Is WotC planning an statements, like the previous ones, adressing why this absurd sentence regarding the VTT animation and visual effects? Maybe these are not the key of Foundry success, and maybe not even 1% of Foundry users use this layer of colours and nimations, but... They don't make this a videogame, not even close! Is just minor visual sffects! It has zero impact in the roleplaying experience, It does not bring closer VTTs and videogames, the DM still controlls everything!
So... Why this sentence in the OGL? Is really Chris Cao so so so obsessed in Foundry anihilation?
VTTs are video games, in terms of what they are. I've yet to hear a definition that didn't wrongly classify a videogame as a VTT or vice versa. The difference is not really in the substance of what the program is, but in how you use it. You could, in theory, use Skyrim or other game as a VTT. I mean, take KoToR; carve out the AI, replace it with a human and you have a textbook VTT. However, is it really the presence of an AI the issue? I mean, Fortnite has no AI. Is it about a human controlling masses of units? Then perhaps Battlefield 2142 or Age of Empires, then? There is no easy definition that distinguishes a VTT from a video game, because it is a video game, and the distinction is pretty arbitrary. It's how it is used that makes one or the other. And that's a problem because you can't really enforce rules on how it's used - only on how it's created and distributed.
Perhaps there's something I haven't seen, but from what I have seen, WotC is fine with VTTs, but they want video games to use a custom license (remember, not being covered by OGL does not mean it's banned, only that it requires a custom agreement). I can see that. VTTs help support the hobby (which is what WotC wants from the OGL) while video games don't do anywhere near as much and are quite profitable - leeching off the D&D IP in that case is unreasonable, so WotC wants compensation. However, as discussed earlier in the post, finding a definition is difficult because there is no natural distinction. Videogames are, at their base, a VTT but with further automation. Hence the clumsy definitions being thrown around, both by posters here and WotC.
Is there current definition of a video game (versus a VTT) overly expansive in an attempt to reduce competition for their new VTT that they're producing? I suspect so. Their VTT does seem to be on the video game side of things. Before anyone Jumps in, no, this is not hypocritical. They never said video games were banned or immoral - only that they want a custom agreement for them, which as I've explained before, is reasonable because they're not giving back in the same way that Kobold Press or Critical Roll are. Still, I do think they need to reel that definition back a little - I really don't think the line between VTTs and videogames is at spell effects. I'm having trouble coming up with a solid definition, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
But do Chris Cao, WotC, realize that If they make us choose between DnD and Foundry, we surely pick Foundry, right? Tell me that they are not so crazy to think that we are going to reject all the Foundry mods ecosystem...
So... Why this sentence in the OGL? Is really Chris Cao so so so obsessed in Foundry anihilation?
WoTC/Hasbro propably - almost certainly - have no interest what so ever in hurting Foundry in the least.
But the leap from VTT to action RPG isn't so great. If I'm a computer game developer, and I'm doing a game we could call - for ease of reference - Baldur's Gate IV, I could easily do this:
Publish a VTT - then publish an adventure package for it I called Baldur's Game IV. And BG V, BG VI, and so on.
And wham-bam-thank-you-WoTC, I've just published a major RPG title free of any license payment. And I hope we can all agree .... that really isn't entirely fair.
So they're not out to get Foundry, Foundry is propably too small a fish to be of any interest what so ever. No, instead they want to protect their intellectual property, which is their fair and justified right to do.
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.
But do Chris Cao, WotC, realize that If they make us choose between DnD and Foundry, we surely pick Foundry, right?
Correction: Sangros_ would pick Foundry. The DDB Discord has more than ten times as many users, and due to them having multiple forums, that's and understatement. Foundry's numbers aren't even just for 5e either - meaning that, as competition for D&D players, they're probably like 1% or less the size of DDB. They're probably not even a consideration.
Tell me that they are not so crazy to think that we are going to reject all the Foundry mods ecosystem...
I, and probably 99% of D&D players, wasn't even aware that they had any until you mentioned it. We can't choose something we're not aware of. Perhaps you'll stay with Foundry...and that's cool. However, most will stay with DDB. I will be. Whether I use the VTT is dependent on their pricing structure. If it's free (or free with books I own), I'll give it a go, and if I find it easy to use, I'll keep using it in some manner.
