I still don't see how "designs do not exist independently of the time and effort spent by whoever is building from them" can be true.
Find one example of a design that exists independently of the time and effort of the entity building from it - this would like a complete data base, already fully integrated into the D&D Beyond tools without even a single line of code written by a curse employee, and also already fully integrated into Fantasy grounds without their coders doing any specific work, and so on down the line so that no one writing a tool that utilizes the information in any way has to re-write any information from the data base or write their coding in response to the data in the data base rather than it being functional to write their code even if they don't know the details of the data base.
The separation between design & implementation is definite from the perspective of the designer and the implementer.
Conceptually only. In practical application, the folks at Curse have had to basically re-produce every piece of the design as part of the process of getting their implementation to work - thus the design already existing (read: Curse not making the tools while also making up their own RPG information to use it with) has not caused the creating of the tools to take less time or effort. Which is what I mean by the design not existing independently of the time and effort; they are inherently a package deal.
I still don't see how "designs do not exist independently of the time and effort spent by whoever is building from them" can be true.
Find one example of a design that exists independently of the time and effort of the entity building from it - this would like a complete data base, already fully integrated into the D&D Beyond tools without even a single line of code written by a curse employee, and also already fully integrated into Fantasy grounds without their coders doing any specific work, and so on down the line so that no one writing a tool that utilizes the information in any way has to re-write any information from the data base or write their coding in response to the data in the data base rather than it being functional to write their code even if they don't know the details of the data base.
The separation between design & implementation is definite from the perspective of the designer and the implementer.
Conceptually only. In practical application, the folks at Curse have had to basically re-produce every piece of the design as part of the process of getting their implementation to work - thus the design already existing (read: Curse not making the tools while also making up their own RPG information to use it with) has not caused the creating of the tools to take less time or effort. Which is what I mean by the design not existing independently of the time and effort; they are inherently a package deal.
So you're saying there is no point in considering content without implementation because it is just a concept and not reality?
If so, I can at least understand your point of view but not share it. I think fleshed out ideas are worth considering independently because they have value before they are actually implemented. The perceived value of the idea alone is what brings implementation to reality. Before implementation starts, someone decides it's worth investing into and they pay money for it. Workers get paid for their time to build it. All that perceived value has been turned to real value before a consumer verifies it was a worthy investment by buying the finished product (or not).
thus the design already existing has not caused the creating of the tools to take less time or effort.
I don't see how this can be true either. If Curse didn't have the design they would have to create a whole new set of races, classes, feats, combat rules, lore, etc. That's a lot of work they didn't have to do.
I don't see how this can be true either. If Curse didn't have the design they would have to create a whole new set of races, classes, feats, combat rules, lore, etc. That's a lot of work they didn't have to do.
It's only a lot of work if you assume they are putting in as much work as WotC or another game designer would do. Without assumption that the results will be good quality, the amount of work would be a whole lot less.
And while I realize that just punching in whatever inconsistent low-quality and possibly non-functional game info would not result in the tools being desirable to customers, my point that the designers of the tool aren't doing less work than if they were punching in whatever they wanted - that the design hasn't reduced their necessary work-load for making their portion of the good tools + good game material combination - is still clearly made.
I don't see how this can be true either. If Curse didn't have the design they would have to create a whole new set of races, classes, feats, combat rules, lore, etc. That's a lot of work they didn't have to do.
It's only a lot of work if you assume they are putting in as much work as WotC or another game designer would do. Without assumption that the results will be good quality, the amount of work would be a whole lot less.
And while I realize that just punching in whatever inconsistent low-quality and possibly non-functional game info would not result in the tools being desirable to customers, my point that the designers of the tool aren't doing less work than if they were punching in whatever they wanted - that the design hasn't reduced their necessary work-load for making their portion of the good tools + good game material combination - is still clearly made.
But it has reduced their necessary workload. Even if their replacement content is a very small workload, it's still something. The implementation has to be built on top of some idea. Their tools can only be content agnostic to a certain degree. They can't be completely idea agnostic. If they could then we would only over have one set of code for every single idea ever had.
If Curse didn't have the design they would have to create a whole new set of races, classes, feats, combat rules, lore, etc. That's a lot of work they didn't have to do.
