Here's Forbes' profile of Williams just two months ago where she admits to having no D&D play experience prior to coming onto WotC this year (she eventually played with Cooks as DM). It sounds like the talking points from the most recent UBS call largely, in fact the UBS analyst with a history of producing bullish analysis of Hasbro, with a WotC focus, quoted in this article was the host or facilitator of the fireside chat.
The let's just call it franchise potential talking points from the more recent UBS call are largely anticipated or find precursors in this profile. Also UBS is apparently bullish on Hasbro in a way BoA is not.
From Hasbro’s perspective, that is not spending money on the game - it might be from a colloquial understanding of what constitutes the game, as you note, that is not going to Hasbro. I suspect Hasbro is looking into what to capture those markets, but they are presently being captured and therefore represent a growth opportunity.
Though, it is probably worth noting that dice and miniatures are not the largest growth potentials out there. Most minis are probably purchased by DMs, other than maybe a small number for individual use (after all, a player only needs the one for a campaign; the DM needs monsters and such. Not to mention many DMs buy their players’ minis). I am also guessing the majority of players do not buy too many dice - though there’s certainly plenty of dice folks out there. That’s a harder market to break into though - lots of great options on the market and, unlike 3D printed minis which have fragility issues compared to things like WizKids’ or Reaper’s, dice can be made pretty easily by anyone with the ability to shape resin.
Miniatures are actually well handled almost saturated by their license through Wizkids, WotC I just don't see ending that license despite their parent company's ability to shape plastic for major sales. Dice, there's more dice buyers than easy bake resin cooks out there ... WotC did try something in premium space with the sapphire set ... I got a feeling it undersold or didn't really see it as much of driver to compete with the dice makers who thrive in the gemstone or otherwise precious dice space. Clothing and D&D as a lifestyle brand ... that's all licensing. That's fine too, it works for Harry Potter Wizarding World and I think Disney (I'm assuming Disney does licensing, though I don't know how the Disney store works, whether that's all mfr'd "by Disney" or is license product). And it's not like Hasbro doesn't have experience on that front with Transformers, etc.
Still they dropped a bank on DDB because they see it or its future as a money maker. We all should remember the One D&D intro video which did pay some image service to kids playing around a table with pencil and paper, but the real money shots of that sizzle real was discussion of the VTT and the digital support WotC will be providing in house. DDB or its future, I think, is being thought of as integral both to the actual and virtual table top futures. And I think the easy monetization of all players is there. That's why you bring on an executive with a background not only in e-commerce but cloud resourced product lines.
EDIT (my algorithm is stalking me tonight): huh, so I'm not sure what "actual source" some folks claim to have read to through off the idea that players paying more for digital is driving here (as opposed to T shirts, movie tickets, minis and dice). Here's another pull quote from the fireside chat, where Williams says exactly what she's thinking in terms of capturing the broader player market, source:
“Dungeon Masters [...] only make up about 20% of the audience, but they are the largest share of our paying players [today],” said Williams, who previously worked at Microsoft as general manager and vice president of its Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team. “For the rest of the players at the table, we believe digital will allow us to offer a lot more options to create a rewarding experience.”
Edit 2, because the story has metastasized in my feeds. So I guess you could say that the current highest up in Hasbro, who's former WotC, see brand growth as key, using D&D to sell more things than the TTRPG. The WotC head agrees, but also mentions the buyers to players metric and thinks there's undeveloped sales opportunities there. Basically the points about monetizing D&D are twofold: monetization of the brand and monetization of the player experience. The former is basically licensing unless they buy into a lot of other producers of other things which they currently don't have in their bullpen, the latter they have more direct control over developing (and likely made a big digital product acquisition and hires to help them pull it off).
There are some hyperbolic doomsayers in here, lol. Just because this is the first time you've heard the execs talking shop about D&D by no means suggests it's the first time it's happened. You don't think it got where it is now without planning, do you?
I expect their VTT will have microtransactions and maybe a subscription, sure. I also expect to see cosmetics -- portrait generators, perhaps, or more dramatically, one of those VTuber programs that would let you overlay your character's face onto your webcam feed during online play. That would be an incredible move, and I genuinely hope to see it, even if it'll always be more limited in scope than the actual game itself is.
They've been trying to get people to engage with extracurriculars like articles and videos, but the ones they make in house aren't good enough to pull subscriptions. Maybe they will hire fan creators to contribute to something players will want to pay for? But there are so many excellent RPG zines already out there, that this seems like a nonstarter to me... Unless it gets the "official" stamp of approval so that people can use its contents in sanctioned games, maybe.
People have often joked about a Tinder-style app for finding games, but I do think there's potential there. The only thing is, how do you monetize it after someone finds a game? Well, consider this: Exclusive modules. Now you're not just looking for any old game, you're looking for a group to play the upcoming Raid on Bleepblorp Mountain adventure path.
I'm sure they have smarter people than me working on this. But there's some ideas to get the doomsayers thinking. And I mean, ultimately, the worst case scenario is that we have to go back to the olden days of just using physical books and gathering around a real table -- oh no!
It's a move away from making games - to making toys. Which, I suppose, is what Hasbro does.
