4 ms·

Who is running these companies. This isn't the first time a company has tried to screw over their customers. Why do they keep doing this shit when they should k

Who is running these companies. This isn't the first time a company has tried to screw over their customers. Why do they keep doing this shit when they should know what is going to happen. It must just be pure stupidity on the C level folks at these companies. Shame on them.

rcthompson 4y ago
I'm guessing the people making the decisions are separated from the people who interact with customers by many layers of managers (and also the decision makers exist in a different socioeconomic bubble than the customers), and the only message able to penetrate all those layers with any speed or urgency is "we're losing money".
msoucy 4y ago
If I had a nickel for every time WotC tried to change the OGL and the community got pissed, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice! (The first time is what gave us Pathfinder 1e in the first place, for those who don't know - they took D&D 3.5e, under the OGL 1.0, and made modifications and continued its spirit)
- Throw10987 4y ago
  I thought I was the only one old enough to remember that we have been here before. Back in the day I even had an email thread with Ryan Dancy about making software tooling based on the OGL, which was pretty non-committal and discouraged me from proceeding with any efforts.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    My understanding of that discouragement in general was in how the exclusive nature of the OGL prevented it from being combined with software licenses. Implementing OGL-covered rules in or with code covered by a different license was fraught, which makes OGL software development difficult unless you get permission (aka, a commercial license) from the copyright holder (WotC/Hasbro).[1][2] The existence of OGL-implementing tools is more a factor of WotC/Hasbro reserving attempts to enforce that on small fish in a small pond, but could be deployed against anything even marginally successful that wasn't tithing enough. (One example of a discussion around that is re: Pathfinder Online, another Ryan Dancey project, which avoided the OGL question entirely by implementing a different ruleset. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lhu1?One-is-the-Loneliest-Number#12 https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lhu1?One-is-the-Lo...) 1: https://archive.ph/yNaJT https://archive.ph/yNaJT > ... you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content. > One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs. > Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasn't studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used. 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20060913004016/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i https://web.archive.org/web/20060913004016/http://www.wizard... > NOTE: The biggest problem we've found with software and the OGL is that programmers aren't paying attention to Section 8 of the OGL. Section 8 states: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content." This doesn't mean you can say "all rules in my program are Open", the users need to be able to see all that Open Content. You can do this by putting Open Content in a format that is easy to understand. Popular solutions have been to place everything in text files that the program pulls info from, having everything in a viewable database within the software, using Java script on a webpage (viewing the source of the webpage will display the code and Java script is relatively easy for a user to interpret). The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort. The whole point of the OGL is that once information is declared Open everyone has free access to it under the OGL. Compiling that information into a program denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming License.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
VyseofArcadia 4y ago
I feel like execs are still not used to the idea that people with niche hobbies can form large groups over the internet, and, moreover, immediately take action in a way that hurts the company's bottom line. [0] Just think about how this would have gone down in the 80s or even the 90s. A few grumbles on a BBS or forums, but for the most part, no one is reading the fine text of the license in the book. There is no news about it, maybe a fanzine talks about it, but those only have so much distribution. People aren't informed enough to have an opinion, let alone do something about it. [0] Subscription-based models are a double-edged sword like that. Anyone can say, "well I won't buy the next edition's books", and even if they mean it, Hasbro can ignore that threat until they're out. But if people can instantly end their subscriptions, well, that's different.
- Macha 4y ago
  The current execs are recently from Microsoft's Xbox division so they're also probably more used to ineffectual video gamer boycotts, but because tabletop is not such a large group, a larger proportion of the audience is more likely to be plugged into the goings on specific to that industry.
  - VyseofArcadia 4y ago
    > The current execs are recently from Microsoft's Xbox division Well, that explains pretty much everything.
havblue 4y ago
It sounds similar to Sears attempting to turn its customers into members. They don't have to worry about selling books: they can just sell app subscriptions, micro transactions and expansion content for campaigns involving everyone being tethered to their phones instead of their character sheets.
wardedVibe 4y ago
It works well in video games. All sorts of dark patterns that pump money from players.
feoren 4y ago
It's the Principal Agent problem. These decisions aren't being made by the company, they're being made by people. People who benefit enormously from a short-term stock price bump, but can easily jump to a different company once the long-term effects of their destruction start to show up.
- LesZedCB 4y ago
  do the people make the system, or does the system make the people? system being somewhat narrowly the executive duty to quarterly growth metrics for shareholders, the same shareholders which make up the board who chooses the execs, etc... while i absolutely believe there are plenty of people with questionable-at-best ethics, these people don't just magically become executives in a vacuum, or by themselves.
  - feoren 4y ago
    The top 2 to 5 people in a corporation of 10,000+ don't "make the system". If the captain of a ship ordered it to ram into a giant rock, because he had taken an insurance policy out on the ship, that's not the ship deciding to wreck itself. That's the captain being a corrupt virus destroying value for his own personal gain. That is the game being played: extracting value that is "locked up" in corporate assets and long-term shareholders into the pockets of the short-term C-suite and high-level shareholders who will move on to another company later. Pump up this year's stock price as high as you can by laying people off, squeezing your customers, eliminating employee benefits, whatever you can do. Get your payout, then sell out and move to the next company while employees, customers, long-term shareholders, and long-term corporate partners are fucked.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - LesZedCB 4y ago
      Insurance companies don't sell policies to repeat offenders and known frauds... Neither do boards.
Tossrock 4y ago
“D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement,” Williams began. “But the brand is really under monetised.” - The CEO a month ago
- xen2xen1 4y ago
  So, first thing we do is piss off all our most ardent customers...
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    Really cannot stress enough how little Hasbro corporate would care if the hardcore D&D market were rounded up and shot immediately. They'd probably pay to have it happen if they could wrangle it from a project-management standpoint.

