I guess I defined a niche user as someone willing to be convinced to repurchase the content multiple times or at least support that kind of model. Sorry, all I know about you is the latter. You could be playing devil's advocate this whole time and I wouldn't know. Either way, thanks for putting my points to the test.
That's just the thing. The problem with you creating teams and then assigning me to one of them is that you made up traits that members of that team supposedly have, traits which you think of in a negative way, and now you are assigning those traits to me - not because you actually know anything about me, as you even admit a lack of knowledge in the area, but because that's just how teams work; there is always "my team" and "the wrong team."
Which is why you and I likely won't have much in the way of meaningful conversations from this point forward - because you chose to judge me on some artificial traits you made up, rather than on who I actually am or what thoughts I have actually expressed.
Really I only assigned myself a team. Mostly when I say "you" I mean "you all who fit niche".
One final point: I have not been convinced to repurchase content. I have been convinced that what I get if I pay (the ability to reference, search, organize, filter, hyperlink, tool-tip, and otherwise manipulate the whole of the D&D game in ways that are both quicker and more useful than I could do without purchase) is worth what I am being asked to pay. Saying I've paid for the content "twice" is failing to acknowledge that the content does not exist independent of the efforts of the people working to write it - I've paid WotC for their efforts designing the game (both in the game mechanics and aesthetic), I've paid the distributor for putting the game in my FLGS, I've paid my FLGS for customer service (including getting the book to me before it was available by other means), and I've paid Curse to make the game available to me within their wonderful (and likely to become more wonderful) tools. That is "the content", and I see no repeat purchases (excepting that I did literally buy the player's handbook twice from my FLGS because it is handy to have more than one copy on hand during sessions, even while I am using D&D Beyond, because my players can use both copies at the same time if they want to look something up without interrupting whatever else is going on at the time by having me do it - though I will acknowledge the physical books will feel nearly obsolete once the group goes in for a master tier subscription).
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I bought Lost Mines of Phandelver physical box set and then bought it again on roll20. We all can think of it however we want, but the reality is I paid WotC 2 times for 2 different products with the same content.
Actually, Roll20 pays WotC for the license and you pay Roll20, correct? I guess I’m not familiar with how Roll20 works. I’m assuming its similar to D&D Beyond. WotC gets paid for the licensing of their product as a one time or periodic payment from D&D Beyond and then anything made off of the product from D&D Beyond go to them.
Unless I’m completely misunderstanding how this licensing process works.
Now why did you have to go an create teams, and insist I'm on the other one? That's no way to continue intelligent discourse.
Because hes a troll and will never be pleased regardless.
But ill say this much...
They succeeded in convincing us ? Dude seriously... They forced no one in buying their shit. Stop acting like they did. If you dislike their business model then just go away man. There is no convincing anybody here there is no brainwash there is only what people want and what people are willing to do to get it. Thats exchange 101. Even your business model you showed as flaws yet you are convincing yourself that it is still much better and should absolutely be used.
The question here is... Who convinced who ?
For all im seeing.... We all have convinced ourselves of playing this thing we really dont need.
As a new player... he convinced me. The electronic model he recommended in his Google Docs (did you read by the way?) is quite sound. You login to WoTC, purchase content and its linked to other sites like DDB, Roll2 and Fantasy Grounds. Then, DDB, Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds gets paid for their awesome tools! Perfect model, everyone wins except for WoTC because they are only selling their content once.
BUT, like I said earlier...the marketplace will determine most everything when it comes to purchasing things...it will all work itself out.
teak
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men... - Willy Wonka
Actually, Roll20 pays WotC for the license and you pay Roll20, correct? I guess I’m not familiar with how Roll20 works. I’m assuming its similar to D&D Beyond. WotC gets paid for the licensing of their product as a one time or periodic payment from D&D Beyond and then anything made off of the product from D&D Beyond go to them.
Unless I’m completely misunderstanding how this licensing process works.
I knew someone was going to point that out. It's just a technicality. We say "paid [company]" but yeah maybe more correctly we all should be saying "my money went to [company]".
As a new player... he convinced me. The electronic model he recommended in his Google Docs (did you read by the way?) is quite sound. You login to WoTC, purchase content and its linked to other sites like DDB, Roll2 and Fantasy Grounds. Then, DDB, Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds gets paid for their awesome tools! Perfect model, everyone wins except for WoTC because they are only selling their content once.
BUT, like I said earlier...the marketplace will determine most everything when it comes to purchasing things...it will all work itself out.
teak
Yeah!
Sounds to me like the content does exist independently.
...the reality is I paid WotC 2 times for 2 different products with the same content.
You seem to be being intentionally misleading. You paid WotC (and a distributor and/or retailer) once to get the physical boxed set, and you paid roll20 for them doing all the work of inputting the information for you (which incidentally involved part of what you paid covering a specific fee that only exists because WotC owns the intellectual property).
That you view that as buying the same thing twice doesn't actually make that reality, at least not any more so than me viewing it as two completely different things that are roughly akin to you insisting that because you bought one chair, that if I am going to build you a chair with the same wood but different features, I shouldn't include my costs of actually buying the wood to work into the chair in what I charge you (and I say they are roughly equivalent because the analogy here is that you want to pay for the chair [D&D Beyond] but not the wood [their access to the game material] because another chair you already bought [a physical D&D product] is also made of wood.)
This is also the start of another circular argument. I'll just reference this here again so I don't have to re-explain myself. D&D Digital & Physical Content Distribution Model. In short, I'm not proposing a model where tool makers do not get paid.
That sounds good in theory. Sure, I'd love to have to pay for content only once, no one's arguing with that, but here are some considerations.
Unlike a physical book ALL my players can access ALL the content I own at ANYTIME (on DDB at least). That's up to 36 players across 3 campaigns. Yes I have to pay a subscription for this ability, but it's peanuts compared to the value for the group. I can also purchase specific parts of the book. It may be that we'd lose a good deal of functionality or the cost of a subscription would skyrocket under your model. I don't know (and neither do you.)
Different licensees have different tools and different needs. Currently we have Roll 20 and FG (both VTT so probably similar needs), DDB (different business model) and the upcoming D&D reader app (who knows?). One size does not fit all and only WOTC can tell if it would be worth the legal costs to negotiate with each business, along with technical issues. I don't know, and neither do you.
The fact is that WOTC is doing very well out of the current model - last year was their best ever for D&D and the franchise is starting to hit the mainstream - and DDB has exceeded their own expectations. You might suggest they could do even better with your model, but without the data the companies have access to I don't know, and neither do you.
In addition, consider...
Corrections are made automatically to my copy. I don't have to go look up errata. I don't have to pay for it.
I can purchase the books at a substantial discount compared to physical copies. DDB is hardly price gouging.
The model is not unfair, it's just inconvenient for some users.
It seems to me neither company has any reason to change the current business model, which is proving very successful and clearly a heap of people are happy with it. Sure a few aren't, but WOTC clearly thinks that they can do as well or better with the current model even if they lose a few potential customers. I remember years ago Readers Digest put up the cover price on their European magazine. A journalist suggested they'd lose readership, but they believed they would make more money even with the loss of subscriptions.
This is also the start of another circular argument. I'll just reference this here again so I don't have to re-explain myself. D&D Digital & Physical Content Distribution Model. In short, I'm not proposing a model where tool makers do not get paid.
That sounds good in theory. Sure, I'd love to have to pay for content only once, no one's arguing with that, but here are some considerations.
Unlike a physical book ALL my players can access ALL the content I own at ANYTIME (on DDB at least). That's up to 36 players across 3 campaigns. Yes I have to pay a subscription for this ability, but it's peanuts compared to the value for the group. I can also purchase specific parts of the book. It may be that we'd lose a good deal of functionality or the cost of a subscription would skyrocket under your model. I don't know (and neither do you.)
Different licensees have different tools and different needs. Currently we have Roll 20 and FG (both VTT so probably similar needs), DDB (different business model) and the upcoming D&D reader app (who knows?). One size does not fit all and only WOTC can tell if it would be worth the legal costs to negotiate with each business, along with technical issues. I don't know, and neither do you.
The fact is that WOTC is doing very well out of the current model - last year was their best ever for D&D and the franchise is starting to hit the mainstream - and DDB has exceeded their own expectations. You might suggest they could do even better with your model, but without the data the companies have access to I don't know, and neither do you.
In addition, consider...
Corrections are made automatically to my copy. I don't have to go look up errata. I don't have to pay for it.
