Licensing is an interesting thing, Wizards currently Licenses out it's product to several 3rd party vendors. Roll 20 and Fantasy grounds are the 2 that spring to immediate mind. In both cases you can purchase all the official DnD material much like you can on DnD beyond, and that allows you to seamlessly integrate it into the VTT.
But, those licenses are for 5th edition. in 2024 a new edition of DnD is coming, new copyrights, new legal entity as far as licensing goes and so, with the news of a DnD VTT being built, Wizards has a clear binary choice.
Either ignore all other products and refuse to Licence out 2024 DnD forcing players to come to DnD official VTT and DnD beyond (Im imagine that DnD beyond will be integrated into the new VTT). This means Roll 20 users etc will have to relocate, or not move to 2024 DnD sticking just with 5th edition (until the license deals end, if that is the terms of the deal).
Or
Accept that even with there own VTT users will want to use other systems and continue to allow licensing, alternatively another option would be allowing 3rd party VTT's to interact with the DnD beyond API meaning that players no longer have to buy any material in different places, you can buy it all and own it all here.
So thoughts, concerns, or is this something you just hadn't considered and don't care about.
But, those licenses are for 5th edition. in 2024 a new edition of DnD is coming, new copyrights, new legal entity as far as licensing goes and so, with the news of a DnD VTT being built, Wizards has a clear binary choice.
This should probably be better delineated as pure speculation and pretty bad legal analysis. Licensing agreements are contracts, and contracts are based on the entities which sign them - Wizards and Fantasy Grounds/Roll20. Without the underlying contract, you simply cannot know how OneD&D would be treated under the contract, and thus cannot make the conjectures about the legal side of the conversation that you present here.
Now, if you do happen to have a link to the contract, then there might be some useful information to be gained therein, but lacking the governing language of the agreement, any attempt at discussing the legal issues or implications is futile.
Speculating, I think DDB will find it very hard to break into the VTT market. Most people who are going to use it already have an account with one of the other VTTs, and membership is pretty sticky; they've already invested time, energy and effort as well as, most likely, a healthy dose of money on those platforms. There is little reason for them to shift over to DDB if it offers the same.
Either it offers something substantially new or it restricts content somehow (eg IP like the books, or the ability to use character sheets generated here on DDB). The rise in the market from the pandemic is over now, so it's about attracting existing customers.
As for what tactic they'll go for, that's anyone's guess. WotC's tactics as of late doesn't instill me with confidence that they'll try to win with superior quality, though. As Caerwyn says, it is dependent on licencing agreements, but I think this has been in the pipeline for a while now, and if WotC wanted to revoke the rights, they'll have thought have that and baked it into those agreements.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
But, those licenses are for 5th edition. in 2024 a new edition of DnD is coming, new copyrights, new legal entity as far as licensing goes and so, with the news of a DnD VTT being built, Wizards has a clear binary choice.
This should probably be better delineated as pure speculation and pretty bad legal analysis. Licensing agreements are contracts, and contracts are based on the entities which sign them - Wizards and Fantasy Grounds/Roll20. Without the underlying contract, you simply cannot know how OneD&D would be treated under the contract, and thus cannot make the conjectures about the legal side of the conversation that you present here.
Now, if you do happen to have a link to the contract, then there might be some useful information to be gained therein, but lacking the governing language of the agreement, any attempt at discussing the legal issues or implications is futile.
Thank you! Pretty much this. I would also add that they have expressly said that it is not a new edition and have been marketing it as an update. While “labels don’t make the thing” is a good argument, it’s really not worth getting into at this moment because it’s premature.
Also, I really don’t think they’re going to shut out other VTTs. They have legally binding contracts and still make huge profits from licensing alone. Their new VTT will probably integrate seamlessly with DnDBeyond, which is a huge plus already, and create a new market within the platform. While many have invested in other VTTs, a lot of us, especially newcomers, haven’t invested as much in VTTs. Most of us here have invested more in DnDBeyond than in actual VTTs because there’s a lot of free options and mediums such as AboveVTT, owlbear, discord and Roll20 even (if you avoid the books, which many have because they don’t want to buy the books twice). My belief is that the new VTT will grow and gradually be the preferred choice of VTT, not that it will push out other VTTs through schemes and cancellations. The legal implications alone is enough deterrence.
Based on the fact that there are numerous issues with things not being implemented properly and feats / character options not working in the dndbeyond character sheet, I have very little faith in their ability to code a seamlessly integrated vtt. There are things that have been broken since before I came here that they still can’t fix. So I for one will be sticking with Roll20 and all of the books I have bought there.
