Is D&D Beyond requiring subscriptions?

While there is a lot of opinion on what this person is saying, I completely disagree that it's "straight up lies for clicks".  You could fact-check that entire video; everything that was said is objectively true.  Her you can agree or disagree with the opinions she has, but her opinion is based on pure fact. 

It seems you did not read my comment and are simply looking for something to disagree over.

I never said they lied in that video, because I don't know what they said in that video, because I will not under any circumstances give them the engagement they so desperately crave by watching their videos. My comment was that as an overarching theme of their content, they lie for clicks. Their channel is fundamentally dishonest disinformation for the purpose of fueling engagement. They are the worst kind of content creator, a discontent creator.

And claiming that D&D going to an online subscription model is a 100% eventuality is the daftest proclamation. It's as foolish as claiming it'll never happen. It could happen, but it is not likely in the foreseeable future as there is no suggestion that it is in the works, other than people who have their pantaloons in a bunch over drops lamenting about in short form, vertically filmed video. But it does make for a nice boogyman.

Quote from Davyd >>

While there is a lot of opinion on what this person is saying, I completely disagree that it's "straight up lies for clicks".  You could fact-check that entire video; everything that was said is objectively true.  Her you can agree or disagree with the opinions she has, but her opinion is based on pure fact. 

It seems you did not read my comment and are simply looking for something to disagree over.

I never said they lied in that video, because I don't know what they said in that video, because I will not under any circumstances give them the engagement they so desperately crave by watching their videos. My comment was that as an overarching theme of their content, they lie for clicks. Their channel is fundamentally dishonest disinformation for the purpose of fueling engagement. They are the worst kind of content creator, a discontent creator.

And claiming that D&D going to an online subscription model is a 100% eventuality is the daftest proclamation. It's as foolish as claiming it'll never happen. It could happen, but it is not likely in the foreseeable future as there is no suggestion that it is in the works, other than people who have their pantaloons in a bunch over drops lamenting about in short form, vertically filmed video. But it does make for a nice boogyman.

 The Jimquisition was a mistake. Every false Cassandra(DNDDiscourse being one of them) copies Steph Sterling's grifting model of throwing a bunch of misanthropic fecal matter at easy targets on the wall, some of it inevitably sticks, and then claim it as prophecy. Some of the copycats even say their autism gives them Cassandra abilities, which is not only impossible, but also ableist.

No, unless it is EXPLICITLY stated, it isn't happening. Anything else is everyone running around like a chicken w/its head cut off.

While I try not to be a 'the sky is falling' kind of person.  I understand where someone could think the future for D&DBeyond is subscription based.

1. It already is. The site has a free/pay system with a subscription fee as an extra.
2. Drops are strickly subscription based content. You can not access it at all without a subscription and there will be more of it every week. The more that gets put under the Drops umbrella, the more the sub will start to look manditory. (note that I said 'look' not will be)

Does that mean that D&DBeyond IS going to go full subscription model, no. But there is no reason to say that couldn't eventually happen either.  

Quote from Davyd >>

While there is a lot of opinion on what this person is saying, I completely disagree that it's "straight up lies for clicks".  You could fact-check that entire video; everything that was said is objectively true.  Her you can agree or disagree with the opinions she has, but her opinion is based on pure fact. 

It seems you did not read my comment and are simply looking for something to disagree over.

I never said they lied in that video, because I don't know what they said in that video, because I will not under any circumstances give them the engagement they so desperately crave by watching their videos. My comment was that as an overarching theme of their content, they lie for clicks. Their channel is fundamentally dishonest disinformation for the purpose of fueling engagement. They are the worst kind of content creator, a discontent creator.

And claiming that D&D going to an online subscription model is a 100% eventuality is the daftest proclamation. It's as foolish as claiming it'll never happen. It could happen, but it is not likely in the foreseeable future as there is no suggestion that it is in the works, other than people who have their pantaloons in a bunch over drops lamenting about in short form, vertically filmed video. But it does make for a nice boogyman.

 
You quite literally are saying you never said they lied in that video in the same paragraph as you accuse them of lying for clicks in all their videos.  I can read just fine.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from Davyd >>

While there is a lot of opinion on what this person is saying, I completely disagree that it's "straight up lies for clicks".  You could fact-check that entire video; everything that was said is objectively true.  Her you can agree or disagree with the opinions she has, but her opinion is based on pure fact. 

It seems you did not read my comment and are simply looking for something to disagree over.

I never said they lied in that video, because I don't know what they said in that video, because I will not under any circumstances give them the engagement they so desperately crave by watching their videos. My comment was that as an overarching theme of their content, they lie for clicks. Their channel is fundamentally dishonest disinformation for the purpose of fueling engagement. They are the worst kind of content creator, a discontent creator.

And claiming that D&D going to an online subscription model is a 100% eventuality is the daftest proclamation. It's as foolish as claiming it'll never happen. It could happen, but it is not likely in the foreseeable future as there is no suggestion that it is in the works, other than people who have their pantaloons in a bunch over drops lamenting about in short form, vertically filmed video. But it does make for a nice boogyman.

 
You quite literally are saying you never said they lied in that video in the same paragraph as you accuse them of lying for clicks in all their videos.  I can read just fine.

 While she had a KERNEL of truth(Drops player options being(currently) locked to subs), she went full Chicken Little/Steph Sterling to the deceptive & unprofessional degree that entails, by wildly speculating about DND Beyond going all sub(No basis but vague statements by suits, who lie to EVERYONE in the same way politicians do), knowing that she can rely on useful people to defend her clickbait if called out for lying/obfuscating/reacting by WotC.

She does this w/Critical Role all the dang time, taking one thing Matt Mercer, Talisen Jaffe, or Darrington Press might have done & going full Jimquisition-tier slippery slope fallacy, hoping to be quoted by a super cereal news org for her big break.

Hope this clarifies.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from Davyd >>

While there is a lot of opinion on what this person is saying, I completely disagree that it's "straight up lies for clicks".  You could fact-check that entire video; everything that was said is objectively true.  Her you can agree or disagree with the opinions she has, but her opinion is based on pure fact. 

It seems you did not read my comment and are simply looking for something to disagree over.

I never said they lied in that video, because I don't know what they said in that video, because I will not under any circumstances give them the engagement they so desperately crave by watching their videos. My comment was that as an overarching theme of their content, they lie for clicks. Their channel is fundamentally dishonest disinformation for the purpose of fueling engagement. They are the worst kind of content creator, a discontent creator.

And claiming that D&D going to an online subscription model is a 100% eventuality is the daftest proclamation. It's as foolish as claiming it'll never happen. It could happen, but it is not likely in the foreseeable future as there is no suggestion that it is in the works, other than people who have their pantaloons in a bunch over drops lamenting about in short form, vertically filmed video. But it does make for a nice boogyman.

 
You quite literally are saying you never said they lied in that video in the same paragraph as you accuse them of lying for clicks in all their videos.  I can read just fine.

 "But they said some true things" comes across as unnecessarily pedantic just to be contrarian. They lie to drum up clout and engagement. A good grifter mixes some truth in with their lies to keep people hooked. These are both true statements. Someone who tells me a true fact in order to convince me to believe an untrue argument isn't being honest.