next version of the game is NOT going to be online only. That is ridiculous. WotC loves the small stores and even has made special covers for them and have in the past tried to promote events in stores. I dont see them moving to an all digital model. They are going to provide more online services that you can opt into if you want.
They do want to provide more products that Players and not just DMs want because that area has been neglected. DMs are the whales of D&D spending the majority of the money. We buy everything.
When it comes to anything WotC related now, I will only believe it when I see it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Well apparently the Execs all hate you and see you as obstacles to their money. They're also screwing those little stores by putting the books up for purchase two weeks online before they can physically buy them in stores. Wizards dude in charge comes from an MMO background, he WANTS all of it online.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I don't give a rat's f***ing ass how big it is, it can still bleed and I'm not dealing with this s*** a minute longer!!!" -Brass Khorne, Dragonborn Rogue/Fighter Battlemaster.
"Welcome to the Weeping Willow! Ale, rooms, or both?...Yes, dogs are fine, why does everyone ask that?" -Lucky Shot, Tabaxi Eldritch Knight and Innkeeper
"Greetings, I'm Sir Dexter of House Barkton. What do I do? I'm a Good Boy." -Dexter, Awakened Dog Rogue and knight of the realm.
Well apparently the Execs all hate you and see you as obstacles to their money. They're also screwing those little stores by putting the books up for purchase two weeks online before they can physically buy them in stores. Wizards dude in charge comes from an MMO background, he WANTS all of it online.
This doesn't mean they hate us, Cody. It's business. And, we need to face reality: the world is going online. Heck, the books I buy for college are predominantly online/digital. To be honest, WotC is a little "behind the times" in embracing the digital revolution (I imagine this was one of the many reasons for them buying DnDBeyond).
We, the consumers, should treat this game like a business as well. If we don't like the product, we don't buy it. Many of us have really gotten very emotional of late and I worry that these emotions are misplaced and/or unhealthy. It is a game, even if one that brings friends and families together around the table. Still, at the end of the day, it's a game -- a product -- and we can always walk away from a product that does not serve us any more.
For me, I mostly run homebrew adventures (except currently, as I am running Shadow of the Dragon Queen), and DnDBeyond is an invaluable tool in my arsenal of tools. As a product, however I admit to becoming dissatisfied as NOTHING has been done to enhance the Gamemaster side of things. I have to use 3rd-party tools (e.g., Owlbear Rodeo as my VTT and Improved Initiative for my combat tracker) to supplement DnDBeyond. If I walk away, it'll be because the PRODUCT no longer serves me to my standards, not because I care two figs about how I am regarded by the management team at Hasbro or WotC.
Well apparently the Execs all hate you and see you as obstacles to their money. They're also screwing those little stores by putting the books up for purchase two weeks online before they can physically buy them in stores. Wizards dude in charge comes from an MMO background, he WANTS all of it online.
The nightmare that is physical inventory is the biggest thing that nearly killed the game in the past. It has nothing to do with hating anyone or 'screwing' anyone.
All those books need shelf space and have delivery costs and when you guess wrong on sales volume projections you can and too often do end up stuck having to stick massive stockpiles somewhere in the hopes they will eventually sell.
If everything you write is brilliant, then it might not be a problem but 'Write better' is far easier to say than to actually achieve.
Mate, with all due respect, that's nonsense.
They tried to screw over the 3PP - which would put them out of business and leave us with fewer choices. They tried to go back on a legally binding contract that had been in place for 22 years as if it was a "test"... a test that was sent out with CONTRACTS attached. They tried to establish ownership of our ideas we use privately. They tried to put VTT vendors out of business - despite it being Hasbro's own fault that they were late (WAY late) coming into the market.
It was underhanded, unethical, and unwelcome. And what's worse, they LIED time and time again about what they were doing and their motivations for doing it.
They got spanked for it and deservedly so.
Your argument about inventory is ridiculous. They use "just-in-time" production - limiting their physical storage and limiting their exposure.
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons. https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
They tried to screw over the 3PP - which would put them out of business and leave us with fewer choices. They tried to go back on a legally binding contract that had been in place for 22 years as if it was a "test"... a test that was sent out with CONTRACTS attached. They tried to establish ownership of our ideas we use privately. They tried to put VTT vendors out of business - despite it being Hasbro's own fault that they were late (WAY late) coming into the market.
