@DnDBeyond still unsupported features like aberrant mind spell swapping, from a book ~3 yrs old. Many paid & expect fully working feature set, Instead your devs work on maps, new books, dice, etc. a repeat due? Would you like to comment? @Wizards #DnD #DemandBetter

It's a corporation and digital trinkets sell. 

They also have a nasty habit of just changing the site on errata rulings and it never appears in print or even as a newsletter/DM to your inbox. 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is VERY typical of web based products... same as it ever was...*cue the flashback to the late 90's pre-dot com bubble burst*

I just buy physical. They're more durable, don't come with a monthly fee, and have some actual resale value.

Y'know, if WotC had done DDB themselves, they might have done things differently.

They didn't create DDB themselves, however. They bought it. The people who built it mostly moved on, and WotC now has a massive amount of programming and linking and a schedule of books to put out that all have to be linked in before release and a mandated goal and a whole new edition and very small staff to handle it all.

I say all of that and I am deeply offended by certain parts of the way the site was designed, because I would love to be able to add in my own mechanics, use options that show up on character sheet like spell points and additional ability scores, and a host of other stuff. The whole plan to bring the VTT out does me and my players absolutely not one whit of good, because it won't work with how we play. We can't even use the character tools or the maps or anything else.

Oh My.

But you know what?  Some of my players don't have access to the books. I like having a resource I can quickly search within. I have digital stuff and physical stuff and I'm good with it all. 

"demand better"? 

Folks really do not want me to list my demands about DDB because it would have little to do with the site's programming and a lot to do with the site's participants.

Part of the issue is that new dice brings new and immediate money that looks good to corporate, whereas fixing and backdating is the long game - that doesn't look so good. The other issue is that it would probably involve messing with the workings of the site...and the website does not react well to that at all.

With WotC in the picture, there is more cash to do stuff like that. Unfortunately (although probably not coincidentally), it happened just 1D&D started so we're very unlikely to see the old features brought in before it comes out, and even after...

However, there's good news in that 1D&D is likely to actually have features rolled out as it goes along, so hopefully those problems will fade.

Hopefully.

I'm all for accountability, but what other TTRPG has a better  platform and system than DDB? Like what other thing can we look at and go, wow, they are killing it compared to DDB. It kind of means we're demanding they be better than already being the best, which is fine, but keep that in perspective. 

If we the customers, make a big enough noise, they will have to change. if we all sit back and say o'well, X Y & Z, they a business has no reason to change (it's not costing them money or reputation, as the customer base will do nothing)

Quote from MatStumpy >>

If we the customers, make a big enough noise, they will have to change. if we all sit back and say o'well, X Y & Z, they a business has no reason to change (it's not costing them money or reputation, as the customer base will do nothing)

 
And that's fair, if the company is in fact, doing nothing.

The problem is that you specifically called out " unsupported features like aberrant mind spell swapping, from a book ~3 yrs old " and did so in a manner that suggests they not only don't care, but they aren't even likely to do so.

Whereas most folks who have been using this site for a while (longer than I) know that they do care, that they are working on things, and that they've only had the site for roughly a year, and most of the folks who built it (programmed it) are not part of it any longer, which we all understand makes things a lot harder to fix, lol.

Then you add in the new edition (decisions about which were made probably before the sale was started) and how between that and the VTT they likely have very different priorities because they want the next edition to be able to have all of its features and such full implemented int he site as a whole -- while also cleaning up and learning the code that makes the site run.

No one disagrees that there are problems with the site (go read the rules and mechanics forum for evidence), they disagree with it being made to seem like they aren't even trying.

Quote from Raequon >>

what other TTRPG has a better  platform and system than DDB? Like what other thing can we look at and go, wow, they are killing it compared to DDB.

This is my position as well. There will always be things to improve on the site, whether great or small. Always. That's the nature of live software development. These tools have proven to be the most useful digital tools I've had in my life. I want more from the success this site has driven.

It would be presumptive for me to think my requests are the same wants every other person on the site has. I don't see the need to grandstand. There are plenty of ways to give direct feedback to the site staff and the company about how they are doing and what we want. I fill out every survey and add notes where possible. That's how the customer influences business. Buy what you like, don't buy what you don't like, and give feedback in the appropriate spaces so the company has clear data on what works.