This is very true, but it is not like they get to use it for free. they have to pay to use that and that cost gets passed on to the consumer so you get to use it as well. Somebody needs to should get paid for that creation right?
If Curse didn't have the design they would have to create a whole new set of races, classes, feats, combat rules, lore, etc. That's a lot of work they didn't have to do.
This is very true, but it is not like they get to use it for free. they have to pay to use that and that cost gets passed on to the consumer so you get to use it as well. Somebody needs to should get paid for that creation right?
So according to this logic the implementation cannot exist without the idea, but the idea can exist without the implementation.
You are confusing two statements I made as being the same statement, which they were not.
One was that the idea (D&D 5th edition) doesn't exist as a separate thing from the work WotC (and fans, thanks to the open play-test) put into it.
The other was that the implementation (D&D Beyond, or other digital offerings) don't exist as a thing separate from the utilized ideas (the D&D 5th Edition bits that shape what they make the coding do, and that are re-produced in the data bases that the tools operate upon).
Or to use your phrasings; I've been talking about two different implementations (D&D 5th edition & D&D Beyond), despite that the idea behind one of the implementations is the other implementation.
If I can summarise what I think Kreakdude is saying (because I think it's being lost in the details)... (in an ideal world) a customer should have to pay for the content only once via some kind of unique identifier, but the retailers would be free to add a markup to the content to cover their costs for repackaging the content in a usable format on their site. Essentially DDB would not lose any money via this proposition, but WOTC would.
Then why would wotc continue making stuff if the can make money of single items ... Doesnt that means they literally have to release content every weeks just to make money ? Think about it... What he is saying is that once i buy a book. I literally can get 15 thousands others for free !! And if we go for a key that knows how many you get how would wotc manage those copies and whom you decide to give them to ?
That system doesnt work... Because wotc wouldnt be making the money it deserves and in the end would preffer to just stop doing it. In the end what im saying is that this would remove every retailers. Then that job would be falling onto others.
Think about it... Games already do what you... Thats buying your copy of the content. You receive it physically and then can login to your thing and download it if you want. Does that mean i can literally download everything for free... Not at all... I still require an account otherwise nothing stops me from downloading 15k times and just give it to my friends.
Now why isnt wotc doing that... Ill tell you why... Because they are 10 years late on everything.
Its easy solving your problem... Do like video games... Sell codes with books. There you go problem solved everyone is happy exist this guy who just want thousand copies for free apparently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I just see this model as ultimately simplified to this:
I sell apples. My apples are very good, and people are buying my apples at the price I set for them. By all accounts, my model is working. However, a few people think they should get more apples for the price I'm charging. They spend a lot of time pitching different models that would allow me to do this, but all of them require me selling my apples for less money.
Why would I do this? I'm not saying I couldn't, just that there is absolutely zero reason why I should. Maybe I would consider changing my model if I were having to throw out a bunch of rotten apples that weren't selling. But right now, most people think my price is fair, and I'm selling more apples than ever before. Why would I just agree to take less money? There's no incentive for me to do this. I might gain a few more customers, but ultimately I know they can either buy my apples, or they can go to the banana stand down the street.
It's like when people storm out of Wal-Mart saying "I'll never shop here again!" Do you think anyone at Wal-Mart cares? Like, that might be a big deal to a small mom & pop store, but D&D is massive compared to other indie game companies. You're mad and you're leaving, but they know 3 new customers will be in the door right after you.
That's a bit of an extreme example, as I have heard that WotC has pretty great customer service. But my point is that they have a working model. Any amateur pitch to change things just so you can get more stuff for less money isn't gonna fly with them. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Or just have the content be subscription based only like the different levels you have to pay for, just increase the monthly. Up front cost as much as the books we already have ($350 at a discount) AND a subscription seems just way high. It's not that people can't afford it, its a cost vs value thing. I'm one of the nerds with Wyrmwood so I'll pay if I see value.
It's weird that you have half of the people complaining that they would prefer a subscription, but then the other half complaining that if the Curse servers go down, they lose all of their content. One side is clamoring for temporary access to content, and the other is paranoid that it's inevitable and they'll lose everything. It sends a mixed message about what needs to change.
The current model is cheaper than a subscription, and you get to keep your content for presumably forever. Seems ultimately better.
