WotC Roll For Combat: Hasbro Downgraded. Toys Rotting on the Shelves

[Mecheon]

Edited to add: I don't want to do another post about this, but I'll mention what's all the snark about? If someone posts something you don't like, posting about it just gives it more attention which is what I expect you wouldn't want.

Posts are just text that we don't get any money for, so they're fine

Youtube videos like this, though, are clickbait. They could be explained easier in text, they'd be shot-down in text per the notes up-thread, and the person who made the video is directly trying to profit from you looking at his video. They're using dirty tricks to post what is basically just a wild opinion piece, take too much time of your day for that opinion that Oofta and Merric destroyed in two paragraphs (which took a fraction of the time to read but were far better researched), and he's expecting to get money out of it

Frankly I find the snark acceptable. If the Youtuber didn't want snark, he should have posted something in text.

Also I'll add my own point to this: the video is false because Hasbro would never sell a valuable IP they could milk it down the line. They're not going to sell D&D. Ever. They're presently in a legal engagement over Star Frontiers of all things, if they're not selling that old RPG, they're not going to sell the absolute behemoth of them.

 

[SteveC]

Youtube videos like this, though, are clickbait. They could be explained easier in text, they'd be shot-down in text per the notes up-thread, and the person who made the video is directly trying to profit from you looking at his video. They're using dirty tricks to post what is basically just a wild opinion piece, take too much time of your day for that opinion that Oofta and Merric destroyed in two paragraphs (which took a fraction of the time to read but were far better researched), and he's expecting to get money out of it

I think we need to distinguish a few things about clickbait. Yes, Stephen has openly joked about how he names some of his videos using outrageous clickbait titles to get the clicks. And then there are the videos themselves which are filled with interesting and useful content. In the video we're discussing, I learned about Tencent. If I hadn't been really interested in the topic, I also would have learned about the history of Marvel selling characters off too, to escape bankruptcy. Stephen isn't saying that this is going to happen, just posing it as a scenario. I suppose how likely any of this sort of thing to happen is based on the financials for Hasbro. Maybe they have a great year and this is a nothing burger. I certainly think the D&D launch, at this point, is going to be huge. I thought it was going to be much bigger last year before the OGL blew up (along with everything else).

I think you may not know who Roll for Combat actually are. They have had four very successful Kickstarters and have been very successful as a content creator. Getting clicks with these articles isn't how the company makes money. As someone who's picked up their product, they make good product, too.

Also I'll add my own point to this: the video is false because Hasbro would never sell a valuable IP they could milk it down the line. They're not going to sell D&D. Ever. They're presently in a legal engagement over Star Frontiers of all things, if they're not selling that old RPG, they're not going to sell the absolute behemoth of them.

I think that's an interesting assessment, and it's one that before recent developments, I might have agreed with you on. But times change and if you look at the Marvel example, sometimes you do what you need to do in order to survive. Is Hasbro in that situation? I don't know. I'd be willing to listen to different voices and opinions about this but the real answer is "just fast forward until next year to see." My gut instinct tells me that they will end up doing alright, but that depends on the launch, the VTT, what Magic does this year and a ton of other factors too. And I wouldn't expect anyone to actually listen to what I have to say.

 

[mamba]

I think that's an interesting assessment, and it's one that before recent developments, I might have agreed with you on. But times change and if you look at the Marvel example, sometimes you do what you need to do in order to survive.

some thing you do not do in order to survive is selling the one part of your business actually making money and that you just invested 300M or so in, while keeping that investment that now hinges on the guys buying D&D not messing up and licensing it to you

 

[SteveC]

some thing you do not do in order to survive is selling the one part of your business actually making money and that you just invested 300M or so in, while keeping that investment that now hinges on the guys buying D&D not messing up and licensing it to you

I think you're assuming you have that option. What you sell off is what people are interested in and make an offer for. Marvel sold off X-Men, Spiderman, and Fantastic Four. Characters that they'd "never sell" but that was what they had offers for. I don't think there was much interest in Rocket Raccoon. Of course the real point is, is this even an issue? Probably not. But then we're only a year away from the OGL issue that people were saying wouldn't or couldn't happen as it was actually happening. Who knows? I don't. Any insiders are welcome to comment but I don't think they will. And so we're all just part of the peanut gallery.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Edited to add: I don't want to do another post about this, but I'll mention what's all the snark about? If someone posts something you don't like, posting about it just gives it more attention which is what I expect you wouldn't want.

A better question might be- what is this tireless (and tiresome) defense for?

Look, they are disseminating false information and they are using bad clickbait-y titles. At a certain point, you can't keep saying, "Oh, they're just doing it for the lulz, and they joke about their bad titles." Popehat has a very apt description of this, which I can't (because of forum rules) accurately convey, but I will restate as this- If you repeatedly say you're kissing goats, either to troll people, or just for the kicks, you are a goatkisser.

Have they "broken" massive stories? You keep repeating this, but like any people that make money on the internet, at some point some person with an agenda is going to pass them information- which they know these people will broadcast for the views. This doesn't make them journalists. Journalists have ethics, and will do basic things like "confirm stories" and "do their own research."