Since no one else has pointed it out yet, I will - the people who make digital dice and write books are not the same people who work on the builder. Just because they're putting out one thing doesn't mean it's at the expense of the other thing.

That being said, there's the concept of return on investment. Adding new dice boils down to slapping new textures onto existing 3D models and maybe throwing in some sparkles or something. Small investment for what I assume is a decent monetary return.

Compare that to fixing Aberrant Mind's spell-swap. Probably a fairly complicated bit of code for the builder that needs to be thoroughly tested, and for what return? Is it really going to be the difference between someone using DDB versus using another product? As others have pointed out, there are no major competitors out there and any that emerge are likely to get swatted down by WotC. Especially with One D&D on the horizon, the return is just not enough to justify the investment.

It's not ideal, but it's not really the kind of thing that inspires enough outrage to warrant a hashtag IMO.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

Compare that to fixing Aberrant Mind's spell-swap. Probably a fairly complicated bit of code for the builder that needs to be thoroughly tested, and for what return? Is it really going to be the difference between someone using DDB versus using another product?

 To be the awkward one, me. Well, not literally that example, but the fact that there things in books with the mechanics not implemented in DDB makes me reluctant to buy in. I don't like the idea of spending hundreds of bucks on books here only to find parts don't work. As a result, I'm hesitant to buy into the DDB ecosystem when I may well end up just bodging it anyway. If they were to implement past stuff... I'd be keener to buy in. As it is, I only get the occasional thing.

The problem is that my money (or lack thereof) has nothing tangible for them to be tempted by. No one who is making the decisions for them sees a report saying "if invest $X into implementing all these mechanics, we'll get Y number of customers who will on average spend $Z, giving us growth". They do get a report back saying "We invested $A into making dice and we sold B number of dice, making us a nice $C! We got a nice bonus there, guys!".

Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from scatterbraind >>

Compare that to fixing Aberrant Mind's spell-swap. Probably a fairly complicated bit of code for the builder that needs to be thoroughly tested, and for what return? Is it really going to be the difference between someone using DDB versus using another product?

 To be the awkward one, me. Well, not literally that example, but the fact that there things in books with the mechanics not implemented in DDB makes me reluctant to buy in. I don't like the idea of spending hundreds of bucks on books here only to find parts don't work. As a result, I'm hesitant to buy into the DDB ecosystem when I may well end up just bodging it anyway. If they were to implement past stuff... I'd be keener to buy in. As it is, I only get the occasional thing.

The problem is that my money (or lack thereof) has nothing tangible for them to be tempted by. No one who is making the decisions for them sees a report saying "if invest $X into implementing all these mechanics, we'll get Y number of customers who will on average spend $Z, giving us growth". They do get a report back saying "We invested $A into making dice and we sold B number of dice, making us a nice $C! We got a nice bonus there, guys!".

Pretty much.

I do find some great value in the library, though. Between here and the App, I have the rules on tap, and even though I have done a ton of work with our homebrewed game, it is always nice to have these rules to fall back on because I was so not going to completely rewrite their books, lol.

Because my homebrew is very specific to the setting and includes entirely original classes, the site in terms of its value as a virtual tabletop is pretty empty.  But I do theater of the mind, and a VTT slows play down for us. Even when we play with "5e rules", we use Sanity and spell points, and the DDB system lacks those features, so it isn't of use even then for us.

I know there is a lot of excitement about the 3D VTT they are building, but it won't be attractive to us either, likely for the same reasons -- it is far too tied to the Forgotten Realms stuff and not customizable enough for us.

We hate the Forgotten Realms.  Kinda puts outside the target market for any of that. Which we don't mind, but it means that my yearly sub at master is the only one for 30 people. And I don't buy books unless they have something of value to me -- which is really rare.

But I do have the sub, and I do like the layout -- if I was the sort that did VTT, I would be happy in comparison, especially now with the maps. That might even become useful to me once I get a bit more time to work on adventures instead of homebrewing...

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Y'know, if WotC had done DDB themselves, they might have done things differently.

They didn't create DDB themselves, however. They bought it. The people who built it mostly moved on, and WotC now has a massive amount of programming and linking and a schedule of books to put out that all have to be linked in before release and a mandated goal and a whole new edition and very small staff to handle it all.