It's interesting though. 5e is the best iteration of D&D that's ever been, but then again, it has so much useless junk too. So is it really? The rules are better, but everything else is worse. Stupid subclasses, stupid races, stupid expansions like Dragonlance - I love Penny Arcade, but there's no way any reasonable adult should ever have allowed Acquisitions Inc. to become official canon.
So they're going to drown their high quality core product in low quality junk, which is .. well it's not ideal. Or, it might be ideal for Hasbro, but it's not for anyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It's a move away from making games - to making toys. Which, I suppose, is what Hasbro does.
It's interesting though. 5e is the best iteration of D&D that's ever been, but then again, it has so much useless junk too. So is it really? The rules are better, but everything else is worse. Stupid subclasses, stupid races, stupid expansions like Dragonlance - I love Penny Arcade, but there's no way any reasonable adult should ever have allowed Acquisitions Inc. to become official canon.
So they're going to drown their high quality core product in low quality junk, which is .. well it's not ideal. Or, it might be ideal for Hasbro, but it's not for anyone else.
Unlike your post--which is exclusively based on your confusing a personal opinion for objective fact and rudely implying anyone who disagrees with you is "unreasonable" or likes "stupid" things--Wizards uses actual data to inform its decisions. Their data shows that folks like having lots of options, even options some might see as "stupid", which is why they release a wide range of products appealing to the entire breadth of a their playerbase. That is hardly making D&D a "toy"--it a recognition that, since its inception, D&D has always been about living in a shared fantasy world with friends, and fantasy worlds can take all manner of different shapes and thus there needs to be a wide range of options so each world can have the tools it needs.
A focus on appealing to all their players is simply how a business works--it wants to create products that appeal to the widest range of its players as possible. And, this might come as a surprise to you, D&D actually lends itself very well to a multitude of game options, since the "official canon" does not really exist and is a construction of individual tables. If you don't like something in your canon you can *gasp* simply not play with it in your individual game.
Now, will we see some staples of video games--the operative word being "game", not "toy"--coming to D&D Beyond? Almost certainly--they mentioned D&D Beyond is a good way for them to monetize players instead of just DMs. I think we can reasonably expect that will take the form of cosmetics, like character sheet customizations and dice (which is not going to influence gameplay), but there might be things like new races that appeal to a player making something during character creation. Other than a few fuddy duddies with an (incorrect) vision of "purity" or other such nonsense in D&D, most folks recognize that more player options makes character creation more interesting and dynamic, generally improving the game.
Overall, I am quite looking forward to how Wizards might try to expand their financial base--either they'll make things that do not effect me, they'll make things that I actively want for my players, or they'll make things that annoy me and I'll just... tell my players those are off the table. Either way, I either win or come out neutral, and those are both fine outcomes.
I think you're talking about you - not me. I'm not rudely implying anything, I'm stating the personal opinion (as you point out) that I consider most new content to be stupid. Also, since I say no "reasonable adult should ever have allowed" Acq. Inc. to become canon, you must surely realise I'm talking about WoTC/Hasbro management. Which, well, is an opinion I'm not shy to voice. I'll do one better: Corporate management are unreasonable, universally, across corporations worldwide.
All the rest? Agree to disagree. They're not 'focussing on all their players' - they are redesigning their product to appeal to other, more numerous players. Which, for profitability, is a sound decision, but which isn't good for the product. Or, what used to be the product and what will be the product in the future are different things, appealing to different people. D&D is becoming reality television, where it used to be a .... 'documentary'. It's switching, if you will, from one kind of quality to another. They will make more money, but they will lose the original playerbase.
If you want to maintain the moral high ground here, and call me rude .... maybe you shouldn't call me fuddy duddy, and go on about how my assumed ideas of 'purity' are wrong. Or 'other nonsense'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It's a move away from making games - to making toys. Which, I suppose, is what Hasbro does.
It's interesting though. 5e is the best iteration of D&D that's ever been, but then again, it has so much useless junk too. So is it really? The rules are better, but everything else is worse. Stupid subclasses, stupid races, stupid expansions like Dragonlance - I love Penny Arcade, but there's no way any reasonable adult should ever have allowed Acquisitions Inc. to become official canon.
So they're going to drown their high quality core product in low quality junk, which is .. well it's not ideal. Or, it might be ideal for Hasbro, but it's not for anyone else.
While I generally agree with your assessment of the current 5e, You have to remember that WotC/Hasbro aren't a charity and they aren't making DnD as their "fun project" but they are making it to make money. And apparently making a ton of nonsense races/classes is what makes them money (at least for now), even if it means alienating part of the player base.
While I generally agree with your assessment of the current 5e, You have to remember that WotC/Hasbro aren't a charity and they aren't making DnD as their "fun project" but they are making it to make money. And apparently making a ton of nonsense races/classes is what makes them money (at least for now), even if it means alienating part of the player base.
Oh I know, and it's not like I blame them. They're here to make money, not cater to my tastes, specifically.
I lament that the game I enjoy has to cede the space for another - like it, but different - that will earn them more. But I'm not against profitability. It's more like ... imagine you're a whisky drinker. You've drunk the same fine, aged, wonderful speyside malt all your life. It's definitely an acquired taste, smoky and tangy with a taste of tarred rope pickled herring and seawater and kelp. It's special. Then, one day We R Whisky buys the destillery, and start altering the product to 'reach a wider audience'. They're totally in their right - but that doesn't mean I have to like it, or the doubly-cherry cask sugary junk they replace my whisky with.
