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.
agree'd i feel like it's a natural progression to just incorporate DNDB into assets to be used in DNDDigital (is that what it's called?) and then maybe cosmetics cost extra. If you want to buy some goblin minis, you pay x amount for a digital pack of them. special maps cost something. This is kind of how other VTT's work in that they offer certain things a la carte.
and i certainly dont believe WoTC will opt out of other VTT's, that just feels too dystopian and short sighted. I think they're going to really try and trade on their brand name and whatever feature set they put together when the VTT launches.
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.
The original proposal seemed to be full 3d, which means its immediate competition appears to be Tabletop Simulator and Talespire.
If I want to use a published monster in roll20, and I want to use a monster I have in DDB but not in roll20, I have to take an image of the monster, clip it with something like TokenTool, upload the token, and if I'm not using Beyond20, create a character sheet. An adventure is more work, I have to handle maps (and dynamic lighting, if I'm using it) and create any handouts I want to give to the PCs. This is more work, but by standards of adventure preparation isn't exactly huge.
If I want to do the same thing in Tabletop Simulator, I need a bunch of 3d unity assets. Most of which don't actually exist because existing artwork is 2d. If they're humanoid or close enough, I can probably use HeroForge (at $7.99 a pop...), otherwise it's time for me to learn a 3d modeling program -- which also probably lacks convenient pre-existing assets for weirder monsters, and if they do exist they probably cost money. If WotC wants to sell digital miniatures (which is absolutely within their established skill set, I'm sure they already use digital modeling for their miniatures, and action figures, and collectibles, and toys, and....) I'm not going to pretend that they aren't offering something extra.
(edit: on reflection, they probably have to negotiate with WizKids).
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.
That's a good point, and I don't know, but I guess we'll see. People might pay a premium; it would depend a lot on what you get for that price. If you buy it here, and you get what amounts to a turnkey adventure -- all the maps are built with those snazzy 3d models, there's tokens/virtual minis for all the npcs, a well-functioning voice chat so you don't need discord/zoom running while you play, maybe throw in animation effects at some point if people want those, all the other bells and whistles -- it might be worth the extra money. Particularly since it's the DM who'll be buying it, they might decide the cash is worth the time they'll save trying to build their own maps, then it will come down to the pricing strategy. If it's a better product, people will pay more for it. (As an aside, this is making me wonder if that's part of what they were thinking with that 80/20 split on spending. Not try and get the other 80 to pay but try and get the 20 who already pay to pay a little more. Realistically, it's probably both.)
And, of course, we don't know what the terms of their licenses are with other VTTs. They could maybe increase the license fees and force them to increase their prices to match. Or not allow them to use things like pre-built maps. Or do both. Make their own product the best value. Other games don't even come close to D&D's popularity on those platforms, WotC can probably dictate terms or decide to take their ball and go home (that is, not let them access 1D&D), and see how long Roll20 can stay afloat on Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu and legacy 5e products. That will piss off some people and they'll likely lose some customers, but some others will just switch over, and new people will just gravitate here. And for the switchers, a new-ish edition, where people are going to buy a new PHB, at least, is a good time to try and get them to switch, since they'll be making an investment in new books, anyway. It will be up to the MBAs to run the numbers and see which way works better.
It's really hard to see what's in these tea leaves. This is all new ground for them and for the hobby generally. They've been a dead tree company since they started, barring a couple failed attempts at digital integration. Then the pandemic and rise of Roll20, et al, made them realize there's money to be made in the virtual space. And they have the corporate resources to make a way cooler looking VTT than the 2d grids that are out there now. They're definitely pushing more and more into digital, and they're going to have to sort out the business model.
Heck, maybe they allow people to sell DMs guild products here, and only here, like an app store (or maybe more like Skyrim modders), and that helps entice people to make this their primary/only VTT.
I guess my point is, there's a lot of ways they could do it. Some of them are hardball business tactics, but not all of them are necessarily greedy, if they can manage to give people appropriate value for the product. (I realize you didn't say greedy, I'm just kind of summing up here.)
We won't know the answer to that for quite a while, and they likely haven't even decided on the plan.
But I'm panicking now!!!! :P
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.
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.
But basically this; I think it's going to be a matter of time before we know for sure and this seems to be the likely guestimate of what will happen. I'm just concerned over what could be a potential attempt at getting people to buy the same product again, assuming D&D Beyond monetise to that micro level.
