I get where you are coming from, I am just trying to see how D&D could be monetized that way, where is the incentive? If you can break the game with money how is it still the same game?
if you can't break the game with money, then there is no pressure to pay other than ordinary marketing.
Paying $1.99 to animate your cloak of billowing on the VTT doesn't break the game
Being able to purchase the wish spell at any time just might
I understand, the inherent nature of this game provides a high degree of immunity from monetizing mechanics. Loot boxes for instance don't break the game if all they offer are cosmetics, yet it still applies pressure on those susceptible to predatory sales strategies to engage in what is affectively gambling. While you and I, may not have anything to do with it, many do. It's highly effective, and the reason you see it everywhere. Here comes along this company developing a new platform to experience the game in a 'new' visual way, stating they want to unlock the spending habits of consumers unlike they manner they conduct with digital games. Whether D&D in essence functions like a digital game or not is irrelevant if the publishers start treating it like a digital game. I for one, don't want to see that here.
Again I just don't see it being a problem other that how they market it think pop-ups and such. Other than that let them take advantage of impulse purchasers and let the people that spend have fun "painting" their mini's on the VTT.
My personal unhealthy D&D habit is physical books, I rarely use any of them, but I love having them on my shelf. Pretty much shut-up and take my money with most books from WotC for me.
I do have concerns about how they implement whatever they ultimately settle on and if the last 18 months shows me anything, smooth and trouble free are not my first bet.
I likely will never use it, I am just trying to see your argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I do have concerns about how they implement whatever they ultimately settle on and if the last 18 months shows me anything, smooth and trouble free are not my first bet.
I get where you are coming from, I am just trying to see how D&D could be monetized that way, where is the incentive? If you can break the game with money how is it still the same game?
if you can't break the game with money, then there is no pressure to pay other than ordinary marketing.
Paying $1.99 to animate your cloak of billowing on the VTT doesn't break the game
Being able to purchase the wish spell at any time just might
I understand, the inherent nature of this game provides a high degree of immunity from monetizing mechanics. Loot boxes for instance don't break the game if all they offer are cosmetics, yet it still applies pressure on those susceptible to predatory sales strategies to engage in what is affectively gambling. While you and I, may not have anything to do with it, many do. It's highly effective, and the reason you see it everywhere. Here comes along this company developing a new platform to experience the game in a 'new' visual way, stating they want to unlock the spending habits of consumers not unlike they manner they conduct in with digital games. Whether D&D in essence functions like a digital game or not is irrelevant if the publishers start treating it like a digital game. I for one, don't want to see that here.
Even poker sites didn't add in loot boxes as a way to get better hands. They just give you tournament entry tickets and that sort of thing
This is a dumb argument
Poker sites could stand to lose money if they offered better hands no? WotC lose nothing if their customers pay more. Am I missing something here? Admittedly, I don't gamble.
Which still fails to explain how they can create a viable business model out of turning D&D into a gacha/mobile game, which is objectively contrary to their stated product. "Bait and switch" only works when people either can't see the switch until it's too late, or are already invested enough to stick with it. "Oh, by the way, we've decided to turn your VTT into a gacha, now pony up" is rather unlikely to meet either criteria.
All due respect, this is the third time you've mischaracterised my arguments and presented strawmen. I'm starting to think you're commenting in bad faith.
I think you are engaging in a slippery slope argument--which is a fairly common issue both on this thread and on this forum generally. You are raising hypotheticals about how the VTT can be monetized... but have not provided any real reason to support why those things might happen. Specifically, you seem concerned about the VTT selling in-game advantages and lootboxes. The first is a bit nonsensical; the second has existed in the game for years.
Regarding in game advantages, there are two reasons why this is a silly conjecture:
1. The VTT is going to be integrated with D&D Beyond. That means integrated into D&D Beyond's homebrew system (though I expect animations might not work for many homebrew things). All those things you speculate Wizards could sell on their VTT like extra spell slots? You could do that via homebrew. They are not going to fundamentally change homebrew--it is a major draw to this site--and that means they are not going to sell something that players could just get for free.
