So yeah, I have no real compliant I guess. I just want to know whether or not there is a legal way for DnD:B to exist if WotC launches it's own platform and pulls it's Copyright?
The short answer is "No", but the longer answer is that there may be contract terms that limit Wizards' ability to do that (it's not impossible that DDB will put out an official statement on the issue, but if they do, they won't do it in a forum thread).
My concern was the shift in leadership by WotC to a almost Bobby Kotick style leadership team (Williams and Fields). When I start hearing the people hired to be in charge of WoTC is the same person who created Candy Crush, Marvel Alliance, Call of Duty 1-500, and the phone based transformer games, I start hearing warning bells.
Not for nothing, but Fields literally wrote a book on how to monetize customer's need for addictive mobile game systems. He's also a big component of analytics and skirting the line between open source customer data and meta data groping.
<snip>
My quarter nickel, FWIW:
Mobile gaming and TTRPGs are pretty much two different worlds and, unless the "metaverse" and AI development are a lot closer than I think they are, I don't expect anything playable on our phones (or consoles, or even PCs) is going to replace the tabletop experience anytime soon - if ever.
However, developing mobile games (and other digital products) under the Dungeons and Dragons IP produces additional revenue streams in their own right in addition to potentially steering players to the tabletop side.
This doesn't mean WotC/Hasbro mightn't want to have something like DDB under their own control at some point, but hiring a mobile gaming guy doesn't directly point in that direction.
D&D is heavily steeped in nostalgia and tradition. I have no doubt that the new leadership indicates that they will be trying hard to further monetize the IP, but they don't need to mess with the core TTPRG to do that. They can release D&D Pop Its or Flappy Beholder for your phone or any number of other products that carry the D&D name, and I definitely think that's coming.
It's not idealistic/naive to think that they will mostly leave D&D alone. Books make money and licensing makes money. Eschewing books and screwing over current licensing partners are not good business decisions. 5e has been a huge success, and there's little reason to change course at the moment. Letting the core of the brand continue to prosper with few changes while spinning off a bunch of other products seems much more likely to me.
But totally aside from that, I think it's important to understand exactly what DDB is and what you're paying for. DDB is a service, it is not your D&D library. You're not buying books here, you're buying content for use with this service exclusively. Whether that's fine or a scam is totally up to what the service is worth to you, but having expectations that are different from reality is not going to change that reality.
I honestly feel if WotC is going to do something that would end DDB, that it will be to purchase DDB outright as developing anything along the lines of DDB would cost more than potentially just buying it outright.
DDB isn't terrible, but let's be honest - it's not great either. If this was WotC's thing, with all the not yet implemented/probably never going to happen functionality, we'd be saying it was terrible. DDB gets cut some slack because they have no control over what WotC releases, and even then there's plenty of users who are a bit fed up with the lack of progress on certain features. And if this scenario would be the result of D&D getting a new edition, it's unlikely a whole lot of DDB's code would be useful for tools for that. Cost is not the main consideration. Value is. And DDB's code's value to WotC may be a lot less than what you think.
I myself find DDB as an awesome resource for my games which are in person games as I have yet to find anything I like online. But the biggest value DDB has to WotC for a reason to be purchased is its employees it has that are working at making DDB better daily even if it does happen slowly.
I also love DDB. I don't get why develouping is so hard for them, but I'm not at their HQ either, so maybe I'm just a jerk.
DDB is fantastic for Character building, but pretty lame when it comes to gameplay. Compare that to Roll20 which is a great VTT.
Honestly, conflicting tech among several companies probably makes them more money than making their own ever could.
It's not idealistic/naive to think that they will mostly leave D&D alone. Books make money and licensing makes money. Eschewing books and screwing over current licensing partners are not good business decisions. 5e has been a huge success, and there's little reason to change course at the moment. Letting the core of the brand continue to prosper with few changes while spinning off a bunch of other products seems much more likely to me.
