The concern is that there might be a significant number of current customers (read: people willing to pay $X at the current pricing set up) that would pay $<X if the option were available. Basically, that if a subscription that could be used to get everything when needed and shut off when not needed became available, customers on track to spend $300+ on D&D Beyond over the next few years might become customers on track to spend only a fraction of that money over the same period of time because they wouldn't feel like they were "losing" anything by choosing that option.
If that is the concern, then it would be a clear sign that DDB is not actually offering a service that people want, but instead is offering a service that people have to buy into to cobble together the service that they actually want.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks who are perfectly happy with the service that is being offered, and I'd expect that Curse's financials reflect that. Is it what everybody wants? Obviously not, but to imply that consumers are throwing their money at DDB to buy a service that isn't what they want is just silly. For many, this is EXACTLY what we wanted. There's certainly room for improvement (and it's improving constantly as a result of user feedback) and I'd hope that they are indeed listening to the complaints of the folks that want something a bit different. Ideally, they can find a way to offer something closer to what they'd prefer.
The concern is that there might be a significant number of current customers (read: people willing to pay $X at the current pricing set up) that would pay $<X if the option were available. Basically, that if a subscription that could be used to get everything when needed and shut off when not needed became available, customers on track to spend $300+ on D&D Beyond over the next few years might become customers on track to spend only a fraction of that money over the same period of time because they wouldn't feel like they were "losing" anything by choosing that option.
If that is the concern, then it would be a clear sign that DDB is not actually offering a service that people want, but instead is offering a service that people have to buy into to cobble together the service that they actually want.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks who are perfectly happy with the service that is being offered, and I'd expect that Curse's financials reflect that. Is it what everybody wants? Obviously not, but to imply that consumers are throwing their money at DDB to buy a service that isn't what they want is just silly. For many, this is EXACTLY what we wanted. There's certainly room for improvement (and it's improving constantly as a result of user feedback) and I'd hope that they are indeed listening to the complaints of the folks that want something a bit different. Ideally, they can find a way to offer something closer to what they'd prefer.
Which is why I didn't feel it was a concern. For the main product, Curse seems to be doing very well and people seem to like it. I have no fears that they would somehow start losing money if they offered a cheaper "builder only" subscription service to capture a very vocal remainder of the market.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Just because I've not seen this addressed yet, you can't just take what exists now as a static thing and then say "well, after two years, you're basically wasting money!" Those two years will have new content as well that the subscription will continue to pay for. And as the years roll on, even more content will come out.
I have addressed this already. Here and Here, where I've accounted for the cost of new content.
Eventually, you will spend more money with a subscription over a buy-once model, because because the yearly cost of a subscription will be more that the cost of the material released in that year.
I have addressed this already. Here and Here, where I've accounted for the cost of new content.
Eventually, you will spend more money with a subscription over a buy-once model, because because the yearly cost of a subscription will be more that the cost of the material released in that year.
True, but the additional cost is not overwhelmingly more than the normal cost for the content and it will all be available, all the time, no matter what I want to build or when, instead of slowly paying piece-meal for things here and there. The small added cost for convenience is more than an adequate expenditure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I have addressed this already. Here and Here, where I've accounted for the cost of new content.
Eventually, you will spend more money with a subscription over a buy-once model, because because the yearly cost of a subscription will be more that the cost of the material released in that year.
True, but the additional cost is not overwhelmingly more than the normal cost for the content and it will all be available, all the time, no matter what I want to build or when, instead of slowly paying piece-meal for things here and there. The small added cost for convenience is more than an adequate expenditure.
Except that if you stop paying the subscription you "lose" it all. Those who bought it up front will still have it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
If that is the concern, then it would be a clear sign that DDB is not actually offering a service that people want, but instead is offering a service that people have to buy into to cobble together the service that they actually want.
Nah, not at all. Imagine if you will that a popular restaurant that currently charges by the meal caved to the request of a vocal group of "potential customers" and started offering a cheap subscription-based meal club, but that you could pay the cheaper than a single meal club price every time you wanted a meal and cancel the club afterward with no penalty.
