I would even understand it more if they stopped the 'micro' buys, if the card transaction fees are really a big deal - and switched to mini-bundles for each book. Varying degrees of "Buy all the player options" or "buy all the Feats" as opposed to allowing people to buy specific spells.
That's far too reasonable an idea for WotC to implement.
In seriousness, I might've been fine with that provided they actually announce their damned changes to begin with.
I can't consider buying anything because I don't know what will happen to it if it somehow fails to work commercially.
I'm sorry, but... what are you talking about? Your existing purchases aren't going anywhere. DDB isn't going anywhere. D&D isn't going anywhere
I don't mean they are disappearing -- they are still here, but, to me, non-game policies clearly dictate what's supported and what works going forward.
This instance with the marketplace demonstrates a willingness to change/upset something that has been working without notice. Say you signed up for hero subs which currently has unlimited character creation. Next week, you find this has been limited to 50 -- same price. It's a legal move, but there's something clearly incorrect about it, no? This isn't any different, piecemeal purchases was a "feature" of DDB that worked in the context of making parts of D&D easier to access and play, now it is gone, and I cannot extend new conveniences with new content (and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
So for me, and I suspect a decent number of others, that we'll stop [digital] purchases of things we liked for now (or maybe for good). Even if this is reversed, which is unlikely, I'd still be concerned if this might circle back as an issue. Rationally, it would make sense for me to invest in another platform that isn't so whimsical, and on some level this can't be good for WoTC. Or maybe the P&L they've projected says different and this is how the maximize revenue.
In the end, I don't think I can rely on parking DDB for a few months between games and have the confidence that I can come back and play the way that I want without the risk of how I buy things to be predicable.
(and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
Yeah, you keep talking in these apocalyptic terms, with zero evidence to support your assertions
DDB already has legacy content. Books that are no longer sold on the marketplace are still supported. There is no reason other than doomsaying to believe that will change post-5.5
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
(and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
Yeah, you keep talking in these apocalyptic terms, with zero evidence to support your assertions
DDB already has legacy content. Books that are no longer sold on the marketplace are still supported. There is no reason other than doomsaying to believe that will change post-5.5
Well to be honest, many used the same argument when the book of many things had no piece meal purchases, and lots made the argument it was a one off due to the nature of the book, yet here we are now no piece meal at all, and you have to jump through hoops to get credit for piece meal purchases already made.
At this point I have no confidence in this platform moving forward, as they have made things worse at any given opportunity.
DDB has just gone down hill since it was sold.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Please give us back the option to buy a-la carte. I have bought the books but i found no reason to buy them again digitally... But i have done a lot of individual purchase for the charcater builder, it was very handy. I hope the d&d beyond team is going to reconsider this choice. If not i simply have no reason anymore to use d&d beyond
Well to be honest, many used the same argument when the book of many things had no piece meal purchases, and lots made the argument it was a one off due to the nature of the book, yet here we are now no piece meal at all, and you have to jump through hoops to get credit for piece meal purchases already made.
This mischaracterization of the Deck of Many Things discussion is a great example of something I touched on earlier.
One of the big problems with lack of communication from Wizards is the fact the burden of communication often falls on more discerning players who require actual evidence before engaging in rampant, barely supported speculation. That is a really hard job for the community. All the things that make official announcements hard - things are harder for players to do.
Let us look at this situation - the actual argument presented was not “DoMT is a one-off” but “DoMT has some oddities - it may be a one-off, it may not be, but the data point is so weird we cannot extrapolate anything. We will have to wait to see what happens with Vecna before any meaningful predictions have been made.” That second point is very different from the first… but that does not stop angry people, who do not want to admit they are engaging in unsupported speculation, from seeing “wait and see” as “this is unique.” It does not stop people with poor reading comprehension from misreading the entire thesis and reading “weird data point that MIGHT be a one off” as “this is a one off.” It does not stop scared from buying into the baseless speculation because human nature is to see things which support our fears rather than internalize anything which might say they are presently unwarranted.
Wizards has all those problems as well - angry, communications challenged, or afraid people misreading their statements… but Wizards at least has actual information about what the future holds. They do not have to make “wait and see, we as players do not have data” statements to cool down temperatures because Wizards actually has the data.
Wizards ultimately dropped the ball on the DoMT and ultimate removal of piecemeal transactions, but they do not need to drop the ball for future changes.
Already, there are conspiratorial, fear mongering, or otherwise just afraid posts worried about what might happen to “Legacy” content. The community is trying to keep the level of fear low, but the community can only speculate. And a lot we cannot speculate on because we do not have enough data to make a meaningful extrapolation.
Will old subclasses not yet superseded be considered “Legacy” even though they work for 5e, or will only things like Soul Knife get the “Legacy” tag since a new version will be out? If a book is moved to legacy, but contains content that has not been superseded, will there be some way to get that content? There was not with some of the Tiefling variants; will a better system be used moving forward? How will D&D Beyond update subclasses for Classes that might have some of the subclass feature levels moved about (like Warlock moving subclass choice to a higher level)?