Just because Wizards didn't design D&DB doesn't mean they should push their plans ahead of the things that users actually want. We get that they didn't make it, and that you want different updates than most of us do. However, the original poster seemed to be talking primarily about what the majority of users want ("Many paid & expect fully working feature set") which are more important for the website to deal with than the aspects that AEDorsay is the main or sole user complaining about.

I'm not trying to be rude here, and the title makes little sense with what is written above. I also agree that maps and stuff that Wizards wants to add can be cool, but the issue here is that they seem not to be able to focus or execute fan feedback or basic commonly requested features, and spending time on areas like maps while ignoring the former issues is neither productive or particularly helpful. I like maps and I'm happy they made them, but they shouldn't be able to do nothing outside of that and working on One D&D, which they've been doing for around a literal year and a half now.

Also, I get Wotzy concentrating some on what gives them that juicy profit and revenue. However, what users want is likely something that doing should get them better publicity, good will, and money overall from the amount of people that needed those features to use the site properly or to be convinced to pay some/more for it.

So the question is why did they buy DDB?

To make it better for people using it and attract new players?

To sell dice and digital books?

To kill it and herd players to the new stuff in the pipe?

It is easy to say they are focusing on other things, if so why spend capitol on the purchase that could have been spent on the vtt? 

Based on the stated reports to investors, they bought it so that they could take over the VTT space through introduction of a #D VTT alongside and based upon the 5.5e (One D&D)  for the 50th Anniversary of the game.

Literally.

Cost benefit analysis showed that it would be cheaper to acquire it and and build the VTT into the system ovr the two year period so that as One D&D came out, the VTT would be fully capable and compatible, and there would be an established user base that could then use their One D&D characters and equipment and abilities in the 3D VTT, enabling them to effectively dominate and own the virtual tabletop space and more effectively blend existing game license deals by being able to collate digital assets.

Essentially, from the PoV of the top folks, all those little annoying things like that will be fixed by the release of One D&D, and what they don't have then will be a priority to fix to so that it will work in the 3D VTT.

If Hasbro wasn't sucking all the profit out of WotC to keep the company afloat, they might be able to move a little faster, by hiring more folks and getting them trained up, but at this point, a lot of that would place the timing in the original plan anyway.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Based on the stated reports to investors, they bought it so that they could take over the VTT space through introduction of a #D VTT alongside and based upon the 5.5e (One D&D)  for the 50th Anniversary of the game.

Literally.

Cost benefit analysis showed that it would be cheaper to acquire it and and build the VTT into the system ovr the two year period so that as One D&D came out, the VTT would be fully capable and compatible, and there would be an established user base that could then use their One D&D characters and equipment and abilities in the 3D VTT, enabling them to effectively dominate and own the virtual tabletop space and more effectively blend existing game license deals by being able to collate digital assets.

Essentially, from the PoV of the top folks, all those little annoying things like that will be fixed by the release of One D&D, and what they don't have then will be a priority to fix to so that it will work in the 3D VTT.

If Hasbro wasn't sucking all the profit out of WotC to keep the company afloat, they might be able to move a little faster, by hiring more folks and getting them trained up, but at this point, a lot of that would place the timing in the original plan anyway.

 
This is partially accurate—but not fully.

The primary stated purpose to investors was bringing Beyond’s revenue in-house.  Beyond is the most popular platform for online D&D sales by a significant margin. When owned by a different company, Wizards only collected the royalty fee from all those D&D Beyond sales, not the totality of the sale. Hasbro is a struggling business with dwindling cash supplies—though the purchase of Beyond used up a significant chunk of cash, it increases their percentage of cash-from-sales from the royalty to the whole enchilada, making it a purchase that would pay for itself and bring increased cash-flow long-term.

The secondary purpose was the potential for growth—the goal is to make D&D Beyond a one-stop shop for all things D&D.  This includes the point made above about the VTT, but also includes things like having third parties be able to sell through Beyond (as we recently saw with Critical Role’s third party supplement), other, simpler tools such as the maps function, news being released through Beyond, etc.  Wizards wanted a single hub for D&D—and it is better to build a singular hub with an existing foundation of users rather than compete against a rival which already dominates the market.

This is fairly standard for acquisitions - you don’t buy something just because it is profitable, nor do you buy something just for what it may become.  You buy something with a proven system likely to make the capital expenditure worth it—that also fits into your portfolio and long-term plans, making it easier for those plans to come to fruition. Both pieces—current profitability and long-term growth—are an important component of the acquisition puzzle.