So a customer that likes the food would then have two options: A) get all the food they want from the restaurant at the price of $X per meal, or B) get all the food they want from the restaurant at the price of $<X per meal. It's nothing at all to do with food being offered, just like it's nothing at all to do with D&D Beyond not being a service that people want - it's that if what is currently possible for a customer becomes possible for a lower cost, there's no reason to expect customers to choose option A over option B (unless option B actually didn't give the people asking for it everything they are asking for, but then it wouldn't be worth offering because then it wouldn't be what people are asking for).
Except that if you stop paying the subscription you "lose" it all. Those who bought it up front will still have it.
Yes, that is how subscriptions work. When you stop paying for a thing, you lose access to it. A person who would be interested in a subscription model would be okay with that and would not care if they lose the content after the fact because they are paying to use the service, not keep the content. If I signed up for the service and then later decided to stop using it, I likely wouldn't care if I lost access to it because I'm likely not playing D&D enough to make it worth the cost. That it all disappears is irrelevant to me at that point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I don't imagine there are very many people who need access to EVERY book because they make 4-5 new characters every month who are also likely to give up on 5e at any point in the near future. I'm not saying those people aren't out there, but do you think there are enough to warrant there being a potentially detrimental new business model?
I think I remember this being discussed before, but maybe not.
What if there was a way to purchased "locked" characters one at a time? Say for like $2-3.
For that, you get access to everything (except maybe Tortle Package since that's a charity item), but as soon as your character is made, it is locked, so you can't go back and edit it later (to prevent abuse). Then you lose access for other characters unless you buy another one.
There are probably a number of reasons why this wouldn't or couldn't work, but it seems like a pretty fair compromise for people who want to use the builder but not buy the content. It would probably confuse some people, as the current model already seems to do that, but I'm just trying to entertain some ideas that I don't see being discussed.
If less reputable places can pull in almost $16,000 in a matter of days for a character builder, and people pass around MPMB's automated character sheet with most of the character options (despite it being a pain to use) in droves.....the short answer to your question is yes. There is a market for this need and DDB and Curse just aren't fulfilling it in a satisfactory way. It's money on the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
That doesn't answer my question. There is definitely a market for digital tools, as the success of DDB and other less-than-legal alternatives proves.
I'm asking if there is a substantial enough market for people who want EVERYTHING for a limited time? Neither of your other examples offered subscription-based access.
Not having a corporation or its massive resources of market data on had, I can't say if if the market is currently substantial enough. I do know that it used to be big enough, as Wizards ran a subscription service builder for several years and it was only done in by an edition change and the builder being built on twilighted technology. It was smart for Wizards to look outside their company for a gaming tech company like Curse to rebuild since WotC is historically bad with technology.
I don't think the market has shifted so much since there are still people asking constantly for a builder with all options. Outside of D&D there are other games with similar builders and people use those fairly often. Mostly, people are just making due with whatever is available and if Curse gave them a legal outlet at a reasonable price, it would be worth it in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I think it's worth pointing out that we also don't have any information on the commercial viability of the model used by WotC for the 4th edition builder.
I'm not saying it can't work, but that we shouldn't use it as a term of reference to evidence that it is a commercially viable option, as we don't have data on that either.
I bet WotC had that information when they chose to not emulate it for the new edition. Just saying...
I'll admit I'm being very speculative, but this whole conversation is based around a lot of MAYBES, MIGHTS, and POTENTIALS.
I can't really think of a way to express my next thoughts without coming off as argumentative, so I'll just say that I'm pretty sure the people making the important decisions knew about all previous and current competing digital toolsets when they were conceptualizing this product. I understand that you would prefer something more ideal to your needs, but you have to look at the issue externally and realize that no business in their right mind would deny a product that the majority is demanding. If it is not on the implementation roadmap, it is because there is not enough demand.
If less reputable places can pull in almost $16,000 in a matter of days for a character builder, and people pass around MPMB's automated character sheet with most of the character options (despite it being a pain to use) in droves.....the short answer to your question is yes. There is a market for this need and DDB and Curse just aren't fulfilling it in a satisfactory way. It's money on the table.
