I could swear I remember the Legendary bundle discount applying to most but not all future purchases. Honestly, I only got it because eventually after all the other purchases I'd made the sale price on the remainder of the Legendary bundle was pretty cheap. That it gave discounts on some of the new products was just gravy at that point. At any rate, as a connoisseur of fine print, I don't remember there being any guarantee of perpetuity on the Legendary bundle discount. Does it suck? Sure, but that's capitalism for ya.
To be frank, I find the argument that not having a discount equals raising the price to be a specious, bad faith claim. If I bought milk on sale last week and it's back to regular price this week, the price wasn't raised. It's just back to regular price.
I don't think anyone is arguing that folks who are hitting a tight spot aren't "feeling the pinch." Quite the contrary. I think it speaks to many posters' sympathetic attitudes that so many have made suggestions on how to make use of free resources to play D&D. However, it's one thing to say "I can't afford to play D&D because times are tight. It's quite another thing to say "I can't afford to play D&D because the prices have been jacked up." The former is true for quite a number of people, I imagine, while the latter is objectively false.
Assuming it worked like the sourcebook bundle (which is what I got), it applied to everything except charity items. I don't remember what was stated regarding future releases, but at the very least it was to give a discount on everything included in the bundle in the future. Since dndbeyond decided to discontinue the bundle, I guess that doesn't mean anything anymore.
As for price increases, discount stacking is a pretty marginal case. The actual increases were getting rid of the bundles and a la carte purchases. Those actually offered more affordable options that no longer exist. I also suspect that discounts are nowadays clearly smaller than previously. Whether or not you count that as a price increase is debatable.
The bundles were sold as both applying to future purchases and stacking with sales. It's not like coming across something on a temporary sale, then coming back to find it's not. That's akin to the periodic sales we have here. The bundles had the discounts as part of the product itself - you were, in part, buying the future discounts.
That said, I agree with Frachese. The actual cost of them not stacking is fairly marginal and it's more about the principle than the actual pennies in the bank. What's more of a squeeze is the removal of piecemeal purchases. Now there are things I'd like to buy that used to cost $1.99 (or up to about $8 for several in one) that, if I want them now, would cost me $30 to get (in fact, I was about to buy such a thing, Auril, for the encounter builder because I already have the physical book, when they abruptly took that option away).
As for differently discounted books in the sales...it depends. The sales used to be fairly good (around 20%-30% for most books), whereas now they're more like 10%-15% for a selection. On the other hand, that changed happened a few years ago...so it's not clear if that counts.
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 could swear I remember the Legendary bundle discount applying to most but not all future purchases. Honestly, I only got it because eventually after all the other purchases I'd made the sale price on the remainder of the Legendary bundle was pretty cheap. That it gave discounts on some of the new products was just gravy at that point. At any rate, as a connoisseur of fine print, I don't remember there being any guarantee of perpetuity on the Legendary bundle discount. Does it suck? Sure, but that's capitalism for ya.
To be frank, I find the argument that not having a discount equals raising the price to be a specious, bad faith claim. If I bought milk on sale last week and it's back to regular price this week, the price wasn't raised. It's just back to regular price.
I don't think anyone is arguing that folks who are hitting a tight spot aren't "feeling the pinch." Quite the contrary. I think it speaks to many posters' sympathetic attitudes that so many have made suggestions on how to make use of free resources to play D&D. However, it's one thing to say "I can't afford to play D&D because times are tight. It's quite another thing to say "I can't afford to play D&D because the prices have been jacked up." The former is true for quite a number of people, I imagine, while the latter is objectively false.
The discount stacking provided a 10-15% discount on top of a sale price. It wasn't some random thing and it was an integral part of the package, so much so that wotc advertised it as a reason to buy the bundles. So there is no bad faith on the consumer side of this discussion. I do find your interpretation of the argument disingenuous at best as what you described is not what happened, and it doe raise the cost by removing the discount people were sold.
That 10-15% coupled with waiting for sales is significant to those on a tight entertainment budget, and removing it directly increases the cost of books i.e. pricing people that bought the bundles out of the game.
Being able to play D&D for free in this discussion is a logical fallacy since the discussion is about people that have already purchased content, several hundreds of dollars worth it they lost a bundle stacking discount. No one is saying you can't play for free, I will say it is irrelevant to the group being discussed and labeled as making bad faith arguments which they are not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I could swear I remember the Legendary bundle discount applying to most but not all future purchases. Honestly, I only got it because eventually after all the other purchases I'd made the sale price on the remainder of the Legendary bundle was pretty cheap. That it gave discounts on some of the new products was just gravy at that point. At any rate, as a connoisseur of fine print, I don't remember there being any guarantee of perpetuity on the Legendary bundle discount. Does it suck? Sure, but that's capitalism for ya.
To be frank, I find the argument that not having a discount equals raising the price to be a specious, bad faith claim. If I bought milk on sale last week and it's back to regular price this week, the price wasn't raised. It's just back to regular price.
I don't think anyone is arguing that folks who are hitting a tight spot aren't "feeling the pinch." Quite the contrary. I think it speaks to many posters' sympathetic attitudes that so many have made suggestions on how to make use of free resources to play D&D. However, it's one thing to say "I can't afford to play D&D because times are tight. It's quite another thing to say "I can't afford to play D&D because the prices have been jacked up." The former is true for quite a number of people, I imagine, while the latter is objectively false.
Assuming it worked like the sourcebook bundle (which is what I got), it applied to everything except charity items. I don't remember what was stated regarding future releases, but at the very least it was to give a discount on everything included in the bundle in the future. Since dndbeyond decided to discontinue the bundle, I guess that doesn't mean anything anymore.
As for price increases, discount stacking is a pretty marginal case. The actual increases were getting rid of the bundles and a la carte purchases. Those actually offered more affordable options that no longer exist. I also suspect that discounts are nowadays clearly smaller than previously. Whether or not you count that as a price increase is debatable.
The bundles were sold as both applying to future purchases and stacking with sales. It's not like coming across something on a temporary sale, then coming back to find it's not. That's akin to the periodic sales we have here. The bundles had the discounts as part of the product itself - you were, in part, buying the future discounts.
That said, I agree with Frachese. The actual cost of them not stacking is fairly marginal and it's more about the principle than the actual pennies in the bank. What's more of a squeeze is the removal of piecemeal purchases. Now there are things I'd like to buy that used to cost $1.99 (or up to about $8 for several in one) that, if I want them now, would cost me $30 to get (in fact, I was about to buy such a thing, Auril, for the encounter builder because I already have the physical book, when they abruptly took that option away).
As for differently discounted books in the sales...it depends. The sales used to be fairly good (around 20%-30% for most books), whereas now they're more like 10%-15% for a selection. On the other hand, that changed happened a few years ago...so it's not clear if that counts.
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.
The discount stacking provided a 10-15% discount on top of a sale price. It wasn't some random thing and it was an integral part of the package, so much so that wotc advertised it as a reason to buy the bundles. So there is no bad faith on the consumer side of this discussion. I do find your interpretation of the argument disingenuous at best as what you described is not what happened, and it doe raise the cost by removing the discount people were sold.
That 10-15% coupled with waiting for sales is significant to those on a tight entertainment budget, and removing it directly increases the cost of books i.e. pricing people that bought the bundles out of the game.
Being able to play D&D for free in this discussion is a logical fallacy since the discussion is about people that have already purchased content, several hundreds of dollars worth it they lost a bundle stacking discount. No one is saying you can't play for free, I will say it is irrelevant to the group being discussed and labeled as making bad faith arguments which they are not.