They got spanked for it and deservedly so.
For one, the Open Game License only really affects works published publicly for money. Saying that Wizards was trying to control your private ideas is incorrect.
Secondly, Wizards never said that what they were doing was a "test". They said it was a draft for a contract, and that statement is correct.
Thirdly, they didn't try to "go back" on the License. They tried to update it, which is different and - according to a lawyer on Enworld - legally allowed.
Also, as I explained HERE, this change would have mostly just affected really big third-party publishers making money off Wizards' intellectual property. So yes, Open Game License 1.1 was bad. That being said, how bad it was and how many people it would actually devastate + cause to lose jobs is often drastically exaggerated.
Finally, a lot of the outrage was unreasonable, speculation based, and rude. There was an extreme lack of civility from some users that seemed to treat anyone who disagreed with them as "enemies". You seem to be attempting to justify some of the panic and misinformation that caused this situation to spiral out of control and got lots of people to verbally attack others.
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.
For one, the Open Game License only really affects works published publicly for money. Saying that Wizards was trying to control your private ideas is incorrect.
Secondly, Wizards never said that what they were doing was a "test". They said it was a draft for a contract, and that statement is correct.
Thirdly, they didn't try to "go back" on the License. They tried to update it, which is different and - according to a lawyer on Enworld - legally allowed.
Also, as I explained HERE, this change would have mostly just affected really big third-party publishers making money off Wizards' intellectual property. So yes, Open Game License 1.1 was bad. That being said, how bad it was and how many people it would actually devastate + cause to lose jobs is often drastically exaggerated.
Finally, a lot of the outrage was unreasonable, speculation based, and rude. There was an extreme lack of civility from some users that seemed to treat anyone who disagreed with them as "enemies". You seem to be attempting to justify some of the panic and misinformation that caused this situation to spiral out of control and got lots of people to verbally attack others.
1) What they are actually attempting to control is the CONCEPT of a fighter or the CONCEPT of a fireball. While it's technically true that they probably weren't specifically targeting my personal concept of what my specific interpretation of a "5e derived fighter barbarian hybrid named fred who really hates trees because he found a cursed axe that also hates trees and decided to roll with it" is, they were, in fact, claiming to own it.
2) They said a lot more than that. Your summery of what they said glosses over the bits about it being an "early draft" and "seeking input from the community" and about a dozen other misleading statements that were *objectively* dishonest.
3) Depends entirely on the license, but that's beside the point. If Wizards believed that they could have simply "updated" the language of OGL 1.0a without deauthorizing the previous 1.0a, they would have done that. The fact that they went out of their way to make up new legal jargon to create a non-sensical loophole that they could use to "un-authorize" 1.0a demonstrates that, their lawyers disagreed. Had they published an "updated" version without that language, guess what happens? People keep using the other one. Why? Because 1.0a EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY CAN! So yeah, they broke the contract. Terminated it. De/Un-Authorized it. (Also, rather informatively, they did not attempt to REVOKE the contract, but instead attempted to twist it to say something that it clearly didn't say. I find that weird, as well, since your lawyer friend says that revoking the license was clearly legal and yet no version of any "draft" OGL used that language. Maybe Wizard's lawyers didn't get that memo?)
Finally "a lot" is a subjective term, and I'd argue that rude is par for the course when you do something wildly unpopular and borderline illegal, both completely without warning and in what is perhaps the single shadiest way imaginable, while repeatedly lying about it to our face... BUT let's put all that aside for a moment and talk about this "speculation" that occurs when someone points a gun at someone else's head and people start drawing conclusions about WHY you're doing it. Some people might call that "speculation." Others might call it an inference or a hypothesis, or a conclusion. Most people, though, are willing to stipulate that whatever the reason, you don't draw a gun that you don't intend to fire. Something was happening, and it really, at the end of the day, doesn't really matter what. What matters is the mad gunman was stopped before anyone could get hurt.
about a dozen other misleading statements that were *objectively* dishonest.