Sounds like what you're really saying is that (some) people want access to the content to build characters for free or incredibly discounted. There is a reason Orcpub and MPMB were shut down. If either of them had pursued a proper license, it is likely the cost to users would be similar to what DDB charges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
If less reputable places can pull in almost $16,000 in a matter of days for a character builder, and people pass around MPMB's automated character sheet with most of the character options (despite it being a pain to use) in droves.....the short answer to your question is yes. There is a market for this need and DDB and Curse just aren't fulfilling it in a satisfactory way. It's money on the table.
Sounds like what you're really saying is that (some) people want access to the content to build characters for free or incredibly discounted. There is a reason Orcpub and MPMB were shut down. If either of them had pursued a proper license, it is likely the cost to users would be similar to what DDB charges.
No, I'm saying that those people who just want a builder clearly exist and, like any other pirated service, a significant portion of them would just as likely pay a reasonable price for an official service that met their needs if one were to be available. Using WotC's own pricing models from builders past, I doubt a price that could be offered would be unreasonable or backbreaking for anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
If less reputable places can pull in almost $16,000 in a matter of days for a character builder, and people pass around MPMB's automated character sheet with most of the character options (despite it being a pain to use) in droves.....the short answer to your question is yes. There is a market for this need and DDB and Curse just aren't fulfilling it in a satisfactory way. It's money on the table.
Sounds like what you're really saying is that (some) people want access to the content to build characters for free or incredibly discounted. There is a reason Orcpub and MPMB were shut down. If either of them had pursued a proper license, it is likely the cost to users would be similar to what DDB charges.
No, I'm saying that those people who just want a builder clearly exist and, like any other pirated service, a significant portion of them would just as likely pay a reasonable price for an official service that met their needs if one were to be available. Using WotC's own pricing models from builders past, I doubt a price that could be offered would be unreasonable or backbreaking for anyone.
So... this is going to sound ridiculous. But what if Curse is like, "Yeah we're cool. We just wanted to build tools so we can run our gaming tables. Now people are using those tools... cool. So we have all this work we're doing, hiring new people just trying to keep up with the demands of our current customers and our own internal people (aka the dev that really wants Druid beast form in there :P). Money is rolling in so we can keep improving in a way that's fun for our tables and others as well, it's not a money drain. Why bother taking on all this work for this builder stuff? If someone really wants to do it, they can. They can sign up a licensing agreement from WoTC and off they go. We're fine with what we are doing. We get paid to build D&D tools and play D&D... we good"
So even if the above position is true (not saying it is). I think there are a lot of people (paying customers) who would be cool with it. I pay subs for services I want to support from a sustainment perspective. The ones I don't, I buy in a one-shot manner. In the sub model, I'm ok to help pay someone's salary on an on-going basis so they can support their family, live in a respectable manner, ect, and provide me with some entertainment value.
I think we forget that most people who get into making stuff for D&D do so because they are first and foremost fans of D&D (watching the monthly updates makes that perfectly clear). The business side comes second. That's why we have lots of tools/solutions that have come and gone over the years. Some are illegal for sure. But the intent was never to rip anyone off (at first). It was to share something cool they built for their tables.
With DnDBeyond.com I think we all need to look at the sub model as a means of supporting DnDBeyond.com to keep building on what they have started. Since launched they've kept working on improving things (yes slower than we want but our imaginations are faster than their ability to deliver). I dunno. But then again I'm one the of the "crazies" that's been backing Star Citizen for years as well :P.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to see Virtual Table Top like no other before it built within DnDBeyond.com? Upvote the feature request. It's 2nd highest voted so far:
NOTE: You will need to setup a zendesk account (which is not your DnDBeyond.com account, the team uses this 3rd party software). It's easy to do and your votes are needed!
Is it possible to somehow transfer books we purchased in real life to dnd beyond. I have a copy of all the handbooks so i dont want to but books like Volos guide to monsters.
Is it possible to somehow transfer books we purchased in real life to dnd beyond. I have a copy of all the handbooks so i dont want to but books like Volos guide to monsters.