2. The point of a VTT is to virtually emulate a tabletop experience. Changing the fundamental way the game works would result in a bad emulation and thus render the VTT less effective in its fundamental purpose. Given how much competition there is in the VTT sphere, and how easy it is to go to competitors, D&D is not going to make a VTT that is a worse representation of their own game than the VTTs their competitors make.
Regarding lootboxes in this game for YEARS now. The Icons of the Realms WizKids products are exactly that--lootboxes where you get a random miniature from the box. I do not see anyone really complaining about that... but the second it is online? Suddenly now it is a problem?
Here is the reality, there have been microtransactions in the form of miniatures and maps and other additional purchases since the '70s. Making those microtransactions digital is not really all that big of a deal.
I would probably avoid saying others are acting in bad faith or engaging in strawmen arguments you are engaging in an unsupported slippery slope argument and asking folks to prove a negative future.
I'll bite on that second part--I think there are two fairly obvious reasons why your slippery slope hypothetical will never come to pass:
1. The VTT is going to be integrated with D&D Beyond. That means integrated into D&D Beyond's homebrew system (though I expect animations might not work for many homebrew things). All those things you speculate Wizards could sell on their VTT like extra spell slots? You could do that via homebrew. They are not going to fundamentally change homebrew--it is a major draw to this site--and that means they are not going to sell something that players could just get for free.
2. The point of a VTT is to virtually emulate a tabletop experience. Changing the fundamental way the game works would result in a bad emulation and thus render the VTT less effective in its fundamental purpose. Given how much competition there is in the VTT sphere, and how easy it is to go to competitors, D&D is not going to make a VTT that is a worse representation of their own game than the VTTs their competitors make.
Now, the VTT certainly will be monetized in some way. I expect they will monetize it with the same microtransaction they have been using in physical since the '70s--selling miniatures, map books, etc. Honestly, I do not know why folks get in such a tizzy about "but there will be microtransactions!" when... those are the same microtransactions we players have casually been accepting for decades.
Perhaps my argument was predicated on a slippery slope argument based on the companies actions and stated intentions in the last year or so, and how jaded I've felt towards them in response. But it does not make their argument any less of a strawman or enacted in bad faith. You on the other hand have concisely yet detailedly explained why my worries are unlikely to pass, so thank you for engaging with the discussion properly.
Regarding the microtransactions; which players have been casually accepting them? None that I know (Maybe that's not saying much). We get in a tizzy about them because we don't like the manner in which they are implemented. Often it's predatory, and affects those with addictive tendencies more heavily. The trope of the kid running with their parents credit cards? Yeah, it happens. It's not nice, and many games have been ruined because of them.
I would probably avoid saying others are acting in bad faith or engaging in strawmen arguments you are engaging in an unsupported slippery slope argument and asking folks to prove a negative future.
I'll bite on that second part--I think there are two fairly obvious reasons why your slippery slope hypothetical will never come to pass:
1. The VTT is going to be integrated with D&D Beyond. That means integrated into D&D Beyond's homebrew system (though I expect animations might not work for many homebrew things). All those things you speculate Wizards could sell on their VTT like extra spell slots? You could do that via homebrew. They are not going to fundamentally change homebrew--it is a major draw to this site--and that means they are not going to sell something that players could just get for free.
2. The point of a VTT is to virtually emulate a tabletop experience. Changing the fundamental way the game works would result in a bad emulation and thus render the VTT less effective in its fundamental purpose. Given how much competition there is in the VTT sphere, and how easy it is to go to competitors, D&D is not going to make a VTT that is a worse representation of their own game than the VTTs their competitors make.
Now, the VTT certainly will be monetized in some way. I expect they will monetize it with the same microtransaction they have been using in physical since the '70s--selling miniatures, map books, etc. Honestly, I do not know why folks get in such a tizzy about "but there will be microtransactions!" when... those are the same microtransactions we players have casually been accepting for decades.
Perhaps my argument was predicated on a slippery slope argument based on the companies actions and stated intentions in the last year or so, and how jaded I've felt towards them in response. But it does not make their argument any less of a strawman or enacted in bad faith. You on the other hand have concisely yet detailedly explained why my worries are unlikely to pass, so thank you for engaging with the discussion properly.