Which leads me to the thread title - I don't think he is obsessed with Foundry. Or even VTTs in general. WotC are just trying to carve a decent deal for themselves and VTTs are a part of their vision - it's the people on forums and posting videos that are spinning it as an attack on VTTs. Probably because it sounds more salacious than "business spends hundreds of millions on IP and now doesn't want others to make a fortune off of it without paying something back". They definitely have overreached on stuff, but this personal vendetta that people are projecting onto WotC is just...not very well substantiated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
But do Chris Cao, WotC, realize that If they make us choose between DnD and Foundry, we surely pick Foundry, right?
Correction: Sangros_ would pick Foundry. The DDB Discord has more than ten times as many users, and due to them having multiple forums, that's and understatement. Foundry's numbers aren't even just for 5e either - meaning that, as competition for D&D players, they're probably like 1% or less the size of DDB. They're probably not even a consideration.
Tell me that they are not so crazy to think that we are going to reject all the Foundry mods ecosystem...
I, and probably 99% of D&D players, wasn't even aware that they had any until you mentioned it. We can't choose something we're not aware of. Perhaps you'll stay with Foundry...and that's cool. However, most will stay with DDB. I will be. Whether I use the VTT is dependent on their pricing structure. If it's free (or free with books I own), I'll give it a go, and if I find it easy to use, I'll keep using it in some manner.
Which leads me to the thread title - I don't think he is obsessed with Foundry. Or even VTTs in general. WotC are just trying to carve a decent deal for themselves and VTTs are a part of their vision - it's the people on forums and posting videos that are spinning it as an attack on VTTs. Probably because it sounds more salacious than "business spends hundreds of millions on IP and now doesn't want others to make a fortune off of it without paying something back". They definitely have overreached on stuff, but this personal vendetta that people are projecting onto WotC is just...not very well substantiated.
I would say this is correct in fact but make them WOTC look like totally misunderstood sweethearts being bullied. Don't be fooled by the "O" in Open Gaming License they just have to keep it in the name for legal reasons (Uh...I think?) and make it look pretty for people who don't know or care about the past 23 years. "Open" in the sense of "Open Source" (which the OGL was originally inspired for) is dead and whatever we end up is the spiritual GSL 2.0 not the OGL 2.0. If you want to know how WOTC is going to treat the community in the future, no matter how they gussy up the OGL, look to how Nintendo or Disney handles their IP and smile to yourself knowing that (or at least something close to it) is the future of the space.
As for Foundry if they keep this up expect them to go down. After all, if a mafia don needs to control a neighberhood there's a good chance a butcher shop or two might need to go up in flames. I know this sounds rather dramatic and I'm not trying to troll you or anything else but this seismic shift from an Open (as in Open Source) to the more draconic (pun!) shift to what is now considered a 'standard' use of IP is pretty dramatic in and of itself. VTT is now D&D's neighberhood and a lot of butcher shops are going to close down or pay tribute the Boss demands of them.
Edited to add: I'll be honest, if Hasbro had been a brutal IP overlord for the past 23 years this probably wouldn't have been much of an issue. Nobody would have paid much attention than they do when Disney sues a preschool or Nintendo pulls the plug on a tournament at the last second just to screw with the organizers. Of course according to some they've achieved success DESPITE 23 years of Open Gaming from it but from my perspective they've thrived quite a bit and helped provide a lot of enjoyment. That's all coming to an end.
I would say this is correct in fact but make them WOTC look like totally misunderstood sweethearts being bullied.
I'll point out that on this thread as well as others, I have called out things that WotC have been doing wrong, and I don't hold that they're innocent at all. I've been a vocal critic of WotC on the board for a long time. The fact is though that there is a lot of exaggeration and spin, and the post is intended to balance that, rather than to be balanced itself.
I do think IP law needs a radical overhaul. Both to prevent the bullying that happens as well as the forced protectionism even when the IP owner doesn't want to enforce it.
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 would say this is correct in fact but make them WOTC look like totally misunderstood sweethearts being bullied.
I'll point out that on this thread as well as others, I have called out things that WotC have been doing wrong, and I don't hold that they're innocent at all. I've been a vocal critic of WotC on the board for a long time. The fact is though that there is a lot of exaggeration and spin, and the post is intended to balance that, rather than to be balanced itself.