I DM my group. When DDB launched, I pitched it to my group and made it their decision on whether or not we go that route. Everyone liked it, and we decided to split the total cost of the 3 core books and a few additional spells and items from other sources. The total came to about $11 each, which everyone had to pay one time. If additional things were needed, they would either bring the $2 or whatever for the piecemeal item to the next session, or they would enter it as homebrew (so far everyone would rather just pay the negligible $2).
I agreed to get the Master Tier subscription and cover that cost so all of the content could be shared, because my players usually bring snacks and drinks to share with me. Our sessions are every other week, so the $6/month comes down to $3/session, which is more than covered.
But let's say that I wasn't a DM and I was just a player. Well, I already have physical books, so I wouldn't need to buy EVERYTHING. And MOST of the options for character creation are already free through the Basic Rules, so if I wanted a subclass and few spells, I would only need to pay for each of those. Then buy the new stuff as needed. In the game I play, we level up every 3-4 sessions, so I'm looking at maybe $4-6 per month to update my character. And then if I drop the game (being AL I get to take my character with me), I can stop paying and still keep everything.
I'm telling you guys, the current business model is fine if you're a smart person and you read all of the information that's out there.
Or just have the content be subscription based only like the different levels you have to pay for, just increase the monthly. Up front cost as much as the books we already have ($350 at a discount) AND a subscription seems just way high. It's not that people can't afford it, its a cost vs value thing. I'm one of the nerds with Wyrmwood so I'll pay if I see value.
That subscription model is just terrible though. You could sub, copy all of the content you need, and then unsub right away. I'm pretty sure that was the system they used in 4e and decided it wasn't worth it. Also, there is no need to subscribe here. Yeah, I sub to the master tier to share my books, but that's because I want my players to do as much for their characters in DDB as possible, if they weren't using it, I would drop the sub. Also, D&D is meant to be a long tail game, you'd pay more for the sub over time than the upfront costs if they went that route.
Also, one of the main selling points of DDB is the character creator.
What happens to my character when I stop paying?
What's to stop me from paying for one month, then going ahead and saving a PDF for my character at every level, and then cancelling? I can edit the PDFs in case anything else changes, so there's no reason for me not to do this and save a ton of money instead of paying every month.
Also, one of the main selling points of DDB is the character creator.
What happens to my character when I stop paying?
What's to stop me from paying for one month, then going ahead and saving a PDF for my character at every level, and then cancelling? I can edit the PDFs in case anything else changes, so there's no reason for me not to do this and save a ton of money instead of paying every month.
nothing. if you build a character within a campaign and then remove it, your character stays built, but if you try to level up then that is when you have problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
For sure! I'm just saying if I had access to everything via a subscription, I could pay for my first month and then build my character out at every level, save the 20 form-fillable PDFs in a folder somewhere on my computer, and then cancel my subscription.
A subscription model for book access is a bad model for this very reason.
We don't get them for the US price. We get our books from Penguin Random House Canada, that is why we sell them at the Canadian suggested retail price. So for Volo's Guide the Canadian retail price is $63.95, granted here in Manitoba it is only the 5% GST, but even adding your 15% it would come to $73.54. Now if you are getting your books from a gaming store that sells books, or a small bookstore that does not have a deal with Penguin Random House then yes it would be higher as they do not have the same deals that a regular bookstore like Chapters would have with the distributor. That is how we make money on the books, we buy them at a discounted price off the Canadian SRP.
Now if you are spending the $90 to help out the small store, fine, but there are options out there to get the book for less in Canada from Canadian bookstores that do have online stores and can ship the books to you, or even Amazon.ca
My problem is not that I think D&D Beyond is a bad idea, but that it doesn't make financial sense for me or my group. Let's say I'm running a campaign. We're going to want, say, two PHBs, a DMG, a MM, and a copy of XTGE. I'm in the US, so I'm going to use American prices.
To be overly fair to D&D Beyond, let's assume MSRP, rather than Amazon prices. At $50 per book purchase, that's $250 for the group.
Now let's equip the same group with D&D Beyond. It starts out looking pretty good. Only $30 per book lease and we only have to pay for one lease for each book. Access can be shared by all players in the group. Total of $120. Big savings!