I can purchase the books at a substantial discount compared to physical copies. DDB is hardly price gouging.
The model is not unfair, it's just inconvenient for some users.
It seems to me neither company has any reason to change the current business model, which is proving very successful and clearly a heap of people are happy with it. Sure a few aren't, but WOTC clearly thinks that they can do as well or better with the current model even if they lose a few potential customers. I remember years ago Readers Digest put up the cover price on their European magazine. A journalist suggested they'd lose readership, but they believed they would make more money even with the loss of subscriptions.
Thanks for reading it. Glad to hear it's at least a good theory. Also those are really great considerations you explained. It's true, I don't know.
...the reality is I paid WotC 2 times for 2 different products with the same content.
You seem to be being intentionally misleading. You paid WotC (and a distributor and/or retailer) once to get the physical boxed set, and you paid roll20 for them doing all the work of inputting the information for you (which incidentally involved part of what you paid covering a specific fee that only exists because WotC owns the intellectual property).
That you view that as buying the same thing twice doesn't actually make that reality, at least not any more so than me viewing it as two completely different things that are roughly akin to you insisting that because you bought one chair, that if I am going to build you a chair with the same wood but different features, I shouldn't include my costs of actually buying the wood to work into the chair in what I charge you (and I say they are roughly equivalent because the analogy here is that you want to pay for the chair [D&D Beyond] but not the wood [their access to the game material] because another chair you already bought [a physical D&D product] is also made of wood.)
In the chair example I think the "content" you pay for twice is the design of the chair, not the wood. But still, even if the chair example was a perfect parallel it wouldn't matter. The core of those comparative arguments are "See, it's done elsewhere. No need to change anything here." I can also share examples that closely model my proposal and say "see they do it, it should be done here." I think it's best when (and if) comparing either side to always ask, "How can we do better?"
I guess I defined a niche user as someone willing to be convinced to repurchase the content multiple times or at least support that kind of model. Sorry, all I know about you is the latter. You could be playing devil's advocate this whole time and I wouldn't know. Either way, thanks for putting my points to the test.
That's just the thing. The problem with you creating teams and then assigning me to one of them is that you made up traits that members of that team supposedly have, traits which you think of in a negative way, and now you are assigning those traits to me - not because you actually know anything about me, as you even admit a lack of knowledge in the area, but because that's just how teams work; there is always "my team" and "the wrong team."
Which is why you and I likely won't have much in the way of meaningful conversations from this point forward - because you chose to judge me on some artificial traits you made up, rather than on who I actually am or what thoughts I have actually expressed.
Really I only assigned myself a team. Mostly when I say "you" I mean "you all who fit niche".
One final point: I have not been convinced to repurchase content. I have been convinced that what I get if I pay (the ability to reference, search, organize, filter, hyperlink, tool-tip, and otherwise manipulate the whole of the D&D game in ways that are both quicker and more useful than I could do without purchase) is worth what I am being asked to pay. Saying I've paid for the content "twice" is failing to acknowledge that the content does not exist independent of the efforts of the people working to write it - I've paid WotC for their efforts designing the game (both in the game mechanics and aesthetic), I've paid the distributor for putting the game in my FLGS, I've paid my FLGS for customer service (including getting the book to me before it was available by other means), and I've paid Curse to make the game available to me within their wonderful (and likely to become more wonderful) tools. That is "the content", and I see no repeat purchases (excepting that I did literally buy the player's handbook twice from my FLGS because it is handy to have more than one copy on hand during sessions, even while I am using D&D Beyond, because my players can use both copies at the same time if they want to look something up without interrupting whatever else is going on at the time by having me do it - though I will acknowledge the physical books will feel nearly obsolete once the group goes in for a master tier subscription).
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I bought Lost Mines of Phandelver physical box set and then bought it again on roll20. We all can think of it however we want, but the reality is I paid WotC 2 times for 2 different products with the same content.
Different content. If it was the same content, you wouldn't have bought it a second time. Or maybe not. I have bought more than 1 PHB. Literally bought the same content twice. I also didn't expect my second one to be free or discounted because "I already bought the content in this book once."
Now why did you have to go an create teams, and insist I'm on the other one? That's no way to continue intelligent discourse.
Because hes a troll and will never be pleased regardless.
But ill say this much...