Hi, I moved your post here where you can find all the aspects of this question, but the short answer is no, the purchase of physical books does not give you access to the digital version here in DDB.
Is it possible to somehow transfer books we purchased in real life to dnd beyond. I have a copy of all the handbooks so i dont want to but books like Volos guide to monsters.
No. D&D Beyond is NOT owned by Wizards of the Coast. D&D Beyond is owned by Curse, which is owned by Twitch. You did not buy your books from D&D Beyond (Curse/Twitch).
This is no different than Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds. They, and D&D Beyond (Curse) all pay licensing fees to Wizards of the Coast for the legal right to redistribute the content in a new form. You would not expect every online version of the D&D books to be given to you for free.
If you buy a ticket to a movie, you are not entitled to a DVD for free.
If you buy a DVD you are not entitled to a digital version for free.
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I don't imagine there are very many people who need access to EVERY book because they make 4-5 new characters every month who are also likely to give up on 5e at any point in the near future. I'm not saying those people aren't out there, but do you think there are enough to warrant there being a potentially detrimental new business model?
I think I remember this being discussed before, but maybe not.
What if there was a way to purchased "locked" characters one at a time? Say for like $2-3.
For that, you get access to everything (except maybe Tortle Package since that's a charity item), but as soon as your character is made, it is locked, so you can't go back and edit it later (to prevent abuse). Then you lose access for other characters unless you buy another one.
There are probably a number of reasons why this wouldn't or couldn't work, but it seems like a pretty fair compromise for people who want to use the builder but not buy the content. It would probably confuse some people, as the current model already seems to do that, but I'm just trying to entertain some ideas that I don't see being discussed.
If less reputable places can pull in almost $16,000 in a matter of days for a character builder, and people pass around MPMB's automated character sheet with most of the character options (despite it being a pain to use) in droves.....the short answer to your question is yes. There is a market for this need and DDB and Curse just aren't fulfilling it in a satisfactory way. It's money on the table.
That doesn't answer my question. There is definitely a market for digital tools, as the success of DDB and other less-than-legal alternatives proves.
I'm asking if there is a substantial enough market for people who want EVERYTHING for a limited time? Neither of your other examples offered subscription-based access.
Not having a corporation or its massive resources of market data on had, I can't say if if the market is currently substantial enough. I do know that it used to be big enough, as Wizards ran a subscription service builder for several years and it was only done in by an edition change and the builder being built on twilighted technology. It was smart for Wizards to look outside their company for a gaming tech company like Curse to rebuild since WotC is historically bad with technology.
I don't think the market has shifted so much since there are still people asking constantly for a builder with all options. Outside of D&D there are other games with similar builders and people use those fairly often. Mostly, people are just making due with whatever is available and if Curse gave them a legal outlet at a reasonable price, it would be worth it in my opinion.
I think it's worth pointing out that we also don't have any information on the commercial viability of the model used by WotC for the 4th edition builder.
I'm not saying it can't work, but that we shouldn't use it as a term of reference to evidence that it is a commercially viable option, as we don't have data on that either.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I bet WotC had that information when they chose to not emulate it for the new edition. Just saying...
I'll admit I'm being very speculative, but this whole conversation is based around a lot of MAYBES, MIGHTS, and POTENTIALS.
I can't really think of a way to express my next thoughts without coming off as argumentative, so I'll just say that I'm pretty sure the people making the important decisions knew about all previous and current competing digital toolsets when they were conceptualizing this product. I understand that you would prefer something more ideal to your needs, but you have to look at the issue externally and realize that no business in their right mind would deny a product that the majority is demanding. If it is not on the implementation roadmap, it is because there is not enough demand.
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Want to see Virtual Table Top like no other before it built within DnDBeyond.com? Upvote the feature request. It's 2nd highest voted so far:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115008597088-Virtual-Tabletop-Gameboard
NOTE: You will need to setup a zendesk account (which is not your DnDBeyond.com account, the team uses this 3rd party software). It's easy to do and your votes are needed!
Is it possible to somehow transfer books we purchased in real life to dnd beyond. I have a copy of all the handbooks so i dont want to but books like Volos guide to monsters.
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?