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 phrase itself 'under-monetised' is bad way to frame a problem. If they had rather instead claimed that they feel there are still sectors of the market they are under serving then the whole conversation would probably have a much different context.
We hear under-monetised and fear all the sort of trickery that companies in the digital space could do to carve out content to sell seperately, create artificial problems they can 'sell' solutions to (like character limits for example) and other tactics that aren't consumer-friendly.
If instead it was stated that there were sectors of the market still not being served, like customers calling out for more character customisation options and other products then servicing them would seem a postive thing.
I currently though have little faith in Hasbro. WoTC had huge growth during the pandemic, and trying keep that up is probably unsustainable, let alone the doubling of revenue they have been supposedly pushed into. The push on the Magic the Gathering side has already backfired and caused their stock to get downgraded. The quality of recent products like Spelljammer have let me down, and its not just that it wasn't to my taste, but it felt decidedly cheap and rushed.
I love D&D and do feel like most people at WoTC are trying to make the best products they can. I do fear how much they can do so in the current environment Hasbro is setting, when they use terms like 'under-monetised'.
I won't pretend that Spelljammer was acceptable or anything, or that this is an acceptable excuse for it being subpar, because it isn't, but I'm guessing the reason it was so poor was because they've got their best people working on other stuff - most notably 1D&D. They're using their less experienced staff to just pump stuff out and keep their foot in the door until 1D&D comes out and they can focus on adventures etc again. I'm seeing a similar thing with Civilization VI - they've just released a new pack, but it's obviously been put together by those who have little experience. All their coding just cannibalises old stuff rather than giving novel abilities, and so forth.
The good news, if that's true, is that in 2024 we'll start seeing higher quality content again. The bad news is that we're probably going to have to wait 2+ years before that really happens. Assuming my speculation is correct, of course.
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.
I think based off of everything it's something to be wary of but it's not time for pitchforks yet either. I mean I hear the word under monetize and from a business stand point I definitely agree with them. However, there are tons of way to monetize dungeons and dragons without destroying the game. I also agree Linklite is right with the fact that we are seeing poorer quality on some things due to them releasing things people wanted super late (as in they are focused on 1DND and whatever that becomes) such as spelljammer and the new dragonlance (although I haven't nabbed the dragonlance yet and I intend to at some point) but I was at least happy with the digital spelljammer I picked up at a discount, but that's because discount.
Will have to wait and see how things play out, like lots of things.
I haven't finished this video (have to start getting ready for work, it's snowing outside) but got to around the 14 hour mark and regardless of how I feel about most of the stuff Treatmonk has said over time, I've agreed with everything he's said up to this point.
A quick summary so far, buying DDB was smart for the book perspective alone. They are now getting a far bigger cut of digital books sold than they were...and digital books do not have supply issues or other costs that have increased with there actual books (which they also did state they were not going to stop publishing the actual books).
The phrase itself 'under-monetised' is bad way to frame a problem. If they had rather instead claimed that they feel there are still sectors of the market they are under serving then the whole conversation would probably have a much different context.
Bear in mind that this was a presentation targeted at shareholders, not customers. It tells us that they think upselling to the current customer base is an option. Also that WotC is profit oriented. Neither of which should be greatly surprising to anyone.
This doesn't mean Wizards is going to do something new and horrible. It also doesn't mean they won't. Honestly, the correct way to interpret this sort of statement is to completely ignore it, as it's pretty much devoid of content.
I can just imagine the signs now: "Dungeons and Dragons, the world's greatest roleplaying game. Pay to win! Only $4.99 for an anti-goblin battlepack booster-upper-stat-bonus-defeater."
In all seriousness, this does concern me a bit: It seems like a boss who doesn't really understand how something works is just trying to push products down peoples throats in order to make more money for a company that feels it isn't doing well financially. Because apparently, hundreds of millions of dollars isn't enough money.
Yeah, I know that D&D is slightly under-monetized, and this certainly isn't the end of the world.. But it just worries me when companies say they are eager to pull more money out of their customers and are moving to microtransactions and video games to do so. I can't say I am not worried, and I really hope the game doesn't alienate its preexisting fanbase. But at the same time, a small part of me is excited to see more and more different types of people being introduced to the game I love.