But there are serious downsides. Firstly, no physical books, so anyone without a tablet or laptop can't take advantage of the sharing features. I've tried doing pen and paper RPGs with phone apps, and it's not a great experience. Secondly, I'm now paying a subscription fee, which is $55 per year. Campaigns can last a while. After three years, I'm now out $120+$55*3 = $285. Even assuming I'm paying MSRP for physical books, D&D Beyond costs more. If I had paid Amazon prices, the books would have cost $150, and D&DB would never be even an equal value proposition, much less a better one.
Plus, it's easier to share the cost of physical books between players. GM buys the DMG and the MM, players buy PHBs and XGTE. If I leave a D&D group, I keep my physical books. If I leave a D&D Beyond group, I keep nothing unless I have the GM account, in which case my players keep nothing. If they'd helped me split the cost of the D&D Beyond content leases, under the assumption that we could all share the content equally, they're going to be annoyed.
If my subscription lapses, my players lose access to all of the content I'm leasing. When either Curse or Wizards pulls the plug on D&D Beyond in a few years (after 6e comes out, or once a critical mass of users leave and running the service is no longer profitable), I will lose access to all of my leased content. Books last decades if cared for properly.
I think D&D Beyond is a fantastic concept. I tried the character creator and was quite enthusiastic...until I hit my first non-SRD item, looked at content prices, and did the math. Until and unless you can make the value proposition for hard copy books+D&D Beyond work for me, or ensure that leasing content through D&D Beyond is no less practical and equitable for players than buying books. I see no reason to buy in to D&D Beyond. That means something like including single-use codes for D&D Beyond content in hard copy books, or allowing players to group-purchase content leases that they then share permanent access to. For example, what if 6 people could pay $90 together for lifetime access to the contents of a book for all of them? That's only $15/player, but revenue for Curse/Wizards greater than the book plus a year's subscription, up front.
I know Wizards and Curse are different companies. But it makes no difference to the value proposition for me, as a player, that Wizards chose to outsource to Curse. If Wizards and Curse together offered book+D&D Beyond bundles then Curse would be getting revenue. So the "well Curse doesn't get book revenue" argument is wholly irrelevant. That Wizards and Curse have chosen not to offer to sell me bundles, or alternate pricing structures that I would very likely purchase is their failing, not mine.
This is not a criticism of anyone who chooses to buy in to D&D Beyond. If it makes financial sense to you, great. But please don't try to claim that because it works for you, it should work for me, or that because you are OK with this pricing structure that everyone should be. Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Find one example of a design that exists independently of the time and effort of the entity building from it - this would like a complete data base, already fully integrated into the D&D Beyond tools without even a single line of code written by a curse employee, and also already fully integrated into Fantasy grounds without their coders doing any specific work, and so on down the line so that no one writing a tool that utilizes the information in any way has to re-write any information from the data base or write their coding in response to the data in the data base rather than it being functional to write their code even if they don't know the details of the data base.
Conceptually only. In practical application, the folks at Curse have had to basically re-produce every piece of the design as part of the process of getting their implementation to work - thus the design already existing (read: Curse not making the tools while also making up their own RPG information to use it with) has not caused the creating of the tools to take less time or effort. Which is what I mean by the design not existing independently of the time and effort; they are inherently a package deal.I don't see how this can be true either. If Curse didn't have the design they would have to create a whole new set of races, classes, feats, combat rules, lore, etc. That's a lot of work they didn't have to do.
My point, precisely.
not
which we both agree is true
needs toshould get paid for that creation right?I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
You are confusing two statements I made as being the same statement, which they were not.
One was that the idea (D&D 5th edition) doesn't exist as a separate thing from the work WotC (and fans, thanks to the open play-test) put into it.
The other was that the implementation (D&D Beyond, or other digital offerings) don't exist as a thing separate from the utilized ideas (the D&D 5th Edition bits that shape what they make the coding do, and that are re-produced in the data bases that the tools operate upon).
Or to use your phrasings; I've been talking about two different implementations (D&D 5th edition & D&D Beyond), despite that the idea behind one of the implementations is the other implementation.
If I can summarise what I think Kreakdude is saying (because I think it's being lost in the details)... (in an ideal world) a customer should have to pay for the content only once via some kind of unique identifier, but the retailers would be free to add a markup to the content to cover their costs for repackaging the content in a usable format on their site. Essentially DDB would not lose any money via this proposition, but WOTC would.
