation.

 

[Scribe]

"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".

"No to the 1.1 OGL, and unless you 100% reverse course, no to anything you do in the future."

Actions, consequences. Now of course it also wont be just 'no to anything in the future' its going to be 'your well is now poisoned because you stepped on us'.

Again, this is not a negotiation. Its Wizards seeing how much they can take, how far they can go, before the target complains.

I was going to go on further, but at this point my own cynicism is reaching inflammatory levels. They will continue to be told its not good enough, but options are already materializing and Paizo once again is coming in to provide an alternative.

 

[Retreater]

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...

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).
I'm not viewing my future as a WotC customer as a "boycott." I'm going to be supporting other companies by purchasing their products.
But if people choose to continue to support WotC after the recent fiasco, that's their decision. I am choosing to support businesses that better align with my values in the hobby.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

"No to the 1.1 OGL, and unless you 100% reverse course, no to anything you do in the future."

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.

Again, this is not a negotiation. Its Wizards seeing how much they can take, how far they can go, before the target complains.

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).