Wizards might not know the answer to some of those questions - but they probably know the answer to others. The sooner we get those answers, even if they are only answers to some questions, the sooner some folks can stop worrying and some others can stop trying to keep folks from worrying—and can start planning for what the future might bring.
I, for one, at very excited about the 2024 revisions - it makes me a bit sad that others cannot share in my excitement because they are afraid of the uncertainty of what 2024 might bring. For their sake, I hope they get the answers they seek sooner, rather than later. The attention on this thread from the D&D Beyond team, ex post facto as it might be, has given me some optimism that communications might improve.
Honestly, I find that the decision hurts individual players more than anything.
I'd love to see a la carte purchases come back in some form or fashion, same with bundle purchases, because this 1. Helps players who only want certain things and certain classes and don't want to invest in the whole book, and who don't have a dm who can financially provide all of those books for content sharing purposes. 2. Bundles makes larger purchases more feasible for a dm. I wouldn't have half the library that I do if I hadn't purchased it from the legendary bundle.
Additionally, I have my complaints about the marketplace as is in general, but that's not why I came here to complain. I just wish I had more time to buy the Spacejammers stuff because I just got back into DnD last month and have been trying to catch back up from two years off. The sudden change without any wording is just bad business.
The attention on this thread from the D&D Beyond team, ex post facto as it might be, has given me some optimism that communications might improve.
I really hope for this as well. While I never bought things à la carte, I certainly understand and appreciate why it's so important to so many people. I just wish that Wizards would be more open and transparent about decisions/directions whenever possible before changes, etc. happen.
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
Is your argument that because they've never got something right, they shouldn't bother even trying? Because these are design teams being paid actual money to work on this stuff.
The fact that they can't fix the martial/caster divide has nothing to do with their QA process, or the skills of their designers.
It is deeply baked into the basic assumptions of the game.
They actually did fix it. In 4e. It required a radical reworking of how things were, and we know how popular that was among large swathes of the player base. Any such attempt is going to need fundamental reimagining, and even if one can do it without hacking off a lot of the ways that people play D&D, it's going to end up feeling a lot less D&D-like.
I think I am seeing the problem with A La Carte purchases.
DM's didn't use them as much since they wanted the whole of the books to make adventures with.
Players just didn't want to purchase the whole book but instead just wanted the little part that let them make or use the new character features in each book. (I can see why and understand) And for the most part did not have a DM who could share content with them.
This was a problem originating with the people who made it happen. WOTC. This whole argument would not be happening if they never made them available in the first place. But the cat is out of the bag now so they should stick to their end of the agreement. They need to keep A La Carte purchases open for the now legacy content.
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice. I am now thinking they under valued the A La Carte content. And i bet they think the same after looking through the numbers. In essence they figured out the secret. Especially after seeing this thread.
The next question is will they ever make the a la carte option available for the new content?
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice.
Except that this is still denying customers one of the most convenient ways to access new content. Forcing people to pay full price for an entire book when they only want a sub-class or feat is idiotic, because if the choice is between $2-3 purchase or $50+ purchase they won't purchase anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think I am seeing the problem with A La Carte purchases.
DM's didn't use them as much since they wanted the whole of the books to make adventures with.
Players just didn't want to purchase the whole book but instead just wanted the little part that let them make or use the new character features in each book. (I can see why and understand) And for the most part did not have a DM who could share content with them.
This was a problem originating with the people who made it happen. WOTC. This whole argument would not be happening if they never made them available in the first place. But the cat is out of the bag now so they should stick to their end of the agreement. They need to keep A La Carte purchases open for the now legacy content.
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice. I am now thinking they under valued the A La Carte content. And i bet they think the same after looking through the numbers. In essence they figured out the secret. Especially after seeing this thread.
The next question is will they ever make the a la carte option available for the new content?
As a DM I did not, at the time, really need the digital fluff of a whole book until recently. Only thing that was really worth any value was the char gen aspects of the content.
The PHB back then had class and race single purchase options,( 1.99 a piece), or a sub bundle of all the classes. ( I believe it was $9.99 )
WotC is the ones removing the feature, but that feature was part of this site long before the acquisition, and is what caught WotC’s eye.
Now it is currently no longer offered. Okay, but will it return? Personally I don’t see them doing this till after the three book new rules are out, and the sales numbers back the need of a-la-carte return.
If the new rules flop, and yes at this point one does have to consider the possibility, how much worst will the D&D side of WotC/Hasbro become till the decision is made to ether scrap the site, ( I doubt it will just up and disappear, but then you never can know for sure till it happens ), or sale whatever is left of the corpse of what D&D was. ( I doubt this, the brand name alone is currently worth a pretty penny, and fairly well known)
WotC / Hasbro should be looking at the forums and be thinking, “Damn, maybe an announcement would have been better” but instead we got “Who cares, milk’em harder, and if we lose 20% of the community, milk the remaining even harder.”