They succeeded in convincing us ? Dude seriously... They forced no one in buying their shit. Stop acting like they did. If you dislike their business model then just go away man. There is no convincing anybody here there is no brainwash there is only what people want and what people are willing to do to get it. Thats exchange 101. Even your business model you showed as flaws yet you are convincing yourself that it is still much better and should absolutely be used.
The question here is... Who convinced who ?
For all im seeing.... We all have convinced ourselves of playing this thing we really dont need.
As a new player... he convinced me. The electronic model he recommended in his Google Docs (did you read by the way?) is quite sound. You login to WoTC, purchase content and its linked to other sites like DDB, Roll2 and Fantasy Grounds. Then, DDB, Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds gets paid for their awesome tools! Perfect model, everyone wins except for WoTC because they are only selling their content once.
BUT, like I said earlier...the marketplace will determine most everything when it comes to purchasing things...it will all work itself out.
Now why did you have to go an create teams, and insist I'm on the other one? That's no way to continue intelligent discourse.
Because hes a troll and will never be pleased regardless.
But ill say this much...
They succeeded in convincing us ? Dude seriously... They forced no one in buying their shit. Stop acting like they did. If you dislike their business model then just go away man. There is no convincing anybody here there is no brainwash there is only what people want and what people are willing to do to get it. Thats exchange 101. Even your business model you showed as flaws yet you are convincing yourself that it is still much better and should absolutely be used.
The question here is... Who convinced who ?
For all im seeing.... We all have convinced ourselves of playing this thing we really dont need.
As a new player... he convinced me. The electronic model he recommended in his Google Docs (did you read by the way?) is quite sound. You login to WoTC, purchase content and its linked to other sites like DDB, Roll2 and Fantasy Grounds. Then, DDB, Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds gets paid for their awesome tools! Perfect model, everyone wins except for WoTC because they are only selling their content once.
BUT, like I said earlier...the marketplace will determine most everything when it comes to purchasing things...it will all work itself out.
teak
I think both of you vastly underestimate the amount of work building that kind of infrastructure would take. WotC doesn't even sell its own content digitally. You're also discounting the work that other companies like Roll20, DDB, and FG would still need to do to make that content work in their own systems.
The problem with changing the current pricing model is it screws over everyone who has currently invested, creating a large percentage of the customer base who is now disgruntled as opposed to an unknown amount of disgruntled potential customers. The risk vs. reward doesn't add up. This is because the success of 5e prompted Curse, a 3rd party company, to create a supplement to the game after it's market release. WotC did not plan this intentionally, but were rather pitched an idea by a group of people willing to put in the work to make something that WotC had been less successful with in the past. This was a win for WotC because they could focus on what they do best while letting a more qualified team focus on the digital end.
It's been explained multiple times ad nauseam, but the cost of creating a tracking system for physical books going forward in the current edition would be extensive. Currently, there is no way to verify who has already purchased a physical book, so creating a system that ties future physical purchases with digital content leaves everyone who has already made the purchase out in the cold.
Lowering the price of DDB content would also create a dissatisfaction with the thousands who have already paid the current price for it. The demand for refunds, rebates, and/or discounts on future products would create a net loss that I'm not sure the company could keep up with. Or they could just tell current customers to deal with it.
It's a lose/lose scenario for everyone except an unknown amount of potential future customers.
Currently however, they have a pricing model that is working. Neither WotC or Curse are missing any meals, and the people complaining about the pricing structure seem to just be a vocal minority of people whining that they have to pay more for additional functionality that was never promised with their original purchase in the first place. Anyone can make a free account and log in and complain on a forum, but sales numbers don't lie, and from all indications, business is going well. Why bother to fix something that shows no evidence of being broken?
The pricing model may be different when 6e launches, as the infrastructure of a digital option will already be in place, but it's foolhardy to expect any changes to the current model during the life cycle of 5e.
Since we don't know how much DDB pays to WotC in licencing fees per book, I would be interested to know instead how much much people like Kreakdude feel is appropriate to pay for the added value and labour brought by Curse?
If a book costs $30, how much of that do you believe is enough per book for Curse to pay for all its labour, and to make a profit? I $20 per book okay? $10? What do you think is the value of product without the content?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
In the chair example I think the "content" you pay for twice is the design of the chair, not the wood.
There is no "design of the chair" independent of the work of the people making chairs. That I have someone else's design to make sure my work matches does not actually make any of said work easier or less time consuming - in fact, it actually takes longer because I can't just do what I think feels right in any particular aspect, I actually have to stop and check against the established design.
The same holds true with D&D products and Curse's work re-producing them for D&D Beyond integration.
I think both of you vastly underestimate the amount of work building that kind of infrastructure would take. WotC doesn't even sell its own content digitally. You're also discounting the work that other companies like Roll20, DDB, and FG would still need to do to make that content work in their own systems.
Which is why when I wrote my post that I said I would pay for the tools created by sites like DDB. Great tools like DDB need to be paid for all the work they put into their service... That is different then content.
teak
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men... - Willy Wonka
The problem with changing the current pricing model is it screws over everyone who has currently invested, creating a large percentage of the customer base who is now disgruntled as opposed to an unknown amount of disgruntled potential customers. The risk vs. reward doesn't add up. This is because the success of 5e prompted Curse, a 3rd party company, to create a supplement to the game after it's market release. WotC did not plan this intentionally, but were rather pitched an idea by a group of people willing to put in the work to make something that WotC had been less successful with in the past. This was a win for WotC because they could focus on what they do best while letting a more qualified team focus on the digital end.
It's been explained multiple times ad nauseam, but the cost of creating a tracking system for physical books going forward in the current edition would be extensive. Currently, there is no way to verify who has already purchased a physical book, so creating a system that ties future physical purchases with digital content leaves everyone who has already made the purchase out in the cold.
Lowering the price of DDB content would also create a dissatisfaction with the thousands who have already paid the current price for it. The demand for refunds, rebates, and/or discounts on future products would create a net loss that I'm not sure the company could keep up with. Or they could just tell current customers to deal with it.
It's a lose/lose scenario for everyone except an unknown amount of potential future customers.
Currently however, they have a pricing model that is working. Neither WotC or Curse are missing any meals, and the people complaining about the pricing structure seem to just be a vocal minority of people whining that they have to pay more for additional functionality that was never promised with their original purchase in the first place. Anyone can make a free account and log in and complain on a forum, but sales numbers don't lie, and from all indications, business is going well. Why bother to fix something that shows no evidence of being broken?
The pricing model may be different when 6e launches, as the infrastructure of a digital option will already be in place, but it's foolhardy to expect any changes to the current model during the life cycle of 5e.
Certainly agree with that... As a new player who has not spent a couple of hundred bucks on books its easy for me to say..."Change the model..." That is a great point. Perhaps for 6e, things might be different because the infrastructure would be in place. But, as I've stated above, I do see his point...and I would prefer that model. BUT, who in their right mind would change their model for a new person(s) who's purchased 200 bucks worth of digital content?
teak
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men... - Willy Wonka
And just because a person logs into a free forum account and says "Change this and I will buy it" doesn't guarantee a sale. Anyone could say that and then not follow through. But changing that will certainly upset current customers.
The problem I see with Kreakdude's model is that somewhere along the line, someone has to decide to make less money for no good reason other than, again, the whims of unknown potential customers. No matter how you slice it, there is less money coming in, meaning someone takes a hit. You will be hard pressed to find any business to agree to take a cut on their bottom line with a successful product. Of course, we all would like to pay less money for anything, but again, there's no hard evidence of the current model being broken other than a few complaints, which you will probably always have in any business. We only see these complaints publicly because Curse opted to offer a public forum and has been very open with providing communication and feedback.
Since we don't know how much DDB pays to WotC in licencing fees per book, I would be interested to know instead how much much people like Kreakdude feel is appropriate to pay for the added value and labour brought by Curse?
If a book costs $30, how much of that do you believe is enough per book for Curse to pay for all its labour, and to make a profit? I $20 per book okay? $10? What do you think is the value of product without the content?
I am guessing between $5 and $10 a book. if you look at the Compendium only option, it is $19.99. Thus I would think maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 of that max would go to WOTC. They still put a lot of work into making that book into a digital format. Then when you look at the cost of the regular being only $10 more, that means for the harder work of linking and stuff it is not much more.
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.
A single source of data causes more problems then you really need to. It also means roll20 fg and ddb loses control over the content they wish to add in because now they cant control how that content is written. Anybody with little experience in database will tell you that much. While we can parse the data the way we want we are forced to use the original design of the database and when change happens you are force to go along with it.
