Well if they warned us about ALC purchases going away, we would have made them all really quickly and they wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the situation. What they didn't count on is many people responding with simply doing without.
So many of the weird Devil's Advocates in this thread were going on about how "baseless" accusations like this are, when the odds are extremely high that this is exactly what happened.
It is easily within their power to dissuade people if it wasn't the case, and choosing not to is a choice in and of itself.
Showing your customers their opinion doesn't matter just doesn't seem like a good look when you're trying to sell new core books later in the year, is all I'm saying.
I don't think there was any official communication about the marketplace changes until a couple of days *after* it was rolled out. From what staff on the forums have posted this was deliberate as well, the higher ups (I assume WotC/Hasbro rather than DnDBeyond management) had instructed staff not to mention it beforehand.
Nooo, It's called word of mouth, which carries far further than your individual dollar. It makes other consumers aware of a shitty/greedy/exploitative deal. And it is killing shareholders the world over right now.
Both. Both have power in different ways.
You're right. But apologists like to pretend you only have the one, because they really want you to shut up and not influence others.
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a corporate puppet?
Nooo, It's called word of mouth, which carries far further than your individual dollar. It makes other consumers aware of a shitty/greedy/exploitative deal. And it is killing shareholders the world over right now.
Both. Both have power in different ways.
You're right. But apologists like to pretend you only have the one, because they really want you to shut up and not influence others.
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a corporate puppet?
The irony being that most of the “corporate puppets” and “devil’s advocates” on this thread were among the first voices to criticize the removal of a la carte purchases. And, unlike the angry, aggressive folks in the second wave of complainants, this first wave was articulate, well-reasoned, and, as a result, actually got the message across.
Then the second wave of conspiracy theorists, folks using this to make political rants against capitalism, and purely angry people came… and Wizards’ staff left. Now, that first wave is trying to simmer down the temperature by dispelling falsehoods, rampant speculation, misinformation, and conspiracies - not to shill for Wizards, but because they do not want their voice drowned out by the rabid snarls of ineffective advocacy.
Of course, to this group, “hey, let’s all try to stick to effective dissent, and maybe let’s avoid arguments about finances, since Wizards has the numbers and we don’t—so we can’t actually win that argument” is tantamount to “shilling for Wizards.” And, whether it is through anger or simple illiteracy, they miss the call to join in a united, firm, but still reasoned opposition and attack those effective voices who they should most want as their allies.
Granted, I do not really blame them - Wizards allowed the coalition of loud (far too often racist) voices to win on the OGL thing. Folks called it back then - allow the vocal minority to win on that issue, and some players will take the wrong message from their (though really the Washington Post and other papers’) victory.
Nooo, It's called word of mouth, which carries far further than your individual dollar. It makes other consumers aware of a shitty/greedy/exploitative deal. And it is killing shareholders the world over right now.
Both. Both have power in different ways.
You're right. But apologists like to pretend you only have the one, because they really want you to shut up and not influence others.
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a corporate puppet?
The irony being that most of the “corporate puppets” and “devil’s advocates” on this thread were among the first voices to criticize the removal of a la carte purchases. And, unlike the angry, aggressive folks in the second wave of complainants, this first wave was articulate, well-reasoned, and, as a result, actually got the message across.
Then the second wave of conspiracy theorists, folks using this to make political rants against capitalism, and purely angry people came… and Wizards’ staff left. Now, that first wave is trying to simmer down the temperature by dispelling falsehoods, rampant speculation, misinformation, and conspiracies - not to shill for Wizards, but because they do not want their voice drowned out by the rabid snarls of ineffective advocacy.
Of course, to this group, “hey, let’s all try to stick to effective dissent, and maybe let’s avoid arguments about finances, since Wizards has the numbers and we don’t—so we can’t actually win that argument” is tantamount to “shilling for Wizards. And, whether it is through anger or simple illiteracy, they miss the call to join in a united, firm, but still reasoned opposition and attack those effective voices who they should most want as their allies.
Granted, I do not really blame them - Wizards allowed the coalition of loud (far too often racist) voices to win on the OGL thing. Folks called it back then - allow the vocal minority to win on that issue, and some players will take the wrong message from their (though really the Washington Post and other papers’) victory.