So the snark (which isn't snark, it's just accurate condemnation of their "stories") is about what they are doing. As we have seen from some other started threads involving shady youtubers, anyone can post any kind of made-up stuff that they want. Is there any shred of truth to this story? Is there a single bit of evidence that any of this will happen, or that there have been discussions, or (for that matter) that anyone has done the basic financial calculations to look into this? OF COURSE NOT. This type of content simply makes the people that watch it dumber.

There are numerous reputable sources that you can use. And if RFC wants to be a reputable source, as opposed to sending out clickbait on a weekly basis, they are welcome to do it. A lot of prominent (and reputable) youtube video essayists have struggled with the conventions of youtube recently. Some have chosen to quit or take a break. Others (such as Veritasium, aka Derek Muller) have posted thoughtful video essays explaining how he makes his titles more enticing, without crossing the line into what RFC is doing.

You can either be a credible source of information, or you can be in it for the lulz and the clicks. It's pretty obvious which choice they have made.

 

[SteveC]

A better question might be- what is this tireless (and tiresome) defense for?

Look, they are disseminating false information and they are using bad clickbait-y titles. At a certain point, you can't keep saying, "Oh, they're just doing it for the lulz, and they joke about their bad titles." Popehat has a very apt description of this, which I can't (because of forum rules) accurately convey, but I will restate as this- If you repeatedly say you're kissing goats, either to troll people, or just for the kicks, you are a goatkisser.

Okay, time to discuss. I'm commenting on this because I see a ton of incorrect information about a source I enjoy, but have also learned something from. A lot of somethings. I came across Roll for Combat when they had a couple hundred subscribers. I was looking to learn PF2 and they did actual plays of game sessions. Since then, I've enjoyed a lot from the show and learned a lot from what they've discussed.

And you wrote "they are disseminating false information." Okay, what is false? I have also read Popehat for years and years and I am confident that information that you don't like or don't agree with isn't necessarily false. So care to share some false information? I can recall many articles he's written criticizing people in politics that we don't talk about about here for doing exactly that.

Have they "broken" massive stories? You keep repeating this, but like any people that make money on the internet, at some point some person with an agenda is going to pass them information- which they know these people will broadcast for the views. This doesn't make them journalists. Journalists have ethics, and will do basic things like "confirm stories" and "do their own research."

So they broke the OGL story. That's the biggest story in gaming in the last few years. I remember the initial discussion of that topic on Enworld and a lot of people said some pretty insulting and terrible things about the guy. It's my estimation that a lot of the dislike for the channel comes from them being unable to admit to being wrong.

Is that "journalism" ... I don't think in a broad sense. I don't think anyone is claiming it is. It's just that anyone who has access to information and shares it becomes a journalist for a while. And if you listen to the discussion Stephen and Mark had recently in their year in recap, they made sure to get confirmation from multiple sources. I think the recent AI "scandal that wasn't a scandal" was a great example of someone not doing that. If you want to learn about the stories they broke last year, there's a summary video here.

You can either be a credible source of information, or you can be in it for the lulz and the clicks. It's pretty obvious which choice they have made.

As someone who enjoys their content, I'd say you're taking the joke video titles and extrapolating from there. There are a ton of content creators out there that make click bait content and don't know what they're talking about at all. Don't have any sources. And are just plain wrong about things. That's not what we're talking about here.

From reading you post, my reaction is you don't like the channel's content and want to dismiss it out of hand. You don't watch the videos or know who anyone involved is. And that's fair. It just means I don't care about what you have to say about it.

I'll be direct: I like the products Roll for Combat makes and find the discussions of what is going on in the industry interesting. I also know who the creators for it are and give them some measure of trust because of contacts they have. I also disagree with many things they say. But to say they don't know anything about what they're talking about is disingenuous. If the bar for discussing what's happening in the RPG industry is higher than Stephen, I think there are perhaps one or two people in all of Enworld who would get to talk. And that would definitely not include me.

 

[bedir than]

And you wrote "they are disseminating false information." Okay, what is false?

They claim that a Chinese company owns Larian. This is untrue. They don't even own a plurality. They later claim that Tencent would finance Larian buying D&D, but a non-controlling partner fully financing a corporate takeover is rare.

So they broke the OGL story.

They were not first, which is what "Breaking" a story is.

And you are right. They are not journalists. They do not follow a code of ethics.

 

[SteveC]

They claim that a Chinese company owns Larian. This is untrue. They don't even own a plurality. They later claim that Tencent would finance Larian buying D&D, but a non-controlling partner fully financing a corporate takeover is rare.

From the video I saw, they said Tencent owns 30% of the shares in the company, which when I just did a quick search, is correct. This would give an avenue to speculate that the purchase could happen because of Tencent's deep pockets. Will that happen? I sure don't think so but it is interesting speculation, which is all that was.

They were not first, which is what "Breaking" a story is.

As someone who was here and paying attention at the time, it sure looked liked it to me. They talked about it a day before the story "broke" with internet news sources.

I'm going to step out of this discussion at this point because it's honestly pointless. Roll for Combat has come off has very harsh on WotC, and that really upsets people. I find it useful and that they make fun products. And defending them is not really my place to be in anyway.

 

[bedir than]

...addressed by mods

 

[MockingBird]

There seems to be multiple people claiming to be first with breaking the OGL story.