199
Baldur's Gate 3 Caused A 40 Percent Rise In Digital Revenue For Hasbro (www.thegamer.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/baldurs_gate_3@lemmy.world
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Baldur's Gate 3 has made bank for Hasbro, significantly contributing to a 40 percent increase in digital revenue for the company.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Hasbro owns wizards of the coast, which is the owner of the D&D trademark.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    wizards of the coast

    Of the "sent the literal Pinkertons after a streamer" fame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Tbf there's a good chance that story was massively exaggerated and overblown. Like, supposedly they didn't threaten him at all, and he willingly gave them the cards in exchange for something else. They were after whoever leaked the cards from their supply chain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    They said they were going to detain him and seize all of his cards, and make him prove he owns any of them.

    That's a huge disruption to his life and business.

    It wouldn't take a genius to be polite enough to be invited inside to talk about stuff, and slowly ramp up the severity enough to keep a guy listening and minimise confrontation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    It is completely overblown, and most people seem to be picturing the people from Red Dead Redemption and not a dead brand name that a Swedish security company bought to do collections under. Yes if you have sensitive possessions of a company they will send someone to get it, not trust you to mail it back to them.

    The context that this was to prevent an NDA and happened within a month of someone else breaching an NDA with a leak that had a handful of noisy people declaring D&D dead is also pretty important, but never mentioned. It would never have even been a story without that context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    These kinds of stories tend to be overblown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I don't know the story, but if it's something that wasn't supposed to be released, it's pretty much definitely stolen property. You're not entitled to keep stolen property because you think it's cool, and sending PIs to recover stolen property instead of the police is the nice route.

    Showing property that belongs to someone else online and can't be acquired legitimately is absolutely grounds for an actual police search warrant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    sending PIs to recover stolen property instead of the police is the nice route.

    Exactly. However being in possession of stolen property is not itself a crime, you just don't have any right to keep it. If you paid for it, then your claim is against whoever you paid.

    They could have got the police to reclaim the stolen property, however perhaps that might not have been as effective for them in investigating the leak. In any case, the stories about the Pinkertons threatening him might not be true, and he'd have every right to refuse them entry or even to speak to them. The fact that he did suggests he willingly complied.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Knowingly being in possession of stolen property is a crime.

    If there's no legitimate source and a reasonable person would recognize that it's stolen by default, you can definitely go to jail.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Knowingly possessing stolen goods is a crime, however that law is about addressing the trade of stolen goods, ie fencing. Merely possessing the goods is unlikely to attract a criminal charge, let alone a conviction with jail time, as it will usually be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the buyer knew the goods were stolen. A reasonable person might think it is likely that they were stolen but would not know for sure.

    Like I say, they were after the person who leaked it from the supply chain. If the police had been involved, they too would have been interested in the leaker, not the one-time buyer.

    Edit: It can also vary by jurisdiction. Looking into it, there's an interesting bit in the wiki for this in the UK section, where they distinguish between suspicion, belief and knowledge:

    A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods

    Belief ... is something short of knowledge. It may be said to be the state of mind of a person who says to himself, "I cannot say I know for certain that these goods are stolen, but there can be no other reasonable conclusion in the light of all the circumstances, in the light of all that I have heard and seen."

    However I don't think the US makes this distinction, as the US version of the law does not include "belief".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's generally hard to prosecute because there are plausible other explanations for intent. You don't have any way of knowing a generic laptop is stolen vs used.

    Having a unique item from a company you make money covering, that wasn't ever sold legitimately and you didn't acquire from any legitimate source, is absolutely something that could get to trial at minimum, if the company is pushing the DA to do so. You'd end up having to have a lawyer convince a jury that "I didn't know" is believable.

    The fact that they chose to give the streamer a pass for cooperating doesn't mean that they couldn't have perfectly reasonably or successfully pursued charges. Choosing not to do so is more evidence of them choosing the nice way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You probably didn't see my edit, which is pretty relevant :o)

    US law requires knowledge of the goods being stolen, not mere belief. You don't have to convince the jury you didn't know, the prosecution has to convince the jury you did. That's a very high bar to meet, and while it could go to trial it almost certainly wouldn't, not unless they had solid evidence of his knowledge (eg, if he said they were stolen on his stream).

    The fact that they chose to go through the Pinkertons more likely points to the fact that they knew they wouldn't have charges thrown about if they involved the police. The buyer would have been less likely to cooperate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You don't have to see into their brain.

    The US tends to use the reasonable person standard. If a reasonable person, with the information you have, would know that it's stolen, you knowingly possessed stolen goods.

    Something that doesn't exist through legitimate channels, especially for a subject you portray yourself as knowledgeable of, is enough. You have to cast reasonable doubt with a plausible alternative explanation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    You're presenting generalised speculation as if what you're saying is certain. It would be nice if you could provide something that would back up your claim, like a similar case with a one-time buyer that proceeded to trial.

    A reasonable person would not necessarily know the goods were stolen, even if they had knowledge of the industry. All the buyer would likely need to say is something like "the seller convinced me that this was an early release for select reviewers", and the only way to counter that would be for the prosecution to provide actual evidence proving their knowledge of the theft. "Legitimate channels" is not confined to retail.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent