I still own 3.5 books and 2e books, and I have the option to run pencil and paper campaigns if I want, but as far as 5e content goes, I mostly own digital materials so I can use them with D&D beyond. I have spent a lot of money on digital content and I like being able to play with my group remotely, or even together using the digital resources. It is great!
But what happens when 6e comes out?
I am hoping that the future involves allowing people to play other editions on the site/app rather than screwing over anyone who has bought into what they are doing here, but Hasbro's recent actions aren't encouraging.
Thoughts?
I don’t think hasbro or WotC would do something to upset the playerbase, so it looks like whats to come from this update to the game is a maybe, better edited and more organized set of rules that most like, or a set of new books that most people might think are not worth the change.
Edit: that might include both physical and digital media, Im in the middle and just see whats what.
I confident the current state of whats here will remain for about a year, but after that, meh guess is whatever the reaction to the new stuff is, might well decide what happens next?
The real problem will be the security of the platform. If you can't move the format to the most up to date security features they'll end it because it becomes a liability as the easiest egress point.
I agree. However, the easy, if not entirely most profitable way to have access you old books is to convert them to PDFs, something that WotC has been very reluctant to do beyond SRD materials. You can't even buy Volo's Guide as a PDF, even though it's already sunset as "Legacy Content." That's just dumb.
The real problem will be the security of the platform. If you can't move the format to the most up to date security features they'll end it because it becomes a liability as the easiest egress point.
I agree. However, the easy, if not entirely most profitable way to have access you old books is to convert them to PDFs, something that WotC has been very reluctant to do beyond SRD materials. You can't even buy Volo's Guide as a PDF, even though it's already sunset as "Legacy Content." That's just dumb.
They don't release any current edition products in pdf, but you can get things from prior editions. In the event of a true edition change which breaks backwards compatibility, I would not be surprised by them doing the same for 5e books.
One of the issues with Volo's is that it would still compete with MotM. I think we'll have to wait until 5e is dropped before we see whether they'll do PDFs.
I know I've been reluctant to commit to digital because of reasons that would disappear if they also issued PDFs. It'd.be interesting to see whether they'd actually make more money releasing it in PDF or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'd suspect that all the digital releases will remain unchanged (outside of corrections and maybe the addition of things like maps.) It's pretty clear that people want access to content from older editions. They might as well keep everything in tact until D&D Beyond stops existing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing 5e. I grew up playing AD&D and games from Palladium Books.
I still own 3.5 books and 2e books, and I have the option to run pencil and paper campaigns if I want, but as far as 5e content goes, I mostly own digital materials so I can use them with D&D beyond. I have spent a lot of money on digital content and I like being able to play with my group remotely, or even together using the digital resources. It is great!
But what happens when 6e comes out?
I am hoping that the future involves allowing people to play other editions on the site/app rather than screwing over anyone who has bought into what they are doing here, but Hasbro's recent actions aren't encouraging.
Thoughts?
Sorry to revive this thread, responding to the comment in the quote section above has been on my bucket list since the day the of my inception. More seriously, I am worried that our purchases here on D&D Beyond may no longer become usable after 5.5e.
However, that's just a fear and likely won't be a reality. After all, 1D&D really isn't a full edition, and I"d be shocked if Wotzy placed this much emphasis on backwards compatibility just so that they could remove DDB copies of books that 5.5e's compatible with.
Ultimately, it seems much more realistic that we'll lose access to these books only after 6e. But that's just something I'm worried about, and as long as we communicate to Wizards that we don't want to ever lose access to the 5e stuff we've bought here, then they might not end up removing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
That's pretty good, but I'd follow thread to Github because, though the script efficiently automates the downloading and compiling of content from a website into a format that resembles a PDF, which is highly convenient for users needing offline access, and it's technically adept, using jQuery for straightforward DOM manipulation and AJAX operations, it could be improved in areas like error handling and asynchronous request management. However, its functionality comes with significant legal and ethical implications, as it facilitates the automated downloading of potentially copyrighted content without explicit permission, raising concerns about its legality and the ethicality of its use.