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice.
Except that this is still denying customers one of the most convenient ways to access new content. Forcing people to pay full price for an entire book when they only want a sub-class or feat is idiotic, because if the choice is between $2-3 purchase or $50+ purchase they won't purchase anything.
This exactly. I'm not going to roll my eyes and go "Guess you got me, whatever" and buy the whole book the feature I want is in.
I'm just going to find it online and manually keep track of it myself instead.
I think I am seeing the problem with A La Carte purchases.
DM's didn't use them as much since they wanted the whole of the books to make adventures with.
Players just didn't want to purchase the whole book but instead just wanted the little part that let them make or use the new character features in each book. (I can see why and understand) And for the most part did not have a DM who could share content with them.
This was a problem originating with the people who made it happen. WOTC. This whole argument would not be happening if they never made them available in the first place. But the cat is out of the bag now so they should stick to their end of the agreement. They need to keep A La Carte purchases open for the now legacy content.
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice. I am now thinking they under valued the A La Carte content. And i bet they think the same after looking through the numbers. In essence they figured out the secret. Especially after seeing this thread.
The next question is will they ever make the a la carte option available for the new content?
Was it WotC that implemented piecemeal purchasing? Or was it an idea the original owners of dndbeyond had? I don’t know, but it’s not necessarily that WotC changed their mind. They may have never liked it, but originally didn’t care too much since it was someone else’s problem to figure out the coding and implementation, and credit card fees, while WotC just collected licensing fees. I’m not privy to the details of the license, or anything. Just kind of wondering aloud.
I’m no MBA, but from a business standpoint, the change can make some sense. If it was $2 for a subclass, and it’s $30 for the book, they only need to convince 1 of 15 (6.6%) people to buy the book instead and they about even out on the revenue side, even if the other 14 buy nothing. And then they save money on the expense side, for reasons lots of people have already mentioned. And of course, they have years of sales data to use when they run these numbers. Yeah, they piss some people off, but people have short memories, and even if 93% of people who’d been buying piecemeal stop buying, they come out ok.
I’m not saying I agree with the choice, to be clear. I’m looking at starting a campaign, and was considering picking up some feats and subclasses for my players, from books I have no interest in, so I’m with you all that this sucks. I’m just saying it kind of makes some sense as a business decision.
I think I am seeing the problem with A La Carte purchases.
DM's didn't use them as much since they wanted the whole of the books to make adventures with.
Players just didn't want to purchase the whole book but instead just wanted the little part that let them make or use the new character features in each book. (I can see why and understand) And for the most part did not have a DM who could share content with them.
This was a problem originating with the people who made it happen. WOTC. This whole argument would not be happening if they never made them available in the first place. But the cat is out of the bag now so they should stick to their end of the agreement. They need to keep A La Carte purchases open for the now legacy content.
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice. I am now thinking they under valued the A La Carte content. And i bet they think the same after looking through the numbers. In essence they figured out the secret. Especially after seeing this thread.
The next question is will they ever make the a la carte option available for the new content?
As a DM I did not, at the time, really need the digital fluff of a whole book until recently. Only thing that was really worth any value was the char gen aspects of the content.
The PHB back then had class and race single purchase options,( 1.99 a piece), or a sub bundle of all the classes. ( I believe it was $9.99 )
WotC is the ones removing the feature, but that feature was part of this site long before the acquisition, and is what caught WotC’s eye.
Now it is currently no longer offered. Okay, but will it return? Personally I don’t see them doing this till after the three book new rules are out, and the sales numbers back the need of a-la-carte return.
If the new rules flop, and yes at this point one does have to consider the possibility, how much worst will the D&D side of WotC/Hasbro become till the decision is made to ether scrap the site, ( I doubt it will just up and disappear, but then you never can know for sure till it happens ), or sale whatever is left of the corpse of what D&D was. ( I doubt this, the brand name alone is currently worth a pretty penny, and fairly well known)
WotC / Hasbro should be looking at the forums and be thinking, “Damn, maybe an announcement would have been better” but instead we got “Who cares, milk’em harder, and if we lose 20% of the community, milk the remaining even harder.”
You assume what you’re seeing here represents a sizable market segment, and that might very well not be the case. Look at the engagement with the significantly more publicized OGL issue vs the UA playtests in surveys, it was an order of magnitude smaller iirc. I can’t prove anything either way, of course, but it seems unlikely they wouldn’t have assessed the size of the market segment affected by this change.
As someone new to the platform, I suffered upon seeing the removal of the option for piecemeal purchases.
I was VERY HAPPILY going to purchase many individual items like subraces, subclasses, spells and feats with the piecemeal option of buying individual items or parts of books. That was amazing as buying many whole books, priced in dollars, with our less valuable currency is prohibitively expensive.
In my estimations I was about to spend 20 to 40 dollars.