Yep, and looking at simply the new faces coming on board to WotC neglects the fact that no one was fired from WotC because its products lines were thought broken. Quite the contrary, you have WotC alum promoted higher within Hasbro, and it would just seem weird from a management standpoint to be saying, "We like what you've done leading this product so we're advancing you so your skills to be applied to the entire company ... and we're going to hire some folks who are going to take a wrecking ball to your success and run the product on totally different practics." These new hires are to grow the brand not transform what D&D fundamentally is or how it's distributed. Will there likely be new, possibly digital products in addition to books and the like, probably, but every other game and toy Hasbro puts out still bears a strong resemblance to the formats it was produced in decades ago, with additional products to sustain engagement with the consumer market.
I think the new hires coupled with a 2% stakeholder trying to pull a activist stunt (for reasons that don't make sense to me) are agitating people ... and that may say something about the reception of WotC as a brand custodian of D&D but I don't think it says anything about it in terms of the bottom line considerations that its business moves are truly predicated upon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not gonna lie, but even suggesting that a major company in 2022 might, as a token of good will, give the customers of their potential rival, "Free copies" of their rightful IP, is at best laughable, and at worst, naive and foolish. I mean, that's the president suggesting we drink bleach to combat COVID levels of silly. I don't doubt with every fiber of my being that the people who think of DnD as a "Live service" wouldn't JUMP at the chance to force users to re-purchase their libraries. DnD:B literally did just that, with the express consent and permission of WotC, if your remember. Now you seem to literally think WoTC wouldn't force us to do it all over again, but would literally give up 90% of their product for free because a competitor sold it too them first? Even though they took a percentage cut of the sale?
Considering that to buy the new book on day 1 you had to buy it in a pack of three books, two of which avid fans likely already own copies of, rather than being able to just buy the new book alone, yeah I wouldn't put any faith in WOTC avoiding people having to re buy books if they can get away with it.
Not gonna lie, but even suggesting that a major company in 2022 might, as a token of good will, give the customers of their potential rival, "Free copies" of their rightful IP, is at best laughable, and at worst, naive and foolish. I mean, that's the president suggesting we drink bleach to combat COVID levels of silly. I don't doubt with every fiber of my being that the people who think of DnD as a "Live service" wouldn't JUMP at the chance to force users to re-purchase their libraries. DnD:B literally did just that, with the express consent and permission of WotC, if your remember. Now you seem to literally think WoTC wouldn't force us to do it all over again, but would literally give up 90% of their product for free because a competitor sold it too them first? Even though they took a percentage cut of the sale?
Considering that to buy the new book on day 1 you had to buy it in a pack of three books, two of which avid fans likely already own copies of, rather than being able to just buy the new book alone, yeah I wouldn't put any faith in WOTC avoiding people having to re buy books if they can get away with it.
They've done it at least six times already, with variations on d20 rules since the original version of D&D. Why stop now? :-)
Not gonna lie, but even suggesting that a major company in 2022 might, as a token of good will, give the customers of their potential rival, "Free copies" of their rightful IP, is at best laughable, and at worst, naive and foolish. I mean, that's the president suggesting we drink bleach to combat COVID levels of silly. I don't doubt with every fiber of my being that the people who think of DnD as a "Live service" wouldn't JUMP at the chance to force users to re-purchase their libraries. DnD:B literally did just that, with the express consent and permission of WotC, if your remember. Now you seem to literally think WoTC wouldn't force us to do it all over again, but would literally give up 90% of their product for free because a competitor sold it too them first? Even though they took a percentage cut of the sale?
Considering that to buy the new book on day 1 you had to buy it in a pack of three books, two of which avid fans likely already own copies of, rather than being able to just buy the new book alone, yeah I wouldn't put any faith in WOTC avoiding people having to re buy books if they can get away with it.
They've done it at least six times already, with variations on d20 rules since the original version of D&D. Why stop now? :-)
With new versions of the game, there are new rules/mechanics etc, so that makes sense to shake the game up over time. Buying the 4th Edition PHB and then buying the 5th Edition handbook isn't really rebuying the same book you already own.