This Agreement is a legally binding contract between you and Wizards and applies to D&D Beyond, the Software (defined below), and all related Services (defined below) regardless of how (e.g., different platform, medium, online, offline) you access or use them (all these collectively are referred to as the “Services”).
Defined Terms
“Software” means the proprietary website and software application known as D&D Beyond, and any patches, updates, and upgrades to the application, and all related content and documentation made available to you by Wizards under this Agreement including, but not limited to, all software code, titles, themes, objects, characters, names, dialogue, catch phrases, locations, stories, artwork, animation, concepts, sounds, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, and musical compositions that are related to the application, and any copies of any of the foregoing. Software specifically includes all Virtual Items for which you have paid the associated fee or otherwise acquired a license under Section 2.
LICENSE GRANT.
Subject to your compliance with the Terms, Wizards grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable, non-sublicensable license to use and/or download and install a copy of the Software on a compatible device that you own or control and to run such copy of the Software solely for your personal entertainment and non-commercial purposes. You may not copy the Software, except for making a reasonable number of copies for backup or archival purposes. Wizards reserves all rights in and to the Software not expressly granted to you under this Agreement.
There are certain players on this site who want the 2024 rules to fail. I think we can all guess the reasons why--and it has nothing to do with the mechanical changes. They will repeatedly post the same nonsensical arguments, get their arguments disproven, then start over on a new thread, spewing their anti-2024 falsehoods with the hope they can trick people into thinking their points might be valid before someone once again points out that they are wrong.
Two of the biggest falsehoods are as follows:
1. That this is 6e, not 5e. This is categorically wrong--but we can see why they do it. Edition changes have historically been traumatic for the community, so if you can get folks to falsely think this is a new edition, that will make folks a bit worried. Worried people are more prone to overaction and believing lies--which is exactly what these posters want.
The reality? This is still very much 5e. All the core mechanics are staying the same--how you run combat, what skill checks do, what conditions there are, what damage types there are, how attacks, saves, etc. work. Nothing is fundamentally changing. Sure, some spells might be getting adjusted some and some classes might be getting rebalanced--but the core operating procedures are exactly the same. That is why it is a revision, not a true new edition.
2. That the editions will not be compatible. Once again, fearmongering to try and make it look like the community will be fracturing. Once again, incorrect (or, for those who have been told with evidence they are incorrect--an outright lie).
Many of us have been playing or DMing hybrid games since the playtest started--some of our players wanted to test out the new content while others did not. The totality of posts from folks playing these hybrid games on this forum have stated that the systems have worked fine. Sure, there might be some differences, but, guess what? Having differences in character power level happens within the same version of the rules as well. 2014 vs 2024 characters fall within the realm of acceptable power disparities that players have grown used to over the past 50 years (and, it should be noted, there are plenty of cases where the 2014 version is more powerful--so the "you'll be underpowered" argument is even further untrue).
And, for those who have not been playing with the 2024 rules? Guess what, most of you have been playing a hybrid system for years without even noticing. The 2024 rules really started rolling out back in Strixhaven, with a lot of the new features from 2024 long-implemented into the game. If you have been playing the game with any of the recent books, you have already been playing in a hybrid game without noticing--the new PHB is not going to be all that different, so there really is no need to fear.
All told, I expect the overwhelming majority of players will be able to figure this out--Wizards has put a whole lot of effort into ensuring compatibility exists and players can use whichever version of the rules they and their DM agree to--be it 2024, 2014, or a hybrid. There really is no reason to fear--which is why the anti-Wizards crowd is really struggling to find a narrative that works for their fearmongering... so they just keep playing the same cards over and over again, knowing they are bad, but knowing folks can sometimes fall for their bluffs.
Tough one. The underwriting, from End User Agreement to Terms of Use to Content Policy to Limited Liscense to....so much underwriting, even a good attorney would be equally confused.
WA Senate Bill 6801 proposes that every consumer contract in Washington State must be written in plain language to enhance clarity and understanding for consumers.
Hopefully that will pass soon enough so we can get clarity. For now do whatever until told otherwise 😆 🤣
I do not think fracturing the community is a bad thing. If making the name of a playtest to be OneD&D is enough to isolate anti-Wizard people into their own little corner, that is better for the rest of the community. We do not need their toxicity and misinformation.
If someone is so stuck in their ways on how to play D&D, do not know how to accomodate others, and are so deep into anti-Wizard conspiracy, it is probably best to avoid those kinds of people. The rule additions and adjustments in the UA is peanuts compared to the average homebrew and third party content, so if they are incapable of wrapping their head around UA, they are are not going to wrap their head around you. If toxic people cannot find others to play with, that is their issue. No D&D is better than bad D&D.
So now we have a new DM building his world around 6e material. Say this DM then attracts players with 5e legacy PC's, but also new players who also only have access to the 6e material? Imagine what happens when the DM is using 6e material, some player is using a 5e build Paladin, and another player is using a 6e build Paladin, which will be MORE powerful than the 5e build, and has features that trigger at different levels than the 5e version. The 5e player has a choice: Either buy 6e material, in order to upgrade his Paladin so that can function in the 6e game, or find a DM and other players that are sticking with the 5e game. I know what most people are going to do.
Or, we look at this situation: The DM is sticking with his legacy 5e material. He is not interested in buying the 6e material. But he tries to add players who are new to the game, and have no access to 5e material. Does wotc allow that DM the ability to share his legacy material with other players? Or do those new players even WANT to play with that legacy 5e DM?
Both of these supposed problems are solved by... content sharing. Which is used in most every game on DDB, because nobody expects everyone to own all the books themselves. The purist shares their books with the players, who can now build characters with the unrevised classes. (And yes, you'll be able to share the old books, because otherwise every single existing campaign at release time breaks.) The other person shares the revised books with their game, and everyone can build their characters with the revised classes.
Seriously, who brings preexisting characters to a new campaign, anyway? I'm not saying it doesn't happen anywhere, but it ain't normal.
I have had players walk away when I tell them "No, I refuse to allow anything post Xanathar's nor Hexblade dips because the stuff is OP".
I have had players walk away when I tell them "No, I refuse to allow anything post Xanathar's nor Hexblade dips because the stuff is OP". Many a player always goes with the new hotness, especially when it is more powerful than the old product.
I only let players create core races PHB (but no Tieflings or Dragonborns, these are either NPC's or monsters).
From a DM perspective, we have to manage everything, from immersion to player's expectations to balancing game, including OP and skewed guidelines (not to mention all the other details). Here's a simple, generic example: Aarakocra can fly - you'd think, maybe glide 5 to 1, heck even 10 to 1, but no, straight up fly - movement in 3 dimensional space (exploration, scouting, evasion, stealth, transport, etc.), nope, no OP allowed - gotta earn your adventure, gotta earn those abilities.
DM's are the ones who put in 10 to 20 hours of work to create a single session adventure that players only need to show up for, and that's the luxury of writing lots of options and abilities for players.
I understand D&D wants to wow players with possibilities and abilities and make them superheroes by level 3, to get players interested, possibly entice them to stay interested, but it's actually a form of inflation - no worse than a DM giving away gold and magic items to pacify the players - like giving away cheat codes - and when cheat codes are given away, used, people become bored quickly, because the allure of a challenge has been lost.
I can see why there has been a huge drop in interest in D&D (I researched market trends, but the real eye opener is in my metropolitan city of 3+ million people, where we used to have dozens of D&D 5e groups, now there are only 6 - that's a huge contraction).
This is why I am struggling with the idea of buying the digital copies. Other companies that had digital copies of a thing only have gone "extinct" in terms of its service. I can buy a physical copy of the book and make my own digital copy legally, but I would feel bad not supporting a hobby in doing so. At the same time, if they aren't reasonable in pricing, access guarantees, or feature accommodations, why would I invest in a potentially doomed platform?
Bad business hasn't stopped businesses in the past. Companies have made mistakes that cost lives, this is less than that, so it's reasonable to be concerned about it.
@Boomgaarden your concern is genuine. It's not uncommon for such a scenario as losing access to purchased digital products vs physical products... .
Here are some examples.
A notable example from the past is when the eBookstore Fictionwise was acquired by Barnes & Noble and then shut down. Customers faced issues accessing books they had purchased because the DRM (Digital Rights Management) servers were taken offline.
Another example is the closure of Microsoft's eBook store, which led to customers losing access to their purchased eBooks once the DRM servers were discontinued.
Another example involved the digital music service provided by Microsoft, known as MSN Music. They announced back in 2008 that they would be shutting down their DRM servers. As a result, customers who purchased music from MSN Music were no longer able to authorize playback on new devices once the servers were shut down. This meant that any device failure or upgrade would render their purchased music files unusable.
Another example is the shutdown of Ultraviolet, a digital movie locker service. Ultraviolet allowed users to store digital copies of films and TV shows online, but it ceased operations in 2019. While they partnered with other retailers to ensure users could still access their content, the closure required users to actively link their libraries with other services, and some users experienced difficulties or lost access to certain titles.
Another example, Google’s Stadia, a cloud gaming service, also shut down, and while it didn’t involve downloadable products, it highlighted issues related to the permanence of digital services. Users lost access to games they had purchased.
Another example, Sony also closed its PlayStation Mobile platform, which affected users who had purchased games for PlayStation Vita or certain Android devices. When the platform closed, users lost the ability to re-download their purchased games, effectively losing access.
Alright, alright, one more example, I'm such a giver.
Adobe’s Fotolia, a stock photo website, which was acquired by Adobe and then transitioned to Adobe Stock. When Adobe decided to phase out Fotolia, users were encouraged to transition to Adobe Stock. However, not all Fotolia content was available on Adobe Stock, and some users found that they could no longer access certain images they had rights to use via Fotolia. Additionally, the licensing terms changed, which affected how some users could use the images they had previously purchased.
If Netflix goes out of business, I lose all my movies. If Facebook stops trading, I lose my posts and messages. If my telco goes under, I lose my phone calls. If my gym shuts is doors I lose my workouts. When Picasaweb shut down, I did lose a few photos and a lot of metadata. When Microsoft Games for WIndows stopped operating, I did lose the ability run run some of "my" games.
Nothing is owned. Everything is leased. The word "my" in the paragraph above indicates possession not ownership. "Owning" a book on dndbeyond.com is much the same as "owning" a machine at your gym.
Is everyone worried about it? Yes, but we accept it as the way that the world runs today. Even when it sucks (Microsoft, I'm still bitter about GFWL).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don’t think hasbro or WotC would do something to upset the playerbase, so it looks like whats to come from this update to the game is a maybe, better edited and more organized set of rules that most like, or a set of new books that most people might think are not worth the change.
Edit: that might include both physical and digital media, Im in the middle and just see whats what.
I confident the current state of whats here will remain for about a year, but after that, meh guess is whatever the reaction to the new stuff is, might well decide what happens next?
I agree. However, the easy, if not entirely most profitable way to have access you old books is to convert them to PDFs, something that WotC has been very reluctant to do beyond SRD materials. You can't even buy Volo's Guide as a PDF, even though it's already sunset as "Legacy Content." That's just dumb.
They don't release any current edition products in pdf, but you can get things from prior editions. In the event of a true edition change which breaks backwards compatibility, I would not be surprised by them doing the same for 5e books.
One of the issues with Volo's is that it would still compete with MotM. I think we'll have to wait until 5e is dropped before we see whether they'll do PDFs.
I know I've been reluctant to commit to digital because of reasons that would disappear if they also issued PDFs. It'd.be interesting to see whether they'd actually make more money releasing it in PDF or not.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Currently the best method I've found for converting DnDBeyond digital content to PDF
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].Ummm, no.
I'd suspect that all the digital releases will remain unchanged (outside of corrections and maybe the addition of things like maps.) It's pretty clear that people want access to content from older editions. They might as well keep everything in tact until D&D Beyond stops existing.
Currently playing 5e. I grew up playing AD&D and games from Palladium Books.
I have the same worry with the updates.
"Big sword, bigger brain"
-BigBrainGoblin
Sorry to revive this thread, responding to the comment in the quote section above has been on my bucket list since the day the of my inception. More seriously, I am worried that our purchases here on D&D Beyond may no longer become usable after 5.5e.
However, that's just a fear and likely won't be a reality. After all, 1D&D really isn't a full edition, and I"d be shocked if Wotzy placed this much emphasis on backwards compatibility just so that they could remove DDB copies of books that 5.5e's compatible with.
Ultimately, it seems much more realistic that we'll lose access to these books only after 6e. But that's just something I'm worried about, and as long as we communicate to Wizards that we don't want to ever lose access to the 5e stuff we've bought here, then they might not end up removing it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.That's pretty good, but I'd follow thread to Github because, though the script efficiently automates the downloading and compiling of content from a website into a format that resembles a PDF, which is highly convenient for users needing offline access, and it's technically adept, using jQuery for straightforward DOM manipulation and AJAX operations, it could be improved in areas like error handling and asynchronous request management. However, its functionality comes with significant legal and ethical implications, as it facilitates the automated downloading of potentially copyrighted content without explicit permission, raising concerns about its legality and the ethicality of its use.
For use of downloading purchased content on DnDBeyond there should be no cause for concern.
From the DnDBeyond Terms of Service:
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].Tough one. The underwriting, from End User Agreement to Terms of Use to Content Policy to Limited Liscense to....so much underwriting, even a good attorney would be equally confused.
WA Senate Bill 6801 proposes that every consumer contract in Washington State must be written in plain language to enhance clarity and understanding for consumers.
Hopefully that will pass soon enough so we can get clarity. For now do whatever until told otherwise 😆 🤣
I do not think fracturing the community is a bad thing. If making the name of a playtest to be OneD&D is enough to isolate anti-Wizard people into their own little corner, that is better for the rest of the community. We do not need their toxicity and misinformation.
If someone is so stuck in their ways on how to play D&D, do not know how to accomodate others, and are so deep into anti-Wizard conspiracy, it is probably best to avoid those kinds of people. The rule additions and adjustments in the UA is peanuts compared to the average homebrew and third party content, so if they are incapable of wrapping their head around UA, they are are not going to wrap their head around you. If toxic people cannot find others to play with, that is their issue. No D&D is better than bad D&D.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Both of these supposed problems are solved by... content sharing. Which is used in most every game on DDB, because nobody expects everyone to own all the books themselves. The purist shares their books with the players, who can now build characters with the unrevised classes. (And yes, you'll be able to share the old books, because otherwise every single existing campaign at release time breaks.) The other person shares the revised books with their game, and everyone can build their characters with the revised classes.
Seriously, who brings preexisting characters to a new campaign, anyway? I'm not saying it doesn't happen anywhere, but it ain't normal.
Huh. Weird.
@JustaFarmer I agree with your statement:
I only let players create core races PHB (but no Tieflings or Dragonborns, these are either NPC's or monsters).
From a DM perspective, we have to manage everything, from immersion to player's expectations to balancing game, including OP and skewed guidelines (not to mention all the other details). Here's a simple, generic example: Aarakocra can fly - you'd think, maybe glide 5 to 1, heck even 10 to 1, but no, straight up fly - movement in 3 dimensional space (exploration, scouting, evasion, stealth, transport, etc.), nope, no OP allowed - gotta earn your adventure, gotta earn those abilities.