D&D is not like whisky. It was never, and never will be, as carefully tailored a quality product as fine whisky is. D&D is ... kinda bad, and always has been - since time out of memory, there have been rules we dislike but make do with regardless, be it Thac0, or crafting rules, the the thing that it's class based, or whatever. Some whiskies are perfect, roleplaying games never are.
No, see, the point is that they're welcome to change their product. I'm just not obliged to keep being a customer. It's just that at present, I don't know any other fantasy game that I like, and even if I do find one, I have this group of RL friends that will take a massive effort to shift to something else. Oh, woe is me =D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I can understand adding more products to D&D, and trying to make money that way. Stuff like cool shirts and other fancy merchandise.
As for monetizing the game via microtransactions and/or macrotransactions... not possible. People will just rely on the old books, the copy/pasted PDFs, dice from non-Wizards sources, etc. It'll be a crap-shoot trapped in a can of worms, if they wanna try to keep people from using the microtransaction side of things.
Basically, the best way to monetize D&D isn't to try to force players to buy the products, or else doom and gloom for everyone. It's to incentivize people to enjoy the products, they way they've been enjoyed for decades. Sell unique dice cases/towers, put some cool slogans and cute dragons on a shirt. Have an "epic battle," where a kobold's in a slap-fight with a goblin. Make the kinds of products that draw in the interest of the players, rather than products that "you must buy, or else the Microtransaction Police will snap your kneecaps."
The one thing that concerns me is, with the eventual introduction of the One D&D Virtual Tabletop - will D&D Beyond start charging for access for things like monster stats and tokens for their use in the VTT? I've got the Monster Manual already on this site, but will I have to buy the Beholder AGAIN if I want to use it in the new VTT? Or the whole Monster Manual? I've already paid up for its use in the Digital Tools already.
Having had the physical / digital 'I've already bought this stuff ' argument, can you imagine the threads complaining about having to buy content a THIRD time? Whilst I fully understand the whole physical / digital situation, having already paid for the use of monsters etc in the digital tools, I myself would be very annoyed if I had to fork out again to use them in the coming VTT.
I could probably understand charging for new things like hero avatars (e.g. Female Dwarf Druid) but going down the microtransaction route of charging for content we've already paid for digital use with would be a very unhealthy move. I hope that I'm wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
The one thing that concerns me is, with the eventual introduction of the One D&D Virtual Tabletop - will D&D Beyond start charging for access for things like monster stats and tokens for their use in the VTT? I've got the Monster Manual already on this site, but will I have to buy the Beholder AGAIN if I want to use it in the new VTT? Or the whole Monster Manual? I've already paid up for its use in the Digital Tools already.
We won't know the answer to that for quite a while, and they likely haven't even decided on the plan. My guess is either no (they'll monetize by subscription fees, and if you subscribe you can use your DDB content) or partial (there would be an upgrade that would give you access to the 3d models for the VTT).
The one thing that concerns me is, with the eventual introduction of the One D&D Virtual Tabletop - will D&D Beyond start charging for access for things like monster stats and tokens for their use in the VTT? I've got the Monster Manual already on this site, but will I have to buy the Beholder AGAIN if I want to use it in the new VTT? Or the whole Monster Manual? I've already paid up for its use in the Digital Tools already.
There's a good question in here. My initial reflex was to write, realistically, at minimum if you want to use the One D&D Virtual Tabletop you will in fact have to upgrade to whatever they call One D&D. However, I recognize the answer to your concern isn't that easy to forecast, and rather it would definitely be a test of how "backward compatible" the entire One D&D line is to the Legacy (and in some cases delisted) products. Will someone be able to create a character through 5e materials on D&D Beyond and access the VTT? I imagine it's yet another matter that won't be answered until One D&D and particularly it's digital versions are much much closer to release.
Having had the physical / digital 'I've already bought this stuff ' argument, can you imagine the threads complaining about having to buy content a THIRD time? Whilst I fully understand the whole physical / digital situation, having already paid for the use of monsters etc in the digital tools, I myself would be very annoyed if I had to fork out again to use them in the coming VTT.
I could probably understand charging for new things like hero avatars (e.g. Female Dwarf Druid) but going down the microtransaction route of charging for content we've already paid for digital use with would be a very unhealthy move. I hope that I'm wrong.
I would like to think if "apex D&D" in WotC's vision centers on the VTT, that yes the manuals would give you access to their contents representation in the VTT. I mean, that's how all the other competing VTTs do it, right? And that competition covers more games than just D&D, so it would seem an unsound strategy to make a foray into the VTT space but make it more economically burdensome for a player to enter that space in comparison to D&D's establish competition in the VTT space.
I do see a potential "monetization via customization" route for the VTT for both players and DMs. Not just simply "skins", though I'm sure they will be available; but, again, if WotC is serious about entering the VTT space, and they've said they are, they're probably noticing the integration of custom minis with virtual paint sets from HeroForge etc entering into some of the VTT player's space as tokens and 3-D models.