I do think IP law needs a radical overhaul. Both to prevent the bullying that happens as well as the forced protectionism even when the IP owner doesn't want to enforce it.
As somone who is very often the devil's advocate IRL I appreciate your opinion and your take on things. I don't agree with you about the 'exaggeration and spin' but thank you for the very mature response. I certainly have a perspective having worked on a software patent, having published a few minor things under the CC as well as makng things with the GNU license, and having a very close friend who is directly getting tied up in all of this (not VTTs specifically but the whole OGL drama). Additionally I got into D&D as a teenager thanks to 3PP (the Creature Collection as well as Relics and Rituals) way back in 2000/2001. I've also seen for years what draonic IP owners have done to great tools, projects, and communities, especially video games but also much more close to home MTG. So yeah, I find it hard to see WOTC's perspective as anything but nasty but I guess that's a "Me Problem."
Is WotC planning a statements, like the previous ones, adressing why this absurd sentence regarding the VTT animation and visual effects?
You mean a third statement? Six days ago they acknowledged that drawing the line between VTT and video game can be hard because it is more of a spectrum than a strict divide, and that they are working on the policy to find a different metric for differentiation. And they acknowledged that they will be reworking the VTT policy due to the feedback received. About 14 hours ago they specifically stated animations were the wrong metric to use.
Are you shutting down VTTs with OGL 1.2?
No. We love VTTs and we do not want to shut them down. We have received great feedback on our VTT policy thus far, and we welcome more of it.
How are you differentiating between a VTT and video games?
We understand there is a spectrum between virtual tabletops and video games. The VTT policy will get updated and we’d like to hear your thoughts on the VTT policy question in our playtest survey.
Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.
Hasbro put 150M$ into buying DDB + presumably 20-50M$ into the development of the OneDND VTT.
Hasbro/WotC Top Management wants to monopolize D&D VTT and D&D online gaming and they want to establish D&D online gaming as the future standard for their revenue (probably against the general opinion of the devs of D&D at WotC and DDB).
This is, what really worries me. They are going in a direction, the actual TTRPG community does not want, but where they see the most money... MMORPG stuff
Hasbro put 150M$ into buying DDB + presumably 20-50M$ into the development of the OneDND VTT.
Hasbro/WotC Top Management wants to monopolize D&D VTT and D&D online gaming and they want to establish D&D online gaming as the future standard for their revenue (probably against the general opinion of the devs of D&D at WotC and DDB).
This is, what really worries me. They are going in a direction, the actual TTRPG community does not want, but where they see the most money... MMORPG stuff
If they wanted to 'monopolize online D&D gaming' why do they support Avrae, which lets anyone play online on discord (which Hasbro does not control) and is compatible with Roll20 (which has a licensing agreement with Hasbro but is not being controlled by them)?
I think, until OneDND is ready, they will not bother. Might be different, when it comes to 2024... who knows... Just worried about the direction.
Probably because the development of "D&D Digital Project Sandcastle" seems in development since 2021, and there's an f-ton of money involved already? Doing a quick google search, some Designer Dude even has posted features he's been working on in his private Resume website. Can't confirm if this is BS or not, tho.
First of all, and I am not sure this is the right forum but I hope someone reads all these. I would like DND Beyond to let us know the future of DND Beyond, especially with the news that this Cao guy has a bee in his bonnet for it. My group enjoys using and sharing content on Beyond and I really do find it a great resource. Saying that, we will not be purchasing another product on the platform (or books for that matter) until we are sure the resource will be around for the long run and is part of the next version of DnD. We have enough content to run our games for 2-3 years so are not in any hurry to react.
As for the VTT, it looks cool and as long as the price to play is not restrictive we will try it. But we are in person players and I admit I love using AboveVtt on a TV built into our table. It is easy to use and meets our playing needs perfectly. This is the direction we would like DnD to go. Make it easy and encourage in person play that can shift to virtual if need be. We do not need a video game and we will not be purchasing things like skins. I find that dump in video games and would be dumb in DnD. We are all professionals in our life and have the money to spend, but we also know when something is just to line the pockets of execs.
But do Chris Cao, WotC, realize that If they make us choose between DnD and Foundry, we surely pick Foundry, right? Tell me that they are not so crazy to think that we are going to reject all the Foundry mods ecosystem...