Unless you meant something else, I'm not super familiar with the specifics of D&D's past so maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
Which conjectures around the same tea leaves everyone else knows ... and fails on the only fact it's able to speak to. MMM is not a replacement for the MM. On the beastiary side of things. It in fact updates what's in MToF and VGtM, so functionally stands next to the MM and replaces the game's other two bestiary books. An article prognosticating on the future of D&D that can't get the function of a existing book right sorta blows credibility on a "wargamer bro, do you even D&D bro?"
I would like to see D&D Beyond eventually expand to allow players/users to select their ruleset to play in.
1.0
2.0 AD&D
3.5
5.0
Etc...
I just don't see that ever happening without a massive influx of resources into D&D Beyond's present operations. I mean there are a number of threads where people are requesting more fuller support of things available in 5e (particularly the DMG) that aren't supported ... and the prior editions of the games often had more options and options that weren't as streamlined as 5e, which would likely mean legacy editions would be harder to implement. So from a capacity standpoint and likely market standpoint (while a few TTRPG players do in fact do this, most players don't venture back into prior editions or rules, the literal bigger money is providing most current and supported systems) it just doesn't seem likely. What you want is probably best found in some of the VTT providers with robust communities supporting older editions, like Foundry; but those are labors of love done within a commercial environment, not an actual business practice other than giving communities the ability to introduce modules of content based on legacy rules.
Which conjectures around the same tea leaves everyone else knows ... and fails on the only fact it's able to speak to. MMM is not a replacement for the MM. On the beastiary side of things. It in fact updates what's in MToF and VGtM, so functionally stands next to the MM and replaces the game's other two bestiary books. An article prognosticating on the future of D&D that can't get the function of a existing book right sorta blows credibility on a "wargamer bro, do you even D&D bro?"
Just WOW!
"Do I even D&D bro?" Why on earth would you make that comment. I know that the article has a misinterpretation on the MM and is inaccurate but some of the other points in the article may have some distant merit.
Yes, I play D&D and DM as well and have been doing so since 1979. I really don't understand why you would make this comment.
If WotC decides to drop DnD:B and make their own proprietary and trademarked system for online sales, do we still get to keep our books through DnD:B?
Welcome to the cloud.
This issue has been asked for the last twenty or more years, and will probably be asked for the next twenty. Its a good question.
Sometimes the answer is, "Yes, you will lose access to your stuff." It's a gamble, and something to consider when subscribing to an online-only service.
For example, when Games for Windows Live shut down, I lost the ability to run several games I was playing. The same has happened to several older games when the publishers shut down the online servers (Sacred, Diablo). Nothing I can do about it.
Which conjectures around the same tea leaves everyone else knows ... and fails on the only fact it's able to speak to. MMM is not a replacement for the MM. On the beastiary side of things. It in fact updates what's in MToF and VGtM, so functionally stands next to the MM and replaces the game's other two bestiary books. An article prognosticating on the future of D&D that can't get the function of a existing book right sorta blows credibility on a "wargamer bro, do you even D&D bro?"
Just WOW!
"Do I even D&D bro?" Why on earth would you make that comment. I know that the article has a misinterpretation on the MM and is inaccurate but some of the other points in the article may have some distant merit.
Yes, I play D&D and DM as well and have been doing so since 1979. I really don't understand why you would make this comment.
Not you, wargamer bro - IOW, whoever wrote the article (apparently a Warhammer fan with a dice addiction named Alex Evans). Which is a fair question to ask, honestly - sites like this one try to cast a wide net and will put out articles on anything somewhat related to their interests ("all things wargaming and tabletop games, including news, features, guides, reviews, and more" in this case) without necessarily having someone knowledgeable enough doing the writing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Which conjectures around the same tea leaves everyone else knows ... and fails on the only fact it's able to speak to. MMM is not a replacement for the MM. On the beastiary side of things. It in fact updates what's in MToF and VGtM, so functionally stands next to the MM and replaces the game's other two bestiary books. An article prognosticating on the future of D&D that can't get the function of a existing book right sorta blows credibility on a "wargamer bro, do you even D&D bro?"
Just WOW!
"Do I even D&D bro?" Why on earth would you make that comment. I know that the article has a misinterpretation on the MM and is inaccurate but some of the other points in the article may have some distant merit.