If the first wave had any effect, there would have been a useful official response by now, but the only one we got explained nothing at all and just reiterated that the removal happened.
The lack of any real response naturally wasn't going to please people. Customers are dissatisfied and not being communicated with to any effective degree. People who feel that way aren't going to be very receptive to being talked down to, which is what it sounds like when what you're essentially saying is "They know better than you, they don't have to do anything. You were mean so they were right not to update you." Whatever the intent actually was, it came across as smug contrarianism for the sake of it at the expense of those upset by the change.
Just in general it feels like a lot more time has been spent policing the tone of dissent than anything else, especially in the latter half of this topic.
I don't know where the claims of a call to join in a united front are coming from, anyone I've personally seen that isn't upset by the change has been essentially saying "They know where the money goes, you shouldn't be fighting this. You don't know what you're talking about, no wonder the staff left." It claims to be more constructive than people being angry but in effect it's really not. It's neutral at best.
anyone I've personally seen that isn't upset by the change has been essentially saying "They know where the money goes, you shouldn't be fighting this. You don't know what you're talking about, no wonder the staff left." It claims to be more constructive than people being angry but in effect it's really not. It's neutral at best.
I'm not personally upset by the change because I didn't use the option, so its absence is no skin off of my nose. However, my point isn't that you shouldn't be upset, just that you shouldn't engage in conspiracy theories, because the core problem with thinking that this is some big money-making scheme by Wizards is... it's an incredibly bad scheme. Phasing out products in favor of new (and more profitable) products is something corporations do all the time, but they typically do it on a boiling-the-frog method, where they make the option increasingly unappealing until by the time they actually get rid of it, no-one cares.
That said, this is a symptom of something that's worth being bothered about, particularly if you use subscriptions: D&D Beyond is mostly in maintenance mode. In the past two years, the only new feature the site has received is an alpha version of Maps.
anyone I've personally seen that isn't upset by the change has been essentially saying "They know where the money goes, you shouldn't be fighting this. You don't know what you're talking about, no wonder the staff left." It claims to be more constructive than people being angry but in effect it's really not. It's neutral at best.
I'm not personally upset by the change because I didn't use the option, so its absence is no skin off of my nose. However, my point isn't that you shouldn't be upset, just that you shouldn't engage in conspiracy theories, because the core problem with thinking that this is some big money-making scheme by Wizards is... it's an incredibly bad scheme. Phasing out products in favor of new (and more profitable) products is something corporations do all the time, but they typically do it on a boiling-the-frog method, where they make the option increasingly unappealing until by the time they actually get rid of it, no-one cares.
That said, this is a symptom of something that's worth being bothered about, particularly if you use subscriptions: D&D Beyond is mostly in maintenance mode. In the past two years, the only new feature the site has received is an alpha version of Maps.
Without proper communication to confirm or deny the true source of the issue all you're left with is speculation.
This is a terrible decision and a dark day for dndbeyond. I can't tell you how many people I've introduced to this site over the years because of the ability to buy the content you need, when you need it. I started off by using the microtransactions feature and eventually ended up spending probably hundreds on here over the years.
Severely disappointed, and just steered away my latest group of players from the site after learning this.
anyone I've personally seen that isn't upset by the change has been essentially saying "They know where the money goes, you shouldn't be fighting this. You don't know what you're talking about, no wonder the staff left." It claims to be more constructive than people being angry but in effect it's really not. It's neutral at best.
I'm not personally upset by the change because I didn't use the option, so its absence is no skin off of my nose. However, my point isn't that you shouldn't be upset, just that you shouldn't engage in conspiracy theories, because the core problem with thinking that this is some big money-making scheme by Wizards is... it's an incredibly bad scheme. Phasing out products in favor of new (and more profitable) products is something corporations do all the time, but they typically do it on a boiling-the-frog method, where they make the option increasingly unappealing until by the time they actually get rid of it, no-one cares.
That said, this is a symptom of something that's worth being bothered about, particularly if you use subscriptions: D&D Beyond is mostly in maintenance mode. In the past two years, the only new feature the site has received is an alpha version of Maps.