They absolutely were not, and all you do by repeating this is make it clear how *objectively* biased your opinions are
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
about a dozen other misleading statements that were *objectively* dishonest.
They absolutely were not, and all you do by repeating this is make it clear how *objectively* biased your opinions are
People use that word incorrectly. Of course my opinion is biased. It's an informed opinion. Unbiased would imply either ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty on my part while I feigned ignorance or obliviousness. Speaking of bias,by the way, interesting method you have of quoting half a sentence while deliberately excluding the bit that directly undermines what you're saying. It makes it seem like you were objecting to my characterization of Wizards' attitudes when in fact, you know i'm right and you're actually playing semantics games with "about a dozen." Crafty. Almost didn't catch it. Bravo indeed.
Under monetized because 80%+ comes from DMs. There isnt enough player focused products for players. Unfortunately this is a bit of a falsehood in that DMs are also players so anything you make for players will probably also appeal to DMs. But, if they can lift the floor for players then that creates more revenue from DMs as well. Most likely this will be player tokens for the VTT and a more attractive player subscription tier for D&D beyond.
Under monetized because 80%+ comes from DMs. There isnt enough player focused products for players. Unfortunately this is a bit of a falsehood in that DMs are also players so anything you make for players will probably also appeal to DMs. But, if they can lift the floor for players then that creates more revenue from DMs as well. Most likely this will be player tokens for the VTT and a more attractive player subscription tier for D&D beyond.
Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Caldron of the rest of Everything, Fizbang's Treasury of not just Dragons, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's certainly a lot of player related content and they may even increase sales to players by spreading that content between books.
Under monetized because 80%+ comes from DMs. There isnt enough player focused products for players. Unfortunately this is a bit of a falsehood in that DMs are also players so anything you make for players will probably also appeal to DMs. But, if they can lift the floor for players then that creates more revenue from DMs as well. Most likely this will be player tokens for the VTT and a more attractive player subscription tier for D&D beyond.
Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Caldron of the rest of Everything, Fizbang's Treasury of not just Dragons, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's certainly a lot of player related content and they may even increase sales to players by spreading that content between books.
In my 40 years of experience, players don't really buy books. I don't really see that changing. What players buy are dice, t-shirts, mugs and the like. I don't mind it so much, but if I am going to buy all the books anyway, I do prefer to keep the DM and Player books separate. But my wants may not match well with the rest of the community.
Under monetized because 80%+ comes from DMs. There isnt enough player focused products for players. Unfortunately this is a bit of a falsehood in that DMs are also players so anything you make for players will probably also appeal to DMs. But, if they can lift the floor for players then that creates more revenue from DMs as well. Most likely this will be player tokens for the VTT and a more attractive player subscription tier for D&D beyond.
Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Caldron of the rest of Everything, Fizbang's Treasury of not just Dragons, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's certainly a lot of player related content and they may even increase sales to players by spreading that content between books.
In my 40 years of experience, players don't really buy books. I don't really see that changing. What players buy are dice, t-shirts, mugs and the like. I don't mind it so much, but if I am going to buy all the books anyway, I do prefer to keep the DM and Player books separate. But my wants may not match well with the rest of the community.
Do you think DM's generally would buy more book copies of "Xanathar's Guide/Tasha's Caldron of DMthings"?
Yes. As a DM I have always bought player facing books as well as DM facing books. I use both. It is just easier to hand them the player/character information to reference while keeping the DM information handy for myself. Of the dozen people I play with currently, only one other person owns more than a PHB, just so happens that they are also a DM.
Edit: One of the major issues I have with 5e is the lack of DM support. There should be more of that.
Under monetized because 80%+ comes from DMs. There isnt enough player focused products for players. Unfortunately this is a bit of a falsehood in that DMs are also players so anything you make for players will probably also appeal to DMs. But, if they can lift the floor for players then that creates more revenue from DMs as well. Most likely this will be player tokens for the VTT and a more attractive player subscription tier for D&D beyond.
Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Caldron of the rest of Everything, Fizbang's Treasury of not just Dragons, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's certainly a lot of player related content and they may even increase sales to players by spreading that content between books.