Regarding the microtransactions; which players have been casually accepting them? None that I know (Maybe that's not saying much). We get in a tizzy about them because we don't like the manner in which they are implemented. Often it's predatory, and affects those with addictive tendencies more heavily. The trope of the kid running with their parents credit cards? Yeah, it happens. It's not nice, and many games have been ruined because of them.
Every player who has ever bought a miniature, bought an official map pack, bought a small-scale Extra Life product, bought spell, item, or monster cards... all of those have been microtransactions. They're microtransactions that give you a physical product (or at least most of them are), but they are microtransactions nonetheless. These have been a feature of D&D since the 70s and have yet to kill the game. I highly doubt having them also be available in digital is going to drastically change anything.
Every player who has ever bought a miniature, bought an official map pack, bought a small-scale Extra Life product, bought spell, item, or monster cards... all of those have been microtransactions. They're microtransactions that give you a physical product (or at least most of them are), but they are microtransactions nonetheless. These have been a feature of D&D since the 70s and have yet to kill the game. I highly doubt having them also be available in digital is going to drastically change anything.
Again, it's not their existence that irks me so, I don't like the manner in which they are often implemented. Digitally you're buying pixels, and often it's more in your face/predatory, and affects those with addictive tendencies more heavily.
Every player who has ever bought a miniature, bought an official map pack, bought a small-scale Extra Life product, bought spell, item, or monster cards... all of those have been microtransactions. They're microtransactions that give you a physical product (or at least most of them are), but they are microtransactions nonetheless. These have been a feature of D&D since the 70s and have yet to kill the game. I highly doubt having them also be available in digital is going to drastically change anything.
Again, it's not their existence that irks me so, I don't like the manner in which they are often implemented. Digitally you're buying pixels, and often it's more in your face/predatory, and affects those with addictive tendencies more heavily.
What do you think you are buying with Netflix, Spotify, or DDB digital books?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Every player who has ever bought a miniature, bought an official map pack, bought a small-scale Extra Life product, bought spell, item, or monster cards... all of those have been microtransactions. They're microtransactions that give you a physical product (or at least most of them are), but they are microtransactions nonetheless. These have been a feature of D&D since the 70s and have yet to kill the game. I highly doubt having them also be available in digital is going to drastically change anything.
Again, it's not their existence that irks me so, I don't like the manner in which they are often implemented. Digitally you're buying pixels, and often it's more in your face/predatory, and affects those with addictive tendencies more heavily.
They may be predatory to some, but they are actively beneficial to others—the existence of microtransactions allows the monthly costs to be lower, since there is a different revenue stream making up the difference. There are plenty of folks who would rather have a smaller monthly payment and ignore the microtransactions, since that ends up cheaper for them than a non-micro-transaction game would be. Ultimately, the important thing is how it is set up—and that is something we just don’t know and have no way of meaningfully speculating on.
Now, could the system be set up so it is in your face and intrusive? Sure. But that is going back down the slippery slope. It also could be very non-intrusive, with you getting access to content you already purchased on Beyond (I.e. buy a book on Beyond, you get the monster minis for it). Or it could be something else entirely—either good or bad.
Right now, we don’t know anything. I’m not really willing to engage in rampant speculation over how Wizards might monetise the VTT—and I am certainly not going to stress over the endless possibilities of what it might look like.
My entire point was that while I hope it is the former and not the later, I do not have the full confidence in WotC to implement it in a non-predatory manner. Especially when the predatory manner is the norm in digital games these days, and WotC have actively claimed they’re looking monetizing D&D like digital games. I really do not see how that speculation is baseless. Could I be wrong? Of course. Is it baseless? Not really.
My entire point was that while I hope it is the former and not the later, I do not have the full confidence in WotC to implement it in a non-predatory manner. Especially when the predatory manner is the norm in digital games these days, and WotC have actively claimed they’re looking monetizing D&D like digital games. I really do not see how that speculation is baseless. Could I be wrong? Of course. Is it baseless? Not really.
Considering your entire basis is "they might do it", I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion that this speculation is not baseless. It's just more of the usual speculation that not only is everyone making the decisions at WotC some soulless corporate fiend, but they're also incapable of recognizing what someone with a bachelor's degree in business from a liberal arts college can tell you is a very poor business model. If you don't have confidence then say so, but spinning these elaborate theories about how thoroughly WotC is out to corrupt all aspects of the game from wholecloth is just fearmongering.