As for stuff like frames and backgrounds to character sheets being monetized? I don't know. Presently those are given out as pre-order incentives and subscription gifts, freebie perks. If there's big technical advancement in the virtual character sheet, portraiture etc. I could see that being introduced for the whale player market, or maybe some sort of VTT premium tier player. But I think what a lot of the D&D Utopian or maybe Candide D&D thinkers are missing is that from the call (btw for the folks who keep saying, "well if you actually listened to the call" where is the call? I've read four articles that are above average for gaming press, with similar takes but for once all citing different specific language which gives to me at least increasing credibility to the source as opposed to those dismissing point on this thread with "if you actually read or listened to the call) yes, there is "growth potential" in D&D as a brand to include new players through game products and people who will never touch the game but experience the brand through things ranging from movies to children's cereal. It was also said the existing player base is under monetized because of the DM being the default buyer and non DM players making less of $ investment in the game. Presently DDB actually reinforces that DM buys, players don't premise via content sharing. So when a relatively new to WotC executive with no play experience prior to coming to WotC, who, among other hires, does come from an industry with its own checkered history of extracting maximum monetization of players to the point that politicians use it as a punching bag and regulators have conversations, it seems reasonable to express concern. It's not "hyperbolic doomsaying" or even doomsaying. Real people live in a real world where everything is not either paradise or damnation, and in those spaces concerns can be negotiated. There's more to experience than a validation/negation binary, it's why we have discourse, contrary to many internet rhetoricians.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I could really see a VTT bundle. Digital Rime of the Frostmaiden is $X. Want to use it in the VTT, that’s another $Y. Print copy, $Z more. Get all three and they knock off $10 or something.
If you consider that buying it twice, or three times, I wouldn’t try to argue the point, because I can see it that way. But I also see it as paying for what you’ll use. If I’m never going to play it on the VTT because I play in person, I shouldn’t be forced to but the VTT tools. And if they just raise the book prices, so they can give away the VTT stuff for “free,” that’s pretty much what’s happening there. Because it’s costing them something to make this VTT, and they’ll need some way to recoup that investment.
It’s like many people say about dndbeyond, it’s a different product, so you should have to pay to use it, even if you have the book in hardcover. A VTT is yet another product.
If you listen to the interview the “under-monetized” comment is in reference to 2 things:
1) Licensing, merchandising, etc. and growing ways to make more revenue from D&D beside just the game. They 100% explicitly state this as one of their major goals since the brand is so widely recognized beyond just the people who play. (At least half of the time they spend talking about D&D is specifically about revenue other than the game itself - the movie, video games, licensed merchandise, etc.)
2) The question and answer both also directly reference the M:tG discussion earlier in the interview - specifically a discussion of their focus shifting from only on professional M:tG players to instead 3 segments of players - professional, casual, and collector with realizing each segment has different interests and they should provide ways that work for each of the 3. So reading into that “non-DMs don’t buy enough, so let’s milk more $ out of them with micro transactions” is a grossly over simplified interpretation. It’s more like realizing “what non-DMs want to buy is different from what we are providing. We are (possibly) only focusing on one segment and ignoring the interests of another.” It is specifically about giving players what they want.
Lastly, in the interview (which is 85% M:tG and 1 question about D&D squeezed in at the end, so much more condensed and not as in-depth as the M:tG portion) they also very clearly state that D&D growth is going to be focused on new player growth, bringing back players who haven’t played in a while, and more non-game revenue.
I don't think your answer is getting enough attention, because it is spot-on. You are absolutely correct. Hasbro has found that the vast majority of money spent on the hobby is spent by a comparatively small number of its members. DM's spend far and away the most money on the hobby, which for the most part the other 80% of the community, the players, spend relatively little. So Hasbro wants to find ways to make products that appeal to that 80%, instead of just adventure and setting books.
This isn't a "we're going to start putting micro-transactions on everything because D&D is under-monetized." It's a "D&D is very popular right now and we need to make products and services that appeal to the majority of people that are currently playing the game but don't have things they want to spend money on."
As others have said, this could be a lot of things, from toys to other types of games, merchandise and books (non-game books), etc.
If the average player spends X, and the average DM spends 10X dollars per year (arbitrary multiplier, I don't have their research) and only 20% of your player base is willing to DM, it seems to me that the fastest way to grow revenue would be to fix the problems with the system that makes it so difficult to DM and support the expansion of that 20% to 40% which would bump overall spending as well as give you more potential people trying to get others into the hobby and join a game.
It’s like many people say about dndbeyond, it’s a different product, so you should have to pay to use it, even if you have the book in hardcover. A VTT is yet another product.
It's actually more distinct than that. The big problem with buying books vs DDB is that having a product in two formats (digital and physical) really isn't twice as valuable as having it in one format. However, if what you're buying for the VTT is the models, it's the equivalent of buying a map pack and miniatures for a tabletop game, which is pretty clearly a distinct product (it's one a lot of people don't buy -- plenty of people are fine with using generic tokens and markers on a Chessex mat -- but they aren't doing it because of some complaints about buying the same content twice, they just don't feel the maps and minis are worth the price).
