MonsterEnvy
Legend
It's not dying.
That’s wild to me that “something like 4e” is a harder limit to you than the OGL. Like, ok, you don’t like 4e, fine, lots of people don’t. But making a game you don’t like very much is a bigger deal to you than killing many small publisher’s livelihoods? The OGL was what made the alternative to 4e possible. I would think if nothing else you would at least want the OGL around in case they took the game in a similar direction again.I mean, to be fair, if WotC put out something like 4E again they would lose my business. Same of they drop physical books and go all digital. Or it turns out that WotC is an elaborate front for sexual abuse. There are limits. The OGL just...isn't a limit for me.
It's wild to me that something like the OGL has people more upset than WotC's announcement to their shareholders that D&D was under monetized and their intentions to create a "recurrent spending environment" using very similar language to what video companies have been using these last few years. To my ears, that sounded an awful lot like, "we intend to treat our customers like the garbage they are," but most people here seemed to take it in stride saying I was overreacting. But, there you go, we all have our limits and care about different things.That’s wild to me that “something like 4e” is a harder limit to you than the OGL. Like, ok, you don’t like 4e, fine, lots of people don’t. But making a game you don’t like very much is a bigger deal to you than killing many small publisher’s livelihoods? The OGL was what made the alternative to 4e possible. I would think if nothing else you would at least want the OGL around in case they took the game in a similar direction again.
It's wild to me that something like the OGL has people more upset than WotC's announcement to their shareholders that D&D was under monetized and their intentions to create a "recurrent spending environment" using very similar language to what video companies have been using these last few years. To my ears, that sounded an awful lot like, "we intend to treat our customers like the garbage they are," but most people here seemed to take it in stride saying I was overreacting. But, there you go, we all have our limits and care about different things.
Except they've released that IP into the wild with a copyleft license attached. It's hard to pull that back just because they want to change their business model. Their attempt to do so, based on what we've seen so far, are very anti-competitive.Unwanted attention from whom? They're asserting their right to their IP. Nothing illegal in that. Pushing out competitors is also perfectly legal.
I think you're missing my point here. My point wasn't that change is bad. It isn't, and this change was going to happen regardless.There would be a period of adjustment. But look at at the move of video games from arcades to PCs to gaming platforms. The transition of movies to storage systems to steaming systems.
And RPGs from dead tree to pdfs to...
Change is inevitable. Full service and independant gas stations, gaming arcades, movie theaters, movie rental businesses: with change comes the elimination or drastic reduction of certain business models. Look at the FLGS: definitely on the decline.
Can you articulate how the platform's value is tremendous and obvious? Why should I give WotC money for this instead of Foundry, Roll20, or Fantasy Grounds?Hardly. THe value is both tremendous and obvious. On-line gaming is booming, and the tech infrastructure is maturing. I had an all-European group for a year, and with only average Net service we has absolutely no tech issues.
Evolution would be putting out a superior product. How is removing the OGL enabling a superior product? How is D&D Beyond a superior product?It isn't an attack, it is evolution. And evolution in business works exactly as Darwin envisioned.
I believe we are seeing the end of what will be seen as a golden era of small-time publishers.
I mean, I definitely found that statement alarming too. But I’d say the OGL thing is just (part of) them acting on that statement, so it doesn’t surprise me at all that people would be more upset by the action than by the words.It's wild to me that something like the OGL has people more upset than WotC's announcement to their shareholders that D&D was under monetized and their intentions to create a "recurrent spending environment" using very similar language to what video companies have been using these last few years. To my ears, that sounded an awful lot like, "we intend to treat our customers like the garbage they are," but most people here seemed to take it in stride saying I was overreacting. But, there you go, we all have our limits and care about different things.
Making products thst I do not want to buy is a hard line for buying products, yes. The OGL is just business...and it ain't my business.That’s wild to me that “something like 4e” is a harder limit to you than the OGL. Like, ok, you don’t like 4e, fine, lots of people don’t. But making a game you don’t like very much is a bigger deal to you than killing many small publisher’s livelihoods? The OGL was what made the alternative to 4e possible. I would think if nothing else you would at least want the OGL around in case they took the game in a similar direction again.
It’s your business if it affects your experience of the hobby, which it almost certainly will, even if D&D is the only RPG you play, unless you also never use 3rd party content. And, I mean, if it’s not a hard line for you, ok I guess. Just weird to me that a product you don’t much care for is a harder line for you than a decision that will have massive repercussions throughout the entire industry.Making products thst I do not want to buy is a hard line for buying products, yes. The OGL is just business...and it ain't my business.
I suspect that WotC has only scratched the surface of their plans. WotC expected some backlash from OGL 1.1 but this feels like we are still in the opening phase of their monetization strategy.I mean, I definitely found that statement alarming too. But I’d say the OGL thing is just (part of) them acting on that statement, so it doesn’t surprise me at all that people would be more upset by the action than by the words.
But it is the business for 3pp who make products that you would potentially buy.Making products thst I do not want to buy is a hard line for buying products, yes. The OGL is just business...and it ain't my business.
If I don't care for a product, I won't buy it. I'm not sure how hard that is to understand...? The OGL thing did bother me enough to sign a couple Change.org petitions, but I'm not a paid Beyond subscriber, and it isn't enough to dissuade me from buying a product I do want in the future.It’s your business if it affects your experience of the hobby, which it almost certainly will, even if D&D is the only RPG you play, unless you also never use 3rd party content. And, I mean, if it’s not a hard line for you, ok I guess. Just weird to me that a product you don’t much care for is a harder line for you than a decision that will have massive repercussions throughout the entire industry.