So I'm willing to wait a bit to pass even more judgement than i already have on this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I can just imagine the signs now: "Dungeons and Dragons, the world's greatest roleplaying game. Pay to win! Only $4.99 for an anti-goblin battlepack booster-upper-stat-bonus-defeater."
That wouldn't actually be new -- it was a general rule of splatbooks (books for a specific class or small group of classes), back when they were a thing, that if you built your character with a splatbook, that character would be more powerful than a character build with the basic rules, and that this was a significant driver for players buying whatever book matched the character they wanted to play (all of which made for a complete nightmare for the DM).
I can just imagine the signs now: "Dungeons and Dragons, the world's greatest roleplaying game. Pay to win! Only $4.99 for an anti-goblin battlepack booster-upper-stat-bonus-defeater."
Honestly, this already exists. If you want more powerful content, you buy the latest content. That's just how D&D has always worked in its edition lifecycles.
"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement," Williams told investors. "But the brand is really under-monetized." Williams pointed to market data from the recently acquired D&D Beyond that showed that Dungeon Masters made the vast majority of purchases related to Dungeons & Dragons, despite making up only 20% of the game's user base.
File this quote under "Tell me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works without telling me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works." Seems like the sort of executive who will flip out when they find out about DDB content sharing, beginning a process that will cede DDB's virtual space marketshare to other vendors. Let's hope the exec listens to their designers.
Let me be candid with how I feel about this post: LMFAO
Now, let me extrapolate why I am feeling so LMFAO because the intent isn't to laugh at you, but rather the notion.
Dungeons and Dragons, as a concept, is a microtranaction. You can totally play with the SRD. Or you can buy the DMG and PHB. Once you've exhausted those options, now you'll want to buy Xanathars. You can call these purchases, but at the core they are still a microtransaction, effectively Horse Armor. Even with this website, you can buy piecemail options out of a book until you hit the price of the book itself, in which case all of it then unlocks. Honestly, I agree with Wizards that from an economics standpoint the monetization of D&D is piss poor in terms of how Wizards markets content directly to people. There are loads of fantasy things out there, but there aren't a lot of Wizards things they specifically offer.
The problem is how do they increase that? The movie is a start, like some posts said. Buying this website was a key, and honestly the purchase of this website gives me LESS hope for One D&D than any real hope. This website was a treasure trove of data, and every single post gives them more. Honestly, it's a big reason on why I stopped posting so regularly. At least prior to the Wizards purchase I felt as if my opinions MIGHT get heard on some sort of level and POTENTIALLY action taken. Ever since Wizards took over, the site has bled public facing talent and development talent behind the scenes. They have new product managers involved that changed the direction, and instantly this website went on auto pilot as far as we were concerned.
Speaking to Linklite: When I look at One D&D and the changes its making, the goal is to make it backward compatible with 5th. Obviously, not hidden knowledge there but pointing it out because I don't think that was done just for the sake of content. I think specifically it was done with this site in mind and how this digital toolset exists. The problem with the website as a whole is, well, it's not ******* flexible. We're seven months removed from the last dev updates. The "Generic Features System" is dead as far as I'm concerned and we're going to go into One D&D with things that were never implemented from the core books. For all its detractors, the people who hate Tashas are actually "right" about one thing. It broke 5th edition, just not in the way they wanted:
Quote from Adam Bradford at Demiplane when asked about his experiences here at D&D Beyond:
That’s a big question, but my past experiences have absolutely informed (and motivated me to pursue) providing high-quality digital tools for other games here at Demiplane.
The list would be long, but in a general sense, I have mentioned the biggest difference in approach has come in with how we are developing this solution as a flexible platform as opposed to a suite of tools that support a single game. We knew before we started that we would need to support not only Pathfinder’s huge scope of mechanics and optional rules, but also dozens of other game systems. In my past life, once that Cauldron book came out, it caused so many problems for our team because our framework was too “closed” and inflexible. We got to a point where we knew we wouldn’t be able to actually keep up with changes to the game without refactoring our entire infrastructure.
With what we’re doing with NEXUS, we are excited that we have reached a point where we can validate the framework is flexible enough to cover Pathfinder’s breadth, as well as all these other great games we’re bringing to the platform. Once we can focus on the next game to bring to life in our character tools past Pathfinder, we’ll be talking in units of weeks instead of months.
I'm sincerely hopeful for Nexus in the way I was hopeful for D&D Beyond in 2017.