If the only factual statement is a misrepresentation, that sort of belies any credibility. "Distant merit" is what I think most folks who would read the article call "off the mark.:
Yes, I play D&D and DM as well and have been doing so since 1979. I really don't understand why you would make this comment.
I'm sorry if my dissing the article's credibility was taken as a personal slight, but the comment was directed at the poorly backgrounded article. This is actually a problem not just in game journalism, but real life journalism too,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Which conjectures around the same tea leaves everyone else knows ... and fails on the only fact it's able to speak to. MMM is not a replacement for the MM. On the beastiary side of things. It in fact updates what's in MToF and VGtM, so functionally stands next to the MM and replaces the game's other two bestiary books. An article prognosticating on the future of D&D that can't get the function of a existing book right sorta blows credibility on a "wargamer bro, do you even D&D bro?"
Just WOW!
"Do I even D&D bro?" Why on earth would you make that comment. I know that the article has a misinterpretation on the MM and is inaccurate but some of the other points in the article may have some distant merit.
If the only factual statement is a misrepresentation, that sort of belies any credibility. "Distant merit" is what I think most folks who would read the article call "off the mark.:
Yes, I play D&D and DM as well and have been doing so since 1979. I really don't understand why you would make this comment.
I'm sorry if my dissing the article's credibility was taken as a personal slight, but the comment was directed at the poorly backgrounded article. This is actually a problem not just in game journalism, but real life journalism too,
Ya from reading that article it really sounds like they have no clue as to what they are talking about, stating that the update release in 2024 will be 5th edition. I honestly feel that the 2024 update will be full on 5.5 and nothing more then that.
Ya from reading that article it really sounds like they have no clue as to what they are talking about, stating that the update release in 2024 will be 5th edition. I honestly feel that the 2024 update will be full on 5.5 and nothing more then that.
Your own comment is that you feel it will be 5.5 which means it has about the same base confirmation as the article stating it will be 6.0.
Ya from reading that article it really sounds like they have no clue as to what they are talking about, stating that the update release in 2024 will be 5th edition. I honestly feel that the 2024 update will be full on 5.5 and nothing more then that.
Your own comment is that you feel it will be 5.5 which means it has about the same base confirmation as the article stating it will be 6.0.
He's making a comment on a forum, not writing an article on a website that pretends to be knowledgeable and informed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In 5 years time, I expect the landscape to look quite different:
Wizards will have their own 3D Virtual Tabletop with fully customisable character and monster models a-la Heroforge. See Talespire's development for an idea of what this will be like. This will enable them to create all the D&D monsters just as they want to in their own IP.
All of the books and character sheets will be fully integrated alongside this system.
D&D Beyond will be bought out by Hasbro and will be integrated into core D&D products.
You'll probably pay a subscription like World of Warcraft, and the DM will pay for the books they need for spells and other rules to be integrated easily.
Not read all the posts but, a very viable option for WOTC would be to Buy DnD beyond, you instantly get a registered user base, most of the dev work is done for you meaning that you can "go live" immediately. In addition you have integration to Discord already set up to go and Above VTT as another viable product to buy up as a tabletop simulator.
The 2 new hires come from Microsoft, a company well known for acquiring technologies it wanted rather than build from scratch.
4e had a vast amount of online content including very popular character creator apps. All of this was shut down by WotC when 5e launched to encourage 4e players to switch systems. People who were a year into a 5 year campaign story were SOL. However, they did refund prepaid subscriptions fees, so this shouldn't create an issue for subscribers. If all the books I bought are deleted the day 6e launches, I will not be buying the new edition. They need to keep the old books around for at least a few years.
Considering how many people went to that other RPG when 4e launched, I think it would be wise to keep the prior edition active even after a new edition comes out. Video game makers continue to sell old games even when newer versions come out. Personally I think it might have been better to create a new version of Star Frontiers using the 5e system with a few tweaks. It could even be a play test of concepts they want to use for 6e. They could also make 6e initially a campaign setting that is not compatible with other content. In 2e Dragon Lance had a bunch of classes that were only for that setting. Dark Sun had alternative versions of races that were much more powerful than those in core D&D. Following this route means that game balance can be adjusted. Those things which are very popular can be put into a full 6e having already been tested and evaluated for years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The short answer is "No", but the longer answer is that there may be contract terms that limit Wizards' ability to do that (it's not impossible that DDB will put out an official statement on the issue, but if they do, they won't do it in a forum thread).
