Except that your point there is subjective. I thought MPMB was difficult to use and unnecessarily complicated, and Orcpub was lacking features. Neither cared about having copyright protections in place, so they didn't have to worry about security, also both had patreon pages and were asking for money for their work, making much more per purchaser than Beyond does because they weren't paying licensing fees.
1. The problem with dismissing comments as suggestive is that your own words are victim to the same claim ("I thought MPMB was difficult to use and unnecessarily complicated, and Orcpub was lacking features." <-subjective). If you are going to advocate that the free content offered by Beyond is equal or better than the free content that o2p offered, I'm not going to debate that point with you.
2. Pretty huge assumption that the average D&D player online would know which online company is paying royalty fees and which isn't. There are many models, including ad revenue. For all any consumer knew, they could have been paying a fee to use the materials.
3. Also, if the company1 offer's content is offered for free, and company2 doesn't, you can't logically draw the conclusion that consumers that use free content lead to higher earnings. Unless you assume the ridiculous notion that everyone that used company1's free content donated the same amount that company2 charges; then sure company1 has less expenses.
The consumer's woe is that lack of market competition for a product always leads to higher prices.
1. no, my point was that there are varying opinions, showing you mine was merely the easiest way to prove my point that there is not a consensus. You are absolutely right that my opinion is subjective as well, so the idea of trying to claim one is better than the other should be taken off the table. Thank you for agreeing.
2. Where did I make any such assumption? Orcpub admitted that they were trying to secure licensing and were denied, they thought that rewording the rules instead of using the exact phrasing was enough to get around copyright protection.
3. I said nothing about the customers using the "free" content as my point was about the people actually subscribing to the patreons, but it was slightly poor wording as far as the rest of the point. My point being that if I subscribe to Orcpub patreon he gets 100% of that money, if I subscribe to Beyond, they pay licensing fees and don't get 100% of that money. The two services from that point have similar costs. I would rather pay for the subscription that supports the game that I love so they can make more awesome content.
I agree that lack of market competition leads to higher prices, that is why you have pathfinder and other RPGs on the market with their own digital toolsets. Also this is a completely optional component, if you don't like it you don't need it. 40+ years people have been playing D&D without it. There is also Roll20 and Fantasygrounds which can do similar character build options, so there is even more competition there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
Now, if someone were making unlicensed products and pretending that they were licensed, that might be a little tricky to tell... but it still wouldn't take more than googling for a Wizards of the Coast announcement of that product, which would only produce a result for a legitimately licensed (and thus approved by and encouraged by WotC) product.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2. Where did I make any such assumption? Orcpub admitted that they were trying to secure licensing and were denied, they thought that rewording the rules instead of using the exact phrasing was enough to get around copyright protection.
3. I said nothing about the customers using the "free" content as my point was about the people actually subscribing to the patreons, but it was slightly poor wording as far as the rest of the point. My point being that if I subscribe to Orcpub patreon he gets 100% of that money, if I subscribe to Beyond, they pay licensing fees and don't get 100% of that money. The two services from that point have similar costs. I would rather pay for the subscription that supports the game that I love so they can make more awesome content.
I agree that lack of market competition leads to higher prices, that is why you have pathfinder and other RPGs on the market with their own digital toolsets. Also this is a completely optional component, if you don't like it you don't need it. 40+ years people have been playing D&D without it. There is also Roll20 and Fantasygrounds which can do similar character build options, so there is even more competition there.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
It is no more "huge" an assumption that that I'm not indicative of the "average D&D player online" - and I know which online tools are paying licensing and which aren't in one simple, straightforward enough that I would call it obvious, way; If the offering isn't accompanied by mentions of "Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, their respective logos, and all Wizards titles and characters are property of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries. ©2017 Wizards." or the like, then it is definitely not legit.
Now, if someone were making unlicensed products and pretending that they were licensed, that might be a little tricky to tell... but it still wouldn't take more than googling for a Wizards of the Coast announcement of that product, which would only produce a result for a legitimately licensed (and thus approved by and encouraged by WotC) product.