Ending thought? We're going to see subscription based content access in 2024. Mark my words. That's the MTX that's going to happen. Pay for X subscription, get access to Y content on D&D Beyond and with the new VTT.
Ending thought? We're going to see subscription based content access in 2024. Mark my words. That's the MTX that's going to happen. Pay for X subscription, get access to Y content on D&D Beyond and with the new VTT.
Subscriptions are pretty much the opposite of the microtransaction business model; I'd consider subscriptions being phased out completely more likely.
I currently work at Target. But, I wouldn't view it as a bad thing if they come out with another starter set or product line that is better geared to a casual audience. D&D starters just sit on the shelf. They seem to be missing that casual customer segment completely in D&D. Especially, when games like Magic TCG are crushing it with new player products like Jump Starts.
Ending thought? We're going to see subscription based content access in 2024. Mark my words. That's the MTX that's going to happen. Pay for X subscription, get access to Y content on D&D Beyond and with the new VTT.
Subscriptions are pretty much the opposite of the microtransaction business model; I'd consider subscriptions being phased out completely more likely.
They are and aren't.
The way I'm using the word isn't the proper accepted usage. Let's just get the elephant out of the room there. That said, MTX is "small amounts of money for thing". Usually used in games with either buying premium currency to unlock cosmetics, in gacha games to pull units or just flat out charging for things.
Subscriptions are basically just reoccuring MTX(in the gaming space). Small money for thing, but we're wired to think they are different because it's ongoing benefits vs one time usage. It's also important to note that they(Wizards and Hasbro) said "reoccurant spending" in their calls, which would absolutely fall into the subscription model, using the words in the context most would use them.
I currently work at Target. But, I wouldn't view it as a bad thing if they come out with another starter set or product line that is better geared to a casual audience. D&D starters just sit on the shelf. They seem to be missing that casual customer segment completely in D&D. Especially, when games like Magic TCG are crushing it with new player products like Jump Starts.
There's a limit to how casual you can make a game with a rulebook in the hundreds of pages; casual dungeon crawling games are things like Descent and Gloomhaven.
Ending thought? We're going to see subscription based content access in 2024. Mark my words. That's the MTX that's going to happen. Pay for X subscription, get access to Y content on D&D Beyond and with the new VTT.
Subscriptions are pretty much the opposite of the microtransaction business model; I'd consider subscriptions being phased out completely more likely.
But also realize the WotC and Hasbro execs on that call never mentioned microtransactions for D&D.
Maybe they are coming, maybe they aren't. Only news sites and people like some here are saying they are definitely coming. The closest they said on the call was half a sentence I don't think she even finished mentioning something like "recurrent spending" which very well might be subscriptions or might be something else. They didn't specify any details in the about 2 minutes they squeezed in talking about D&D during a 40 minute M:tG investor call. Other people just assumed there would be microtransactions from second hand info in news articles and it's being repeated as settled fact (see the title of this very thread for an example).
There is a lot of wild speculation happening over a few sentences in an interview where 1) customers/fans weren't even the target audience of their comments, but Wall Street investors were (so "under-monetized" is exactly the correct word to use), and 2) D&D wasn't even the topic of the interview. Just to keep this in perspective.
I understand the context of the presentation, I understand that context matters.
Language is important though, and the sort of thinking and strategies certain language promotes can be surprising. The context of this statement doesn't tell me 'ignore it, it's not for you'. It tells me how important people at Hasbro currently view the D&D product and I can make guesses as to what that means for the future. If the language used has been somewhat different that would matter.
This is also not an isolated piece of data, but a part of a greater narrative over the last couple of years that many different sources are reporting on. The fact that can't be ignored is that D&D is receiving a lot more attention from Hasbro than it was in the early days of 5e and it is pretty rare historically when a creative endeavour gets interference from the money people that the result is better or more consumer-friendly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
agree'd i feel like it's a natural progression to just incorporate DNDB into assets to be used in DNDDigital (is that what it's called?) and then maybe cosmetics cost extra. If you want to buy some goblin minis, you pay x amount for a digital pack of them. special maps cost something. This is kind of how other VTT's work in that they offer certain things a la carte.
and i certainly dont believe WoTC will opt out of other VTT's, that just feels too dystopian and short sighted. I think they're going to really try and trade on their brand name and whatever feature set they put together when the VTT launches.
The original proposal seemed to be full 3d, which means its immediate competition appears to be Tabletop Simulator and Talespire.
If I want to use a published monster in roll20, and I want to use a monster I have in DDB but not in roll20, I have to take an image of the monster, clip it with something like TokenTool, upload the token, and if I'm not using Beyond20, create a character sheet. An adventure is more work, I have to handle maps (and dynamic lighting, if I'm using it) and create any handouts I want to give to the PCs. This is more work, but by standards of adventure preparation isn't exactly huge.
If I want to do the same thing in Tabletop Simulator, I need a bunch of 3d unity assets. Most of which don't actually exist because existing artwork is 2d. If they're humanoid or close enough, I can probably use HeroForge (at $7.99 a pop...), otherwise it's time for me to learn a 3d modeling program -- which also probably lacks convenient pre-existing assets for weirder monsters, and if they do exist they probably cost money. If WotC wants to sell digital miniatures (which is absolutely within their established skill set, I'm sure they already use digital modeling for their miniatures, and action figures, and collectibles, and toys, and....) I'm not going to pretend that they aren't offering something extra.
(edit: on reflection, they probably have to negotiate with WizKids).
That's a good point, and I don't know, but I guess we'll see. People might pay a premium; it would depend a lot on what you get for that price. If you buy it here, and you get what amounts to a turnkey adventure -- all the maps are built with those snazzy 3d models, there's tokens/virtual minis for all the npcs, a well-functioning voice chat so you don't need discord/zoom running while you play, maybe throw in animation effects at some point if people want those, all the other bells and whistles -- it might be worth the extra money. Particularly since it's the DM who'll be buying it, they might decide the cash is worth the time they'll save trying to build their own maps, then it will come down to the pricing strategy. If it's a better product, people will pay more for it. (As an aside, this is making me wonder if that's part of what they were thinking with that 80/20 split on spending. Not try and get the other 80 to pay but try and get the 20 who already pay to pay a little more. Realistically, it's probably both.)
And, of course, we don't know what the terms of their licenses are with other VTTs. They could maybe increase the license fees and force them to increase their prices to match. Or not allow them to use things like pre-built maps. Or do both. Make their own product the best value. Other games don't even come close to D&D's popularity on those platforms, WotC can probably dictate terms or decide to take their ball and go home (that is, not let them access 1D&D), and see how long Roll20 can stay afloat on Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu and legacy 5e products. That will piss off some people and they'll likely lose some customers, but some others will just switch over, and new people will just gravitate here. And for the switchers, a new-ish edition, where people are going to buy a new PHB, at least, is a good time to try and get them to switch, since they'll be making an investment in new books, anyway. It will be up to the MBAs to run the numbers and see which way works better.
It's really hard to see what's in these tea leaves. This is all new ground for them and for the hobby generally. They've been a dead tree company since they started, barring a couple failed attempts at digital integration. Then the pandemic and rise of Roll20, et al, made them realize there's money to be made in the virtual space. And they have the corporate resources to make a way cooler looking VTT than the 2d grids that are out there now. They're definitely pushing more and more into digital, and they're going to have to sort out the business model.
Heck, maybe they allow people to sell DMs guild products here, and only here, like an app store (or maybe more like Skyrim modders), and that helps entice people to make this their primary/only VTT.
I guess my point is, there's a lot of ways they could do it. Some of them are hardball business tactics, but not all of them are necessarily greedy, if they can manage to give people appropriate value for the product. (I realize you didn't say greedy, I'm just kind of summing up here.)
But I'm panicking now!!!! :P
#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.
But basically this; I think it's going to be a matter of time before we know for sure and this seems to be the likely guestimate of what will happen. I'm just concerned over what could be a potential attempt at getting people to buy the same product again, assuming D&D Beyond monetise to that micro level.
#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.
speak oh teh debil, Treatmonk just dropped his take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cos31dCws4s&
The phrase itself 'under-monetised' is bad way to frame a problem. If they had rather instead claimed that they feel there are still sectors of the market they are under serving then the whole conversation would probably have a much different context.
We hear under-monetised and fear all the sort of trickery that companies in the digital space could do to carve out content to sell seperately, create artificial problems they can 'sell' solutions to (like character limits for example) and other tactics that aren't consumer-friendly.
If instead it was stated that there were sectors of the market still not being served, like customers calling out for more character customisation options and other products then servicing them would seem a postive thing.