Sadly, that option was suddenly removed without warning, making it impossible to do as planned. Purchasing the whole books is not a viable option as it would amount to several months of living expenses in our currency. So I have to make do with the homebrew options, of course WITHOUT ever sharing any copyrighted material whatsoever.
It is not the end of the world and I admire all the work Wizards of the Coast does with their amazing system, with their solid rules and beautiful artwork. They should know, however, that by removing the piecemeal option for purchases many potential small buyers like me will be prevented from making their purchases.
You assume what you’re seeing here represents a sizable market segment, and that might very well not be the case. Look at the engagement with the significantly more publicized OGL issue vs the UA playtests in surveys, it was an order of magnitude smaller iirc. I can’t prove anything either way, of course, but it seems unlikely they wouldn’t have assessed the size of the market segment affected by this change.
Building on the above, the loss could be a substantial portion of players and Wizards could still come out ahead. If a full book costs $30.00 and a piecemeal option costs $1.99, for ever fifteen people who purchased piecemeal, Wizards only needs one of them to purchase the whole book to break even. Converting 7% of purchasers is really not a high bar to clear, so folks should not really hang their hat on the “this will be a financial loss for Wizards” argument.
As I have said before, the real problem with removing piecemeal purchases is the fact it transforms what was once a player-level investment into a DM-level investment, as player facing options now come bundled with a whole lot of content that player will not use.
Wizards, and TSR before them, have long acknowledged one of the barriers to growth in the game was the DM shortage. They have acknowledged this is both a time commitment problem and a financial one. Piecemeal purchasing is not going to solve the time commitment problem of DMs, but it does help reduce some of the financial burden placed on DMs. Further, it makes the initial entry into the true strength of D&D - the plethora of options so you can be whatever your fantasy wants you to be - a lower barrier, so folks can experience some of the more fun aspects of the game which the basic rules do not cover.
The strict application of numbers almost certainly favor removing piecemeal options - those are fairly easy numbers to crunch and estimate, based on sales data from all the sites that do not use piecemeal purchasing. But the long-term growth potential piecemeal options might enable? That is something nearly impossible to quantify - both for us players and for those within Wizards. If folks want piecemeal options reinstated, trying to argue their removal is a financial mistake is not a winning argument. What might be a winning argument? Expressing how important they were to your enjoyment of D&D, how important they were to getting new players to fall in love with the game, and how instrumental they were in your decision to invest heavily in the system. Those are non-quantitative data points Wizards should be made aware of - no use trying to make a quantitative financial argument when they have the numbers and we do not.
I should note, this is not to discourage folks from sharing “I will not be buying I suppose” stories - those personal anecdotes are important so Wizards can see the metaphysical face of their decisions. What I take issue with is the folks who go beyond sharing their important personal anecdotes and are trying to extrapolate a financial disaster without any actual financial information.
I think I am seeing the problem with A La Carte purchases.
DM's didn't use them as much since they wanted the whole of the books to make adventures with.
Players just didn't want to purchase the whole book but instead just wanted the little part that let them make or use the new character features in each book. (I can see why and understand) And for the most part did not have a DM who could share content with them.
This was a problem originating with the people who made it happen. WOTC. This whole argument would not be happening if they never made them available in the first place. But the cat is out of the bag now so they should stick to their end of the agreement. They need to keep A La Carte purchases open for the now legacy content.
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice. I am now thinking they under valued the A La Carte content. And i bet they think the same after looking through the numbers. In essence they figured out the secret. Especially after seeing this thread.
The next question is will they ever make the a la carte option available for the new content?
As a DM I did not, at the time, really need the digital fluff of a whole book until recently. Only thing that was really worth any value was the char gen aspects of the content.
The PHB back then had class and race single purchase options,( 1.99 a piece), or a sub bundle of all the classes. ( I believe it was $9.99 )
WotC is the ones removing the feature, but that feature was part of this site long before the acquisition, and is what caught WotC’s eye.
Now it is currently no longer offered. Okay, but will it return? Personally I don’t see them doing this till after the three book new rules are out, and the sales numbers back the need of a-la-carte return.
If the new rules flop, and yes at this point one does have to consider the possibility, how much worst will the D&D side of WotC/Hasbro become till the decision is made to ether scrap the site, ( I doubt it will just up and disappear, but then you never can know for sure till it happens ), or sale whatever is left of the corpse of what D&D was. ( I doubt this, the brand name alone is currently worth a pretty penny, and fairly well known)
WotC / Hasbro should be looking at the forums and be thinking, “Damn, maybe an announcement would have been better” but instead we got “Who cares, milk’em harder, and if we lose 20% of the community, milk the remaining even harder.”
You assume what you’re seeing here represents a sizable market segment, and that might very well not be the case. Look at the engagement with the significantly more publicized OGL issue vs the UA playtests in surveys, it was an order of magnitude smaller iirc. I can’t prove anything either way, of course, but it seems unlikely they wouldn’t have assessed the size of the market segment affected by this change.
You too are assuming, lest you have a source(s) others do not.