In my 40 years of experience, players don't really buy books. I don't really see that changing. What players buy are dice, t-shirts, mugs and the like. I don't mind it so much, but if I am going to buy all the books anyway, I do prefer to keep the DM and Player books separate. But my wants may not match well with the rest of the community.
If they want players buying books, they should look to the old 2e idea of class-specific handbooks, which might contain stuff like build concepts ("if you want to be this kind of cleric, here's the background/subclass/spells/feats to consider" etc.), strategy tips, and maybe a few new subclasses, spells and the like sprinkled in for people who want to buy new content. Could even do the same thing for PC races species
Make them digital-only if WotC doesn't think enough people would buy physical copies (or bundle up the new content from all of them into a new hardcover afterward)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Under monetized because 80%+ comes from DMs. There isnt enough player focused products for players. Unfortunately this is a bit of a falsehood in that DMs are also players so anything you make for players will probably also appeal to DMs. But, if they can lift the floor for players then that creates more revenue from DMs as well. Most likely this will be player tokens for the VTT and a more attractive player subscription tier for D&D beyond.
Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Caldron of the rest of Everything, Fizbang's Treasury of not just Dragons, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's certainly a lot of player related content and they may even increase sales to players by spreading that content between books.
In my 40 years of experience, players don't really buy books. I don't really see that changing. What players buy are dice, t-shirts, mugs and the like. I don't mind it so much, but if I am going to buy all the books anyway, I do prefer to keep the DM and Player books separate. But my wants may not match well with the rest of the community.
If they want players buying books, they should look to the old 2e idea of class-specific handbooks, which might contain stuff like build concepts ("if you want to be this kind of cleric, here's the background/subclass/spells/feats to consider" etc.), strategy tips, and maybe a few new subclasses, spells and the like sprinkled in for people who want to buy new content. Could even do the same thing for PC races species
Make them digital-only if WotC doesn't think enough people would buy physical copies (or bundle up the new content from all of them into a new hardcover afterward)
I really liked those books, but even then, it was the DM that had a copy. Then again, my friends and I were young and broke in the days of 2e so owning our own copies of books was not really an option, so my experience may not be the same as yours.
To the Question: Will I cancel my Subscription: NO. I don't wish to punish my players or the group I play in by unsubscribing at this time, but please WoTC don't misunderstand I'm quite annoyed by these events.
I'm not going to engage in the debate of right and wrong, interpretation of what OGL 1.1 means or what was intended by it. IMO the summation is this, it has angered a lot of people and done damage to the greater D&D creative community, which weakens the game for all.
My players and I have benefited a lot from the D&D creative community mainly via DMsGuild and I'm almost ready to release my first Adventure for publication. Not for the money, but to giving back to that creative community ... I suspect I will hold off for now and see where this goes.
I've been playing D&D since the Red Box Basic set and have been loyal to the game through many editions. I've owned personally or in a group many books over the years and more recently a reasonable number of the 5e books. I'm now considering alternate TTRPG's to see what is about, and I suspect many others may be too.
Do you think DM's generally would buy more book copies of "Xanathar's Guide/Tasha's Caldron of DMthings"?
My DM has them, as a player and occasional DM I haven't brought either, they are on the wishlist if they become available cheap at some point but not essential.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When it comes to anything WotC related now, I will only believe it when I see it.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Well apparently the Execs all hate you and see you as obstacles to their money. They're also screwing those little stores by putting the books up for purchase two weeks online before they can physically buy them in stores. Wizards dude in charge comes from an MMO background, he WANTS all of it online.
"I don't give a rat's f***ing ass how big it is, it can still bleed and I'm not dealing with this s*** a minute longer!!!" -Brass Khorne, Dragonborn Rogue/Fighter Battlemaster.
"Welcome to the Weeping Willow! Ale, rooms, or both?...Yes, dogs are fine, why does everyone ask that?" -Lucky Shot, Tabaxi Eldritch Knight and Innkeeper
"Greetings, I'm Sir Dexter of House Barkton. What do I do? I'm a Good Boy." -Dexter, Awakened Dog Rogue and knight of the realm.
This doesn't mean they hate us, Cody. It's business. And, we need to face reality: the world is going online. Heck, the books I buy for college are predominantly online/digital. To be honest, WotC is a little "behind the times" in embracing the digital revolution (I imagine this was one of the many reasons for them buying DnDBeyond).