Considering your entire basis is "they might do it", I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion that this speculation is not baseless. It's just more of the usual speculation that not only is everyone making the decisions at WotC some soulless corporate fiend, but they're also incapable of recognizing what someone with a bachelor's degree in business from a liberal arts college can tell you is a very poor business model. If you don't have confidence then say so, but spinning these elaborate theories about how thoroughly WotC is out to corrupt all aspects of the game from wholecloth is just fearmongering.
You misunderstand. The basis is “they literally said they were looking to do it they way digital games are doing it.” My assertion is “they might do it in x way, because that’s what digital games are doing; in x way.” If you want to contend that’s an impossibility because x doesn’t make sense here, you’re welcome to do so. As far as “say so” goes, I literally did say I lacked the confidence in my original post but given the manner you’re still choosing to conduct yourself in, you probably missed it in favour of arguing an argument I never made.
Considering your entire basis is "they might do it", I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion that this speculation is not baseless. It's just more of the usual speculation that not only is everyone making the decisions at WotC some soulless corporate fiend, but they're also incapable of recognizing what someone with a bachelor's degree in business from a liberal arts college can tell you is a very poor business model. If you don't have confidence then say so, but spinning these elaborate theories about how thoroughly WotC is out to corrupt all aspects of the game from wholecloth is just fearmongering.
You misunderstand. The basis is “they literally said they were looking to do it they way digital games are doing it.” My assertion is “they might do it in x way, because that’s what digital games are doing; in x way.” If you want to contend that’s an impossibility because x doesn’t make sense here, you’re welcome to do so. As far as “say so” goes, I literally did say I lacked the confidence in my original post but given the manner you’re still choosing to conduct yourself in, you probably missed it in favour of arguing an argument I never made.
They cited digital games as an example of a market where more of the player base provides revenue, because increasing revenue is what companies seek to do. Claiming that's strong proof they're going to adopt a business model that in no way fits the product they're releasing is a rather large and illogical leap into false equivalence. And I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible, just that your line of reasoning for raising the issue is based on flawed or false premises.
Considering your entire basis is "they might do it", I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion that this speculation is not baseless. It's just more of the usual speculation that not only is everyone making the decisions at WotC some soulless corporate fiend, but they're also incapable of recognizing what someone with a bachelor's degree in business from a liberal arts college can tell you is a very poor business model. If you don't have confidence then say so, but spinning these elaborate theories about how thoroughly WotC is out to corrupt all aspects of the game from wholecloth is just fearmongering.
You misunderstand. The basis is “they literally said they were looking to do it they way digital games are doing it.” My assertion is “they might do it in x way, because that’s what digital games are doing; in x way.” If you want to contend that’s an impossibility because x doesn’t make sense here, you’re welcome to do so. As far as “say so” goes, I literally did say I lacked the confidence in my original post but given the manner you’re still choosing to conduct yourself in, you probably missed it in favour of arguing an argument I never made.
They cited digital games as an example of a market where more of the player base provides revenue, because increasing revenue is what companies seek to do. Claiming that's strong proof they're going to adopt a business model that in no way fits the product they're releasing is a rather large and illogical leap into false equivalence. And I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible, just that your line of reasoning for raising the issue is based on flawed or false premises.
They actually went further than just citing them as examples--they specifically said "we are too much like video games right now, we want to be less like them."
The actual context of this interview was pointing out that, much like many digital games, they have a whole lot of players, but only a small fraction (20%--mostly DMs) who actually pay Wizards money. The interview was actually pretty clear--rather than put an additional burden on those 20% who currently pay (which is what digital games do to solve their "small fraction actually pay" problem), Wizards wanted to look for ways to offer products the other 80% of players would want to buy. Contrary to indicating that Wizards wants this to be a disaster, it actually undermines ModoStark's point by showing Wizards is well aware there are limitations to squeezing blood from the DM stone.