THe process is called "enshittification". It is a technical term, and every endpoint consumer who runs into is always correct to be upset by it and act on it as they choose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DId you know? The DDB marketplace has REMOVED the option for purchasing one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters "a la carte". Now you ALWAYS have to buy the ENTIRE book instead.
Unhappy? UNSUBSCRIBE and Let them know your thoughts!
This is a terrible decision and a dark day for dndbeyond. I can't tell you how many people I've introduced to this site over the years because of the ability to buy the content you need, when you need it. I started off by using the microtransactions feature and eventually ended up spending probably hundreds on here over the years.
Severely disappointed, and just steered away my latest group of players from the site after learning this.
And in the capitalist model, that is exactly what a consumer should do. Vote with their wallet.
I still think this is a trial balloon being floated by wotc. They have a full financial quarter to analyze the impact, before the Sept rollout of 6e. If the sales numbers in the next quarter are not impacted by this, or are stronger, then this thing sticks. If there is a sharp falloff in sales, this might be backed out before Sept. That is the only thing that matters to wotc is profits, or any other corporation operating in a capitalist model, also known as the modern world.
This is why I just don't get the people saying it couldn't possibly be financially motivated and that we don't understand because they have the numbers in front of them and we don't.
Companies are near universally motivated by finance, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to know this and speculate based off of it especially since there's no other inherent benefit to them for removing this option.
I would say that they more than likely want to try things out without the option for the new content. They want to see exactly how much they lose without it. Or they have plans for implementing something like piecemeal purchases but are just waiting.
In the end I would rather they have just made a new 5.5E website and left the piecemeal option on this one and cut them off on the new one. Than when they quit selling the 5E hard cover books they can announce no more updates for 5E digital and give everyone 6 months to make their last 5E digital purchases.
I still think this is a trial balloon being floated by wotc. They have a full financial quarter to analyze the impact, before the Sept rollout of 6e. If the sales numbers in the next quarter are not impacted by this, or are stronger, then this thing sticks. If there is a sharp falloff in sales, this might be backed out before Sept. That is the only thing that matters to wotc is profits, or any other corporation operating in a capitalist model, also known as the modern world.
If there was a trial balloon, it was book of many things.
But I think they have, for whatever reason, decided to do it. This doesn't mean they won't change their minds if it turns out to fare poorly, but it won't be back by September -- there's not enough time to get a good measure of results, then develop and test a new new marketplace (because the current one can't even really do the much simpler digital-physical bundle as a single item), and roll it out, fixing the inevitable problems, all before the new PHB drops.
Also, the new PHB is likely the single biggest potential financial beneficiary of not having piecemeal purchasing -- it's probably the only book where significant numbers of people will say "I want X now, so I might as well buy the whole thing, because it'll get used eventually."
If they do reverse course, we're probably looking at a year minimum, and likely longer. (Also, the runup to a new edition and then the release of said edition are the worst time to get reliable numbers on how this is going to affect sales.)
Incidentally: if you want to send a message that Wizards will actually hear, there's a simple rule: if you don't think what they're offering is worth the price they're asking... don't buy it.
I still think this is a trial balloon being floated by wotc. They have a full financial quarter to analyze the impact, before the Sept rollout of 6e. If the sales numbers in the next quarter are not impacted by this, or are stronger, then this thing sticks. If there is a sharp falloff in sales, this might be backed out before Sept. That is the only thing that matters to wotc is profits, or any other corporation operating in a capitalist model, also known as the modern world.
If there was a trial balloon, it was book of many things.
But I think they have, for whatever reason, decided to do it. This doesn't mean they won't change their minds if it turns out to fare poorly, but it won't be back by September -- there's not enough time to get a good measure of results, then develop and test a new new marketplace (because the current one can't even really do the much simpler digital-physical bundle as a single item), and roll it out, fixing the inevitable problems, all before the new PHB drops.
Also, the new PHB is likely the single biggest potential financial beneficiary of not having piecemeal purchasing -- it's probably the only book where significant numbers of people will say "I want X now, so I might as well buy the whole thing, because it'll get used eventually."
If they do reverse course, we're probably looking at a year minimum, and likely longer. (Also, the runup to a new edition and then the release of said edition are the worst time to get reliable numbers on how this is going to affect sales.)
