Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6861183" data-attributes="member: 37579">I skimmed my way through the video rant. It actually does a pretty good review of pointing out the prior failures of D&amp;D's digital tools. But somehow the OP manages not to connect the fact that WotC has had several expensive and frustrating digital failures with their reluctance to do it themselves, repeatedly calling it &quot;easy&quot; and saying it is wasted revenue since the fans have &quot;dollars in hands&quot;. It's not easy. Good software is slow and expensive. And, as painfully shown by 4e, if you DO have digital tools that do it all, people might stop buying the books since the tools do it all. And the OP keeps talking about how WotC keeps sending C+D letters to people rather than hiring them to make the tools. Which is not how licencing works. People pay WotC to make the tool, and the fans making the tools that get shut down aren't likely to have the money WotC would ask for to licence their brand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6861183, member: 37579"] I skimmed my way through the video rant. It actually does a pretty good review of pointing out the prior failures of D&D's digital tools. But somehow the OP manages not to connect the fact that WotC has had several expensive and frustrating digital failures with their reluctance to do it themselves, repeatedly calling it "easy" and saying it is wasted revenue since the fans have "dollars in hands". It's not easy. Good software is slow and expensive. And, as painfully shown by 4e, if you DO have digital tools that do it all, people might stop buying the books since the tools do it all. And the OP keeps talking about how WotC keeps sending C+D letters to people rather than hiring them to make the tools. Which is not how licencing works. People pay WotC to make the tool, and the fans making the tools that get shut down aren't likely to have the money WotC would ask for to licence their brand. [/QUOTE]

Verification