14 hours ago a moderator posted about discount stacking, 2 posts above your attempt to shift the discussion to 3pp stuff 🤔
In response to a comment about a bundle of 3PP books. I’m seriously questioning if you’re acting in good faith since you keep ignoring the point after I repeatedly point it out.
Well seeing as the post directly above your last post speaks to the bundles including some 3pp books it would seem your beating a dead horse lol. Also accusing people of posting in bad faith is not cool when they clearly aren't.
Guide to Wildemount is in a weird place- it’s partnered content since Matt Mercer and crew own the setting and such, but WotC also published it under their umbrella.
It clearly is something other than First Party since it is not listed as such on the page where such distinctions are clearly made by the owners of both the site and IP holders of First Party content for all to see.🤯
The point being that whoever owns the IP within the book, WotC has publication rights for it. That creates a very different dynamic from all the other partnered content books, thus making it a poor “what about” target if you stop and consider it for a moment.
Beat that horse all you want, but it is listed as partner content on the sources page, in the character generation tool, and in all of the search filters on this site which is owned by WotC, if it were First party, they would treat it as such. Picking nits doesn't change how it is treated by the entity that has both the authority and tools to treat it as they need to, and as of now and since it has been available on this site before WotC bought it it is Partnered Content ie not first party content it doesn't get anymore official than this site the premier D&D website does it?!
If we're gonna split hairs, we should focus on WotC crawfishing on the advertised 10-15% discount stacking with sale prices for all future purchases for those that bought the $1000+ bundles, not whether the Guide to Wildemount is first party or something else don't you think?! 😔
Not particularly. They had one policy on earlier sales, now they have another. That’s how it goes. You can try and claim you’re entitled all you like, but I rather doubt the actual facts of the matter rather than the assumptions and preconceptions bear it out. They’re still honoring the bundle discount against list price, if with a bit more legwork. How they choose to offer further temporary discounts is their prerogative.
Haha, so published ad copy is meaningless, and they're not beholden to the promises they made just a couple of years ago?! Ending bundle sales does not negate the requirement to honor the marketing promises made to those that bought in, there are many many industries that grandfather customers for the very real reason that they are required to do so. WotC thinks this won't come back to bite them, I bet they're very wrong
Time will tell, at some point the courts will decide. Every sale they promote increases the actual and real damages incurred by those that bought in and took them at their word which was published in multiple marketing releases. Just because they say they don't have to honor what they clearly advertised doesn't mean it will hold up, TOS, and EULA's still have to pass muster where they are sold and what their lawyers and bean counters think may or may not work out the way they plan. Nintendo thinks they can slap "no class action lawsuits" in their TOS and EULA and it will fly, bet it don't! When you go global, you gotta know the laws for every jurisdiction you collect money from, not just the one you're based in🤔
That 10-15% stacking with sales is gonna seem cheap compared to what it will actually cost, sadly those affected will still be the real losers.
Been a while since the business law classes, but honestly- yeah. An advertisement made years ago isn’t a binding ironclad offer in perpetuity. You’re welcome to bet otherwise if you prefer, but frankly my money’s on the people with a legal department.
Yeah, because no one with a legal department has ever settled out of court, or lost a court case.
Funny how most large businesses are eager to grandfather customers in situations just like this. It is almost like they realized it is both the right thing and the cheapest thing to do all rolled into one.
Beat that horse all you want, but it is listed as partner content on the sources page, in the character generation tool, and in all of the search filters on this site which is owned by WotC, if it were First party, they would treat it as such. Picking nits doesn't change how it is treated by the entity that has both the authority and tools to treat it as they need to, and as of now and since it has been available on this site before WotC bought it it is Partnered Content ie not first party content it doesn't get anymore official than this site the premier D&D website does it?!
Wizards of the Coast originally did treat these official products differently than other third-party content. They changed not because it is not official, but because it made organization easier - better sort and filter options in the character builder if you keep like-kind content grouped together. There is a reason the change coincided with the release of the first third party content to be in the same category as official content - the second CR book released on this site.
So, yes, they are still first party. They also are third party. Something can be both - just like any other book can have two different authors, so too can these products. They happened to be grouped like third party since that more easily matches the use case of players and DMs, but that doesn’t make them any less official.
