As I said, the OGL did not actually define anything - that section of the OGL basically boils down to “We consider our IP our IP, but you can use the things we list here if you want.” Maybe you found it useful, but from a legal and common sense perspective, it was just stating what everyone should already know.
It is pretty simple - if it is in the SRD, you can use it. If it is not and was something created by Wizards, you cannot unless covered by a different license (like on DMs Guild). If you need the legal equivalent of a contract written in crayon on a cocktail napkin (which is what the OGL pretty much was) to tell you more than that, not really sure what to tell you.
I’m sure we are both at this point going to agree to disagree. I leaned legal jargon while learning financial lingo, so please quit insulting my intelligence, I deeply researched the legal framework of the OGL, was about to utilize it when the blow-up happened.
Now, with all that is going on, I can wait till the dust settles. I can read the tea leaves, certainty unclear.
I want to be clear, I am not insulting your intelligence - only that of whomever wrote the OGL. Speaking from the perspective of an attorney who has done some IP work and who has read a whole bunch of similar contracts (sometimes for my own entertainment), I can categorically say the OGL is the worst written license I have ever seen.
The entire contract has major holes, fails to define significant terms, and dedicates a significant portion of its already incredibly trite length to simply stating “hey, if we do not cover it here and we own the IP rights, we do in fact own those IP rights and do not cover it here.” They use slightly more verbose language and list those things explicitly - but, legally, it is kind of hollow language. It was a bad license and should cease to be used. Everyone - Wizards and content creators alike - is better off just using the Creative Commons.
Edit: I suppose this is neither here nor there. The only thing that really matters for this thread is the importance of communication - and, fortunately, Wizards does seem to be doing that regarding the SRD and 2024, as per their recent update on the subject.
Yea, I’m well aware of many an IP lawyer absolutely loathing sandbox license agreements. But damage done.
Well a-la-carte is currently no longer being served and no idea if a return will happen. Well the hornets nest has been rattled, lets see how long before we hear screams.
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 see where you are coming from with the majority of your "we don't have evidence" view, which is valid. I might take a bit of issue with valuing piecemeal purchasers at $2 vs $30 though. If folks are buying piecemeal it more probable they but a few different feats and content. IF you just assume 5 items at $2 each, then it's closer to $10 vs $30 if you compare person to person. Then it's no longer a conceivable 7% sales hurdle. But you're fundamentally right, we don't have the numbers and one would imagine somebody somewhere did some work on historical sales to make this leap.
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 see where you are coming from with the majority of your "we don't have evidence" view, which is valid. I might take a bit of issue with valuing piecemeal purchasers at $2 vs $30 though. If folks are buying piecemeal it more probable they but a few different feats and content. IF you just assume 5 items at $2 each, then it's closer to $10 vs $30 if you compare person to person. Then it's no longer a conceivable 7% sales hurdle. But you're fundamentally right, we don't have the numbers and one would imagine somebody somewhere did some work on historical sales to make this leap.
I definitely think it's safe to assume that someone on the Hasboro/WotC crunched the numbers and that whatever data came out of that, it was at least influential in making this decision. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Perhaps it was also partly speculative and they wanted to preset expectations about people not being able to buy piecemeal from the 1D&D books when they are released (or maybe not). I just wish that there had been better/clearer/earlier communication so that we didn't end up (once again) in a place of people making (sometimes wild) guesses or conspiracy theories. At this point we are in the dark.
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 see where you are coming from with the majority of your "we don't have evidence" view, which is valid. I might take a bit of issue with valuing piecemeal purchasers at $2 vs $30 though. If folks are buying piecemeal it more probable they but a few different feats and content. IF you just assume 5 items at $2 each, then it's closer to $10 vs $30 if you compare person to person. Then it's no longer a conceivable 7% sales hurdle. But you're fundamentally right, we don't have the numbers and one would imagine somebody somewhere did some work on historical sales to make this leap.
I definitely think it's safe to assume that someone on the Hasboro/WotC crunched the numbers and that whatever data came out of that, it was at least influential in making this decision. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Perhaps it was also partly speculative and they wanted to preset expectations about people not being able to buy piecemeal from the 1D&D books when they are released (or maybe not). I just wish that there had been better/clearer/earlier communication so that we didn't end up (once again) in a place of people making (sometimes wild) guesses or conspiracy theories. At this point we are in the dark.
As a retired accountant, I would say that most such number crunching is based as much on wild speculation as actual fact, at best, educated guesses, since the numbers you really need to crunch the question properly are normally not available until you try the new strategy. If you are going back to something you had been using recently or something, then you have that data to go on but that is unlikely to apply here.
I want it to be clear, if they are reading this, that it all stems from lack of communication. The OGL debacle really comes down to being released without a comprehensive explanation of the impact and decision to make the change. Same with a la carte purchases, maybe there's something bright on the horizon but we don't know about it so we feel hurt and abandoned. Or maybe there's not and they're just being *****. Who knows, becasue they won't tell us. And what is the new version called? One D&D, 5.5e..?
What we need from the Wizards is better communication. A for whether this will financially impact the company, it has been said that a corporation's responsibility is to its shareholders. So it is important to know what makes the shareholders happy...making money. Running off your customers to shave a few dollars doesn't make shareholders happy.
This may be a very unpopular opinion, but I think WotC has done a better job over the years than TSR ever did. WotC came up with the OGL which would never have happened under TSR. They've leveled out aspects of the game mechanics that TSR was too lazy to fix. They produce much more content (albeit some rehashed...but still fun) and they support third party publishers. UA Playtesting is the greatest moves they could have made and enough for me to keep my faith in the company. I know they mean well; there are just some issues, right now, that need to be addressed to get the company back on track.
This may be a very unpopular opinion, but I think WotC has done a better job over the years than TSR ever did. WotC came up with the OGL which would never have happened under TSR. They've leveled out aspects of the game mechanics that TSR was too lazy to fix. They produce much more content (albeit some rehashed...but still fun) and they support third party publishers. UA Playtesting is the greatest moves they could have made and enough for me to keep my faith in the company. I know they mean well; there are just some issues, right now, that need to be addressed to get the company back on track.
Thing is, I remember the 90s D&D world. One of the biggest reasons TSR was struggling, is that instead of making lots of smaller, easily accessible content, they were bundling things bigger and bigger together, and producing more and more $50 fluff. The "Complete Book of" stuff was moving away from providing modules and stories, and into "Bundled mess of rules" because that's what they could build.
WOTC changed that by rebuilding the game, releasing 3rd Ed, wrapping a good storyteller side to it, expanding the novels and settings etc. But now Hasbro is taking a bigger hand in monetization and driving it back towards "We sell toys", not "We build stories". So while WOTC has done a good job, it feels like (and a lot of the rumours indicate) Hasbro is tightening the reins and focusing on "How can we squeeze the whales". Which TSR tried and ended up selling out for $25 milllion in 1997.
Imagine selling the D&D franchise for $48 million (today's version of $25 million). Hasbro has a far more valuable product, but if they crash the game's value, that could be all it's worth in a few years.
Thing is, I remember the 90s D&D world. One of the biggest reasons TSR was struggling, is that instead of making lots of smaller, easily accessible content, they were bundling things bigger and bigger together, and producing more and more $50 fluff. The "Complete Book of" stuff was moving away from providing modules and stories, and into "Bundled mess of rules" because that's what they could build.
WOTC changed that by rebuilding the game, releasing 3rd Ed, wrapping a good storyteller side to it, expanding the novels and settings etc. But now Hasbro is taking a bigger hand in monetization and driving it back towards "We sell toys", not "We build stories". So while WOTC has done a good job, it feels like (and a lot of the rumours indicate) Hasbro is tightening the reins and focusing on "How can we squeeze the whales". Which TSR tried and ended up selling out for $25 milllion in 1997.
Imagine selling the D&D franchise for $48 million (today's version of $25 million). Hasbro has a far more valuable product, but if they crash the game's value, that could be all it's worth in a few years.
That's another point, and I've heard similar rumors. I prey they aren't true. I would hope Hasbro would let WotC run their company. I'm sure Hasbro has financial targets set for each of their subsidiaries but micromanaging them is suicide. I hope this isn't the case, but it does seems possible.
WOTC may have a long term goal we do not know about yet.
Something like reissuing all the supplements over the next 5 years all updated and shiny new.
They might have an all new pricing structure to go with them all. Something like a player price of 5 bucks for just the stuff a player needs(feats and classes) and 10 bucks for the whole book(magic items and other fluff) if your a Dm or just want it all. Individual purchasing a la carte style will be gone to be replaced with a simpler unified version. player class and dm class.
