WoTC in the Frying Pan

[Lizard]

Wait wait wait....

Hold the phone...

Something to do with D&D software/Web development has left the rails??

[sarcasm]I can't believe what I am hearing![/sarcasm] :O

Y'know, I said that given that the tools were "in alpha" in mid-Spring meant there'd be no way they'd be ready for launch, but, y'know, that's just 'cause I'm a "hater" (or is that h4ter?) and not someone with two decades of experience in software development....

 

[Cam Banks]

If you don't see legal liability there, well, it's a damned good thing you're not a lawyer, because you suck at it. (I am, BTW, a lawyer.)

Jeff, come on. You know you're not supposed to use your powers for evil.

What would Random say?

Well, OK, that's a stupid question.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[roguerouge]

People on the WoTC forum (which I've recently abandoned due to a certain community manager) have been pissed about the poor level of quality of management, content, and overall capabilities of WoTC's online components for a long time now.

The killing of the Dragon and Dungeon magazines ushered in an era of anger amongst its posters - and it's something that WoTC has largely ignored. Add in a power-hungry community manager who has a reputation for deleting or moving posts critical of him, and you're spelling out a looming disaster.

I am surprised that the thread started by Ken has not provoked a longer thread so far.

Incidentally, these kinds of scenarios of malign dictatorship are one reason to advocate for moderator elections as a general net ethos.

 

[Fifth Element]

Proving damages is easy: "If it weren't for the unequivocal statements that I'd be able to play D&D via DDI, with my friends that lives around the country, I would not have bought the rulebooks."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think providing a feasible argument for damages is the same thing a proving damages.

Opposing counsel might ask something like, "How many non-4E D&D books do you own?" If the answer is something other than "none", the judge might not take your argument at face value.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think providing a feasible argument for damages is the same thing a proving damages.

You're thinking of the legal principle that holds that there's no liability if, for example, a store refuses to sell someone a lottery ticket, and that particular someone's numbers would have won. This is, for various reasons that aren't really worth getting into, not at all the same thing. The concept of "if not for" as the basis for legal liability is deeply embedded in law. (Even in Canada.) The simplest example (other than this) is detrimental reliance in contract law.

Opposing counsel might ask something like, "How many non-4E D&D books do you own?" If the answer is something other than "none", the judge might not take your argument at face value.

Maybe not. The tryer of fact can always discount testimony, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that -- if true -- there's legal liability. It also doesn't change the fact that there's almost certainly enough here to certify a class (and a class-action lawyer would salivate at what might be found in discovery!), and almost no question enough to survive summary judgment.

That forum post was a "feeler." WotC knows they've got serious potential trouble. It's gonna be entertaining ...

And Cam, Random -- and Zachary, who did play D&D, if you'll remember! -- would just walk to a shadow in which the DDI was in the hands of the competent. Speaking for myself, I'm not using my power for evil, I'm just pointing out interesting things!

 

[WizarDru]

Proving damages is easy: "If it weren't for the unequivocal statements that I'd be able to play D&D via DDI, with my friends that lives around the country, I would not have bought the rulebooks."

Where was this claim made, specifically, and how legally binding could it actually be? I mean, wouldn't you have to make the claim that the person knew of 4e and planned to purchase it, but was otherwise unaware of the fact that DDI was still not available during the run-up to release and that there was considerable criticism about that fact...that one would have effectively had blinders on concerning what he did and did not know about 4e's status and the fact that DDI required a separate purchase?

IANAL, but it sounds to me like you'd have to make some intuitive leaps and some narrow logic to make this stick as a class action issue or even a valid legal argument. DDI was presented as a supplement to the product, but I think it's a stretch to claim it was presented as a part of that product. Otherwise there would be no additional charge for the service. The core rulebooks don't require DDI to be used for their intended purpose.

Is there a similar class-action out there to set a precedent?

 

[Fifth Element]

Where was this claim made, specifically, and how legally binding could it actually be? I mean, wouldn't you have to make the claim that the person knew of 4e and planned to purchase it, but was otherwise unaware of the fact that DDI was still not available during the run-up to release and that there was considerable criticism about that fact...that one would have effectively had blinders on concerning what he did and did not know about 4e's status and the fact that DDI required a separate purchase?

That's a good point. It as hardly a secret that the DDI was not ready when the books became available for purchase. WotC did not hide the fact that it was not ready. Any reasonably prudent purchaser should have known that.

 

[Xyl]

That's a good point. It as hardly a secret that the DDI was not ready when the books became available for purchase. WotC did not hide the fact that it was not ready. Any reasonably prudent purchaser should have known that.

Tell that to the people who have posted stories of buying the core rulebooks, going online, and spending an hour trying to figure out how to launch the applications.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you don't see legal liability there, well, it's a damned good thing you're not a lawyer, because you suck at it. (I am, BTW, a lawyer.)

You may be a lawyer, but you seem to forget about our basic "don't be abusive to other people" rule.

As a result, you've lost the right to post in this thread. Don't post in this thread again.

 

[Dire Bare]

Tell that to the people who have posted stories of buying the core rulebooks, going online, and spending an hour trying to figure out how to launch the applications.

Uh, really? I can totally buy someone purchasing the 4e books and then excitedly rushing to www.dndinsider.com for the online tools . . . . but anyone who spent over an hour trying to launch the applications? What part of "Coming Soon!" is so hard to understand? It's laid out pretty clearly on WotC's webpage (and has been since 6/5) that the online tools are not yet ready. If you take the time to read what's there, that is.