We often see the term gatekeeping thrown around on this site, isn't this just wizbro gatekeeping those with a small budget for entertainment out of lots of the game that has not been case historically on this site and add the fact it was done without notice and in the cover of night, with conflicting statements on the site that led to more anger and confusion. It is their property, and they can do what they want with it but if gatekeeping wrong this is too. It's like wizbro and kellog's hired classmates for the people coming up with these ideas.
For the record I only used the piece meal a few times so other than a poor PR move and yet another reason not to trust this company I am not affected unless I want the credit towards the books I bought parts of, unlikely as it is hidden behind too many hoops to jump through and those books are of little use to me.
You assume what you’re seeing here represents a sizable market segment, and that might very well not be the case. Look at the engagement with the significantly more publicized OGL issue vs the UA playtests in surveys, it was an order of magnitude smaller iirc. I can’t prove anything either way, of course, but it seems unlikely they wouldn’t have assessed the size of the market segment affected by this change.
Building on the above, the loss could be a substantial portion of players and Wizards could still come out ahead. If a full book costs $30.00 and a piecemeal option costs $1.99, for ever fifteen people who purchased piecemeal, Wizards only needs one of them to purchase the whole book to break even. Converting 7% of purchasers is really not a high bar to clear, so folks should not really hang their hat on the “this will be a financial loss for Wizards” argument.
As I have said before, the real problem with removing piecemeal purchases is the fact it transforms what was once a player-level investment into a DM-level investment, as player facing options now come bundled with a whole lot of content that player will not use.
Wizards, and TSR before them, have long acknowledged one of the barriers to growth in the game was the DM shortage. They have acknowledged this is both a time commitment problem and a financial one. Piecemeal purchasing is not going to solve the time commitment problem of DMs, but it does help reduce some of the financial burden placed on DMs. Further, it makes the initial entry into the true strength of D&D - the plethora of options so you can be whatever your fantasy wants you to be - a lower barrier, so folks can experience some of the more fun aspects of the game which the basic rules do not cover.
The strict application of numbers almost certainly favor removing piecemeal options - those are fairly easy numbers to crunch and estimate, based on sales data from all the sites that do not use piecemeal purchasing. But the long-term growth potential piecemeal options might enable? That is something nearly impossible to quantify - both for us players and for those within Wizards. If folks want piecemeal options reinstated, trying to argue their removal is a financial mistake is not a winning argument. What might be a winning argument? Expressing how important they were to your enjoyment of D&D, how important they were to getting new players to fall in love with the game, and how instrumental they were in your decision to invest heavily in the system. Those are non-quantitative data points Wizards should be made aware of - no use trying to make a quantitative financial argument when they have the numbers and we do not.
I should note, this is not to discourage folks from sharing “I will not be buying I suppose” stories - those personal anecdotes are important so Wizards can see the metaphysical face of their decisions. What I take issue with is the folks who go beyond sharing their important personal anecdotes and are trying to extrapolate a financial disaster without any actual financial information.
You assume what you’re seeing here represents a sizable market segment, and that might very well not be the case. Look at the engagement with the significantly more publicized OGL issue vs the UA playtests in surveys, it was an order of magnitude smaller iirc. I can’t prove anything either way, of course, but it seems unlikely they wouldn’t have assessed the size of the market segment affected by this change.
Building on the above, the loss could be a substantial portion of players and Wizards could still come out ahead. If a full book costs $30.00 and a piecemeal option costs $1.99, for ever fifteen people who purchased piecemeal, Wizards only needs one of them to purchase the whole book to break even. Converting 7% of purchasers is really not a high bar to clear, so folks should not really hang their hat on the “this will be a financial loss for Wizards” argument.
As I have said before, the real problem with removing piecemeal purchases is the fact it transforms what was once a player-level investment into a DM-level investment, as player facing options now come bundled with a whole lot of content that player will not use.
Wizards, and TSR before them, have long acknowledged one of the barriers to growth in the game was the DM shortage. They have acknowledged this is both a time commitment problem and a financial one. Piecemeal purchasing is not going to solve the time commitment problem of DMs, but it does help reduce some of the financial burden placed on DMs. Further, it makes the initial entry into the true strength of D&D - the plethora of options so you can be whatever your fantasy wants you to be - a lower barrier, so folks can experience some of the more fun aspects of the game which the basic rules do not cover.
The strict application of numbers almost certainly favor removing piecemeal options - those are fairly easy numbers to crunch and estimate, based on sales data from all the sites that do not use piecemeal purchasing. But the long-term growth potential piecemeal options might enable? That is something nearly impossible to quantify - both for us players and for those within Wizards. If folks want piecemeal options reinstated, trying to argue their removal is a financial mistake is not a winning argument. What might be a winning argument? Expressing how important they were to your enjoyment of D&D, how important they were to getting new players to fall in love with the game, and how instrumental they were in your decision to invest heavily in the system. Those are non-quantitative data points Wizards should be made aware of - no use trying to make a quantitative financial argument when they have the numbers and we do not.