I currently though have little faith in Hasbro. WoTC had huge growth during the pandemic, and trying keep that up is probably unsustainable, let alone the doubling of revenue they have been supposedly pushed into. The push on the Magic the Gathering side has already backfired and caused their stock to get downgraded. The quality of recent products like Spelljammer have let me down, and its not just that it wasn't to my taste, but it felt decidedly cheap and rushed.
I love D&D and do feel like most people at WoTC are trying to make the best products they can. I do fear how much they can do so in the current environment Hasbro is setting, when they use terms like 'under-monetised'.
I won't pretend that Spelljammer was acceptable or anything, or that this is an acceptable excuse for it being subpar, because it isn't, but I'm guessing the reason it was so poor was because they've got their best people working on other stuff - most notably 1D&D. They're using their less experienced staff to just pump stuff out and keep their foot in the door until 1D&D comes out and they can focus on adventures etc again. I'm seeing a similar thing with Civilization VI - they've just released a new pack, but it's obviously been put together by those who have little experience. All their coding just cannibalises old stuff rather than giving novel abilities, and so forth.
The good news, if that's true, is that in 2024 we'll start seeing higher quality content again. The bad news is that we're probably going to have to wait 2+ years before that really happens. Assuming my speculation is correct, of course.
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.
I think based off of everything it's something to be wary of but it's not time for pitchforks yet either.
I mean I hear the word under monetize and from a business stand point I definitely agree with them. However, there are tons of way to monetize dungeons and dragons without destroying the game.
I also agree Linklite is right with the fact that we are seeing poorer quality on some things due to them releasing things people wanted super late (as in they are focused on 1DND and whatever that becomes) such as spelljammer and the new dragonlance (although I haven't nabbed the dragonlance yet and I intend to at some point) but I was at least happy with the digital spelljammer I picked up at a discount, but that's because discount.
Will have to wait and see how things play out, like lots of things.
I haven't finished this video (have to start getting ready for work, it's snowing outside) but got to around the 14 hour mark and regardless of how I feel about most of the stuff Treatmonk has said over time, I've agreed with everything he's said up to this point.
A quick summary so far, buying DDB was smart for the book perspective alone. They are now getting a far bigger cut of digital books sold than they were...and digital books do not have supply issues or other costs that have increased with there actual books (which they also did state they were not going to stop publishing the actual books).
Bear in mind that this was a presentation targeted at shareholders, not customers. It tells us that they think upselling to the current customer base is an option. Also that WotC is profit oriented. Neither of which should be greatly surprising to anyone.
This doesn't mean Wizards is going to do something new and horrible. It also doesn't mean they won't. Honestly, the correct way to interpret this sort of statement is to completely ignore it, as it's pretty much devoid of content.
I can just imagine the signs now: "Dungeons and Dragons, the world's greatest roleplaying game. Pay to win! Only $4.99 for an anti-goblin battlepack booster-upper-stat-bonus-defeater."
In all seriousness, this does concern me a bit: It seems like a boss who doesn't really understand how something works is just trying to push products down peoples throats in order to make more money for a company that feels it isn't doing well financially. Because apparently, hundreds of millions of dollars isn't enough money.
Yeah, I know that D&D is slightly under-monetized, and this certainly isn't the end of the world.. But it just worries me when companies say they are eager to pull more money out of their customers and are moving to microtransactions and video games to do so. I can't say I am not worried, and I really hope the game doesn't alienate its preexisting fanbase. But at the same time, a small part of me is excited to see more and more different types of people being introduced to the game I love.
So I'm willing to wait a bit to pass even more judgement than i already have on this.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.That wouldn't actually be new -- it was a general rule of splatbooks (books for a specific class or small group of classes), back when they were a thing, that if you built your character with a splatbook, that character would be more powerful than a character build with the basic rules, and that this was a significant driver for players buying whatever book matched the character they wanted to play (all of which made for a complete nightmare for the DM).
Honestly, this already exists. If you want more powerful content, you buy the latest content. That's just how D&D has always worked in its edition lifecycles.
Let me be candid with how I feel about this post: LMFAO
Now, let me extrapolate why I am feeling so LMFAO because the intent isn't to laugh at you, but rather the notion.