rcthompson 4y ago

I'm guessing the people making the decisions are separated from the people who interact with customers by many layers of managers (and also the decision makers exist in a different socioeconomic bubble than the customers), and the only message able to penetrate all those layers with any speed or urgency is "we're losing money".

msoucy 4y ago

If I had a nickel for every time WotC tried to change the OGL and the community got pissed, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice! (The first time is what gave us Pathfinder 1e in the first place, for those who don't know - they took D&D 3.5e, under the OGL 1.0, and made modifications and continued its spirit)

Throw10987 4y ago
I thought I was the only one old enough to remember that we have been here before. Back in the day I even had an email thread with Ryan Dancy about making software tooling based on the OGL, which was pretty non-committal and discouraged me from proceeding with any efforts.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  My understanding of that discouragement in general was in how the exclusive nature of the OGL prevented it from being combined with software licenses. Implementing OGL-covered rules in or with code covered by a different license was fraught, which makes OGL software development difficult unless you get permission (aka, a commercial license) from the copyright holder (WotC/Hasbro).[1][2] The existence of OGL-implementing tools is more a factor of WotC/Hasbro reserving attempts to enforce that on small fish in a small pond, but could be deployed against anything even marginally successful that wasn't tithing enough. (One example of a discussion around that is re: Pathfinder Online, another Ryan Dancey project, which avoided the OGL question entirely by implementing a different ruleset. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lhu1?One-is-the-Loneliest-Number#12 https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lhu1?One-is-the-Lo...) 1: https://archive.ph/yNaJT https://archive.ph/yNaJT > ... you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content. > One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs. > Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasn't studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used. 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20060913004016/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i https://web.archive.org/web/20060913004016/http://www.wizard... > NOTE: The biggest problem we've found with software and the OGL is that programmers aren't paying attention to Section 8 of the OGL. Section 8 states: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content." This doesn't mean you can say "all rules in my program are Open", the users need to be able to see all that Open Content. You can do this by putting Open Content in a format that is easy to understand. Popular solutions have been to place everything in text files that the program pulls info from, having everything in a viewable database within the software, using Java script on a webpage (viewing the source of the webpage will display the code and Java script is relatively easy for a user to interpret). The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort. The whole point of the OGL is that once information is declared Open everyone has free access to it under the OGL. Compiling that information into a program denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming License.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

VyseofArcadia 4y ago

I feel like execs are still not used to the idea that people with niche hobbies can form large groups over the internet, and, moreover, immediately take action in a way that hurts the company's bottom line. [0] Just think about how this would have gone down in the 80s or even the 90s. A few grumbles on a BBS or forums, but for the most part, no one is reading the fine text of the license in the book. There is no news about it, maybe a fanzine talks about it, but those only have so much distribution. People aren't informed enough to have an opinion, let alone do something about it. [0] Subscription-based models are a double-edged sword like that. Anyone can say, "well I won't buy the next edition's books", and even if they mean it, Hasbro can ignore that threat until they're out. But if people can instantly end their subscriptions, well, that's different.

Macha 4y ago
The current execs are recently from Microsoft's Xbox division so they're also probably more used to ineffectual video gamer boycotts, but because tabletop is not such a large group, a larger proportion of the audience is more likely to be plugged into the goings on specific to that industry.
- VyseofArcadia 4y ago
  > The current execs are recently from Microsoft's Xbox division Well, that explains pretty much everything.

havblue 4y ago

It sounds similar to Sears attempting to turn its customers into members. They don't have to worry about selling books: they can just sell app subscriptions, micro transactions and expansion content for campaigns involving everyone being tethered to their phones instead of their character sheets.

wardedVibe 4y ago

It works well in video games. All sorts of dark patterns that pump money from players.

feoren 4y ago

It's the Principal Agent problem. These decisions aren't being made by the company, they're being made by people. People who benefit enormously from a short-term stock price bump, but can easily jump to a different company once the long-term effects of their destruction start to show up.

LesZedCB 4y ago
do the people make the system, or does the system make the people? system being somewhat narrowly the executive duty to quarterly growth metrics for shareholders, the same shareholders which make up the board who chooses the execs, etc... while i absolutely believe there are plenty of people with questionable-at-best ethics, these people don't just magically become executives in a vacuum, or by themselves.
- feoren 4y ago
  The top 2 to 5 people in a corporation of 10,000+ don't "make the system". If the captain of a ship ordered it to ram into a giant rock, because he had taken an insurance policy out on the ship, that's not the ship deciding to wreck itself. That's the captain being a corrupt virus destroying value for his own personal gain. That is the game being played: extracting value that is "locked up" in corporate assets and long-term shareholders into the pockets of the short-term C-suite and high-level shareholders who will move on to another company later. Pump up this year's stock price as high as you can by laying people off, squeezing your customers, eliminating employee benefits, whatever you can do. Get your payout, then sell out and move to the next company while employees, customers, long-term shareholders, and long-term corporate partners are fucked.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LesZedCB 4y ago
    Insurance companies don't sell policies to repeat offenders and known frauds... Neither do boards.

Tossrock 4y ago

“D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement,” Williams began. “But the brand is really under monetised.” - The CEO a month ago

xen2xen1 4y ago
So, first thing we do is piss off all our most ardent customers...
- trynewideas 4y ago
  Really cannot stress enough how little Hasbro corporate would care if the hardcore D&D market were rounded up and shot immediately. They'd probably pay to have it happen if they could wrangle it from a project-management standpoint.