I should note, this is not to discourage folks from sharing “I will not be buying I suppose” stories - those personal anecdotes are important so Wizards can see the metaphysical face of their decisions. What I take issue with is the folks who go beyond sharing their important personal anecdotes and are trying to extrapolate a financial disaster without any actual financial information.
In my mind, the financial impact comes if/when users start cancelling their subscriptions. There comes a point at which customers feel that they are suffering the death by a thousand cuts, and my feel that it's time to move on to other online resources.
Come to think of it, the idea of a sort of "strike" sounds interesting. If everyone cancelled their sub today the impact would not be immediate as renewal dates vary, but it would be noticed that the event happened. I'm not trying to lead the charge, mind you; I'm just musing, but I do wonder what that would look like.
great so were unsubscribing again. we showed them where we stand with the OGL we can show them again probably a lot of use just got done slapping sony for the helldivers issue the peoples power and protest has worked in the past and we should make that voice known again
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's far too reasonable an idea for WotC to implement.
In seriousness, I might've been fine with that provided they actually announce their damned changes to begin with.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].I don't mean they are disappearing -- they are still here, but, to me, non-game policies clearly dictate what's supported and what works going forward.
This instance with the marketplace demonstrates a willingness to change/upset something that has been working without notice. Say you signed up for hero subs which currently has unlimited character creation. Next week, you find this has been limited to 50 -- same price. It's a legal move, but there's something clearly incorrect about it, no? This isn't any different, piecemeal purchases was a "feature" of DDB that worked in the context of making parts of D&D easier to access and play, now it is gone, and I cannot extend new conveniences with new content (and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
So for me, and I suspect a decent number of others, that we'll stop [digital] purchases of things we liked for now (or maybe for good). Even if this is reversed, which is unlikely, I'd still be concerned if this might circle back as an issue. Rationally, it would make sense for me to invest in another platform that isn't so whimsical, and on some level this can't be good for WoTC. Or maybe the P&L they've projected says different and this is how the maximize revenue.
In the end, I don't think I can rely on parking DDB for a few months between games and have the confidence that I can come back and play the way that I want without the risk of how I buy things to be predicable.
Yeah, you keep talking in these apocalyptic terms, with zero evidence to support your assertions
DDB already has legacy content. Books that are no longer sold on the marketplace are still supported. There is no reason other than doomsaying to believe that will change post-5.5
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well to be honest, many used the same argument when the book of many things had no piece meal purchases, and lots made the argument it was a one off due to the nature of the book, yet here we are now no piece meal at all, and you have to jump through hoops to get credit for piece meal purchases already made.
At this point I have no confidence in this platform moving forward, as they have made things worse at any given opportunity.
DDB has just gone down hill since it was sold.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Please give us back the option to buy a-la carte. I have bought the books but i found no reason to buy them again digitally...
But i have done a lot of individual purchase for the charcater builder, it was very handy.
I hope the d&d beyond team is going to reconsider this choice.
If not i simply have no reason anymore to use d&d beyond
This mischaracterization of the Deck of Many Things discussion is a great example of something I touched on earlier.
One of the big problems with lack of communication from Wizards is the fact the burden of communication often falls on more discerning players who require actual evidence before engaging in rampant, barely supported speculation. That is a really hard job for the community. All the things that make official announcements hard - things are harder for players to do.
Let us look at this situation - the actual argument presented was not “DoMT is a one-off” but “DoMT has some oddities - it may be a one-off, it may not be, but the data point is so weird we cannot extrapolate anything. We will have to wait to see what happens with Vecna before any meaningful predictions have been made.” That second point is very different from the first… but that does not stop angry people, who do not want to admit they are engaging in unsupported speculation, from seeing “wait and see” as “this is unique.” It does not stop people with poor reading comprehension from misreading the entire thesis and reading “weird data point that MIGHT be a one off” as “this is a one off.” It does not stop scared from buying into the baseless speculation because human nature is to see things which support our fears rather than internalize anything which might say they are presently unwarranted.
Wizards has all those problems as well - angry, communications challenged, or afraid people misreading their statements… but Wizards at least has actual information about what the future holds. They do not have to make “wait and see, we as players do not have data” statements to cool down temperatures because Wizards actually has the data.
Wizards ultimately dropped the ball on the DoMT and ultimate removal of piecemeal transactions, but they do not need to drop the ball for future changes.
Already, there are conspiratorial, fear mongering, or otherwise just afraid posts worried about what might happen to “Legacy” content. The community is trying to keep the level of fear low, but the community can only speculate. And a lot we cannot speculate on because we do not have enough data to make a meaningful extrapolation.
Will old subclasses not yet superseded be considered “Legacy” even though they work for 5e, or will only things like Soul Knife get the “Legacy” tag since a new version will be out? If a book is moved to legacy, but contains content that has not been superseded, will there be some way to get that content? There was not with some of the Tiefling variants; will a better system be used moving forward? How will D&D Beyond update subclasses for Classes that might have some of the subclass feature levels moved about (like Warlock moving subclass choice to a higher level)?