Hasbro put 150M$ into buying DDB + presumably 20-50M$ into the development of the OneDND VTT.
Hasbro/WotC Top Management wants to monopolize D&D VTT and D&D online gaming and they want to establish D&D online gaming as the future standard for their revenue (probably against the general opinion of the devs of D&D at WotC and DDB).
This is, what really worries me. They are going in a direction, the actual TTRPG community does not want, but where they see the most money... MMORPG stuff
If they wanted to 'monopolize online D&D gaming' why do they support Avrae, which lets anyone play online on discord (which Hasbro does not control) and is compatible with Roll20 (which has a licensing agreement with Hasbro but is not being controlled by them)?
Have they committed to continuing that support?? No.
They have to understand that in the moment, in that right moment, that they cut the API access that allos us to integrate VTTs and out characters in DnDBeyond, there is NO ONE who chooses DnDBeyond over the VTTs. The only way for WotC is to develope the best, awesome and incredible VTT, and we will shift our games.
Honestly, I think the idea of “monopolization” is overblown. For one thing, they objectively cannot attempt to quash a VTT for simply being compatible with the d20 system, and there’s already plug-ins like Beyond20 for integrating a DDB character sheet with a VTT. I suppose they could attempt to do something about that, I don’t know anything about the programming and interactions, but the net result of that would simply be reducing the content offered by their product/service, which is not a great selling point even setting aside another massive community blowup. So actively destroying the competition just doesn’t seem feasible. Now, that said, I’m sure they’d love to get other VTT’s to agree to not use certain bells and whistles they plan use, like animated effects, but who has the right to sell us what gimmick is a much smaller issue. To be clear, I can absolutely believe they’re looking to give their upcoming VTT a competitive edge in the market, but I don’t think they could go full scorched earth on other VTT’s so much as mutually assured destruction.
I think the people in D&D responsible for this have poor technical understanding of how VTTs actually work (or they'd realize how nonsense the focus on animations actually is), though I doubt they'd specifically mind kneecapping the competition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is WotC planning an statements, like the previous ones, adressing why this absurd sentence regarding the VTT animation and visual effects? Maybe these are not the key of Foundry success, and maybe not even 1% of Foundry users use this layer of colours and nimations, but... They don't make this a videogame, not even close! Is just minor visual sffects! It has zero impact in the roleplaying experience, It does not bring closer VTTs and videogames, the DM still controlls everything!
So... Why this sentence in the OGL? Is really Chris Cao so so so obsessed in Foundry anihilation?
All extant VTT services are competition for D&D's own officially sanctioned one... so why would it be surprising they are trying to torpedo them?
If you want to turn the IP into a billion dollar business, you need an edge over your competition. This is it.
VTTs are video games, in terms of what they are. I've yet to hear a definition that didn't wrongly classify a videogame as a VTT or vice versa. The difference is not really in the substance of what the program is, but in how you use it. You could, in theory, use Skyrim or other game as a VTT. I mean, take KoToR; carve out the AI, replace it with a human and you have a textbook VTT. However, is it really the presence of an AI the issue? I mean, Fortnite has no AI. Is it about a human controlling masses of units? Then perhaps Battlefield 2142 or Age of Empires, then? There is no easy definition that distinguishes a VTT from a video game, because it is a video game, and the distinction is pretty arbitrary. It's how it is used that makes one or the other. And that's a problem because you can't really enforce rules on how it's used - only on how it's created and distributed.
Perhaps there's something I haven't seen, but from what I have seen, WotC is fine with VTTs, but they want video games to use a custom license (remember, not being covered by OGL does not mean it's banned, only that it requires a custom agreement). I can see that. VTTs help support the hobby (which is what WotC wants from the OGL) while video games don't do anywhere near as much and are quite profitable - leeching off the D&D IP in that case is unreasonable, so WotC wants compensation. However, as discussed earlier in the post, finding a definition is difficult because there is no natural distinction. Videogames are, at their base, a VTT but with further automation. Hence the clumsy definitions being thrown around, both by posters here and WotC.