Have I got this right?
Then why would wotc continue making stuff if the can make money of single items ... Doesnt that means they literally have to release content every weeks just to make money ? Think about it... What he is saying is that once i buy a book. I literally can get 15 thousands others for free !! And if we go for a key that knows how many you get how would wotc manage those copies and whom you decide to give them to ?
That system doesnt work... Because wotc wouldnt be making the money it deserves and in the end would preffer to just stop doing it. In the end what im saying is that this would remove every retailers. Then that job would be falling onto others.
Think about it... Games already do what you... Thats buying your copy of the content. You receive it physically and then can login to your thing and download it if you want. Does that mean i can literally download everything for free... Not at all... I still require an account otherwise nothing stops me from downloading 15k times and just give it to my friends.
Now why isnt wotc doing that... Ill tell you why... Because they are 10 years late on everything.
Its easy solving your problem... Do like video games... Sell codes with books. There you go problem solved everyone is happy exist this guy who just want thousand copies for free apparently.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I just see this model as ultimately simplified to this:
I sell apples. My apples are very good, and people are buying my apples at the price I set for them. By all accounts, my model is working. However, a few people think they should get more apples for the price I'm charging. They spend a lot of time pitching different models that would allow me to do this, but all of them require me selling my apples for less money.
Why would I do this? I'm not saying I couldn't, just that there is absolutely zero reason why I should. Maybe I would consider changing my model if I were having to throw out a bunch of rotten apples that weren't selling. But right now, most people think my price is fair, and I'm selling more apples than ever before. Why would I just agree to take less money? There's no incentive for me to do this. I might gain a few more customers, but ultimately I know they can either buy my apples, or they can go to the banana stand down the street.
It's like when people storm out of Wal-Mart saying "I'll never shop here again!" Do you think anyone at Wal-Mart cares? Like, that might be a big deal to a small mom & pop store, but D&D is massive compared to other indie game companies. You're mad and you're leaving, but they know 3 new customers will be in the door right after you.
That's a bit of an extreme example, as I have heard that WotC has pretty great customer service. But my point is that they have a working model. Any amateur pitch to change things just so you can get more stuff for less money isn't gonna fly with them. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Or just have the content be subscription based only like the different levels you have to pay for, just increase the monthly. Up front cost as much as the books we already have ($350 at a discount) AND a subscription seems just way high. It's not that people can't afford it, its a cost vs value thing. I'm one of the nerds with Wyrmwood so I'll pay if I see value.
It's weird that you have half of the people complaining that they would prefer a subscription, but then the other half complaining that if the Curse servers go down, they lose all of their content. One side is clamoring for temporary access to content, and the other is paranoid that it's inevitable and they'll lose everything. It sends a mixed message about what needs to change.
The current model is cheaper than a subscription, and you get to keep your content for presumably forever. Seems ultimately better.
I DM my group. When DDB launched, I pitched it to my group and made it their decision on whether or not we go that route. Everyone liked it, and we decided to split the total cost of the 3 core books and a few additional spells and items from other sources. The total came to about $11 each, which everyone had to pay one time. If additional things were needed, they would either bring the $2 or whatever for the piecemeal item to the next session, or they would enter it as homebrew (so far everyone would rather just pay the negligible $2).
I agreed to get the Master Tier subscription and cover that cost so all of the content could be shared, because my players usually bring snacks and drinks to share with me. Our sessions are every other week, so the $6/month comes down to $3/session, which is more than covered.
But let's say that I wasn't a DM and I was just a player. Well, I already have physical books, so I wouldn't need to buy EVERYTHING. And MOST of the options for character creation are already free through the Basic Rules, so if I wanted a subclass and few spells, I would only need to pay for each of those. Then buy the new stuff as needed. In the game I play, we level up every 3-4 sessions, so I'm looking at maybe $4-6 per month to update my character. And then if I drop the game (being AL I get to take my character with me), I can stop paying and still keep everything.
I'm telling you guys, the current business model is fine if you're a smart person and you read all of the information that's out there.
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
Also, one of the main selling points of DDB is the character creator.
What happens to my character when I stop paying?