If the average player spends X, and the average DM spends 10X dollars per year (arbitrary multiplier, I don't have their research) and only 20% of your player base is willing to DM, it seems to me that the fastest way to grow revenue would be to fix the problems with the system that makes it so difficult to DM and support the expansion of that 20% to 40% which would bump overall spending as well as give you more potential people trying to get others into the hobby and join a game.
That is a much harder problems to fix than “make products that appeal to the 80% of players.” DMing simply isn’t that hard - there’s plenty of official resources out there, ranging from starter products to premade campaigns that do most of the work for you to articles and videos created with Wizards’ assistance on how to DM to various tools to homerule to an entire one of the core books being dedicated to teaching folks how to DM.
The problem with DMing is less a “it is hard” but more the fact it takes more time and effort than being a player (which many folks don’t want to do). A secondary issue is that the perception of the extra time and effort is inflated beyond the actual time/effort delta between playing and DMing. Those are not problems new products can fix - Wizards is not going to suddenly change human nature or make their players have more free time.
There’s a reason they have been relatively unsuccessful at converting more DMs, despite protracted efforts dating back decades - it is much easier to appeal to a group’s existing interests than it is to convert a group to new interests. That is why appealing to the 80% is always going to be faster and more profitable than expanding the 20% - you already know what they want, you just have to go out there and make product based on those wants.
If we are talking about module focus for WotC, I would divide it into two groups the more cartoonish and comedic group and the more serious group. There is nothing wrong with either group unless you prefer one group and are in another. But I have tended to find good serious modules are harder to produce then more comedic ones.
Edit:
I should have also included that there are lot of different age groups that play D&D and each can have different desires and needs for modules.
I could really see a VTT bundle. Digital Rime of the Frostmaiden is $X. Want to use it in the VTT, that’s another $Y. Print copy, $Z more. Get all three and they knock off $10 or something.
If you consider that buying it twice, or three times, I wouldn’t try to argue the point, because I can see it that way. But I also see it as paying for what you’ll use. If I’m never going to play it on the VTT because I play in person, I shouldn’t be forced to but the VTT tools. And if they just raise the book prices, so they can give away the VTT stuff for “free,” that’s pretty much what’s happening there. Because it’s costing them something to make this VTT, and they’ll need some way to recoup that investment.
It’s like many people say about dndbeyond, it’s a different product, so you should have to pay to use it, even if you have the book in hardcover. A VTT is yet another product.
I still don't see that happening because that puts an additional price tier that other VTT providers don't do, or do you think D&D is going to make the high on their own supply move of no longer supporting Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds, etc. I just don't see that as they know there are TTRPG players who want to play D&D and other games, are happy with their VTT, and don't want to get a proprietary VTT for the one game of the few they rotate through.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
WotC/Hasbo's vision for D&D is so far from what TTRPG's are. At my table, there are no electronics. We play TTRPG's to get away from tech, and video games. We use our imagination instead of having spoon fed graphics tell us what to believe.
Sounds like just more corporate greed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's Forbes' profile of Williams just two months ago where she admits to having no D&D play experience prior to coming onto WotC this year (she eventually played with Cooks as DM). It sounds like the talking points from the most recent UBS call largely, in fact the UBS analyst with a history of producing bullish analysis of Hasbro, with a WotC focus, quoted in this article was the host or facilitator of the fireside chat.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettknight/2022/10/11/could-dungeons--dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/?sh=56d722652e6f
The let's just call it franchise potential talking points from the more recent UBS call are largely anticipated or find precursors in this profile. Also UBS is apparently bullish on Hasbro in a way BoA is not.
Re:
Miniatures are actually well handled almost saturated by their license through Wizkids, WotC I just don't see ending that license despite their parent company's ability to shape plastic for major sales. Dice, there's more dice buyers than easy bake resin cooks out there ... WotC did try something in premium space with the sapphire set ... I got a feeling it undersold or didn't really see it as much of driver to compete with the dice makers who thrive in the gemstone or otherwise precious dice space. Clothing and D&D as a lifestyle brand ... that's all licensing. That's fine too, it works for
Harry PotterWizarding World and I think Disney (I'm assuming Disney does licensing, though I don't know how the Disney store works, whether that's all mfr'd "by Disney" or is license product). And it's not like Hasbro doesn't have experience on that front with Transformers, etc.Still they dropped a bank on DDB because they see it or its future as a money maker. We all should remember the One D&D intro video which did pay some image service to kids playing around a table with pencil and paper, but the real money shots of that sizzle real was discussion of the VTT and the digital support WotC will be providing in house. DDB or its future, I think, is being thought of as integral both to the actual and virtual table top futures. And I think the easy monetization of all players is there. That's why you bring on an executive with a background not only in e-commerce but cloud resourced product lines.
EDIT (my algorithm is stalking me tonight): huh, so I'm not sure what "actual source" some folks claim to have read to through off the idea that players paying more for digital is driving here (as opposed to T shirts, movie tickets, minis and dice). Here's another pull quote from the fireside chat, where Williams says exactly what she's thinking in terms of capturing the broader player market, source:
https://www.polygon.com/23500171/hasbro-magic-overprinting-fireside-chat-cynthia-williams
Quote:
Edit 2, because the story has metastasized in my feeds. So I guess you could say that the current highest up in Hasbro, who's former WotC, see brand growth as key, using D&D to sell more things than the TTRPG. The WotC head agrees, but also mentions the buyers to players metric and thinks there's undeveloped sales opportunities there. Basically the points about monetizing D&D are twofold: monetization of the brand and monetization of the player experience. The former is basically licensing unless they buy into a lot of other producers of other things which they currently don't have in their bullpen, the latter they have more direct control over developing (and likely made a big digital product acquisition and hires to help them pull it off).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
There are some hyperbolic doomsayers in here, lol. Just because this is the first time you've heard the execs talking shop about D&D by no means suggests it's the first time it's happened. You don't think it got where it is now without planning, do you?
I expect their VTT will have microtransactions and maybe a subscription, sure. I also expect to see cosmetics -- portrait generators, perhaps, or more dramatically, one of those VTuber programs that would let you overlay your character's face onto your webcam feed during online play. That would be an incredible move, and I genuinely hope to see it, even if it'll always be more limited in scope than the actual game itself is.
They've been trying to get people to engage with extracurriculars like articles and videos, but the ones they make in house aren't good enough to pull subscriptions. Maybe they will hire fan creators to contribute to something players will want to pay for? But there are so many excellent RPG zines already out there, that this seems like a nonstarter to me... Unless it gets the "official" stamp of approval so that people can use its contents in sanctioned games, maybe.
People have often joked about a Tinder-style app for finding games, but I do think there's potential there. The only thing is, how do you monetize it after someone finds a game? Well, consider this: Exclusive modules. Now you're not just looking for any old game, you're looking for a group to play the upcoming Raid on Bleepblorp Mountain adventure path.
I'm sure they have smarter people than me working on this. But there's some ideas to get the doomsayers thinking. And I mean, ultimately, the worst case scenario is that we have to go back to the olden days of just using physical books and gathering around a real table -- oh no!
Interacting with people face-to-face again? Truly this is the worst timeline.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It's a move away from making games - to making toys. Which, I suppose, is what Hasbro does.
It's interesting though. 5e is the best iteration of D&D that's ever been, but then again, it has so much useless junk too. So is it really? The rules are better, but everything else is worse. Stupid subclasses, stupid races, stupid expansions like Dragonlance - I love Penny Arcade, but there's no way any reasonable adult should ever have allowed Acquisitions Inc. to become official canon.
So they're going to drown their high quality core product in low quality junk, which is .. well it's not ideal. Or, it might be ideal for Hasbro, but it's not for anyone else.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Unlike your post--which is exclusively based on your confusing a personal opinion for objective fact and rudely implying anyone who disagrees with you is "unreasonable" or likes "stupid" things--Wizards uses actual data to inform its decisions. Their data shows that folks like having lots of options, even options some might see as "stupid", which is why they release a wide range of products appealing to the entire breadth of a their playerbase. That is hardly making D&D a "toy"--it a recognition that, since its inception, D&D has always been about living in a shared fantasy world with friends, and fantasy worlds can take all manner of different shapes and thus there needs to be a wide range of options so each world can have the tools it needs.
A focus on appealing to all their players is simply how a business works--it wants to create products that appeal to the widest range of its players as possible. And, this might come as a surprise to you, D&D actually lends itself very well to a multitude of game options, since the "official canon" does not really exist and is a construction of individual tables. If you don't like something in your canon you can *gasp* simply not play with it in your individual game.
Now, will we see some staples of video games--the operative word being "game", not "toy"--coming to D&D Beyond? Almost certainly--they mentioned D&D Beyond is a good way for them to monetize players instead of just DMs. I think we can reasonably expect that will take the form of cosmetics, like character sheet customizations and dice (which is not going to influence gameplay), but there might be things like new races that appeal to a player making something during character creation. Other than a few fuddy duddies with an (incorrect) vision of "purity" or other such nonsense in D&D, most folks recognize that more player options makes character creation more interesting and dynamic, generally improving the game.
Overall, I am quite looking forward to how Wizards might try to expand their financial base--either they'll make things that do not effect me, they'll make things that I actively want for my players, or they'll make things that annoy me and I'll just... tell my players those are off the table. Either way, I either win or come out neutral, and those are both fine outcomes.
I think you're talking about you - not me. I'm not rudely implying anything, I'm stating the personal opinion (as you point out) that I consider most new content to be stupid. Also, since I say no "reasonable adult should ever have allowed" Acq. Inc. to become canon, you must surely realise I'm talking about WoTC/Hasbro management. Which, well, is an opinion I'm not shy to voice. I'll do one better: Corporate management are unreasonable, universally, across corporations worldwide.
All the rest? Agree to disagree. They're not 'focussing on all their players' - they are redesigning their product to appeal to other, more numerous players. Which, for profitability, is a sound decision, but which isn't good for the product. Or, what used to be the product and what will be the product in the future are different things, appealing to different people. D&D is becoming reality television, where it used to be a .... 'documentary'. It's switching, if you will, from one kind of quality to another. They will make more money, but they will lose the original playerbase.