Or it could be a switch to a subscription system. Pay 5 bucks a month and get all access to all the player options as they come out along with the membership here at DDB. Or 10 bucks a month and your on the DM scale getting access to all the new books out to that point for use at DDB. I do not know but that could be one of their ideas.
I feel like that's too customer-forward of thinking when they're making it abundantly clear with one misstep after another that they've got the shareholders in mind far more than us.
WOTC may have a long term goal we do not know about yet.
Or, they might have just axed a la carte purchasing without any warning because that's exactly what they did.
If they had some kind of plan to replace that feature then it would have taken them two minutes to say so, to explain why, or when they'll be back, or what they'll be replaced with.
The fact that they haven't speaks volumes. The fact that they acknowledge they were going away, but didn't bother to say anything else means they knew this was happening, and are fine with it.
Because we wouldn't be complaining nearly as much if this were merely a technical limitation (e.g- "a la carte purchases have not yet been re-implemented, but will be coming soon™"), it would still suck but it would at least buy them some time to deliver upon that promise before we get properly angry. Instead they've just done it, and said nothing since, despite the fact that they have to be aware of the dissatisfaction by now.
They have not earned your trust, or done the bare minimum to give you a reason to think they have any kind of plan other than doing exactly what they did.
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.
WOTC may have a long term goal we do not know about yet.
Something like reissuing all the supplements over the next 5 years all updated and shiny new.
They might have an all new pricing structure to go with them all. Something like a player price of 5 bucks for just the stuff a player needs(feats and classes) and 10 bucks for the whole book(magic items and other fluff) if your a Dm or just want it all. Individual purchasing a la carte style will be gone to be replaced with a simpler unified version. player class and dm class.
Or it could be a switch to a subscription system. Pay 5 bucks a month and get all access to all the player options as they come out along with the membership here at DDB. Or 10 bucks a month and your on the DM scale getting access to all the new books out to that point for use at DDB. I do not know but that could be one of their ideas.
Anything is possible, all they need to do is communicate.
WOTC may have a long term goal we do not know about yet.
Or, they might have just axed a la carte purchasing without any warning because that's exactly what they did.
If they had some kind of plan to replace that feature then it would have taken them two minutes to say so, to explain why, or when they'll be back, or what they'll be replaced with.
The fact that they haven't speaks volumes. The fact that they acknowledge they were going away, but didn't bother to say anything else means they knew this was happening, and are fine with it.
Because we wouldn't be complaining nearly as much if this were merely a technical limitation (e.g- "a la carte purchases have not yet been re-implemented, but will be coming soon™"), it would still suck but it would at least buy them some time to deliver upon that promise before we get properly angry. Instead they've just done it, and said nothing since, despite the fact that they have to be aware of the dissatisfaction by now.
They have not earned your trust, or done the bare minimum to give you a reason to think they have any kind of plan other than doing exactly what they did.
Exactly! Notice how quick they were to get to work on putting PayPal back in it's proper place because it was a missing feature they actually cared about, meanwhile for Ala Carte all they did was say "It's no longer possible" without explaining why and then go completely radio silent on the matter.
WOTC may have a long term goal we do not know about yet.
Something like reissuing all the supplements over the next 5 years all updated and shiny new.
They might have an all new pricing structure to go with them all. Something like a player price of 5 bucks for just the stuff a player needs(feats and classes) and 10 bucks for the whole book(magic items and other fluff) if your a Dm or just want it all. Individual purchasing a la carte style will be gone to be replaced with a simpler unified version. player class and dm class.
Or it could be a switch to a subscription system. Pay 5 bucks a month and get all access to all the player options as they come out along with the membership here at DDB. Or 10 bucks a month and your on the DM scale getting access to all the new books out to that point for use at DDB. I do not know but that could be one of their ideas.
Anything is possible, all they need to do is communicate.
communicating isn't all, anymore. previously they could have communicated the change ahead of time and it could have been inevitable and that would have been fine. inevitable? darn. but now? now to regain trust they need to put it back. this snapped a thread of goodwill i honestly didn't know i had and wouldn't have guessed was so delicate. they can try again next year (with the proper pre-communicating ahead of it), but for right now they can put it back or else i can't trust what's gone next. legacy books? 3rd party books? classes that don't poll well? they can put it back and they can try again with their words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
WOTC may have a long term goal we do not know about yet.