What's to stop me from paying for one month, then going ahead and saving a PDF for my character at every level, and then cancelling? I can edit the PDFs in case anything else changes, so there's no reason for me not to do this and save a ton of money instead of paying every month.
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
For sure! I'm just saying if I had access to everything via a subscription, I could pay for my first month and then build my character out at every level, save the 20 form-fillable PDFs in a folder somewhere on my computer, and then cancel my subscription.
A subscription model for book access is a bad model for this very reason.
DnDPaladan
We don't get them for the US price. We get our books from Penguin Random House Canada, that is why we sell them at the Canadian suggested retail price. So for Volo's Guide the Canadian retail price is $63.95, granted here in Manitoba it is only the 5% GST, but even adding your 15% it would come to $73.54. Now if you are getting your books from a gaming store that sells books, or a small bookstore that does not have a deal with Penguin Random House then yes it would be higher as they do not have the same deals that a regular bookstore like Chapters would have with the distributor. That is how we make money on the books, we buy them at a discounted price off the Canadian SRP.
Now if you are spending the $90 to help out the small store, fine, but there are options out there to get the book for less in Canada from Canadian bookstores that do have online stores and can ship the books to you, or even Amazon.ca
My problem is not that I think D&D Beyond is a bad idea, but that it doesn't make financial sense for me or my group. Let's say I'm running a campaign. We're going to want, say, two PHBs, a DMG, a MM, and a copy of XTGE. I'm in the US, so I'm going to use American prices.
To be overly fair to D&D Beyond, let's assume MSRP, rather than Amazon prices. At $50 per book purchase, that's $250 for the group.
Now let's equip the same group with D&D Beyond. It starts out looking pretty good. Only $30 per book lease and we only have to pay for one lease for each book. Access can be shared by all players in the group. Total of $120. Big savings!
But there are serious downsides. Firstly, no physical books, so anyone without a tablet or laptop can't take advantage of the sharing features. I've tried doing pen and paper RPGs with phone apps, and it's not a great experience. Secondly, I'm now paying a subscription fee, which is $55 per year. Campaigns can last a while. After three years, I'm now out $120+$55*3 = $285. Even assuming I'm paying MSRP for physical books, D&D Beyond costs more. If I had paid Amazon prices, the books would have cost $150, and D&DB would never be even an equal value proposition, much less a better one.
Plus, it's easier to share the cost of physical books between players. GM buys the DMG and the MM, players buy PHBs and XGTE. If I leave a D&D group, I keep my physical books. If I leave a D&D Beyond group, I keep nothing unless I have the GM account, in which case my players keep nothing. If they'd helped me split the cost of the D&D Beyond content leases, under the assumption that we could all share the content equally, they're going to be annoyed.
If my subscription lapses, my players lose access to all of the content I'm leasing. When either Curse or Wizards pulls the plug on D&D Beyond in a few years (after 6e comes out, or once a critical mass of users leave and running the service is no longer profitable), I will lose access to all of my leased content. Books last decades if cared for properly.
I think D&D Beyond is a fantastic concept. I tried the character creator and was quite enthusiastic...until I hit my first non-SRD item, looked at content prices, and did the math. Until and unless you can make the value proposition for hard copy books+D&D Beyond work for me, or ensure that leasing content through D&D Beyond is no less practical and equitable for players than buying books. I see no reason to buy in to D&D Beyond. That means something like including single-use codes for D&D Beyond content in hard copy books, or allowing players to group-purchase content leases that they then share permanent access to. For example, what if 6 people could pay $90 together for lifetime access to the contents of a book for all of them? That's only $15/player, but revenue for Curse/Wizards greater than the book plus a year's subscription, up front.
I know Wizards and Curse are different companies. But it makes no difference to the value proposition for me, as a player, that Wizards chose to outsource to Curse. If Wizards and Curse together offered book+D&D Beyond bundles then Curse would be getting revenue. So the "well Curse doesn't get book revenue" argument is wholly irrelevant. That Wizards and Curse have chosen not to offer to sell me bundles, or alternate pricing structures that I would very likely purchase is their failing, not mine.
This is not a criticism of anyone who chooses to buy in to D&D Beyond. If it makes financial sense to you, great. But please don't try to claim that because it works for you, it should work for me, or that because you are OK with this pricing structure that everyone should be. Thanks.