If you want to maintain the moral high ground here, and call me rude .... maybe you shouldn't call me fuddy duddy, and go on about how my assumed ideas of 'purity' are wrong. Or 'other nonsense'.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
While I generally agree with your assessment of the current 5e, You have to remember that WotC/Hasbro aren't a charity and they aren't making DnD as their "fun project" but they are making it to make money. And apparently making a ton of nonsense races/classes is what makes them money (at least for now), even if it means alienating part of the player base.
Oh I know, and it's not like I blame them. They're here to make money, not cater to my tastes, specifically.
I lament that the game I enjoy has to cede the space for another - like it, but different - that will earn them more. But I'm not against profitability. It's more like ... imagine you're a whisky drinker. You've drunk the same fine, aged, wonderful speyside malt all your life. It's definitely an acquired taste, smoky and tangy with a taste of tarred rope pickled herring and seawater and kelp. It's special. Then, one day We R Whisky buys the destillery, and start altering the product to 'reach a wider audience'. They're totally in their right - but that doesn't mean I have to like it, or the doubly-cherry cask sugary junk they replace my whisky with.
D&D is not like whisky. It was never, and never will be, as carefully tailored a quality product as fine whisky is. D&D is ... kinda bad, and always has been - since time out of memory, there have been rules we dislike but make do with regardless, be it Thac0, or crafting rules, the the thing that it's class based, or whatever. Some whiskies are perfect, roleplaying games never are.
No, see, the point is that they're welcome to change their product. I'm just not obliged to keep being a customer. It's just that at present, I don't know any other fantasy game that I like, and even if I do find one, I have this group of RL friends that will take a massive effort to shift to something else. Oh, woe is me =D
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I can understand adding more products to D&D, and trying to make money that way. Stuff like cool shirts and other fancy merchandise.
As for monetizing the game via microtransactions and/or macrotransactions... not possible. People will just rely on the old books, the copy/pasted PDFs, dice from non-Wizards sources, etc. It'll be a crap-shoot trapped in a can of worms, if they wanna try to keep people from using the microtransaction side of things.
Basically, the best way to monetize D&D isn't to try to force players to buy the products, or else doom and gloom for everyone. It's to incentivize people to enjoy the products, they way they've been enjoyed for decades. Sell unique dice cases/towers, put some cool slogans and cute dragons on a shirt. Have an "epic battle," where a kobold's in a slap-fight with a goblin. Make the kinds of products that draw in the interest of the players, rather than products that "you must buy, or else the Microtransaction Police will snap your kneecaps."
The one thing that concerns me is, with the eventual introduction of the One D&D Virtual Tabletop - will D&D Beyond start charging for access for things like monster stats and tokens for their use in the VTT? I've got the Monster Manual already on this site, but will I have to buy the Beholder AGAIN if I want to use it in the new VTT? Or the whole Monster Manual? I've already paid up for its use in the Digital Tools already.
Having had the physical / digital 'I've already bought this stuff ' argument, can you imagine the threads complaining about having to buy content a THIRD time? Whilst I fully understand the whole physical / digital situation, having already paid for the use of monsters etc in the digital tools, I myself would be very annoyed if I had to fork out again to use them in the coming VTT.
I could probably understand charging for new things like hero avatars (e.g. Female Dwarf Druid) but going down the microtransaction route of charging for content we've already paid for digital use with would be a very unhealthy move. I hope that I'm wrong.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
We won't know the answer to that for quite a while, and they likely haven't even decided on the plan. My guess is either no (they'll monetize by subscription fees, and if you subscribe you can use your DDB content) or partial (there would be an upgrade that would give you access to the 3d models for the VTT).
There's a good question in here. My initial reflex was to write, realistically, at minimum if you want to use the One D&D Virtual Tabletop you will in fact have to upgrade to whatever they call One D&D. However, I recognize the answer to your concern isn't that easy to forecast, and rather it would definitely be a test of how "backward compatible" the entire One D&D line is to the Legacy (and in some cases delisted) products. Will someone be able to create a character through 5e materials on D&D Beyond and access the VTT? I imagine it's yet another matter that won't be answered until One D&D and particularly it's digital versions are much much closer to release.
I would like to think if "apex D&D" in WotC's vision centers on the VTT, that yes the manuals would give you access to their contents representation in the VTT. I mean, that's how all the other competing VTTs do it, right? And that competition covers more games than just D&D, so it would seem an unsound strategy to make a foray into the VTT space but make it more economically burdensome for a player to enter that space in comparison to D&D's establish competition in the VTT space.
I do see a potential "monetization via customization" route for the VTT for both players and DMs. Not just simply "skins", though I'm sure they will be available; but, again, if WotC is serious about entering the VTT space, and they've said they are, they're probably noticing the integration of custom minis with virtual paint sets from HeroForge etc entering into some of the VTT player's space as tokens and 3-D models.
