NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="patrickmallette" data-source="post: 1128762" data-attributes="member: 14309">So, one more isn't going to hurt is it. In the 7 pages of replies I read I didn't notice a form letter so my apologies for those who had to suffer through seeing one more.Because I'm special. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Or maybe, just maybe they could see what affect it is having on the community (not just publishers). The fact that it annoyed even normal gamers is a testament to why it is such a bad idea. As a consumer damn right I'm involved. I'm glad they at least took the time to answer actual publishers.Yes, sometimes overreacting is good. The DMCA might have been better debated if a congressman had overreacted a little more pointing out the stupidity of certain parts of the legislation. In this case the "lawmakers" are wizards and the publishers are the "citizens" getting shafted by a bad change in the rules.Agreed, but it does seem a lot like a child bringing a basket ball to a court, getting a large group to play and stating that if you don't like the changes he's making to the rules they all started playing under, they can go home. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Yes, I understand that the license says it could change at any time blah blah blah, but I bet not too many thought it could potentially stiffly their creativity or expression. Do you think Spawn would have been published if the Comic Code were still strictly enforced? No. Hmm, over the top? Yes. Measured and self-censored yes. At least I'm not afraid to use my real name, nor was I in my communication to them. I have praised their work on 3.0 just as I have criticized their latest policy that I believe will affect the availability of products.Censorship is not immaterial for anyone. If they don't want it linked to or associated with them have a disclaimer - that's what they're for isn't it. That would also allow publishers to express their thoughts and creativity no matter how dark without spreading it to the license holders.They made no differentiation that I could see, so why should I. Since they would also have the final say now in what is or is not inferior etc, I could easily envision a company making a competing product far superior to Wizards only to be told it had violated an aspect of this clause just to suppress a better product. When the movie studios sued Sony's for making the VCR had they a license similar to this we might not have VCRs or DVD players unless you purchased their potentially inferior and proprietary version.Dude, you totally missed my point. Disney and other companies have so censored or rewritten so many stories that they can no longer be recognized as many remember them from their childhood. The little mermaid for example dies in the original version, which made it a great tragedy - something truly memorable unlike Disney's version where everyone gets what they want and nothing bad ever happens again. (Until the sequel that strangely ends with everyone getting what they want...) This makes one movie just like every other movie with minor twists - nothing memorable or inspiring at all. Tell me how many modern Disney movies have an incompetent sidekick that's there just for laughs... Yup pretty much every one I've ever seen. This type of policy breads mediocrity plain and simple. As others have pointed out who would want to take the chance of doing something notable or risqué if by the time you're done someone external to your company can come along and say too bad it'll never see the light of day; release it under some other policy, but don't even think of saying it's compatible with D&D 3.5.It would have been nice to receive anything but a form letter because it would have shown it is at least being read rather than autodeleted or autoresponded to. You'll notice that I actually took the time to read your reply to my post. While we may disagree on the topic you now know I valued your feedback. This is something that Wizards obviously does not show by using these form letters. Was my letter just deleted, or did they say, "Wow this guy is really crazy/passionate about something that only indirectly involves him. Hey, here's another one and another. Maybe they have a point."In this case I did expect a short answer (not a short form letter answer) because I have received answers on several other topics - even if they were only related to D&D, compliments or complaints.Take care. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification