Even simpler would be a toggle to turn off the 24 stuff.
I agree entirely. That would make things extremely easy and make the forums a lot less exhausting to be on again. I would honestly welcome it at this point.
However, it makes no business sense and would absolutely harm future sales of 2024 content to do so. Part of my job includes operating a small team of clinicians in a behavioral health program. One of the key things I teach my clinicians about our program is to not give the patient the option to refuse you. If someone gives a patient the option to engage in behavioral health, it is almost a universal fact that the patient will say no. Once the patient breathes life into that decision by voicing it, they will become so committed to refusing it, they will reject help even when they know it will harm them to refuse it. The opportunity to save a life is gone until their next crisis and we have to cross our fingers that they don't check out of life early once they discharge and are out of our reach. Many people are change averse, even if that change is ultimately good for them.
Why am I bringing this up? WotC has a product that they want you to use. That product is the 2024 toolset. If they give you the option to not use it or even see it, well, that would be like one of my clinicians asking a patient if they want to engage in behavioral health.
So it isn't sabotage, it is marketing, how does that make it better?
I see it as lack of confidence in their new product, and if they are not confident I am not either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Kayakingpoodle, having to turn ON the 2014 content is the same as turning OFF the 2024 content. If you don’t turn on the 2014, you have straight 2024. If you do, the 2014 supersedes or adds the content you need. It’s not perfect because it doesn’t take out the 2024. Could the toggle be better? I already said there is a chance of that but there is definitely a toggle for content. I mean, come on.
I get that you believe that turning on legacy content is turning off 2024 but it is not 2024 content is extant while trying to create a legacy character. I caught myself half a dozen times making a character and having to force myself to scroll down further. It is bad right now. when the DMG and Monster Manual are released it is going to be nightmarish what they have done is not a best practice when you are maintaining a database of any kind
Forcing yourself to scroll a little further is nothing compared to homebrewing all the legacy content. Having to sort through whole bunch of extraneous spells is an acceptable compromise to homebrewing all the legacy content as well. I don’t know why they did it the way they did it and it is certainly not ideal however the comparison to how it works now is not with 2014 content prior to 2024’a drop, it’s to no 2014 content at all. What we have is a compromise between what you and Kayakingpoodle want and what DDB wants. No one is getting exactly what they want. Would you rather homebrew everything?
I would rather wizbro have the confidence in a new product and it actually be good enough that they do not feel the need to resort to sabotaging a tool to sell the new product, so they can meet profit goals.
And I would rather not download an app to make an appointment with my doctor or pay my gym membership but that’s not how things are done these days. An app is simpler, cheaper, more secure and all around
There are all kinds of services that are no longer available in the form we prefer or even at all because they were judged to be part of the past, not the future, by the providers. I don’t know why you expect Wizbro to be different from the rest of the capitalists. They met us in the middle when there was no obligation for them to do so.
you are comparing apples and oranges. This isn’t a case where the purchaser threw the item away. It is a case where the purchaser bought a legal copy through legal means (bought, not rented) and the manufacturer took the item away from the purchaser.
I think the dispute gets a lot more complicated if we don’t keep the facts of the dispute central.
As has been discussed at length, users haven’t bought a copy of anything. Users have paid for access to online content that the provider sees fit to provide in the manner they see fit. It is exactly the same as my doctor no longer making appointments by phone: the preferred service is no longer available. And, like making appointments with my doctor, everything users paid to access is still available, just not in the form some would like most.
The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for, have unfounded expectations and are unwilling to recognize that they’ve been thrown a bone.
Kayakingpoodle, having to turn ON the 2014 content is the same as turning OFF the 2024 content. If you don’t turn on the 2014, you have straight 2024. If you do, the 2014 supersedes or adds the content you need. It’s not perfect because it doesn’t take out the 2024. Could the toggle be better? I already said there is a chance of that but there is definitely a toggle for content. I mean, come on.
I get that you believe that turning on legacy content is turning off 2024 but it is not 2024 content is extant while trying to create a legacy character. I caught myself half a dozen times making a character and having to force myself to scroll down further. It is bad right now. when the DMG and Monster Manual are released it is going to be nightmarish what they have done is not a best practice when you are maintaining a database of any kind
Forcing yourself to scroll a little further is nothing compared to homebrewing all the legacy content. Having to sort through whole bunch of extraneous spells is an acceptable compromise to homebrewing all the legacy content as well. I don’t know why they did it the way they did it and it is certainly not ideal however the comparison to how it works now is not with 2014 content prior to 2024’a drop, it’s to no 2014 content at all. What we have is a compromise between what you and Kayakingpoodle want and what DDB wants. No one is getting exactly what they want. Would you rather homebrew everything?
I would rather wizbro have the confidence in a new product and it actually be good enough that they do not feel the need to resort to sabotaging a tool to sell the new product, so they can meet profit goals.
And I would rather not download an app to make an appointment with my doctor or pay my gym membership but that’s not how things are done these days. An app is simpler, cheaper, more secure and all around
There are all kinds of services that are no longer available in the form we prefer or even at all because they were judged to be part of the past, not the future, by the providers. I don’t know why you expect Wizbro to be different from the rest of the capitalists. They met us in the middle when there was no obligation for them to do so.
you are comparing apples and oranges. This isn’t a case where the purchaser threw the item away. It is a case where the purchaser bought a legal copy through legal means (bought, not rented) and the manufacturer took the item away from the purchaser.
I think the dispute gets a lot more complicated if we don’t keep the facts of the dispute central.
As has been discussed at length, users haven’t bought a copy of anything. Users have paid for access to online content that the provider sees fit to provide in the manner they see fit. It is exactly the same as my doctor no longer making appointments by phone: the preferred service is no longer available. And, like making appointments with my doctor, everything users paid to access is still available, just not in the form some would like most.
The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for, have unfounded expectations and are unwilling to recognize that they’ve been thrown a bone.
Perhaps you overlooked my earlier question.
Where does the purchasing workflow identify that the item is being rented? Even the license your side quoted earlier doesn’t use that term.
”The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for,”. I think that is a very legitimate fourth point. Let’s assume you are right that it is a rental and not a purchase, the fact that the purchase workflow at no point identifies it as rent is certainly deceptive.
Friend, you are being pedantic again. You are latching on to common terms used in analogies because you can't accept your understanding is flawed.
Nothing is being "rented" here in a legal sense. You are purchasing a license. This, and what that license is, is what is clearly laid out. A license is not content. It is permission to access the content that is available. I'm sorry if this may seem complicated for you.
Here is a link explaining how purchasing on this website works (may be slightly visually out of date due to the remodel):
Like many (most? / all?) online purchasing platforms, it confirms that you have read the terms and conditions in order to complete a purchase. This ToS has been clipped here at length for you.
Friend, you are being pedantic again. You are latching on to common terms used in analogies because you can't accept your understanding is flawed.
Nothing is being "rented" here in a legal sense. You are purchasing a license. This, and what that license is, is what is clearly laid out. A license is not content. It is permission to access the content that is available. I'm sorry if this may seem complicated for you.
Here is a link explaining how purchasing on this website works (may be slightly visually out of date due to the remodel):
Like many (most? / all?) online purchasing platforms, it confirms that you have read the terms and conditions in order to complete a purchase. This ToS has been clipped here at length for you.
This is a legal matter. Criticizing someone for being pedantic on a legal matter is like accusing someone of being scientific on an issue of chemistry.
And, before I even look at your link, I was very specific. DnDB doesn’t mention rent anywhere in the purchase workflow. It may be buried somewhere else, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t deceptive if a purchaser needs to a.) know it exists to go searching for it and b.) go dig it up.
It doesn't mention rent because that was a term used by a person in an analogy trying to help conceptualize the system in a flawed way. You are trying to put points on a board that don't matter in the argument at hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
It doesn't mention rent because that was a term used by a person in an analogy trying to help conceptualize the system in a flawed way. You are trying to put points on a board that don't matter in the argument at hand.
Do we purchase or merely rent a copy of game rules? Be specific and clearly explain your answer and that you understand the difference between the two words.
It doesn't mention rent because that was a term used by a person in an analogy trying to help conceptualize the system in a flawed way. You are trying to put points on a board that don't matter in the argument at hand.
Do we purchase or merely rent a copy of game rules? Be specific and clearly explain your answer and that you understand the difference between the two words.
Neither. You may have missed the explanation earlier.
Nothing is being "rented" here in a legal sense. You are purchasing a license. This, and what that license is, is what is clearly laid out. A license is not content. It is permission to access the content that is available. I'm sorry if this may seem complicated for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Kayakingpoodle, having to turn ON the 2014 content is the same as turning OFF the 2024 content. If you don’t turn on the 2014, you have straight 2024. If you do, the 2014 supersedes or adds the content you need. It’s not perfect because it doesn’t take out the 2024. Could the toggle be better? I already said there is a chance of that but there is definitely a toggle for content. I mean, come on.
I get that you believe that turning on legacy content is turning off 2024 but it is not 2024 content is extant while trying to create a legacy character. I caught myself half a dozen times making a character and having to force myself to scroll down further. It is bad right now. when the DMG and Monster Manual are released it is going to be nightmarish what they have done is not a best practice when you are maintaining a database of any kind
Forcing yourself to scroll a little further is nothing compared to homebrewing all the legacy content. Having to sort through whole bunch of extraneous spells is an acceptable compromise to homebrewing all the legacy content as well. I don’t know why they did it the way they did it and it is certainly not ideal however the comparison to how it works now is not with 2014 content prior to 2024’a drop, it’s to no 2014 content at all. What we have is a compromise between what you and Kayakingpoodle want and what DDB wants. No one is getting exactly what they want. Would you rather homebrew everything?
I would rather wizbro have the confidence in a new product and it actually be good enough that they do not feel the need to resort to sabotaging a tool to sell the new product, so they can meet profit goals.
And I would rather not download an app to make an appointment with my doctor or pay my gym membership but that’s not how things are done these days. An app is simpler, cheaper, more secure and all around
There are all kinds of services that are no longer available in the form we prefer or even at all because they were judged to be part of the past, not the future, by the providers. I don’t know why you expect Wizbro to be different from the rest of the capitalists. They met us in the middle when there was no obligation for them to do so.
you are comparing apples and oranges. This isn’t a case where the purchaser threw the item away. It is a case where the purchaser bought a legal copy through legal means (bought, not rented) and the manufacturer took the item away from the purchaser.
I think the dispute gets a lot more complicated if we don’t keep the facts of the dispute central.
As has been discussed at length, users haven’t bought a copy of anything. Users have paid for access to online content that the provider sees fit to provide in the manner they see fit. It is exactly the same as my doctor no longer making appointments by phone: the preferred service is no longer available. And, like making appointments with my doctor, everything users paid to access is still available, just not in the form some would like most.
The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for, have unfounded expectations and are unwilling to recognize that they’ve been thrown a bone.
Perhaps you overlooked my earlier question.
Where does the purchasing workflow identify that the item is being rented? Even the license your side quoted earlier doesn’t use that term.
”The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for,”. I think that is a very legitimate fourth point. Let’s assume you are right that it is a rental and not a purchase, the fact that the purchase workflow at no point identifies it as rent is certainly deceptive.
Kayakingpoodle, having to turn ON the 2014 content is the same as turning OFF the 2024 content. If you don’t turn on the 2014, you have straight 2024. If you do, the 2014 supersedes or adds the content you need. It’s not perfect because it doesn’t take out the 2024. Could the toggle be better? I already said there is a chance of that but there is definitely a toggle for content. I mean, come on.
I get that you believe that turning on legacy content is turning off 2024 but it is not 2024 content is extant while trying to create a legacy character. I caught myself half a dozen times making a character and having to force myself to scroll down further. It is bad right now. when the DMG and Monster Manual are released it is going to be nightmarish what they have done is not a best practice when you are maintaining a database of any kind
Forcing yourself to scroll a little further is nothing compared to homebrewing all the legacy content. Having to sort through whole bunch of extraneous spells is an acceptable compromise to homebrewing all the legacy content as well. I don’t know why they did it the way they did it and it is certainly not ideal however the comparison to how it works now is not with 2014 content prior to 2024’a drop, it’s to no 2014 content at all. What we have is a compromise between what you and Kayakingpoodle want and what DDB wants. No one is getting exactly what they want. Would you rather homebrew everything?
I would rather wizbro have the confidence in a new product and it actually be good enough that they do not feel the need to resort to sabotaging a tool to sell the new product, so they can meet profit goals.
And I would rather not download an app to make an appointment with my doctor or pay my gym membership but that’s not how things are done these days. An app is simpler, cheaper, more secure and all around
There are all kinds of services that are no longer available in the form we prefer or even at all because they were judged to be part of the past, not the future, by the providers. I don’t know why you expect Wizbro to be different from the rest of the capitalists. They met us in the middle when there was no obligation for them to do so.
you are comparing apples and oranges. This isn’t a case where the purchaser threw the item away. It is a case where the purchaser bought a legal copy through legal means (bought, not rented) and the manufacturer took the item away from the purchaser.
I think the dispute gets a lot more complicated if we don’t keep the facts of the dispute central.
As has been discussed at length, users haven’t bought a copy of anything. Users have paid for access to online content that the provider sees fit to provide in the manner they see fit. It is exactly the same as my doctor no longer making appointments by phone: the preferred service is no longer available. And, like making appointments with my doctor, everything users paid to access is still available, just not in the form some would like most.
The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for, have unfounded expectations and are unwilling to recognize that they’ve been thrown a bone.
Perhaps you overlooked my earlier question.
Where does the purchasing workflow identify that the item is being rented? Even the license your side quoted earlier doesn’t use that term.
”The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for,”. I think that is a very legitimate fourth point. Let’s assume you are right that it is a rental and not a purchase, the fact that the purchase workflow at no point identifies it as rent is certainly deceptive.
??
You didn’t ask me a question.
I didn’t say anything about rent.
This thread has been going on for awhile. It is difficult to keep track of who was asked what. So, I’ll simplify.
I am asking you now, can you please identify where the purchasing workflow in the DnDB marketplace identifies transactions as for rent rather than purchase of commercial goods?
I am asking you now, can you please identify where the purchasing workflow in the DnDB marketplace identifies transactions as for rent rather than purchase of commercial goods?
The purchase flow does not identify any transaction for rent or purchase of commercial goods of any kind (unless you are buying a physical product or physical/digital bundle). It identifies purchase of a service.
It doesn't mention rent because that was a term used by a person in an analogy trying to help conceptualize the system in a flawed way. You are trying to put points on a board that don't matter in the argument at hand.
Do we purchase or merely rent a copy of game rules? Be specific and clearly explain your answer and that you understand the difference between the two words.
Neither. You may have missed the explanation earlier.
Nothing is being "rented" here in a legal sense. You are purchasing a license. This, and what that license is, is what is clearly laid out. A license is not content. It is permission to access the content that is available. I'm sorry if this may seem complicated for you.
You just quoted “You are purchasing a license.”. So, it is not rent, but a purchase, specifically the purchase of a license.
Do you know what the difference is between a purchase and a rent?
It doesn't mention rent because that was a term used by a person in an analogy trying to help conceptualize the system in a flawed way. You are trying to put points on a board that don't matter in the argument at hand.
Do we purchase or merely rent a copy of game rules? Be specific and clearly explain your answer and that you understand the difference between the two words.
Neither. You may have missed the explanation earlier.
Nothing is being "rented" here in a legal sense. You are purchasing a license. This, and what that license is, is what is clearly laid out. A license is not content. It is permission to access the content that is available. I'm sorry if this may seem complicated for you.
You just quoted “You are purchasing a license.”. So, it is not rent, but a purchase, specifically the purchase of a license.
Do you know what the difference is between a purchase and a rent?
I do know, but as you have not really made it relevant in any way, I'm not sure why you seem to be hanging on the definitions of words?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
1.4Digital Content License: In the realm of D&D Beyond, the term "Digital Content" refers to the array of downloadable, playable, or accessible materials such as virtual items, artwork, digital sourcebooks, and adventures offered within the platform. This collective designation includes all forms of virtual goods, enhancements, and digital services available for acquisition or access through D&D Beyond.
Please be advised that the acquisition of Digital Content does not give you ownership rights. Instead, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive, and non-transferable license to use the Digital Content for personal, non-commercial entertainment purposes only. It is expressly stated that Digital Content cannot be redeemed for monetary value or equivalent, and all transactions related to Digital Content are final, with refunds issued solely at our discretion. Furthermore, we reserve the right to revoke this license at any time, without prior notice or liability, particularly in instances of account termination.
What's driving me absolutely insane about these weeks of forum "discussion" is that so many people seem to not understand a simple fact. The 2024 rules are the rules of the game now. That is what D&D 5E is. 2014 is what it was. The 2024 rules are not just extra options like Tasha's, etc. They are the game itself. Why on earth would they toggle the rules of the game off? Then there's the other fact that 2014 content is still available and still almost entirely supported. What are we even doing?
Even simpler would be a toggle to turn off the 24 stuff.
I agree entirely. That would make things extremely easy and make the forums a lot less exhausting to be on again. I would honestly welcome it at this point.
However, it makes no business sense and would absolutely harm future sales of 2024 content to do so. Part of my job includes operating a small team of clinicians in a behavioral health program. One of the key things I teach my clinicians about our program is to not give the patient the option to refuse you. If someone gives a patient the option to engage in behavioral health, it is almost a universal fact that the patient will say no. Once the patient breathes life into that decision by voicing it, they will become so committed to refusing it, they will reject help even when they know it will harm them to refuse it. The opportunity to save a life is gone until their next crisis and we have to cross our fingers that they don't check out of life early once they discharge and are out of our reach. Many people are change averse, even if that change is ultimately good for them.
Why am I bringing this up? WotC has a product that they want you to use. That product is the 2024 toolset. If they give you the option to not use it or even see it, well, that would be like one of my clinicians asking a patient if they want to engage in behavioral health.
So it isn't sabotage, it is marketing, how does that make it better?
I see it as lack of confidence in their new product, and if they are not confident I am not either.
You know, I would not have expected a bad faith response from you. I will update my priors and I am disappointed.
1.4Digital Content License: In the realm of D&D Beyond, the term "Digital Content" refers to the array of downloadable, playable, or accessible materials such as virtual items, artwork, digital sourcebooks, and adventures offered within the platform. This collective designation includes all forms of virtual goods, enhancements, and digital services available for acquisition or access through D&D Beyond.
Please be advised that the acquisition of Digital Content does not give you ownership rights. Instead, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive, and non-transferable license to use the Digital Content for personal, non-commercial entertainment purposes only. It is expressly stated that Digital Content cannot be redeemed for monetary value or equivalent, and all transactions related to Digital Content are final, with refunds issued solely at our discretion. Furthermore, we reserve the right to revoke this license at any time, without prior notice or liability, particularly in instances of account termination.
Just to be clear, I never claimed that purchasing a license gives someone ownership of the IP. Further, I do understand that it is DnDB’s contention that if I purchase digital content, such as a pdf file, that I don’t acquire ownership of even a single instance of a pdf file.
That’s why I will no longer be purchasing _any_ content from DnDB and will be recommending my social network to do the same.
Whether DnDB is correct in their assertion is unknown as there is no case law to support their claim or, at least, after a week of searching, I have not found any.
Whether DnDB is correct in their assertion is unknown as there is no case law to support their claim or, at least, after a week of searching, I have not found any.
That's not how case law works. It is presumed that everyone is following the law until someone brings a case to prove otherwise and then, once adjudicated, case law sets precedent.
Also, at no point has DDB contended that they are selling you a PDF. They have always contended that they are selling you access to a service. It is you who continue to chose to try and frame this inaccurately for somewhat questionable reasons.
There is a a fair amount to hammer WotC and DDB on, but this is the silliest hill to want to pretend to be a martyr on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Even simpler would be a toggle to turn off the 24 stuff.
I agree entirely. That would make things extremely easy and make the forums a lot less exhausting to be on again. I would honestly welcome it at this point.
However, it makes no business sense and would absolutely harm future sales of 2024 content to do so. Part of my job includes operating a small team of clinicians in a behavioral health program. One of the key things I teach my clinicians about our program is to not give the patient the option to refuse you. If someone gives a patient the option to engage in behavioral health, it is almost a universal fact that the patient will say no. Once the patient breathes life into that decision by voicing it, they will become so committed to refusing it, they will reject help even when they know it will harm them to refuse it. The opportunity to save a life is gone until their next crisis and we have to cross our fingers that they don't check out of life early once they discharge and are out of our reach. Many people are change averse, even if that change is ultimately good for them.
Why am I bringing this up? WotC has a product that they want you to use. That product is the 2024 toolset. If they give you the option to not use it or even see it, well, that would be like one of my clinicians asking a patient if they want to engage in behavioral health.
So it isn't sabotage, it is marketing, how does that make it better?
I see it as lack of confidence in their new product, and if they are not confident I am not either.
You know, I would not have expected a bad faith response from you. I will update my priors and I am disappointed.
Where is the bad faith?
Semantics and a personal view do not bad faith make.
I completely understand this in wizbro's purview to do this, the bad faith IMHO lies with them. Many, myself included see this as a petty passive aggressive punishment, ie you won't play with my toy like I want you too, so I will break the toy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So it isn't sabotage, it is marketing, how does that make it better?
I see it as lack of confidence in their new product, and if they are not confident I am not either.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
As has been discussed at length, users haven’t bought a copy of anything. Users have paid for access to online content that the provider sees fit to provide in the manner they see fit. It is exactly the same as my doctor no longer making appointments by phone: the preferred service is no longer available. And, like making appointments with my doctor, everything users paid to access is still available, just not in the form some would like most.
The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for, have unfounded expectations and are unwilling to recognize that they’ve been thrown a bone.
Perhaps you overlooked my earlier question.
Where does the purchasing workflow identify that the item is being rented? Even the license your side quoted earlier doesn’t use that term.
”The facts of the dispute are that some people do not understand what they’ve paid for,”. I think that is a very legitimate fourth point. Let’s assume you are right that it is a rental and not a purchase, the fact that the purchase workflow at no point identifies it as rent is certainly deceptive.
Friend, you are being pedantic again. You are latching on to common terms used in analogies because you can't accept your understanding is flawed.
Nothing is being "rented" here in a legal sense. You are purchasing a license. This, and what that license is, is what is clearly laid out. A license is not content. It is permission to access the content that is available. I'm sorry if this may seem complicated for you.
Here is a link explaining how purchasing on this website works (may be slightly visually out of date due to the remodel):
https://dndbeyond-support.wizards.com/hc/en-us/articles/7747238466196-Purchasing-Digital-Game-Content
Like many (most? / all?) online purchasing platforms, it confirms that you have read the terms and conditions in order to complete a purchase. This ToS has been clipped here at length for you.
This is a legal matter. Criticizing someone for being pedantic on a legal matter is like accusing someone of being scientific on an issue of chemistry.
And, before I even look at your link, I was very specific. DnDB doesn’t mention rent anywhere in the purchase workflow. It may be buried somewhere else, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t deceptive if a purchaser needs to a.) know it exists to go searching for it and b.) go dig it up.
It doesn't mention rent because that was a term used by a person in an analogy trying to help conceptualize the system in a flawed way. You are trying to put points on a board that don't matter in the argument at hand.
Do we purchase or merely rent a copy of game rules? Be specific and clearly explain your answer and that you understand the difference between the two words.
Neither. You may have missed the explanation earlier.
??
You didn’t ask me a question.
I didn’t say anything about rent.
This thread has been going on for awhile. It is difficult to keep track of who was asked what.
So, I’ll simplify.
I am asking you now, can you please identify where the purchasing workflow in the DnDB marketplace identifies transactions as for rent rather than purchase of commercial goods?
The purchase flow does not identify any transaction for rent or purchase of commercial goods of any kind (unless you are buying a physical product or physical/digital bundle). It identifies purchase of a service.
You just quoted “You are purchasing a license.”. So, it is not rent, but a purchase, specifically the purchase of a license.
Do you know what the difference is between a purchase and a rent?
I do know, but as you have not really made it relevant in any way, I'm not sure why you seem to be hanging on the definitions of words?
1.4 Digital Content License: In the realm of D&D Beyond, the term "Digital Content" refers to the array of downloadable, playable, or accessible materials such as virtual items, artwork, digital sourcebooks, and adventures offered within the platform. This collective designation includes all forms of virtual goods, enhancements, and digital services available for acquisition or access through D&D Beyond.
Please be advised that the acquisition of Digital Content does not give you ownership rights. Instead, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive, and non-transferable license to use the Digital Content for personal, non-commercial entertainment purposes only. It is expressly stated that Digital Content cannot be redeemed for monetary value or equivalent, and all transactions related to Digital Content are final, with refunds issued solely at our discretion. Furthermore, we reserve the right to revoke this license at any time, without prior notice or liability, particularly in instances of account termination.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
What's driving me absolutely insane about these weeks of forum "discussion" is that so many people seem to not understand a simple fact. The 2024 rules are the rules of the game now. That is what D&D 5E is. 2014 is what it was. The 2024 rules are not just extra options like Tasha's, etc. They are the game itself. Why on earth would they toggle the rules of the game off? Then there's the other fact that 2014 content is still available and still almost entirely supported. What are we even doing?
Best guess? Cathartic tantrums?
You know, I would not have expected a bad faith response from you. I will update my priors and I am disappointed.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Just to be clear, I never claimed that purchasing a license gives someone ownership of the IP.
Further, I do understand that it is DnDB’s contention that if I purchase digital content, such as a pdf file, that I don’t acquire ownership of even a single instance of a pdf file.
That’s why I will no longer be purchasing _any_ content from DnDB and will be recommending my social network to do the same.
Whether DnDB is correct in their assertion is unknown as there is no case law to support their claim or, at least, after a week of searching, I have not found any.
That's not how case law works. It is presumed that everyone is following the law until someone brings a case to prove otherwise and then, once adjudicated, case law sets precedent.
Also, at no point has DDB contended that they are selling you a PDF. They have always contended that they are selling you access to a service. It is you who continue to chose to try and frame this inaccurately for somewhat questionable reasons.
There is a a fair amount to hammer WotC and DDB on, but this is the silliest hill to want to pretend to be a martyr on.
Where is the bad faith?
Semantics and a personal view do not bad faith make.
I completely understand this in wizbro's purview to do this, the bad faith IMHO lies with them. Many, myself included see this as a petty passive aggressive punishment, ie you won't play with my toy like I want you too, so I will break the toy.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.