My quarter nickel, FWIW:
Mobile gaming and TTRPGs are pretty much two different worlds and, unless the "metaverse" and AI development are a lot closer than I think they are, I don't expect anything playable on our phones (or consoles, or even PCs) is going to replace the tabletop experience anytime soon - if ever.
However, developing mobile games (and other digital products) under the Dungeons and Dragons IP produces additional revenue streams in their own right in addition to potentially steering players to the tabletop side.
This doesn't mean WotC/Hasbro mightn't want to have something like DDB under their own control at some point, but hiring a mobile gaming guy doesn't directly point in that direction.
D&D is heavily steeped in nostalgia and tradition. I have no doubt that the new leadership indicates that they will be trying hard to further monetize the IP, but they don't need to mess with the core TTPRG to do that. They can release D&D Pop Its or Flappy Beholder for your phone or any number of other products that carry the D&D name, and I definitely think that's coming.
It's not idealistic/naive to think that they will mostly leave D&D alone. Books make money and licensing makes money. Eschewing books and screwing over current licensing partners are not good business decisions. 5e has been a huge success, and there's little reason to change course at the moment. Letting the core of the brand continue to prosper with few changes while spinning off a bunch of other products seems much more likely to me.
But totally aside from that, I think it's important to understand exactly what DDB is and what you're paying for. DDB is a service, it is not your D&D library. You're not buying books here, you're buying content for use with this service exclusively. Whether that's fine or a scam is totally up to what the service is worth to you, but having expectations that are different from reality is not going to change that reality.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I also love DDB. I don't get why develouping is so hard for them, but I'm not at their HQ either, so maybe I'm just a jerk.
DDB is fantastic for Character building, but pretty lame when it comes to gameplay. Compare that to Roll20 which is a great VTT.
Honestly, conflicting tech among several companies probably makes them more money than making their own ever could.
Yep, and looking at simply the new faces coming on board to WotC neglects the fact that no one was fired from WotC because its products lines were thought broken. Quite the contrary, you have WotC alum promoted higher within Hasbro, and it would just seem weird from a management standpoint to be saying, "We like what you've done leading this product so we're advancing you so your skills to be applied to the entire company ... and we're going to hire some folks who are going to take a wrecking ball to your success and run the product on totally different practics." These new hires are to grow the brand not transform what D&D fundamentally is or how it's distributed. Will there likely be new, possibly digital products in addition to books and the like, probably, but every other game and toy Hasbro puts out still bears a strong resemblance to the formats it was produced in decades ago, with additional products to sustain engagement with the consumer market.
I think the new hires coupled with a 2% stakeholder trying to pull a activist stunt (for reasons that don't make sense to me) are agitating people ... and that may say something about the reception of WotC as a brand custodian of D&D but I don't think it says anything about it in terms of the bottom line considerations that its business moves are truly predicated upon.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Considering that to buy the new book on day 1 you had to buy it in a pack of three books, two of which avid fans likely already own copies of, rather than being able to just buy the new book alone, yeah I wouldn't put any faith in WOTC avoiding people having to re buy books if they can get away with it.
They've done it at least six times already, with variations on d20 rules since the original version of D&D. Why stop now? :-)
With new versions of the game, there are new rules/mechanics etc, so that makes sense to shake the game up over time. Buying the 4th Edition PHB and then buying the 5th Edition handbook isn't really rebuying the same book you already own.
Unless you meant something else, I'm not super familiar with the specifics of D&D's past so maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
D&D 6th Edition article here on wargamer.
I would like to see D&D Beyond eventually expand to allow players/users to select their ruleset to play in.
Fizikal
For the King!