I don't imagine it would have anything to do with winning or beating. Rather, how much money can they squeeze out of it. Which they have stated their intention of doing in their own cooperate terms, and the extant of which is my worry.
If they try to sell anything but cosmetics and rulebooks I'll be right there in the trenches with you, but you have yet to provide a single concrete example of what has you so petrified.
It's not nothing, but considering it's relatively simple to grab a screenshot from D&DB and make it into a token for a Roll20 campaign, I'd say WotC needs something stronger to really give them a strong selling point. They're the latecomers, so they need to convince consumers who either are already using another product or who feel the current product isn't worth spending money on that they want WotC's product.
Grabbing a single screenshot is indeed easy. Grabbing 15 is where convenience starts to become a selling point. And depending on your VTT (e.g. Owlbear Rodeo) you might end up having to do that every time you fire up the campaign, since there's no server to store anything on.
But maybe you're a Roll20 guy instead. Definitely more bells and whistles there. ...And still no cellphone or console support after a decade. Oh, and you have to buy your books through them, possibly for the third time, because of licensing.
It's not nothing, but considering it's relatively simple to grab a screenshot from D&DB and make it into a token for a Roll20 campaign, I'd say WotC needs something stronger to really give them a strong selling point. They're the latecomers, so they need to convince consumers who either are already using another product or who feel the current product isn't worth spending money on that they want WotC's product.
Grabbing a single screenshot is indeed easy. Grabbing 15 is where convenience starts to become a selling point. And depending on your VTT (e.g. Owlbear Rodeo) you might end up having to do that every time you fire up the campaign, since there's no server to store anything on.
But maybe you're a Roll20 guy instead. Definitely more bells and whistles there. ...And still no cellphone or console support after a decade. Oh, and you have to buy your books through them, possibly for the third time, because of licensing.
In short, there's an addressable market here.
You're correct, my online sessions have mostly been through Roll20. And again, I'm not saying there's not a good spread of conveniences to D&DB integration, but with the VTT market this saturated already, I expect they're going to want to make their offering stand head and shoulders above the others to get a good foot in the door. I'd say integration only accounts for the head there.
I don't imagine it would have anything to do with winning or beating. Rather, how much money can they squeeze out of it. Which they have stated their intention of doing in their own cooperate terms, and the extant of which is my worry.
If they try to sell anything but cosmetics and rulebooks I'll be right there in the trenches with you, but you have yet to provide a single concrete example of what has you so petrified.
Evidence that the digital gaming industry is currently rampant with exploitative practices of generating recurrent spending from customers? Or evidence that WotC plan to unlock the type of recurrent spending we see in digital games?
They probably will monetize the VTT by providing value to the users, or they could by exploiting them not in an unsimilar fashion to what we have witnessed take place in other digital games. You trust it will be the former, IF it is the later I will be upset. Why is pointing that out so rectally inclined?
Poker sites could stand to lose money if they offered better hands no? WotC lose nothing if their customers pay more. Am I missing something here? Admittedly, I don't gamble.
You probably should have led with the "I don't know anything about that" part.
Poker sites aren't competing in hands directly against players. They make their money scooping a percentage of each pot or tournament buy-in. Their business model is driven by increasing their user base, not milking whales -- although obviously the more you play, and the higher stakes you play for, the more money they get from you.
They would lose money by selling better hands, but only because people would stop playing on that site once the competition was no longer perceived to be fair. Just as people would stop using a WOTC VTT if other players at their table could simply buy more spell slots or ki points or whatever when they ran out, because that violates the implicit contract between players to be "fair".
Brennan Lee Mulligan did a bit recently about the guy who brings his own overpowered character to a new table. That's the classic archetype of a player no one wants to be in a party with. How is that any different than your hypothetical "whale" player who buys all the microtransaction advantages they can to try and "win" D&D?
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Again I just don't see it being a problem other that how they market it think pop-ups and such. Other than that let them take advantage of impulse purchasers and let the people that spend have fun "painting" their mini's on the VTT.
My personal unhealthy D&D habit is physical books, I rarely use any of them, but I love having them on my shelf. Pretty much shut-up and take my money with most books from WotC for me.
I do have concerns about how they implement whatever they ultimately settle on and if the last 18 months shows me anything, smooth and trouble free are not my first bet.