Is there current definition of a video game (versus a VTT) overly expansive in an attempt to reduce competition for their new VTT that they're producing? I suspect so. Their VTT does seem to be on the video game side of things. Before anyone Jumps in, no, this is not hypocritical. They never said video games were banned or immoral - only that they want a custom agreement for them, which as I've explained before, is reasonable because they're not giving back in the same way that Kobold Press or Critical Roll are. Still, I do think they need to reel that definition back a little - I really don't think the line between VTTs and videogames is at spell effects. I'm having trouble coming up with a solid definition, though.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
But do Chris Cao, WotC, realize that If they make us choose between DnD and Foundry, we surely pick Foundry, right? Tell me that they are not so crazy to think that we are going to reject all the Foundry mods ecosystem...
WoTC/Hasbro propably - almost certainly - have no interest what so ever in hurting Foundry in the least.
But the leap from VTT to action RPG isn't so great. If I'm a computer game developer, and I'm doing a game we could call - for ease of reference - Baldur's Gate IV, I could easily do this:
Publish a VTT - then publish an adventure package for it I called Baldur's Game IV. And BG V, BG VI, and so on.
And wham-bam-thank-you-WoTC, I've just published a major RPG title free of any license payment. And I hope we can all agree .... that really isn't entirely fair.
So they're not out to get Foundry, Foundry is propably too small a fish to be of any interest what so ever. No, instead they want to protect their intellectual property, which is their fair and justified right to do.
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.
Correction: Sangros_ would pick Foundry. The DDB Discord has more than ten times as many users, and due to them having multiple forums, that's and understatement. Foundry's numbers aren't even just for 5e either - meaning that, as competition for D&D players, they're probably like 1% or less the size of DDB. They're probably not even a consideration.
I, and probably 99% of D&D players, wasn't even aware that they had any until you mentioned it. We can't choose something we're not aware of. Perhaps you'll stay with Foundry...and that's cool. However, most will stay with DDB. I will be. Whether I use the VTT is dependent on their pricing structure. If it's free (or free with books I own), I'll give it a go, and if I find it easy to use, I'll keep using it in some manner.
Which leads me to the thread title - I don't think he is obsessed with Foundry. Or even VTTs in general. WotC are just trying to carve a decent deal for themselves and VTTs are a part of their vision - it's the people on forums and posting videos that are spinning it as an attack on VTTs. Probably because it sounds more salacious than "business spends hundreds of millions on IP and now doesn't want others to make a fortune off of it without paying something back". They definitely have overreached on stuff, but this personal vendetta that people are projecting onto WotC is just...not very well substantiated.
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 would say this is correct in fact but make them WOTC look like totally misunderstood sweethearts being bullied. Don't be fooled by the "O" in Open Gaming License they just have to keep it in the name for legal reasons (Uh...I think?) and make it look pretty for people who don't know or care about the past 23 years. "Open" in the sense of "Open Source" (which the OGL was originally inspired for) is dead and whatever we end up is the spiritual GSL 2.0 not the OGL 2.0. If you want to know how WOTC is going to treat the community in the future, no matter how they gussy up the OGL, look to how Nintendo or Disney handles their IP and smile to yourself knowing that (or at least something close to it) is the future of the space.
As for Foundry if they keep this up expect them to go down. After all, if a mafia don needs to control a neighberhood there's a good chance a butcher shop or two might need to go up in flames. I know this sounds rather dramatic and I'm not trying to troll you or anything else but this seismic shift from an Open (as in Open Source) to the more draconic (pun!) shift to what is now considered a 'standard' use of IP is pretty dramatic in and of itself. VTT is now D&D's neighberhood and a lot of butcher shops are going to close down or pay tribute the Boss demands of them.
Edited to add: I'll be honest, if Hasbro had been a brutal IP overlord for the past 23 years this probably wouldn't have been much of an issue. Nobody would have paid much attention than they do when Disney sues a preschool or Nintendo pulls the plug on a tournament at the last second just to screw with the organizers. Of course according to some they've achieved success DESPITE 23 years of Open Gaming from it but from my perspective they've thrived quite a bit and helped provide a lot of enjoyment. That's all coming to an end.
I'll point out that on this thread as well as others, I have called out things that WotC have been doing wrong, and I don't hold that they're innocent at all. I've been a vocal critic of WotC on the board for a long time. The fact is though that there is a lot of exaggeration and spin, and the post is intended to balance that, rather than to be balanced itself.
I do think IP law needs a radical overhaul. Both to prevent the bullying that happens as well as the forced protectionism even when the IP owner doesn't want to enforce it.