DM's are the ones who put in 10 to 20 hours of work to create a single session adventure that players only need to show up for, and that's the luxury of writing lots of options and abilities for players.
I understand D&D wants to wow players with possibilities and abilities and make them superheroes by level 3, to get players interested, possibly entice them to stay interested, but it's actually a form of inflation - no worse than a DM giving away gold and magic items to pacify the players - like giving away cheat codes - and when cheat codes are given away, used, people become bored quickly, because the allure of a challenge has been lost.
I can see why there has been a huge drop in interest in D&D (I researched market trends, but the real eye opener is in my metropolitan city of 3+ million people, where we used to have dozens of D&D 5e groups, now there are only 6 - that's a huge contraction).
This is why I am struggling with the idea of buying the digital copies. Other companies that had digital copies of a thing only have gone "extinct" in terms of its service. I can buy a physical copy of the book and make my own digital copy legally, but I would feel bad not supporting a hobby in doing so. At the same time, if they aren't reasonable in pricing, access guarantees, or feature accommodations, why would I invest in a potentially doomed platform?
Bad business hasn't stopped businesses in the past. Companies have made mistakes that cost lives, this is less than that, so it's reasonable to be concerned about it.
@Boomgaarden your concern is genuine. It's not uncommon for such a scenario as losing access to purchased digital products vs physical products... .
Here are some examples.
A notable example from the past is when the eBookstore Fictionwise was acquired by Barnes & Noble and then shut down. Customers faced issues accessing books they had purchased because the DRM (Digital Rights Management) servers were taken offline.
Another example is the closure of Microsoft's eBook store, which led to customers losing access to their purchased eBooks once the DRM servers were discontinued.
Another example involved the digital music service provided by Microsoft, known as MSN Music. They announced back in 2008 that they would be shutting down their DRM servers. As a result, customers who purchased music from MSN Music were no longer able to authorize playback on new devices once the servers were shut down. This meant that any device failure or upgrade would render their purchased music files unusable.
Another example is the shutdown of Ultraviolet, a digital movie locker service. Ultraviolet allowed users to store digital copies of films and TV shows online, but it ceased operations in 2019. While they partnered with other retailers to ensure users could still access their content, the closure required users to actively link their libraries with other services, and some users experienced difficulties or lost access to certain titles.
Another example, Google’s Stadia, a cloud gaming service, also shut down, and while it didn’t involve downloadable products, it highlighted issues related to the permanence of digital services. Users lost access to games they had purchased.
Another example, Sony also closed its PlayStation Mobile platform, which affected users who had purchased games for PlayStation Vita or certain Android devices. When the platform closed, users lost the ability to re-download their purchased games, effectively losing access.
Alright, alright, one more example, I'm such a giver.
Adobe’s Fotolia, a stock photo website, which was acquired by Adobe and then transitioned to Adobe Stock. When Adobe decided to phase out Fotolia, users were encouraged to transition to Adobe Stock. However, not all Fotolia content was available on Adobe Stock, and some users found that they could no longer access certain images they had rights to use via Fotolia. Additionally, the licensing terms changed, which affected how some users could use the images they had previously purchased.
And there many more instances.
So, your concerns are genuine.
Welcome to the 21st century. :-)
If Netflix goes out of business, I lose all my movies. If Facebook stops trading, I lose my posts and messages. If my telco goes under, I lose my phone calls. If my gym shuts is doors I lose my workouts. When Picasaweb shut down, I did lose a few photos and a lot of metadata. When Microsoft Games for WIndows stopped operating, I did lose the ability run run some of "my" games.
Nothing is owned. Everything is leased. The word "my" in the paragraph above indicates possession not ownership. "Owning" a book on dndbeyond.com is much the same as "owning" a machine at your gym.
Is everyone worried about it? Yes, but we accept it as the way that the world runs today. Even when it sucks (Microsoft, I'm still bitter about GFWL).