Something like reissuing all the supplements over the next 5 years all updated and shiny new.
They might have an all new pricing structure to go with them all. Something like a player price of 5 bucks for just the stuff a player needs(feats and classes) and 10 bucks for the whole book(magic items and other fluff) if your a Dm or just want it all. Individual purchasing a la carte style will be gone to be replaced with a simpler unified version. player class and dm class.
Or it could be a switch to a subscription system. Pay 5 bucks a month and get all access to all the player options as they come out along with the membership here at DDB. Or 10 bucks a month and your on the DM scale getting access to all the new books out to that point for use at DDB. I do not know but that could be one of their ideas.
Anything is possible, all they need to do is communicate.
communicating isn't all, anymore. previously they could have communicated the change ahead of time and it could have been inevitable and that would have been fine. inevitable? darn. but now? now to regain trust they need to put it back. this snapped a thread of goodwill i honestly didn't know i had and wouldn't have guessed was so delicate. they can try again next year (with the proper pre-communicating ahead of it), but for right now they can put it back or else i can't trust what's gone next. legacy books? 3rd party books? classes that don't poll well? they can put it back and they can try again with their words.
"We decided the Artificer doesn't fit with the core design ideas of Dungeons and Dragons, and they will not be featured in newer releases moving forward."-Hasbro shortly after OneDnD releases, probably.
Anything is possible, all they need to do is communicate.
communicating isn't all, anymore.
...for right now they can put it back or else i can't trust what's gone next. legacy books? 3rd party books? classes that don't poll well? they can put it back and they can try again with their words.
"We decided the Artificer doesn't fit with the core design ideas of Dungeons and Dragons, and they will not be featured in newer releases moving forward."-Hasbro shortly after OneDnD releases, probably.
"use premium dungeon gems for a chance to get the new warlock patron! double loot box drops this month only!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
A really hope that the a la carte option returns, and in the near future too. Whilst I do my best to purchase as many books (physical, to support FLGS) as I can, I like to make use of the app by re-purchasing the bits and bobs I use for my own characters. Having to rebuy the books I already have to make use of the app isn't appealing, and forces me to put the app aside, where it was usually used quite prominently by me at the table.
A la carte was also a great way for me to encourage new players to join games, and invest a little money into the hobby before they took the plunge and bought the books outright. Not everyone can afford the books proper for a gaming medium they're unfamiliar with, and not everyone can or would want to lend them their books to allow them to build and manage characters.
I don't know the full picture, and I'm not business savvy (and don't claim to be), but it does feel disheartening. I hope the decision gets rescinded.
This is total horse crap. I am still going to use what resources I have already bought but I will not buy another thing from D&D Beyond until they reverse it. And as soon as the current campaign I am DM'ing wraps up...I'm dropping my membership altogether. I'd rather give my money to a local game store or to another company that isn't being a complete nimrod with their customer base.
"We decided the Artificer doesn't fit with the core design ideas of Dungeons and Dragons, and they will not be featured in newer releases moving forward."-Hasbro shortly after OneDnD releases, probably.
I doubt this will happen; the whole reason Artificer isn't in OneD&D is because they'll release a new Eberron book at some point with Artificer as the main selling point, and then go right back to treating it like a second class citizen. They're not going to abandon something that's sold well in the past, and that they believe they can just sell to us again and again.
For everyone annoyed at the dropping of a la carte, I should have noted I filed a support ticket complaining about the loss of the feature; while I feel bad for the support staff, they said they will pass comments on to another team, so I say call their bluff. Everyone that uses it should complain they can no longer do it, because it is after all a long standing website feature that is no longer functioning.
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 won't buy anything else either. And i canceld my subscription. I'll come back (if D&D beyond still exists as it seems they want to kill it) when they don't have a poorly designed marketplace, something unique to D&D beyond like the a la carte purchases and bundles, and they stop with the nonsense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I want to be clear, I am not insulting your intelligence - only that of whomever wrote the OGL. Speaking from the perspective of an attorney who has done some IP work and who has read a whole bunch of similar contracts (sometimes for my own entertainment), I can categorically say the OGL is the worst written license I have ever seen.
The entire contract has major holes, fails to define significant terms, and dedicates a significant portion of its already incredibly trite length to simply stating “hey, if we do not cover it here and we own the IP rights, we do in fact own those IP rights and do not cover it here.” They use slightly more verbose language and list those things explicitly - but, legally, it is kind of hollow language. It was a bad license and should cease to be used. Everyone - Wizards and content creators alike - is better off just using the Creative Commons.