Which conjectures around the same tea leaves everyone else knows ... and fails on the only fact it's able to speak to. MMM is not a replacement for the MM. On the beastiary side of things. It in fact updates what's in MToF and VGtM, so functionally stands next to the MM and replaces the game's other two bestiary books. An article prognosticating on the future of D&D that can't get the function of a existing book right sorta blows credibility on a "wargamer bro, do you even D&D bro?"
I just don't see that ever happening without a massive influx of resources into D&D Beyond's present operations. I mean there are a number of threads where people are requesting more fuller support of things available in 5e (particularly the DMG) that aren't supported ... and the prior editions of the games often had more options and options that weren't as streamlined as 5e, which would likely mean legacy editions would be harder to implement. So from a capacity standpoint and likely market standpoint (while a few TTRPG players do in fact do this, most players don't venture back into prior editions or rules, the literal bigger money is providing most current and supported systems) it just doesn't seem likely. What you want is probably best found in some of the VTT providers with robust communities supporting older editions, like Foundry; but those are labors of love done within a commercial environment, not an actual business practice other than giving communities the ability to introduce modules of content based on legacy rules.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
"Do I even D&D bro?" Why on earth would you make that comment. I know that the article has a misinterpretation on the MM and is inaccurate but some of the other points in the article may have some distant merit.
Fizikal
For the King!
Welcome to the cloud.
This issue has been asked for the last twenty or more years, and will probably be asked for the next twenty. Its a good question.
Sometimes the answer is, "Yes, you will lose access to your stuff." It's a gamble, and something to consider when subscribing to an online-only service.
For example, when Games for Windows Live shut down, I lost the ability to run several games I was playing. The same has happened to several older games when the publishers shut down the online servers (Sacred, Diablo). Nothing I can do about it.
Not you, wargamer bro - IOW, whoever wrote the article (apparently a Warhammer fan with a dice addiction named Alex Evans). Which is a fair question to ask, honestly - sites like this one try to cast a wide net and will put out articles on anything somewhat related to their interests ("all things wargaming and tabletop games, including news, features, guides, reviews, and more" in this case) without necessarily having someone knowledgeable enough doing the writing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm sorry if my dissing the article's credibility was taken as a personal slight, but the comment was directed at the poorly backgrounded article. This is actually a problem not just in game journalism, but real life journalism too,
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Ya from reading that article it really sounds like they have no clue as to what they are talking about, stating that the update release in 2024 will be 5th edition. I honestly feel that the 2024 update will be full on 5.5 and nothing more then that.
Your own comment is that you feel it will be 5.5 which means it has about the same base confirmation as the article stating it will be 6.0.
Fizikal
For the King!
He's making a comment on a forum, not writing an article on a website that pretends to be knowledgeable and informed.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In 5 years time, I expect the landscape to look quite different:
Not read all the posts but, a very viable option for WOTC would be to Buy DnD beyond, you instantly get a registered user base, most of the dev work is done for you meaning that you can "go live" immediately. In addition you have integration to Discord already set up to go and Above VTT as another viable product to buy up as a tabletop simulator.
The 2 new hires come from Microsoft, a company well known for acquiring technologies it wanted rather than build from scratch.
4e had a vast amount of online content including very popular character creator apps. All of this was shut down by WotC when 5e launched to encourage 4e players to switch systems. People who were a year into a 5 year campaign story were SOL. However, they did refund prepaid subscriptions fees, so this shouldn't create an issue for subscribers. If all the books I bought are deleted the day 6e launches, I will not be buying the new edition. They need to keep the old books around for at least a few years.
Considering how many people went to that other RPG when 4e launched, I think it would be wise to keep the prior edition active even after a new edition comes out. Video game makers continue to sell old games even when newer versions come out. Personally I think it might have been better to create a new version of Star Frontiers using the 5e system with a few tweaks. It could even be a play test of concepts they want to use for 6e. They could also make 6e initially a campaign setting that is not compatible with other content. In 2e Dragon Lance had a bunch of classes that were only for that setting. Dark Sun had alternative versions of races that were much more powerful than those in core D&D. Following this route means that game balance can be adjusted. Those things which are very popular can be put into a full 6e having already been tested and evaluated for years.