I likely will never use it, I am just trying to see your argument.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Mine neither, but I hope were wrong this time.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].I think you are engaging in a slippery slope argument--which is a fairly common issue both on this thread and on this forum generally. You are raising hypotheticals about how the VTT can be monetized... but have not provided any real reason to support why those things might happen. Specifically, you seem concerned about the VTT selling in-game advantages and lootboxes. The first is a bit nonsensical; the second has existed in the game for years.
Regarding in game advantages, there are two reasons why this is a silly conjecture:
1. The VTT is going to be integrated with D&D Beyond. That means integrated into D&D Beyond's homebrew system (though I expect animations might not work for many homebrew things). All those things you speculate Wizards could sell on their VTT like extra spell slots? You could do that via homebrew. They are not going to fundamentally change homebrew--it is a major draw to this site--and that means they are not going to sell something that players could just get for free.
2. The point of a VTT is to virtually emulate a tabletop experience. Changing the fundamental way the game works would result in a bad emulation and thus render the VTT less effective in its fundamental purpose. Given how much competition there is in the VTT sphere, and how easy it is to go to competitors, D&D is not going to make a VTT that is a worse representation of their own game than the VTTs their competitors make.
Regarding lootboxes in this game for YEARS now. The Icons of the Realms WizKids products are exactly that--lootboxes where you get a random miniature from the box. I do not see anyone really complaining about that... but the second it is online? Suddenly now it is a problem?
Here is the reality, there have been microtransactions in the form of miniatures and maps and other additional purchases since the '70s. Making those microtransactions digital is not really all that big of a deal.
Perhaps my argument was predicated on a slippery slope argument based on the companies actions and stated intentions in the last year or so, and how jaded I've felt towards them in response. But it does not make their argument any less of a strawman or enacted in bad faith. You on the other hand have concisely yet detailedly explained why my worries are unlikely to pass, so thank you for engaging with the discussion properly.
Regarding the microtransactions; which players have been casually accepting them? None that I know (Maybe that's not saying much). We get in a tizzy about them because we don't like the manner in which they are implemented. Often it's predatory, and affects those with addictive tendencies more heavily. The trope of the kid running with their parents credit cards? Yeah, it happens. It's not nice, and many games have been ruined because of them.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].Every player who has ever bought a miniature, bought an official map pack, bought a small-scale Extra Life product, bought spell, item, or monster cards... all of those have been microtransactions. They're microtransactions that give you a physical product (or at least most of them are), but they are microtransactions nonetheless. These have been a feature of D&D since the 70s and have yet to kill the game. I highly doubt having them also be available in digital is going to drastically change anything.
Again, it's not their existence that irks me so, I don't like the manner in which they are often implemented. Digitally you're buying pixels, and often it's more in your face/predatory, and affects those with addictive tendencies more heavily.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].What do you think you are buying with Netflix, Spotify, or DDB digital books?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'll tell you what I'm not buying. I'm not paying $1.99 for a 0.5% chance of unlocking the movie I want to watch.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].LOL, I am there with you on that!
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
They may be predatory to some, but they are actively beneficial to others—the existence of microtransactions allows the monthly costs to be lower, since there is a different revenue stream making up the difference. There are plenty of folks who would rather have a smaller monthly payment and ignore the microtransactions, since that ends up cheaper for them than a non-micro-transaction game would be. Ultimately, the important thing is how it is set up—and that is something we just don’t know and have no way of meaningfully speculating on.
Now, could the system be set up so it is in your face and intrusive? Sure. But that is going back down the slippery slope. It also could be very non-intrusive, with you getting access to content you already purchased on Beyond (I.e. buy a book on Beyond, you get the monster minis for it). Or it could be something else entirely—either good or bad.
Right now, we don’t know anything. I’m not really willing to engage in rampant speculation over how Wizards might monetise the VTT—and I am certainly not going to stress over the endless possibilities of what it might look like.
