No, it is on topic to help the OP understand that they are not being priced out of the game and that there are a myriad of options available for them to enjoy the game. Fixate on this off-topic discussion if you want though.
Where did the OP ask for cheaper or free options? They asked if anyone else was feeling the pinch related to the cost of content that is for sale. The argument of free content is just a red herring being used to draw attention away from the question asked as well as discussion about other ways costs have been increased by removing options from the site.
OP raises two substantive issues in their post:
1. That they are priced out of the game. This is impossible since the price of the game can be free - if they are feeling "priced out" that is their fault and their choice.
2. That the books are getting more expensive. This is simply wrong and comes from a lack of understanding of how money works. It is an objective fact that the most recent core books are the least expensive since 1978 when you account for inflation.
Talking about free content directly addresses point one and is therefore relevant to this thread as it responds to point 1.
Talking about the math as to why D&D is not actually increasing in price is relevant to this thread as it responds to point 2.
Talking about the legendary bundle and sales is not relevant to either of those two points and is therefore not constructive, helpful, or relevant to this thread.
Given that a real cost increase can be tied to the removal of discount stacking, it is constructive, helpful and relevant to this thread. It also requires no where near as as many assumptions nor ignoring parts of the OP to tie the theory to the post as many of the other theories do. Occam's Razor and all.
How so, all we know is they own the legendary bundle, and they have some concern about $13. We do not know when the bundle was purchased so we have no idea what cost was incurred or if it was back when coupons and sales that allowed coupons to be applied to the bundle (the account is old enough for these to apply) nor do we know if they saved money over time if so how much time was taken to set aside the money to buy it, put it on a credit card, or if someone gifted them the money to buy it. Just assuming someone plopped down $1000 on a whim and is now concerned about saving $13 just to shore up an argument that it is a first world problem and should be discarded is some interesting logic.
Also isn't most any D&D problem a"first world problem" given that even to play it for free generally requires a computer and Internet connection to access the "free" stuff?
No, it is on topic to help the OP understand that they are not being priced out of the game and that there are a myriad of options available for them to enjoy the game. Fixate on this off-topic discussion if you want though.
Where did the OP ask for cheaper or free options? They asked if anyone else was feeling the pinch related to the cost of content that is for sale. The argument of free content is just a red herring being used to draw attention away from the question asked as well as discussion about other ways costs have been increased by removing options from the site.
Except the overwhelming consensus here is no, people are not "feeling the pinch"; the price bump is minimal for people who can afford to regularly purchase books, with or without a discount that most people never qualified for in the first place stacking on top of sales, and ALC is coming up a lot more as a "what about" than a make a break for people remaining engaged. The 3PP can breed FOMO with all the extra content flying around, but again in terms of pound for pound value the only claim since the OP of a table being impacted by the prices is from a FLGS selling at well over MSRP, which is not something WotC has any control over. There's no red herring because nothing in this body of dialogue indicates there's an endemic issue.
A consensus only requires agreement no facts or logic are required.
The OP didn't specify purchase frequency or first/3rd party content.
ALC is an interesting issue when it comes to costs, but there are still several threads on the topic, and it comes up frequently in threads not directly about it being removed.
Where did the OP mention FLGS's?
Red herrings abound as the arguments used to dismiss the OP have nothing to do with the OP.
Locking this thread as it has derailed from its original topic. Remember that if you find yourself responding to one other user more often than not and going over the same points, it's okay to take a step back and let things sit. Don't feel like you need to repeat yourself to be understood.
Given that a real cost increase can be tied to the removal of discount stacking, it is constructive, helpful and relevant to this thread. It also requires no where near as as many assumptions nor ignoring parts of the OP to tie the theory to the post as many of the other theories do. Occam's Razor and all.
How so, all we know is they own the legendary bundle, and they have some concern about $13. We do not know when the bundle was purchased so we have no idea what cost was incurred or if it was back when coupons and sales that allowed coupons to be applied to the bundle (the account is old enough for these to apply) nor do we know if they saved money over time if so how much time was taken to set aside the money to buy it, put it on a credit card, or if someone gifted them the money to buy it. Just assuming someone plopped down $1000 on a whim and is now concerned about saving $13 just to shore up an argument that it is a first world problem and should be discarded is some interesting logic.
Also isn't most any D&D problem a"first world problem" given that even to play it for free generally requires a computer and Internet connection to access the "free" stuff?
A consensus only requires agreement no facts or logic are required.
The OP didn't specify purchase frequency or first/3rd party content.
ALC is an interesting issue when it comes to costs, but there are still several threads on the topic, and it comes up frequently in threads not directly about it being removed.
Where did the OP mention FLGS's?
Red herrings abound as the arguments used to dismiss the OP have nothing to do with the OP.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorLocking this thread as it has derailed from its original topic. Remember that if you find yourself responding to one other user more often than not and going over the same points, it's okay to take a step back and let things sit. Don't feel like you need to repeat yourself to be understood.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support