I feel like the new PHB is a bad example for them to test this on, because if what I've been reading is correct the subclasses on offer were purposely designed as if you did buy piecemeal from 5e already. (In that, there are subclasses from 5e included that were from supplementary books).
Just in general it feels like a lot more time has been spent policing the tone of dissent than anything else, especially in the latter half of this topic.
I don't know where the claims of a call to join in a united front are coming from, anyone I've personally seen that isn't upset by the change has been essentially saying "They know where the money goes, you shouldn't be fighting this. You don't know what you're talking about, no wonder the staff left." It claims to be more constructive than people being angry but in effect it's really not. It's neutral at best.
Besides the random poster or two on here, I cannot name a single person - player OR dm - who isn't upset about this. Everyone I know in person is in unanimous agreement that this was done out of petty greed and strongly anti-consumer. All of my friends and online DnD group believe its out of greed as well. Heavy discussions about the DnD group's future are going on as I type this.
This is a terrible decision and a dark day for dndbeyond. I can't tell you how many people I've introduced to this site over the years because of the ability to buy the content you need, when you need it. I started off by using the microtransactions feature and eventually ended up spending probably hundreds on here over the years.
Severely disappointed, and just steered away my latest group of players from the site after learning this.
And in the capitalist model, that is exactly what a consumer should do. Vote with their wallet.
I still think this is a trial balloon being floated by wotc. They have a full financial quarter to analyze the impact, before the Sept rollout of 6e. If the sales numbers in the next quarter are not impacted by this, or are stronger, then this thing sticks. If there is a sharp falloff in sales, this might be backed out before Sept. That is the only thing that matters to wotc is profits, or any other corporation operating in a capitalist model, also known as the modern world.
This is why I just don't get the people saying it couldn't possibly be financially motivated and that we don't understand because they have the numbers in front of them and we don't.
Companies are near universally motivated by finance, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to know this and speculate based off of it especially since there's no other inherent benefit to them for removing this option.
Yes corporations are financially motivated, but without knowing BOTH their short and long term goals it is virtually impossible to know why they do anything. It is quite common to take a short term loss if they believe it will be offset by the time the rest of the plan, say a walled garden model, couple this with how they have treated DDB, and their customers since acquiring DDB and you would have to be a real WotC sympathizer to defend any of the assanine decisions in the last couple of years.
It is also worth noting the level of gatekeeping many of the sympathizers are willing to employ alongside the logical fallacies to belittle those that are voicing their concerns about how WotC is treating all of its customers.
I particularly scratch my head when I see it doesn't affect me so quit whining posts from members quick to label others as gatekeeping when they are talk8ng about private games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Yes corporations are financially motivated, but without knowing BOTH their short and long term goals it is virtually impossible to know why they do anything. It is quite common to take a short term loss if they believe it will be offset by the time the rest of the plan, say a walled garden model, couple this with how they have treated DDB, and their customers since acquiring DDB and you would have to be a real WotC sympathizer to defend any of the assanine decisions in the last couple of years.
It is also worth noting the level of gatekeeping many of the sympathizers are willing to employ alongside the logical fallacies to belittle those that are voicing their concerns about how WotC is treating all of its customers.
I particularly scratch my head when I see it doesn't affect me so quit whining posts from members quick to label others as gatekeeping when they are talk8ng about private games.
Those coupled with the "Quit your baseless speculation!! Anyway, here's my equally baseless speculations as to why WotC did it the way they did" posts absolutely baffle me.
This is why I just don't get the people saying it couldn't possibly be financially motivated and that we don't understand because they have the numbers in front of them and we don't.
Companies are near universally motivated by finance, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to know this and speculate based off of it especially since there's no other inherent benefit to them for removing this option.
Again, they didn't remove the option. They didn't implement the option, and the inherent benefit is "didn't need to spend money and development resources on implementing it"; their win isn't increasing sales, it's reducing expenses. Now, I wouldn't be shocked if someone is hostile to the option, but if that was a major motivating factor, they wouldn't have waited until the new store came online.
This is why I just don't get the people saying it couldn't possibly be financially motivated and that we don't understand because they have the numbers in front of them and we don't.