Creating your own database allows you to develop the way you want to. So no the biggest flaw of his 1 place seller is that everyone else will be dependant on wotc while right now ddb is not !
Any developpers knows how important it is to have control over your stuff and not be dependant. It is this lack of control that makes places like steam nintendo eshop and basically all those site that make them suck to begin with. Now imagine if you could get your stuff from the very same place ? Why do you sony nintendo and microsft keep their stuff separate. The goal is control over your content. Something you cant have with a single source.
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)
A single source of data causes more problems then you really need to. It also means roll20 fg and ddb loses control over the content they wish to add in because now they cant control how that content is written. Anybody with little experience in database will tell you that much. While we can parse the data the way we want we are forced to use the original design of the database and when change happens you are force to go along with it.
Creating your own database allows you to develop the way you want to. So no the biggest flaw of his 1 place seller is that everyone else will be dependant on wotc while right now ddb is not !
Any developpers knows how important it is to have control over your stuff and not be dependant. It is this lack of control that makes places like steam nintendo eshop and basically all those site that make them suck to begin with. Now imagine if you could get your stuff from the very same place ? Why do you sony nintendo and microsft keep their stuff separate. The goal is control over your content. Something you cant have with a single source.
In the model I like control would still continue with DDB...why? Because DDB is buying the rights to use said content. So, let's say I went to the WoTC and purchase the DM Manual it would show that entitlement on DDB. Then, DDB could do whatever they want to it...make additions, make their tools even better, etc. We would be paying DDB for access to the tools and revised content they created.
teak
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men... - Willy Wonka
Since we don't know how much DDB pays to WotC in licencing fees per book, I would be interested to know instead how much much people like Kreakdude feel is appropriate to pay for the added value and labour brought by Curse?
If a book costs $30, how much of that do you believe is enough per book for Curse to pay for all its labour, and to make a profit? I $20 per book okay? $10? What do you think is the value of product without the content?
I am guessing between $5 and $10 a book. if you look at the Compendium only option, it is $19.99. Thus I would think maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 of that max would go to WOTC. They still put a lot of work into making that book into a digital format. Then when you look at the cost of the regular being only $10 more, that means for the harder work of linking and stuff it is not much more.
I was thinking the same thing. But carrying that $5-$10 over to physical copy which retails at $50 ... that means $40-$45 goes into "the rest" aka paper, manufacturing, FLGS, shipping, etc. That doesn't seem to add up. If WotC is only getting $5-$10 of that $50 sale that'd be a pretty bum deal. No wonder they're moving into the digital world.
In the chair example I think the "content" you pay for twice is the design of the chair, not the wood.
There is no "design of the chair" independent of the work of the people making chairs. That I have someone else's design to make sure my work matches does not actually make any of said work easier or less time consuming - in fact, it actually takes longer because I can't just do what I think feels right in any particular aspect, I actually have to stop and check against the established design.
The same holds true with D&D products and Curse's work re-producing them for D&D Beyond integration.
I have an Industrial Designer friend who would be offended by this lack of value to his contribution to the chair product. In fact, chairs were often used as examples in his training because it's such a simple function (support weight) but the door is WIDE open on the design. There are SO many variations of chairs (bean bags). The design of the chair takes creativity and work. Losing that is losing something valuable. I've seen websites where you can buy plans to build gaming tables and the plans themselves cost $100!
Different content. If it was the same content, you wouldn't have bought it a second time. Or maybe not. I have bought more than 1 PHB. Literally bought the same content twice. I also didn't expect my second one to be free or discounted because "I already bought the content in this book once."
You're going to make me spell it out?
Contained only in physical: Paper, box, dice. Contained only in digital: tokens, integration with roll20's Virtual Table Contained in BOTH!!: The same exact title, same exact cover image, literally thousands of letters and spaces arranged in the exact same order, the same images.
Okay, to those of you like Kreakdude's proposed model of buying the content digitally from WotC and using a code to unlock it on third-party sites (like DDB) there is a flaw with that design.
The third-party developers will need that content to exist locally on their own servers, and they will need to modify that content to fit their layout, design, and tools. There would not be a one-size-fits-all database that WotC could (or would) host for everyone else to call.