Edit: I suppose this is neither here nor there. The only thing that really matters for this thread is the importance of communication - and, fortunately, Wizards does seem to be doing that regarding the SRD and 2024, as per their recent update on the subject.
Yea, I’m well aware of many an IP lawyer absolutely loathing sandbox license agreements. But damage done.
Well a-la-carte is currently no longer being served and no idea if a return will happen. Well the hornets nest has been rattled, lets see how long before we hear screams.
I see where you are coming from with the majority of your "we don't have evidence" view, which is valid. I might take a bit of issue with valuing piecemeal purchasers at $2 vs $30 though. If folks are buying piecemeal it more probable they but a few different feats and content. IF you just assume 5 items at $2 each, then it's closer to $10 vs $30 if you compare person to person. Then it's no longer a conceivable 7% sales hurdle. But you're fundamentally right, we don't have the numbers and one would imagine somebody somewhere did some work on historical sales to make this leap.
I definitely think it's safe to assume that someone on the Hasboro/WotC crunched the numbers and that whatever data came out of that, it was at least influential in making this decision. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Perhaps it was also partly speculative and they wanted to preset expectations about people not being able to buy piecemeal from the 1D&D books when they are released (or maybe not). I just wish that there had been better/clearer/earlier communication so that we didn't end up (once again) in a place of people making (sometimes wild) guesses or conspiracy theories. At this point we are in the dark.
As a retired accountant, I would say that most such number crunching is based as much on wild speculation as actual fact, at best, educated guesses, since the numbers you really need to crunch the question properly are normally not available until you try the new strategy. If you are going back to something you had been using recently or something, then you have that data to go on but that is unlikely to apply here.
Quite possibly so.
I want it to be clear, if they are reading this, that it all stems from lack of communication. The OGL debacle really comes down to being released without a comprehensive explanation of the impact and decision to make the change. Same with a la carte purchases, maybe there's something bright on the horizon but we don't know about it so we feel hurt and abandoned. Or maybe there's not and they're just being *****. Who knows, becasue they won't tell us. And what is the new version called? One D&D, 5.5e..?
What we need from the Wizards is better communication. A for whether this will financially impact the company, it has been said that a corporation's responsibility is to its shareholders. So it is important to know what makes the shareholders happy...making money. Running off your customers to shave a few dollars doesn't make shareholders happy.
This may be a very unpopular opinion, but I think WotC has done a better job over the years than TSR ever did. WotC came up with the OGL which would never have happened under TSR. They've leveled out aspects of the game mechanics that TSR was too lazy to fix. They produce much more content (albeit some rehashed...but still fun) and they support third party publishers. UA Playtesting is the greatest moves they could have made and enough for me to keep my faith in the company. I know they mean well; there are just some issues, right now, that need to be addressed to get the company back on track.
Thing is, I remember the 90s D&D world. One of the biggest reasons TSR was struggling, is that instead of making lots of smaller, easily accessible content, they were bundling things bigger and bigger together, and producing more and more $50 fluff. The "Complete Book of" stuff was moving away from providing modules and stories, and into "Bundled mess of rules" because that's what they could build.
WOTC changed that by rebuilding the game, releasing 3rd Ed, wrapping a good storyteller side to it, expanding the novels and settings etc. But now Hasbro is taking a bigger hand in monetization and driving it back towards "We sell toys", not "We build stories". So while WOTC has done a good job, it feels like (and a lot of the rumours indicate) Hasbro is tightening the reins and focusing on "How can we squeeze the whales". Which TSR tried and ended up selling out for $25 milllion in 1997.
Imagine selling the D&D franchise for $48 million (today's version of $25 million). Hasbro has a far more valuable product, but if they crash the game's value, that could be all it's worth in a few years.
That's another point, and I've heard similar rumors. I prey they aren't true. I would hope Hasbro would let WotC run their company. I'm sure Hasbro has financial targets set for each of their subsidiaries but micromanaging them is suicide. I hope this isn't the case, but it does seems possible.
WOTC may have a long term goal we do not know about yet.
Something like reissuing all the supplements over the next 5 years all updated and shiny new.