As for stuff like frames and backgrounds to character sheets being monetized? I don't know. Presently those are given out as pre-order incentives and subscription gifts, freebie perks. If there's big technical advancement in the virtual character sheet, portraiture etc. I could see that being introduced for the whale player market, or maybe some sort of VTT premium tier player. But I think what a lot of the D&D Utopian or maybe Candide D&D thinkers are missing is that from the call (btw for the folks who keep saying, "well if you actually listened to the call" where is the call? I've read four articles that are above average for gaming press, with similar takes but for once all citing different specific language which gives to me at least increasing credibility to the source as opposed to those dismissing point on this thread with "if you actually read or listened to the call) yes, there is "growth potential" in D&D as a brand to include new players through game products and people who will never touch the game but experience the brand through things ranging from movies to children's cereal. It was also said the existing player base is under monetized because of the DM being the default buyer and non DM players making less of $ investment in the game. Presently DDB actually reinforces that DM buys, players don't premise via content sharing. So when a relatively new to WotC executive with no play experience prior to coming to WotC, who, among other hires, does come from an industry with its own checkered history of extracting maximum monetization of players to the point that politicians use it as a punching bag and regulators have conversations, it seems reasonable to express concern. It's not "hyperbolic doomsaying" or even doomsaying. Real people live in a real world where everything is not either paradise or damnation, and in those spaces concerns can be negotiated. There's more to experience than a validation/negation binary, it's why we have discourse, contrary to many internet rhetoricians.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I could really see a VTT bundle. Digital Rime of the Frostmaiden is $X. Want to use it in the VTT, that’s another $Y. Print copy, $Z more. Get all three and they knock off $10 or something.
If you consider that buying it twice, or three times, I wouldn’t try to argue the point, because I can see it that way. But I also see it as paying for what you’ll use. If I’m never going to play it on the VTT because I play in person, I shouldn’t be forced to but the VTT tools. And if they just raise the book prices, so they can give away the VTT stuff for “free,” that’s pretty much what’s happening there. Because it’s costing them something to make this VTT, and they’ll need some way to recoup that investment.
It’s like many people say about dndbeyond, it’s a different product, so you should have to pay to use it, even if you have the book in hardcover. A VTT is yet another product.
I don't think your answer is getting enough attention, because it is spot-on. You are absolutely correct. Hasbro has found that the vast majority of money spent on the hobby is spent by a comparatively small number of its members. DM's spend far and away the most money on the hobby, which for the most part the other 80% of the community, the players, spend relatively little. So Hasbro wants to find ways to make products that appeal to that 80%, instead of just adventure and setting books.
This isn't a "we're going to start putting micro-transactions on everything because D&D is under-monetized." It's a "D&D is very popular right now and we need to make products and services that appeal to the majority of people that are currently playing the game but don't have things they want to spend money on."
As others have said, this could be a lot of things, from toys to other types of games, merchandise and books (non-game books), etc.
If the average player spends X, and the average DM spends 10X dollars per year (arbitrary multiplier, I don't have their research) and only 20% of your player base is willing to DM, it seems to me that the fastest way to grow revenue would be to fix the problems with the system that makes it so difficult to DM and support the expansion of that 20% to 40% which would bump overall spending as well as give you more potential people trying to get others into the hobby and join a game.
It's actually more distinct than that. The big problem with buying books vs DDB is that having a product in two formats (digital and physical) really isn't twice as valuable as having it in one format. However, if what you're buying for the VTT is the models, it's the equivalent of buying a map pack and miniatures for a tabletop game, which is pretty clearly a distinct product (it's one a lot of people don't buy -- plenty of people are fine with using generic tokens and markers on a Chessex mat -- but they aren't doing it because of some complaints about buying the same content twice, they just don't feel the maps and minis are worth the price).
That is a much harder problems to fix than “make products that appeal to the 80% of players.” DMing simply isn’t that hard - there’s plenty of official resources out there, ranging from starter products to premade campaigns that do most of the work for you to articles and videos created with Wizards’ assistance on how to DM to various tools to homerule to an entire one of the core books being dedicated to teaching folks how to DM.
The problem with DMing is less a “it is hard” but more the fact it takes more time and effort than being a player (which many folks don’t want to do). A secondary issue is that the perception of the extra time and effort is inflated beyond the actual time/effort delta between playing and DMing. Those are not problems new products can fix - Wizards is not going to suddenly change human nature or make their players have more free time.
There’s a reason they have been relatively unsuccessful at converting more DMs, despite protracted efforts dating back decades - it is much easier to appeal to a group’s existing interests than it is to convert a group to new interests. That is why appealing to the 80% is always going to be faster and more profitable than expanding the 20% - you already know what they want, you just have to go out there and make product based on those wants.
If we are talking about module focus for WotC, I would divide it into two groups the more cartoonish and comedic group and the more serious group. There is nothing wrong with either group unless you prefer one group and are in another. But I have tended to find good serious modules are harder to produce then more comedic ones.
Edit:
I should have also included that there are lot of different age groups that play D&D and each can have different desires and needs for modules.
I still don't see that happening because that puts an additional price tier that other VTT providers don't do, or do you think D&D is going to make the high on their own supply move of no longer supporting Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds, etc. I just don't see that as they know there are TTRPG players who want to play D&D and other games, are happy with their VTT, and don't want to get a proprietary VTT for the one game of the few they rotate through.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
WotC/Hasbo's vision for D&D is so far from what TTRPG's are. At my table, there are no electronics. We play TTRPG's to get away from tech, and video games. We use our imagination instead of having spoon fed graphics tell us what to believe.
Sounds like just more corporate greed.