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.
As somone who is very often the devil's advocate IRL I appreciate your opinion and your take on things. I don't agree with you about the 'exaggeration and spin' but thank you for the very mature response. I certainly have a perspective having worked on a software patent, having published a few minor things under the CC as well as makng things with the GNU license, and having a very close friend who is directly getting tied up in all of this (not VTTs specifically but the whole OGL drama). Additionally I got into D&D as a teenager thanks to 3PP (the Creature Collection as well as Relics and Rituals) way back in 2000/2001. I've also seen for years what draonic IP owners have done to great tools, projects, and communities, especially video games but also much more close to home MTG. So yeah, I find it hard to see WOTC's perspective as anything but nasty but I guess that's a "Me Problem."
You mean a third statement? Six days ago they acknowledged that drawing the line between VTT and video game can be hard because it is more of a spectrum than a strict divide, and that they are working on the policy to find a different metric for differentiation. And they acknowledged that they will be reworking the VTT policy due to the feedback received. About 14 hours ago they specifically stated animations were the wrong metric to use.
Source.
Source.
My general opinion on the case:
Hasbro put 150M$ into buying DDB + presumably 20-50M$ into the development of the OneDND VTT.
Hasbro/WotC Top Management wants to monopolize D&D VTT and D&D online gaming and they want to establish D&D online gaming as the future standard for their revenue (probably against the general opinion of the devs of D&D at WotC and DDB).
This is, what really worries me. They are going in a direction, the actual TTRPG community does not want, but where they see the most money... MMORPG stuff
I think, until OneDND is ready, they will not bother. Might be different, when it comes to 2024... who knows...
Just worried about the direction.
Probably because the development of "D&D Digital Project Sandcastle" seems in development since 2021, and there's an f-ton of money involved already? Doing a quick google search, some Designer Dude even has posted features he's been working on in his private Resume website. Can't confirm if this is BS or not, tho.
First of all, and I am not sure this is the right forum but I hope someone reads all these. I would like DND Beyond to let us know the future of DND Beyond, especially with the news that this Cao guy has a bee in his bonnet for it. My group enjoys using and sharing content on Beyond and I really do find it a great resource. Saying that, we will not be purchasing another product on the platform (or books for that matter) until we are sure the resource will be around for the long run and is part of the next version of DnD. We have enough content to run our games for 2-3 years so are not in any hurry to react.
As for the VTT, it looks cool and as long as the price to play is not restrictive we will try it. But we are in person players and I admit I love using AboveVtt on a TV built into our table. It is easy to use and meets our playing needs perfectly. This is the direction we would like DnD to go. Make it easy and encourage in person play that can shift to virtual if need be. We do not need a video game and we will not be purchasing things like skins. I find that dump in video games and would be dumb in DnD. We are all professionals in our life and have the money to spend, but we also know when something is just to line the pockets of execs.
Sounds like you've answered your own question...
Have they committed to continuing that support?? No.
They have to understand that in the moment, in that right moment, that they cut the API access that allos us to integrate VTTs and out characters in DnDBeyond, there is NO ONE who chooses DnDBeyond over the VTTs. The only way for WotC is to develope the best, awesome and incredible VTT, and we will shift our games.
Honestly, I think the idea of “monopolization” is overblown. For one thing, they objectively cannot attempt to quash a VTT for simply being compatible with the d20 system, and there’s already plug-ins like Beyond20 for integrating a DDB character sheet with a VTT. I suppose they could attempt to do something about that, I don’t know anything about the programming and interactions, but the net result of that would simply be reducing the content offered by their product/service, which is not a great selling point even setting aside another massive community blowup. So actively destroying the competition just doesn’t seem feasible. Now, that said, I’m sure they’d love to get other VTT’s to agree to not use certain bells and whistles they plan use, like animated effects, but who has the right to sell us what gimmick is a much smaller issue. To be clear, I can absolutely believe they’re looking to give their upcoming VTT a competitive edge in the market, but I don’t think they could go full scorched earth on other VTT’s so much as mutually assured destruction.
I think the people in D&D responsible for this have poor technical understanding of how VTTs actually work (or they'd realize how nonsense the focus on animations actually is), though I doubt they'd specifically mind kneecapping the competition.