Based on the fact that there are numerous issues with things not being implemented properly and feats / character options not working in the dndbeyond character sheet, I have very little faith in their ability to code a seamlessly integrated vtt. There are things that have been broken since before I came here that they still can’t fix. So I for one will be sticking with Roll20 and all of the books I have bought there.
DDB is not at all indicative of WotC's technical competency. They were two different entities until very recently, and the VTT has been in development since before the acquisition.
Yeah, it's not necessarily indicative of how the VTT will go. One problem has been lack of staff - something that might be remedied under WotC. There could be more fundamental stuff that's wrong too, so personally, I'd wait and see how things go during the next year or so under WotC. If things really pick up, then your fears can be at least quietened. If not...then maybe you're right. The proof will be in the pudding, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Based on the fact that there are numerous issues with things not being implemented properly and feats / character options not working in the dndbeyond character sheet, I have very little faith in their ability to code a seamlessly integrated vtt. There are things that have been broken since before I came here that they still can’t fix. So I for one will be sticking with Roll20 and all of the books I have bought there.
DDB is not at all indicative of WotC's technical competency. They were two different entities until very recently, and the VTT has been in development since before the acquisition.
Indeed! DDB have kept this web site going for 5 years - I think that's far longer than WOTC have ever achieved with their own attempts at digital tools.
DDB is not at all indicative of WotC's technical competency. They were two different entities until very recently, and the VTT has been in development since before the acquisition.
Which means we have almost zero information about how competent their development team is. It's possible they'll do a great job coming out the gate -- but the odds don't favor them.
Indeed! DDB have kept this web site going for 5 years - I think that's far longer than WOTC have ever achieved with their own attempts at digital tools.
The 4th edition online compendium was online from 2008 to 2019, though it wasn't under active development after something like 2012.
The smart business decision for HasBro/WotC would be to do what ALL IP companies are doing, acquire an appropriate VTT company (acquire content/IP) and integrate them while reducing costs by reducing redundancies. Software companies do it every day to gain functionality and entertainment companies are crowding out other companies. Take the Netflix example. Warner Media acquired multiple entertainment companies and now HBO Max competes admirably with Netflix. Disney has done the same with Marvel, Lucasfilms, Hulu and ESPN.
Although my answer was Yes in the poll, my REAL answer is, they acquire the IP and talent to do VTT in house properly and integrate it with DND Beyond, gaining additional coding talent to fill some holes that exist in the current functionality. Never reinvent the wheel when you can buy one.
Any way, that's what I would do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Watch what will happen if WOTC tries to force players to use their platform. It will just be another 4e to the players and treated that way. I purchased the 4e PHB, hated it and never purchased another sourcebook and I own all of the editions, except for 4e.
You can go onto any one of these platforms and there is alot of negativity directed at WOTC for not allowing these VTT platforms access to 3.5e of D&D. They just go somewhere else. I always said that cancelling Dragon and Dungeon Magazine was a horrible idea since most of your prospective new players started by reading those publications....they canceled these magazines and then Paizo created Pathfinder which could have been customers of D&D if they had done their homework.
I am personally not excited with this whole OneD&D thing. I have seen so many editions....the public, their customers will either hate it or love it....time will tell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Licensing is an interesting thing, Wizards currently Licenses out it's product to several 3rd party vendors. Roll 20 and Fantasy grounds are the 2 that spring to immediate mind. In both cases you can purchase all the official DnD material much like you can on DnD beyond, and that allows you to seamlessly integrate it into the VTT.
But, those licenses are for 5th edition. in 2024 a new edition of DnD is coming, new copyrights, new legal entity as far as licensing goes and so, with the news of a DnD VTT being built, Wizards has a clear binary choice.
Either ignore all other products and refuse to Licence out 2024 DnD forcing players to come to DnD official VTT and DnD beyond (Im imagine that DnD beyond will be integrated into the new VTT). This means Roll 20 users etc will have to relocate, or not move to 2024 DnD sticking just with 5th edition (until the license deals end, if that is the terms of the deal).
Or
Accept that even with there own VTT users will want to use other systems and continue to allow licensing, alternatively another option would be allowing 3rd party VTT's to interact with the DnD beyond API meaning that players no longer have to buy any material in different places, you can buy it all and own it all here.
So thoughts, concerns, or is this something you just hadn't considered and don't care about.
This should probably be better delineated as pure speculation and pretty bad legal analysis. Licensing agreements are contracts, and contracts are based on the entities which sign them - Wizards and Fantasy Grounds/Roll20. Without the underlying contract, you simply cannot know how OneD&D would be treated under the contract, and thus cannot make the conjectures about the legal side of the conversation that you present here.
Now, if you do happen to have a link to the contract, then there might be some useful information to be gained therein, but lacking the governing language of the agreement, any attempt at discussing the legal issues or implications is futile.
Existing VTTs implement the mechanics because they can't be copyrighted/patented. These will simply be updated to the rules changes coming in 2024.
Well, nobody knows the licence.
Speculating, I think DDB will find it very hard to break into the VTT market. Most people who are going to use it already have an account with one of the other VTTs, and membership is pretty sticky; they've already invested time, energy and effort as well as, most likely, a healthy dose of money on those platforms. There is little reason for them to shift over to DDB if it offers the same.
Either it offers something substantially new or it restricts content somehow (eg IP like the books, or the ability to use character sheets generated here on DDB). The rise in the market from the pandemic is over now, so it's about attracting existing customers.
As for what tactic they'll go for, that's anyone's guess. WotC's tactics as of late doesn't instill me with confidence that they'll try to win with superior quality, though. As Caerwyn says, it is dependent on licencing agreements, but I think this has been in the pipeline for a while now, and if WotC wanted to revoke the rights, they'll have thought have that and baked it into those agreements.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thank you! Pretty much this. I would also add that they have expressly said that it is not a new edition and have been marketing it as an update. While “labels don’t make the thing” is a good argument, it’s really not worth getting into at this moment because it’s premature.
Also, I really don’t think they’re going to shut out other VTTs. They have legally binding contracts and still make huge profits from licensing alone. Their new VTT will probably integrate seamlessly with DnDBeyond, which is a huge plus already, and create a new market within the platform. While many have invested in other VTTs, a lot of us, especially newcomers, haven’t invested as much in VTTs. Most of us here have invested more in DnDBeyond than in actual VTTs because there’s a lot of free options and mediums such as AboveVTT, owlbear, discord and Roll20 even (if you avoid the books, which many have because they don’t want to buy the books twice). My belief is that the new VTT will grow and gradually be the preferred choice of VTT, not that it will push out other VTTs through schemes and cancellations. The legal implications alone is enough deterrence.
Based on the fact that there are numerous issues with things not being implemented properly and feats / character options not working in the dndbeyond character sheet, I have very little faith in their ability to code a seamlessly integrated vtt. There are things that have been broken since before I came here that they still can’t fix. So I for one will be sticking with Roll20 and all of the books I have bought there.
DDB is not at all indicative of WotC's technical competency. They were two different entities until very recently, and the VTT has been in development since before the acquisition.
Yeah, it's not necessarily indicative of how the VTT will go. One problem has been lack of staff - something that might be remedied under WotC. There could be more fundamental stuff that's wrong too, so personally, I'd wait and see how things go during the next year or so under WotC. If things really pick up, then your fears can be at least quietened. If not...then maybe you're right. The proof will be in the pudding, though.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Indeed! DDB have kept this web site going for 5 years - I think that's far longer than WOTC have ever achieved with their own attempts at digital tools.
Which means we have almost zero information about how competent their development team is. It's possible they'll do a great job coming out the gate -- but the odds don't favor them.
The 4th edition online compendium was online from 2008 to 2019, though it wasn't under active development after something like 2012.
The smart business decision for HasBro/WotC would be to do what ALL IP companies are doing, acquire an appropriate VTT company (acquire content/IP) and integrate them while reducing costs by reducing redundancies. Software companies do it every day to gain functionality and entertainment companies are crowding out other companies. Take the Netflix example. Warner Media acquired multiple entertainment companies and now HBO Max competes admirably with Netflix. Disney has done the same with Marvel, Lucasfilms, Hulu and ESPN.
Although my answer was Yes in the poll, my REAL answer is, they acquire the IP and talent to do VTT in house properly and integrate it with DND Beyond, gaining additional coding talent to fill some holes that exist in the current functionality. Never reinvent the wheel when you can buy one.
Any way, that's what I would do.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Watch what will happen if WOTC tries to force players to use their platform. It will just be another 4e to the players and treated that way. I purchased the 4e PHB, hated it and never purchased another sourcebook and I own all of the editions, except for 4e.
You can go onto any one of these platforms and there is alot of negativity directed at WOTC for not allowing these VTT platforms access to 3.5e of D&D. They just go somewhere else. I always said that cancelling Dragon and Dungeon Magazine was a horrible idea since most of your prospective new players started by reading those publications....they canceled these magazines and then Paizo created Pathfinder which could have been customers of D&D if they had done their homework.
I am personally not excited with this whole OneD&D thing. I have seen so many editions....the public, their customers will either hate it or love it....time will tell.