Even if they could, there is still the issue of a license. WotC is not going to let DDB or Roll20 or FG (etc) access/use that content without paying a licensing fee. If they allowed 3rd party developers to use that content without paying a licensing fee, they would defacto have to allow everyone to access that content without paying a licensing fee. If their licensing fee is "$0.00" then in a court of law (IANAL) it could be argued by someone that WotC has determined the value of their content is $0.00, and thus no one should have to pay for it.
Even if I am wrong about that, let's face it, Hasbro would never ever ever allow it. Ever. Hasbro would insist that any 3rd party vendor who wishes to use the content must pay a licensing fee.
So, then, the question I put to you is... even if WotC adopted Kreakdude's system, and still had to charge a licencing fee to 3rd party vendors, are you then arguing that those 3rd party vendors should not pass that fee on to consumers, but eat it by reducing their own profits?
What do you think that licensing fee should be? We already know (from past posts on this forum) that DDB negotiated very hard to get the final price down to what it is now (which is WAY less than Roll20 for example).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually, Roll20 pays WotC for the license and you pay Roll20, correct? I guess I’m not familiar with how Roll20 works. I’m assuming its similar to D&D Beyond. WotC gets paid for the licensing of their product as a one time or periodic payment from D&D Beyond and then anything made off of the product from D&D Beyond go to them.
Unless I’m completely misunderstanding how this licensing process works.
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...
- Willy Wonka
That sounds good in theory. Sure, I'd love to have to pay for content only once, no one's arguing with that, but here are some considerations.
Unlike a physical book ALL my players can access ALL the content I own at ANYTIME (on DDB at least). That's up to 36 players across 3 campaigns. Yes I have to pay a subscription for this ability, but it's peanuts compared to the value for the group. I can also purchase specific parts of the book. It may be that we'd lose a good deal of functionality or the cost of a subscription would skyrocket under your model. I don't know (and neither do you.)
Different licensees have different tools and different needs. Currently we have Roll 20 and FG (both VTT so probably similar needs), DDB (different business model) and the upcoming D&D reader app (who knows?). One size does not fit all and only WOTC can tell if it would be worth the legal costs to negotiate with each business, along with technical issues. I don't know, and neither do you.
The fact is that WOTC is doing very well out of the current model - last year was their best ever for D&D and the franchise is starting to hit the mainstream - and DDB has exceeded their own expectations. You might suggest they could do even better with your model, but without the data the companies have access to I don't know, and neither do you.
In addition, consider...
Corrections are made automatically to my copy. I don't have to go look up errata. I don't have to pay for it.
I can purchase the books at a substantial discount compared to physical copies. DDB is hardly price gouging.
The model is not unfair, it's just inconvenient for some users.
It seems to me neither company has any reason to change the current business model, which is proving very successful and clearly a heap of people are happy with it. Sure a few aren't, but WOTC clearly thinks that they can do as well or better with the current model even if they lose a few potential customers. I remember years ago Readers Digest put up the cover price on their European magazine. A journalist suggested they'd lose readership, but they believed they would make more money even with the loss of subscriptions.
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
The problem with changing the current pricing model is it screws over everyone who has currently invested, creating a large percentage of the customer base who is now disgruntled as opposed to an unknown amount of disgruntled potential customers. The risk vs. reward doesn't add up. This is because the success of 5e prompted Curse, a 3rd party company, to create a supplement to the game after it's market release. WotC did not plan this intentionally, but were rather pitched an idea by a group of people willing to put in the work to make something that WotC had been less successful with in the past. This was a win for WotC because they could focus on what they do best while letting a more qualified team focus on the digital end.
It's been explained multiple times ad nauseam, but the cost of creating a tracking system for physical books going forward in the current edition would be extensive. Currently, there is no way to verify who has already purchased a physical book, so creating a system that ties future physical purchases with digital content leaves everyone who has already made the purchase out in the cold.
Lowering the price of DDB content would also create a dissatisfaction with the thousands who have already paid the current price for it. The demand for refunds, rebates, and/or discounts on future products would create a net loss that I'm not sure the company could keep up with. Or they could just tell current customers to deal with it.
It's a lose/lose scenario for everyone except an unknown amount of potential future customers.