They might have an all new pricing structure to go with them all. Something like a player price of 5 bucks for just the stuff a player needs(feats and classes) and 10 bucks for the whole book(magic items and other fluff) if your a Dm or just want it all.
Individual purchasing a la carte style will be gone to be replaced with a simpler unified version. player class and dm class.
Or it could be a switch to a subscription system.
Pay 5 bucks a month and get all access to all the player options as they come out along with the membership here at DDB. Or 10 bucks a month and your on the DM scale getting access to all the new books out to that point for use at DDB.
I do not know but that could be one of their ideas.
I feel like that's too customer-forward of thinking when they're making it abundantly clear with one misstep after another that they've got the shareholders in mind far more than us.
Or, they might have just axed a la carte purchasing without any warning because that's exactly what they did.
If they had some kind of plan to replace that feature then it would have taken them two minutes to say so, to explain why, or when they'll be back, or what they'll be replaced with.
The fact that they haven't speaks volumes. The fact that they acknowledge they were going away, but didn't bother to say anything else means they knew this was happening, and are fine with it.
Because we wouldn't be complaining nearly as much if this were merely a technical limitation (e.g- "a la carte purchases have not yet been re-implemented, but will be coming soon™"), it would still suck but it would at least buy them some time to deliver upon that promise before we get properly angry. Instead they've just done it, and said nothing since, despite the fact that they have to be aware of the dissatisfaction by now.
They have not earned your trust, or done the bare minimum to give you a reason to think they have any kind of plan other than doing exactly what they did.
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.
Anything is possible, all they need to do is communicate.
Exactly! Notice how quick they were to get to work on putting PayPal back in it's proper place because it was a missing feature they actually cared about, meanwhile for Ala Carte all they did was say "It's no longer possible" without explaining why and then go completely radio silent on the matter.
communicating isn't all, anymore. previously they could have communicated the change ahead of time and it could have been inevitable and that would have been fine. inevitable? darn. but now? now to regain trust they need to put it back. this snapped a thread of goodwill i honestly didn't know i had and wouldn't have guessed was so delicate. they can try again next year (with the proper pre-communicating ahead of it), but for right now they can put it back or else i can't trust what's gone next. legacy books? 3rd party books? classes that don't poll well? they can put it back and they can try again with their words.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
"We decided the Artificer doesn't fit with the core design ideas of Dungeons and Dragons, and they will not be featured in newer releases moving forward."-Hasbro shortly after OneDnD releases, probably.
"use premium dungeon gems for a chance to get the new warlock patron! double loot box drops this month only!"
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
A really hope that the a la carte option returns, and in the near future too. Whilst I do my best to purchase as many books (physical, to support FLGS) as I can, I like to make use of the app by re-purchasing the bits and bobs I use for my own characters. Having to rebuy the books I already have to make use of the app isn't appealing, and forces me to put the app aside, where it was usually used quite prominently by me at the table.
A la carte was also a great way for me to encourage new players to join games, and invest a little money into the hobby before they took the plunge and bought the books outright. Not everyone can afford the books proper for a gaming medium they're unfamiliar with, and not everyone can or would want to lend them their books to allow them to build and manage characters.
I don't know the full picture, and I'm not business savvy (and don't claim to be), but it does feel disheartening. I hope the decision gets rescinded.
Eternal #DnD Dungeon Master
This is total horse crap. I am still going to use what resources I have already bought but I will not buy another thing from D&D Beyond until they reverse it. And as soon as the current campaign I am DM'ing wraps up...I'm dropping my membership altogether. I'd rather give my money to a local game store or to another company that isn't being a complete nimrod with their customer base.
I doubt this will happen; the whole reason Artificer isn't in OneD&D is because they'll release a new Eberron book at some point with Artificer as the main selling point, and then go right back to treating it like a second class citizen. They're not going to abandon something that's sold well in the past, and that they believe they can just sell to us again and again.
For everyone annoyed at the dropping of a la carte, I should have noted I filed a support ticket complaining about the loss of the feature; while I feel bad for the support staff, they said they will pass comments on to another team, so I say call their bluff. Everyone that uses it should complain they can no longer do it, because it is after all a long standing website feature that is no longer functioning.
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 won't buy anything else either. And i canceld my subscription. I'll come back (if D&D beyond still exists as it seems they want to kill it) when they don't have a poorly designed marketplace, something unique to D&D beyond like the a la carte purchases and bundles, and they stop with the nonsense.