Dungeons and Dragons, as a concept, is a microtranaction. You can totally play with the SRD. Or you can buy the DMG and PHB. Once you've exhausted those options, now you'll want to buy Xanathars. You can call these purchases, but at the core they are still a microtransaction, effectively Horse Armor. Even with this website, you can buy piecemail options out of a book until you hit the price of the book itself, in which case all of it then unlocks. Honestly, I agree with Wizards that from an economics standpoint the monetization of D&D is piss poor in terms of how Wizards markets content directly to people. There are loads of fantasy things out there, but there aren't a lot of Wizards things they specifically offer.
The problem is how do they increase that? The movie is a start, like some posts said. Buying this website was a key, and honestly the purchase of this website gives me LESS hope for One D&D than any real hope. This website was a treasure trove of data, and every single post gives them more. Honestly, it's a big reason on why I stopped posting so regularly. At least prior to the Wizards purchase I felt as if my opinions MIGHT get heard on some sort of level and POTENTIALLY action taken. Ever since Wizards took over, the site has bled public facing talent and development talent behind the scenes. They have new product managers involved that changed the direction, and instantly this website went on auto pilot as far as we were concerned.
Speaking to Linklite: When I look at One D&D and the changes its making, the goal is to make it backward compatible with 5th. Obviously, not hidden knowledge there but pointing it out because I don't think that was done just for the sake of content. I think specifically it was done with this site in mind and how this digital toolset exists. The problem with the website as a whole is, well, it's not ******* flexible. We're seven months removed from the last dev updates. The "Generic Features System" is dead as far as I'm concerned and we're going to go into One D&D with things that were never implemented from the core books. For all its detractors, the people who hate Tashas are actually "right" about one thing. It broke 5th edition, just not in the way they wanted:
I'm sincerely hopeful for Nexus in the way I was hopeful for D&D Beyond in 2017.
Ending thought? We're going to see subscription based content access in 2024. Mark my words. That's the MTX that's going to happen. Pay for X subscription, get access to Y content on D&D Beyond and with the new VTT.
Subscriptions are pretty much the opposite of the microtransaction business model; I'd consider subscriptions being phased out completely more likely.
I currently work at Target. But, I wouldn't view it as a bad thing if they come out with another starter set or product line that is better geared to a casual audience. D&D starters just sit on the shelf. They seem to be missing that casual customer segment completely in D&D. Especially, when games like Magic TCG are crushing it with new player products like Jump Starts.
They are and aren't.
The way I'm using the word isn't the proper accepted usage. Let's just get the elephant out of the room there. That said, MTX is "small amounts of money for thing". Usually used in games with either buying premium currency to unlock cosmetics, in gacha games to pull units or just flat out charging for things.
Subscriptions are basically just reoccuring MTX(in the gaming space). Small money for thing, but we're wired to think they are different because it's ongoing benefits vs one time usage. It's also important to note that they(Wizards and Hasbro) said "reoccurant spending" in their calls, which would absolutely fall into the subscription model, using the words in the context most would use them.
There's a limit to how casual you can make a game with a rulebook in the hundreds of pages; casual dungeon crawling games are things like Descent and Gloomhaven.
But also realize the WotC and Hasbro execs on that call never mentioned microtransactions for D&D.
Maybe they are coming, maybe they aren't. Only news sites and people like some here are saying they are definitely coming. The closest they said on the call was half a sentence I don't think she even finished mentioning something like "recurrent spending" which very well might be subscriptions or might be something else. They didn't specify any details in the about 2 minutes they squeezed in talking about D&D during a 40 minute M:tG investor call. Other people just assumed there would be microtransactions from second hand info in news articles and it's being repeated as settled fact (see the title of this very thread for an example).
There is a lot of wild speculation happening over a few sentences in an interview where 1) customers/fans weren't even the target audience of their comments, but Wall Street investors were (so "under-monetized" is exactly the correct word to use), and 2) D&D wasn't even the topic of the interview. Just to keep this in perspective.
I understand the context of the presentation, I understand that context matters.
Language is important though, and the sort of thinking and strategies certain language promotes can be surprising. The context of this statement doesn't tell me 'ignore it, it's not for you'. It tells me how important people at Hasbro currently view the D&D product and I can make guesses as to what that means for the future. If the language used has been somewhat different that would matter.
This is also not an isolated piece of data, but a part of a greater narrative over the last couple of years that many different sources are reporting on. The fact that can't be ignored is that D&D is receiving a lot more attention from Hasbro than it was in the early days of 5e and it is pretty rare historically when a creative endeavour gets interference from the money people that the result is better or more consumer-friendly.