Companies are near universally motivated by finance, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to know this and speculate based off of it especially since there's no other inherent benefit to them for removing this option.
Again, they didn't remove the option. They didn't implement the option, and the inherent benefit is "didn't need to spend money and development resources on implementing it"; their win isn't increasing sales, it's reducing expenses. Now, I wouldn't be shocked if someone is hostile to the option, but if that was a major motivating factor, they wouldn't have waited until the new store came online.
Now this is just splitting hairs and you know it.
Functionally removing from the old and not including in the new are one in the same, either way a formerly available option is gone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So many of the weird Devil's Advocates in this thread were going on about how "baseless" accusations like this are, when the odds are extremely high that this is exactly what happened.
It is easily within their power to dissuade people if it wasn't the case, and choosing not to is a choice in and of itself.
Showing your customers their opinion doesn't matter just doesn't seem like a good look when you're trying to sell new core books later in the year, is all I'm saying.
I don't think there was any official communication about the marketplace changes until a couple of days *after* it was rolled out. From what staff on the forums have posted this was deliberate as well, the higher ups (I assume WotC/Hasbro rather than DnDBeyond management) had instructed staff not to mention it beforehand.
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a corporate puppet?
Terra Lubridia archive:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Gut | The Athene Crusader | The Jewel of Atlantis
The irony being that most of the “corporate puppets” and “devil’s advocates” on this thread were among the first voices to criticize the removal of a la carte purchases. And, unlike the angry, aggressive folks in the second wave of complainants, this first wave was articulate, well-reasoned, and, as a result, actually got the message across.
Then the second wave of conspiracy theorists, folks using this to make political rants against capitalism, and purely angry people came… and Wizards’ staff left. Now, that first wave is trying to simmer down the temperature by dispelling falsehoods, rampant speculation, misinformation, and conspiracies - not to shill for Wizards, but because they do not want their voice drowned out by the rabid snarls of ineffective advocacy.
Of course, to this group, “hey, let’s all try to stick to effective dissent, and maybe let’s avoid arguments about finances, since Wizards has the numbers and we don’t—so we can’t actually win that argument” is tantamount to “shilling for Wizards.” And, whether it is through anger or simple illiteracy, they miss the call to join in a united, firm, but still reasoned opposition and attack those effective voices who they should most want as their allies.
Granted, I do not really blame them - Wizards allowed the coalition of loud (far too often racist) voices to win on the OGL thing. Folks called it back then - allow the vocal minority to win on that issue, and some players will take the wrong message from their (though really the Washington Post and other papers’) victory.
If the first wave had any effect, there would have been a useful official response by now, but the only one we got explained nothing at all and just reiterated that the removal happened.
The lack of any real response naturally wasn't going to please people. Customers are dissatisfied and not being communicated with to any effective degree. People who feel that way aren't going to be very receptive to being talked down to, which is what it sounds like when what you're essentially saying is "They know better than you, they don't have to do anything. You were mean so they were right not to update you." Whatever the intent actually was, it came across as smug contrarianism for the sake of it at the expense of those upset by the change.
Just in general it feels like a lot more time has been spent policing the tone of dissent than anything else, especially in the latter half of this topic.
I don't know where the claims of a call to join in a united front are coming from, anyone I've personally seen that isn't upset by the change has been essentially saying "They know where the money goes, you shouldn't be fighting this. You don't know what you're talking about, no wonder the staff left." It claims to be more constructive than people being angry but in effect it's really not. It's neutral at best.
I'm not personally upset by the change because I didn't use the option, so its absence is no skin off of my nose. However, my point isn't that you shouldn't be upset, just that you shouldn't engage in conspiracy theories, because the core problem with thinking that this is some big money-making scheme by Wizards is... it's an incredibly bad scheme. Phasing out products in favor of new (and more profitable) products is something corporations do all the time, but they typically do it on a boiling-the-frog method, where they make the option increasingly unappealing until by the time they actually get rid of it, no-one cares.
That said, this is a symptom of something that's worth being bothered about, particularly if you use subscriptions: D&D Beyond is mostly in maintenance mode. In the past two years, the only new feature the site has received is an alpha version of Maps.