Wizards might not know the answer to some of those questions - but they probably know the answer to others. The sooner we get those answers, even if they are only answers to some questions, the sooner some folks can stop worrying and some others can stop trying to keep folks from worrying—and can start planning for what the future might bring.
I, for one, at very excited about the 2024 revisions - it makes me a bit sad that others cannot share in my excitement because they are afraid of the uncertainty of what 2024 might bring. For their sake, I hope they get the answers they seek sooner, rather than later. The attention on this thread from the D&D Beyond team, ex post facto as it might be, has given me some optimism that communications might improve.
Honestly, I find that the decision hurts individual players more than anything.
I'd love to see a la carte purchases come back in some form or fashion, same with bundle purchases, because this 1. Helps players who only want certain things and certain classes and don't want to invest in the whole book, and who don't have a dm who can financially provide all of those books for content sharing purposes. 2. Bundles makes larger purchases more feasible for a dm. I wouldn't have half the library that I do if I hadn't purchased it from the legendary bundle.
Additionally, I have my complaints about the marketplace as is in general, but that's not why I came here to complain. I just wish I had more time to buy the Spacejammers stuff because I just got back into DnD last month and have been trying to catch back up from two years off. The sudden change without any wording is just bad business.
I really hope for this as well. While I never bought things à la carte, I certainly understand and appreciate why it's so important to so many people. I just wish that Wizards would be more open and transparent about decisions/directions whenever possible before changes, etc. happen.
The fact that they can't fix the martial/caster divide has nothing to do with their QA process, or the skills of their designers.
It is deeply baked into the basic assumptions of the game.
They actually did fix it. In 4e. It required a radical reworking of how things were, and we know how popular that was among large swathes of the player base. Any such attempt is going to need fundamental reimagining, and even if one can do it without hacking off a lot of the ways that people play D&D, it's going to end up feeling a lot less D&D-like.
I think I am seeing the problem with A La Carte purchases.
DM's didn't use them as much since they wanted the whole of the books to make adventures with.
Players just didn't want to purchase the whole book but instead just wanted the little part that let them make or use the new character features in each book. (I can see why and understand) And for the most part did not have a DM who could share content with them.
This was a problem originating with the people who made it happen. WOTC. This whole argument would not be happening if they never made them available in the first place. But the cat is out of the bag now so they should stick to their end of the agreement. They need to keep A La Carte purchases open for the now legacy content.
They have no need to keep the practice going for the new content. Its their choice.
I am now thinking they under valued the A La Carte content. And i bet they think the same after looking through the numbers. In essence they figured out the secret. Especially after seeing this thread.
The next question is will they ever make the a la carte option available for the new content?
Except that this is still denying customers one of the most convenient ways to access new content. Forcing people to pay full price for an entire book when they only want a sub-class or feat is idiotic, because if the choice is between $2-3 purchase or $50+ purchase they won't purchase anything.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
As a DM I did not, at the time, really need the digital fluff of a whole book until recently. Only thing that was really worth any value was the char gen aspects of the content.
The PHB back then had class and race single purchase options,( 1.99 a piece), or a sub bundle of all the classes. ( I believe it was $9.99 )
WotC is the ones removing the feature, but that feature was part of this site long before the acquisition, and is what caught WotC’s eye.
Now it is currently no longer offered. Okay, but will it return? Personally I don’t see them doing this till after the three book new rules are out, and the sales numbers back the need of a-la-carte return.
If the new rules flop, and yes at this point one does have to consider the possibility, how much worst will the D&D side of WotC/Hasbro become till the decision is made to ether scrap the site, ( I doubt it will just up and disappear, but then you never can know for sure till it happens ), or sale whatever is left of the corpse of what D&D was. ( I doubt this, the brand name alone is currently worth a pretty penny, and fairly well known)
WotC / Hasbro should be looking at the forums and be thinking, “Damn, maybe an announcement would have been better” but instead we got “Who cares, milk’em harder, and if we lose 20% of the community, milk the remaining even harder.”
This exactly. I'm not going to roll my eyes and go "Guess you got me, whatever" and buy the whole book the feature I want is in.
I'm just going to find it online and manually keep track of it myself instead.
Was it WotC that implemented piecemeal purchasing? Or was it an idea the original owners of dndbeyond had? I don’t know, but it’s not necessarily that WotC changed their mind. They may have never liked it, but originally didn’t care too much since it was someone else’s problem to figure out the coding and implementation, and credit card fees, while WotC just collected licensing fees. I’m not privy to the details of the license, or anything. Just kind of wondering aloud.
I’m no MBA, but from a business standpoint, the change can make some sense. If it was $2 for a subclass, and it’s $30 for the book, they only need to convince 1 of 15 (6.6%) people to buy the book instead and they about even out on the revenue side, even if the other 14 buy nothing. And then they save money on the expense side, for reasons lots of people have already mentioned. And of course, they have years of sales data to use when they run these numbers. Yeah, they piss some people off, but people have short memories, and even if 93% of people who’d been buying piecemeal stop buying, they come out ok.