Currently however, they have a pricing model that is working. Neither WotC or Curse are missing any meals, and the people complaining about the pricing structure seem to just be a vocal minority of people whining that they have to pay more for additional functionality that was never promised with their original purchase in the first place. Anyone can make a free account and log in and complain on a forum, but sales numbers don't lie, and from all indications, business is going well. Why bother to fix something that shows no evidence of being broken?
The pricing model may be different when 6e launches, as the infrastructure of a digital option will already be in place, but it's foolhardy to expect any changes to the current model during the life cycle of 5e.
Since we don't know how much DDB pays to WotC in licencing fees per book, I would be interested to know instead how much much people like Kreakdude feel is appropriate to pay for the added value and labour brought by Curse?
If a book costs $30, how much of that do you believe is enough per book for Curse to pay for all its labour, and to make a profit? I $20 per book okay? $10? What do you think is the value of product without the content?
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
There is no "design of the chair" independent of the work of the people making chairs. That I have someone else's design to make sure my work matches does not actually make any of said work easier or less time consuming - in fact, it actually takes longer because I can't just do what I think feels right in any particular aspect, I actually have to stop and check against the established design.
The same holds true with D&D products and Curse's work re-producing them for D&D Beyond integration.
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...
- Willy Wonka
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...
- Willy Wonka
And just because a person logs into a free forum account and says "Change this and I will buy it" doesn't guarantee a sale. Anyone could say that and then not follow through. But changing that will certainly upset current customers.
The problem I see with Kreakdude's model is that somewhere along the line, someone has to decide to make less money for no good reason other than, again, the whims of unknown potential customers. No matter how you slice it, there is less money coming in, meaning someone takes a hit. You will be hard pressed to find any business to agree to take a cut on their bottom line with a successful product. Of course, we all would like to pay less money for anything, but again, there's no hard evidence of the current model being broken other than a few complaints, which you will probably always have in any business. We only see these complaints publicly because Curse opted to offer a public forum and has been very open with providing communication and feedback.
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.
A single source of data causes more problems then you really need to. It also means roll20 fg and ddb loses control over the content they wish to add in because now they cant control how that content is written. Anybody with little experience in database will tell you that much. While we can parse the data the way we want we are forced to use the original design of the database and when change happens you are force to go along with it.
Creating your own database allows you to develop the way you want to. So no the biggest flaw of his 1 place seller is that everyone else will be dependant on wotc while right now ddb is not !
Any developpers knows how important it is to have control over your stuff and not be dependant. It is this lack of control that makes places like steam nintendo eshop and basically all those site that make them suck to begin with. Now imagine if you could get your stuff from the very same place ? Why do you sony nintendo and microsft keep their stuff separate. The goal is control over your content. Something you cant have with a single source.
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)
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...
- Willy Wonka
You're going to make me spell it out?
Contained only in physical: Paper, box, dice.
Contained only in digital: tokens, integration with roll20's Virtual Table
Contained in BOTH!!: The same exact title, same exact cover image, literally thousands of letters and spaces arranged in the exact same order, the same images.
Okay, to those of you like Kreakdude's proposed model of buying the content digitally from WotC and using a code to unlock it on third-party sites (like DDB) there is a flaw with that design.
The third-party developers will need that content to exist locally on their own servers, and they will need to modify that content to fit their layout, design, and tools. There would not be a one-size-fits-all database that WotC could (or would) host for everyone else to call.
Even if they could, there is still the issue of a license. WotC is not going to let DDB or Roll20 or FG (etc) access/use that content without paying a licensing fee. If they allowed 3rd party developers to use that content without paying a licensing fee, they would defacto have to allow everyone to access that content without paying a licensing fee. If their licensing fee is "$0.00" then in a court of law (IANAL) it could be argued by someone that WotC has determined the value of their content is $0.00, and thus no one should have to pay for it.
Even if I am wrong about that, let's face it, Hasbro would never ever ever allow it. Ever. Hasbro would insist that any 3rd party vendor who wishes to use the content must pay a licensing fee.
So, then, the question I put to you is... even if WotC adopted Kreakdude's system, and still had to charge a licencing fee to 3rd party vendors, are you then arguing that those 3rd party vendors should not pass that fee on to consumers, but eat it by reducing their own profits?
What do you think that licensing fee should be? We already know (from past posts on this forum) that DDB negotiated very hard to get the final price down to what it is now (which is WAY less than Roll20 for example).
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?