Without proper communication to confirm or deny the true source of the issue all you're left with is speculation.
This is a terrible decision and a dark day for dndbeyond. I can't tell you how many people I've introduced to this site over the years because of the ability to buy the content you need, when you need it. I started off by using the microtransactions feature and eventually ended up spending probably hundreds on here over the years.
Severely disappointed, and just steered away my latest group of players from the site after learning this.
// Myco Gnome // Fungus themed Subrace
THe process is called "enshittification". It is a technical term, and every endpoint consumer who runs into is always correct to be upset by it and act on it as they choose.
DId you know?
The DDB marketplace has REMOVED the option for purchasing one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters "a la carte".
Now you ALWAYS have to buy the ENTIRE book instead.
Unhappy? UNSUBSCRIBE and
Let them know your thoughts!
This is why I just don't get the people saying it couldn't possibly be financially motivated and that we don't understand because they have the numbers in front of them and we don't.
Companies are near universally motivated by finance, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to know this and speculate based off of it especially since there's no other inherent benefit to them for removing this option.
I would say that they more than likely want to try things out without the option for the new content.
They want to see exactly how much they lose without it.
Or they have plans for implementing something like piecemeal purchases but are just waiting.
In the end I would rather they have just made a new 5.5E website and left the piecemeal option on this one and cut them off on the new one.
Than when they quit selling the 5E hard cover books they can announce no more updates for 5E digital and give everyone 6 months to make their last 5E digital purchases.
If there was a trial balloon, it was book of many things.
But I think they have, for whatever reason, decided to do it. This doesn't mean they won't change their minds if it turns out to fare poorly, but it won't be back by September -- there's not enough time to get a good measure of results, then develop and test a new new marketplace (because the current one can't even really do the much simpler digital-physical bundle as a single item), and roll it out, fixing the inevitable problems, all before the new PHB drops.
Also, the new PHB is likely the single biggest potential financial beneficiary of not having piecemeal purchasing -- it's probably the only book where significant numbers of people will say "I want X now, so I might as well buy the whole thing, because it'll get used eventually."
If they do reverse course, we're probably looking at a year minimum, and likely longer. (Also, the runup to a new edition and then the release of said edition are the worst time to get reliable numbers on how this is going to affect sales.)
Incidentally: if you want to send a message that Wizards will actually hear, there's a simple rule: if you don't think what they're offering is worth the price they're asking... don't buy it.
I feel like the new PHB is a bad example for them to test this on, because if what I've been reading is correct the subclasses on offer were purposely designed as if you did buy piecemeal from 5e already. (In that, there are subclasses from 5e included that were from supplementary books).
Besides the random poster or two on here, I cannot name a single person - player OR dm - who isn't upset about this. Everyone I know in person is in unanimous agreement that this was done out of petty greed and strongly anti-consumer. All of my friends and online DnD group believe its out of greed as well. Heavy discussions about the DnD group's future are going on as I type this.
Yes corporations are financially motivated, but without knowing BOTH their short and long term goals it is virtually impossible to know why they do anything. It is quite common to take a short term loss if they believe it will be offset by the time the rest of the plan, say a walled garden model, couple this with how they have treated DDB, and their customers since acquiring DDB and you would have to be a real WotC sympathizer to defend any of the assanine decisions in the last couple of years.
It is also worth noting the level of gatekeeping many of the sympathizers are willing to employ alongside the logical fallacies to belittle those that are voicing their concerns about how WotC is treating all of its customers.
I particularly scratch my head when I see it doesn't affect me so quit whining posts from members quick to label others as gatekeeping when they are talk8ng about private games.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Those coupled with the "Quit your baseless speculation!! Anyway, here's my equally baseless speculations as to why WotC did it the way they did" posts absolutely baffle me.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].Again, they didn't remove the option. They didn't implement the option, and the inherent benefit is "didn't need to spend money and development resources on implementing it"; their win isn't increasing sales, it's reducing expenses. Now, I wouldn't be shocked if someone is hostile to the option, but if that was a major motivating factor, they wouldn't have waited until the new store came online.
Now this is just splitting hairs and you know it.
Functionally removing from the old and not including in the new are one in the same, either way a formerly available option is gone.