I’m not saying I agree with the choice, to be clear. I’m looking at starting a campaign, and was considering picking up some feats and subclasses for my players, from books I have no interest in, so I’m with you all that this sucks. I’m just saying it kind of makes some sense as a business decision.
You assume what you’re seeing here represents a sizable market segment, and that might very well not be the case. Look at the engagement with the significantly more publicized OGL issue vs the UA playtests in surveys, it was an order of magnitude smaller iirc. I can’t prove anything either way, of course, but it seems unlikely they wouldn’t have assessed the size of the market segment affected by this change.
As someone new to the platform, I suffered upon seeing the removal of the option for piecemeal purchases.
I was VERY HAPPILY going to purchase many individual items like subraces, subclasses, spells and feats with the piecemeal option of buying individual items or parts of books. That was amazing as buying many whole books, priced in dollars, with our less valuable currency is prohibitively expensive.
In my estimations I was about to spend 20 to 40 dollars.
Sadly, that option was suddenly removed without warning, making it impossible to do as planned. Purchasing the whole books is not a viable option as it would amount to several months of living expenses in our currency. So I have to make do with the homebrew options, of course WITHOUT ever sharing any copyrighted material whatsoever.
It is not the end of the world and I admire all the work Wizards of the Coast does with their amazing system, with their solid rules and beautiful artwork. They should know, however, that by removing the piecemeal option for purchases many potential small buyers like me will be prevented from making their purchases.
Building on the above, the loss could be a substantial portion of players and Wizards could still come out ahead. If a full book costs $30.00 and a piecemeal option costs $1.99, for ever fifteen people who purchased piecemeal, Wizards only needs one of them to purchase the whole book to break even. Converting 7% of purchasers is really not a high bar to clear, so folks should not really hang their hat on the “this will be a financial loss for Wizards” argument.
As I have said before, the real problem with removing piecemeal purchases is the fact it transforms what was once a player-level investment into a DM-level investment, as player facing options now come bundled with a whole lot of content that player will not use.
Wizards, and TSR before them, have long acknowledged one of the barriers to growth in the game was the DM shortage. They have acknowledged this is both a time commitment problem and a financial one. Piecemeal purchasing is not going to solve the time commitment problem of DMs, but it does help reduce some of the financial burden placed on DMs. Further, it makes the initial entry into the true strength of D&D - the plethora of options so you can be whatever your fantasy wants you to be - a lower barrier, so folks can experience some of the more fun aspects of the game which the basic rules do not cover.
The strict application of numbers almost certainly favor removing piecemeal options - those are fairly easy numbers to crunch and estimate, based on sales data from all the sites that do not use piecemeal purchasing. But the long-term growth potential piecemeal options might enable? That is something nearly impossible to quantify - both for us players and for those within Wizards. If folks want piecemeal options reinstated, trying to argue their removal is a financial mistake is not a winning argument. What might be a winning argument? Expressing how important they were to your enjoyment of D&D, how important they were to getting new players to fall in love with the game, and how instrumental they were in your decision to invest heavily in the system. Those are non-quantitative data points Wizards should be made aware of - no use trying to make a quantitative financial argument when they have the numbers and we do not.
I should note, this is not to discourage folks from sharing “I will not be buying I suppose” stories - those personal anecdotes are important so Wizards can see the metaphysical face of their decisions. What I take issue with is the folks who go beyond sharing their important personal anecdotes and are trying to extrapolate a financial disaster without any actual financial information.
You too are assuming, lest you have a source(s) others do not.
We often see the term gatekeeping thrown around on this site, isn't this just wizbro gatekeeping those with a small budget for entertainment out of lots of the game that has not been case historically on this site and add the fact it was done without notice and in the cover of night, with conflicting statements on the site that led to more anger and confusion. It is their property, and they can do what they want with it but if gatekeeping wrong this is too. It's like wizbro and kellog's hired classmates for the people coming up with these ideas.
For the record I only used the piece meal a few times so other than a poor PR move and yet another reason not to trust this company I am not affected unless I want the credit towards the books I bought parts of, unlikely as it is hidden behind too many hoops to jump through and those books are of little use to me.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
In my mind, the financial impact comes if/when users start cancelling their subscriptions. There comes a point at which customers feel that they are suffering the death by a thousand cuts, and my feel that it's time to move on to other online resources.
Come to think of it, the idea of a sort of "strike" sounds interesting. If everyone cancelled their sub today the impact would not be immediate as renewal dates vary, but it would be noticed that the event happened. I'm not trying to lead the charge, mind you; I'm just musing, but I do wonder what that would look like.
great so were unsubscribing again.
we showed them where we stand with the OGL we can show them again
probably a lot of use just got done slapping sony for the helldivers issue
the peoples power and protest has worked in the past and we should make that voice known again