We, the consumers, should treat this game like a business as well. If we don't like the product, we don't buy it. Many of us have really gotten very emotional of late and I worry that these emotions are misplaced and/or unhealthy. It is a game, even if one that brings friends and families together around the table. Still, at the end of the day, it's a game -- a product -- and we can always walk away from a product that does not serve us any more.
For me, I mostly run homebrew adventures (except currently, as I am running Shadow of the Dragon Queen), and DnDBeyond is an invaluable tool in my arsenal of tools. As a product, however I admit to becoming dissatisfied as NOTHING has been done to enhance the Gamemaster side of things. I have to use 3rd-party tools (e.g., Owlbear Rodeo as my VTT and Improved Initiative for my combat tracker) to supplement DnDBeyond. If I walk away, it'll be because the PRODUCT no longer serves me to my standards, not because I care two figs about how I am regarded by the management team at Hasbro or WotC.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Mate, with all due respect, that's nonsense.
They tried to screw over the 3PP - which would put them out of business and leave us with fewer choices. They tried to go back on a legally binding contract that had been in place for 22 years as if it was a "test"... a test that was sent out with CONTRACTS attached. They tried to establish ownership of our ideas we use privately. They tried to put VTT vendors out of business - despite it being Hasbro's own fault that they were late (WAY late) coming into the market.
It was underhanded, unethical, and unwelcome. And what's worse, they LIED time and time again about what they were doing and their motivations for doing it.
They got spanked for it and deservedly so.
Your argument about inventory is ridiculous. They use "just-in-time" production - limiting their physical storage and limiting their exposure.
I'm sorry, but you're a bit off topic here.
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons.
https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla
The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
For one, the Open Game License only really affects works published publicly for money. Saying that Wizards was trying to control your private ideas is incorrect.
Secondly, Wizards never said that what they were doing was a "test". They said it was a draft for a contract, and that statement is correct.
Thirdly, they didn't try to "go back" on the License. They tried to update it, which is different and - according to a lawyer on Enworld - legally allowed.
Also, as I explained HERE, this change would have mostly just affected really big third-party publishers making money off Wizards' intellectual property. So yes, Open Game License 1.1 was bad. That being said, how bad it was and how many people it would actually devastate + cause to lose jobs is often drastically exaggerated.
Finally, a lot of the outrage was unreasonable, speculation based, and rude. There was an extreme lack of civility from some users that seemed to treat anyone who disagreed with them as "enemies". You seem to be attempting to justify some of the panic and misinformation that caused this situation to spiral out of control and got lots of people to verbally attack others.
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.1) What they are actually attempting to control is the CONCEPT of a fighter or the CONCEPT of a fireball. While it's technically true that they probably weren't specifically targeting my personal concept of what my specific interpretation of a "5e derived fighter barbarian hybrid named fred who really hates trees because he found a cursed axe that also hates trees and decided to roll with it" is, they were, in fact, claiming to own it.
2) They said a lot more than that. Your summery of what they said glosses over the bits about it being an "early draft" and "seeking input from the community" and about a dozen other misleading statements that were *objectively* dishonest.
3) Depends entirely on the license, but that's beside the point. If Wizards believed that they could have simply "updated" the language of OGL 1.0a without deauthorizing the previous 1.0a, they would have done that. The fact that they went out of their way to make up new legal jargon to create a non-sensical loophole that they could use to "un-authorize" 1.0a demonstrates that, their lawyers disagreed. Had they published an "updated" version without that language, guess what happens? People keep using the other one. Why? Because 1.0a EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY CAN! So yeah, they broke the contract. Terminated it. De/Un-Authorized it. (Also, rather informatively, they did not attempt to REVOKE the contract, but instead attempted to twist it to say something that it clearly didn't say. I find that weird, as well, since your lawyer friend says that revoking the license was clearly legal and yet no version of any "draft" OGL used that language. Maybe Wizard's lawyers didn't get that memo?)
Finally "a lot" is a subjective term, and I'd argue that rude is par for the course when you do something wildly unpopular and borderline illegal, both completely without warning and in what is perhaps the single shadiest way imaginable, while repeatedly lying about it to our face... BUT let's put all that aside for a moment and talk about this "speculation" that occurs when someone points a gun at someone else's head and people start drawing conclusions about WHY you're doing it. Some people might call that "speculation." Others might call it an inference or a hypothesis, or a conclusion. Most people, though, are willing to stipulate that whatever the reason, you don't draw a gun that you don't intend to fire. Something was happening, and it really, at the end of the day, doesn't really matter what. What matters is the mad gunman was stopped before anyone could get hurt.
They absolutely were not, and all you do by repeating this is make it clear how *objectively* biased your opinions are
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Maybe you two should give specific examples.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
I did. 2 of them.
People use that word incorrectly. Of course my opinion is biased. It's an informed opinion. Unbiased would imply either ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty on my part while I feigned ignorance or obliviousness. Speaking of bias, by the way, interesting method you have of quoting half a sentence while deliberately excluding the bit that directly undermines what you're saying. It makes it seem like you were objecting to my characterization of Wizards' attitudes when in fact, you know i'm right and you're actually playing semantics games with "about a dozen." Crafty. Almost didn't catch it. Bravo indeed.
What's clear is that this was a colossal blunder that didn't need to happen. A legendary failure of epic proportions. "Under-monetized" LOL
Under monetized because 80%+ comes from DMs. There isnt enough player focused products for players. Unfortunately this is a bit of a falsehood in that DMs are also players so anything you make for players will probably also appeal to DMs. But, if they can lift the floor for players then that creates more revenue from DMs as well. Most likely this will be player tokens for the VTT and a more attractive player subscription tier for D&D beyond.
Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Caldron of the rest of Everything, Fizbang's Treasury of not just Dragons, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's certainly a lot of player related content and they may even increase sales to players by spreading that content between books.
In my 40 years of experience, players don't really buy books. I don't really see that changing. What players buy are dice, t-shirts, mugs and the like. I don't mind it so much, but if I am going to buy all the books anyway, I do prefer to keep the DM and Player books separate. But my wants may not match well with the rest of the community.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Do you think DM's generally would buy more book copies of "Xanathar's Guide/Tasha's Caldron of DMthings"?
Yes. As a DM I have always bought player facing books as well as DM facing books. I use both. It is just easier to hand them the player/character information to reference while keeping the DM information handy for myself. Of the dozen people I play with currently, only one other person owns more than a PHB, just so happens that they are also a DM.
Edit: One of the major issues I have with 5e is the lack of DM support. There should be more of that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If they want players buying books, they should look to the old 2e idea of class-specific handbooks, which might contain stuff like build concepts ("if you want to be this kind of cleric, here's the background/subclass/spells/feats to consider" etc.), strategy tips, and maybe a few new subclasses, spells and the like sprinkled in for people who want to buy new content. Could even do the same thing for PC
racesspeciesMake them digital-only if WotC doesn't think enough people would buy physical copies (or bundle up the new content from all of them into a new hardcover afterward)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I really liked those books, but even then, it was the DM that had a copy. Then again, my friends and I were young and broke in the days of 2e so owning our own copies of books was not really an option, so my experience may not be the same as yours.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To the Question: Will I cancel my Subscription: NO.
I don't wish to punish my players or the group I play in by unsubscribing at this time, but please WoTC don't misunderstand I'm quite annoyed by these events.
I'm not going to engage in the debate of right and wrong, interpretation of what OGL 1.1 means or what was intended by it. IMO the summation is this, it has angered a lot of people and done damage to the greater D&D creative community, which weakens the game for all.
My players and I have benefited a lot from the D&D creative community mainly via DMsGuild and I'm almost ready to release my first Adventure for publication. Not for the money, but to giving back to that creative community ... I suspect I will hold off for now and see where this goes.
I've been playing D&D since the Red Box Basic set and have been loyal to the game through many editions. I've owned personally or in a group many books over the years and more recently a reasonable number of the 5e books. I'm now considering alternate TTRPG's to see what is about, and I suspect many others may be too.
My DM has them, as a player and occasional DM I haven't brought either, they are on the wishlist if they become available cheap at some point but not essential.