14 hours ago a moderator posted about discount stacking, 2 posts above your attempt to shift the discussion to 3pp stuff 🤔
The bundle did include both Acquisitions Incorporated and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount.
In response to a comment about a bundle of 3PP books. I’m seriously questioning if you’re acting in good faith since you keep ignoring the point after I repeatedly point it out.
Well seeing as the post directly above your last post speaks to the bundles including some 3pp books it would seem your beating a dead horse lol. Also accusing people of posting in bad faith is not cool when they clearly aren't.
Neither of those are third party. Both were published by WotC.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Umm actually Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is listed under partnered content. In the sources tab at the top of the page🤔
https://marketplace.dndbeyond.com/category/explorers-guide-to-wildemount?pid=SRC-00059
Look at who published the book. Right under the title.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There is a reason WotC chose to list it as Partnered Content and not with the other 1st party titles, 🤔
Doesn't change the fact that it is an official WotC product and not third party.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Guide to Wildemount is in a weird place- it’s partnered content since Matt Mercer and crew own the setting and such, but WotC also published it under their umbrella.
It clearly is something other than First Party since it is not listed as such on the page where such distinctions are clearly made by the owners of both the site and IP holders of First Party content for all to see.🤯
The point being that whoever owns the IP within the book, WotC has publication rights for it. That creates a very different dynamic from all the other partnered content books, thus making it a poor “what about” target if you stop and consider it for a moment.
Beat that horse all you want, but it is listed as partner content on the sources page, in the character generation tool, and in all of the search filters on this site which is owned by WotC, if it were First party, they would treat it as such. Picking nits doesn't change how it is treated by the entity that has both the authority and tools to treat it as they need to, and as of now and since it has been available on this site before WotC bought it it is Partnered Content ie not first party content it doesn't get anymore official than this site the premier D&D website does it?!
If we're gonna split hairs, we should focus on WotC crawfishing on the advertised 10-15% discount stacking with sale prices for all future purchases for those that bought the $1000+ bundles, not whether the Guide to Wildemount is first party or something else don't you think?! 😔
Not particularly. They had one policy on earlier sales, now they have another. That’s how it goes. You can try and claim you’re entitled all you like, but I rather doubt the actual facts of the matter rather than the assumptions and preconceptions bear it out. They’re still honoring the bundle discount against list price, if with a bit more legwork. How they choose to offer further temporary discounts is their prerogative.
Haha, so published ad copy is meaningless, and they're not beholden to the promises they made just a couple of years ago?! Ending bundle sales does not negate the requirement to honor the marketing promises made to those that bought in, there are many many industries that grandfather customers for the very real reason that they are required to do so. WotC thinks this won't come back to bite them, I bet they're very wrong
Time will tell, at some point the courts will decide. Every sale they promote increases the actual and real damages incurred by those that bought in and took them at their word which was published in multiple marketing releases. Just because they say they don't have to honor what they clearly advertised doesn't mean it will hold up, TOS, and EULA's still have to pass muster where they are sold and what their lawyers and bean counters think may or may not work out the way they plan. Nintendo thinks they can slap "no class action lawsuits" in their TOS and EULA and it will fly, bet it don't! When you go global, you gotta know the laws for every jurisdiction you collect money from, not just the one you're based in🤔
That 10-15% stacking with sales is gonna seem cheap compared to what it will actually cost, sadly those affected will still be the real losers.
Been a while since the business law classes, but honestly- yeah. An advertisement made years ago isn’t a binding ironclad offer in perpetuity. You’re welcome to bet otherwise if you prefer, but frankly my money’s on the people with a legal department.
Yeah, because no one with a legal department has ever settled out of court, or lost a court case.
Funny how most large businesses are eager to grandfather customers in situations just like this. It is almost like they realized it is both the right thing and the cheapest thing to do all rolled into one.
Class actions buy tall buildings!
Wizards of the Coast originally did treat these official products differently than other third-party content. They changed not because it is not official, but because it made organization easier - better sort and filter options in the character builder if you keep like-kind content grouped together. There is a reason the change coincided with the release of the first third party content to be in the same category as official content - the second CR book released on this site.
So, yes, they are still first party. They also are third party. Something can be both - just like any other book can have two different authors, so too can these products. They happened to be grouped like third party since that more easily matches the use case of players and DMs, but that doesn’t make them any less official.