My entire point was that while I hope it is the former and not the later, I do not have the full confidence in WotC to implement it in a non-predatory manner. Especially when the predatory manner is the norm in digital games these days, and WotC have actively claimed they’re looking monetizing D&D like digital games. I really do not see how that speculation is baseless. Could I be wrong? Of course. Is it baseless? Not really.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].Considering your entire basis is "they might do it", I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion that this speculation is not baseless. It's just more of the usual speculation that not only is everyone making the decisions at WotC some soulless corporate fiend, but they're also incapable of recognizing what someone with a bachelor's degree in business from a liberal arts college can tell you is a very poor business model. If you don't have confidence then say so, but spinning these elaborate theories about how thoroughly WotC is out to corrupt all aspects of the game from wholecloth is just fearmongering.
You misunderstand. The basis is “they literally said they were looking to do it they way digital games are doing it.” My assertion is “they might do it in x way, because that’s what digital games are doing; in x way.” If you want to contend that’s an impossibility because x doesn’t make sense here, you’re welcome to do so. As far as “say so” goes, I literally did say I lacked the confidence in my original post but given the manner you’re still choosing to conduct yourself in, you probably missed it in favour of arguing an argument I never made.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].They cited digital games as an example of a market where more of the player base provides revenue, because increasing revenue is what companies seek to do. Claiming that's strong proof they're going to adopt a business model that in no way fits the product they're releasing is a rather large and illogical leap into false equivalence. And I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible, just that your line of reasoning for raising the issue is based on flawed or false premises.
They actually went further than just citing them as examples--they specifically said "we are too much like video games right now, we want to be less like them."
The actual context of this interview was pointing out that, much like many digital games, they have a whole lot of players, but only a small fraction (20%--mostly DMs) who actually pay Wizards money. The interview was actually pretty clear--rather than put an additional burden on those 20% who currently pay (which is what digital games do to solve their "small fraction actually pay" problem), Wizards wanted to look for ways to offer products the other 80% of players would want to buy. Contrary to indicating that Wizards wants this to be a disaster, it actually undermines ModoStark's point by showing Wizards is well aware there are limitations to squeezing blood from the DM stone.
If they try to sell anything but cosmetics and rulebooks I'll be right there in the trenches with you, but you have yet to provide a single concrete example of what has you so petrified.
Grabbing a single screenshot is indeed easy. Grabbing 15 is where convenience starts to become a selling point. And depending on your VTT (e.g. Owlbear Rodeo) you might end up having to do that every time you fire up the campaign, since there's no server to store anything on.
But maybe you're a Roll20 guy instead. Definitely more bells and whistles there. ...And still no cellphone or console support after a decade. Oh, and you have to buy your books through them, possibly for the third time, because of licensing.
In short, there's an addressable market here.
If I was going to use a VTT it would be WotC's solely because of the amount of content I own here regardless of bells and whistles.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
You're correct, my online sessions have mostly been through Roll20. And again, I'm not saying there's not a good spread of conveniences to D&DB integration, but with the VTT market this saturated already, I expect they're going to want to make their offering stand head and shoulders above the others to get a good foot in the door. I'd say integration only accounts for the head there.
Evidence that the digital gaming industry is currently rampant with exploitative practices of generating recurrent spending from customers? Or evidence that WotC plan to unlock the type of recurrent spending we see in digital games?
They probably will monetize the VTT by providing value to the users, or they could by exploiting them not in an unsimilar fashion to what we have witnessed take place in other digital games. You trust it will be the former, IF it is the later I will be upset. Why is pointing that out so rectally inclined?
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].You probably should have led with the "I don't know anything about that" part.
Poker sites aren't competing in hands directly against players. They make their money scooping a percentage of each pot or tournament buy-in. Their business model is driven by increasing their user base, not milking whales -- although obviously the more you play, and the higher stakes you play for, the more money they get from you.
They would lose money by selling better hands, but only because people would stop playing on that site once the competition was no longer perceived to be fair. Just as people would stop using a WOTC VTT if other players at their table could simply buy more spell slots or ki points or whatever when they ran out, because that violates the implicit contract between players to be "fair".
Brennan Lee Mulligan did a bit recently about the guy who brings his own overpowered character to a new table. That's the classic archetype of a player no one wants to be in a party with. How is that any different than your hypothetical "whale" player who buys all the microtransaction advantages they can to try and "win" D&D?
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)