The DM, obviously, is what’s stopping them. This isn’t a computer game where some kind of algorithm is running the show and needs to accept whatever inputs it’s given. It’s an aid for tabletop.
The DM, obviously, is what’s stopping them. This isn’t a computer game where some kind of algorithm is running the show and needs to accept whatever inputs it’s given. It’s an aid for tabletop.
What stops the DM?
The fact that the game isn't played that way, and so if they do pursue this model they're no longer offering a VTT, they're offering a gacha game, which the fanbase is highly unlikely to receive positively or invest in enough to make the project profitable.
Asking people to prove a negative is a logical fallacy in any case.
they complain that very little work has been done recently.
Aside from the VTTs you mean? Both of them?
Many will get little to no use from those tools for various reasons, but many would benefit from patches to bug reports as old as the site, regardless of who currenyly owns the site. Who wants to buy in to a system that is more focused on marketing to new customers than providing fixes to complaints that are years old and hundreds of forum pages deep?
In the software business, fixing bugs for existing code is never as sexy as working on the Next Thing. ;)
The DM, obviously, is what’s stopping them. This isn’t a computer game where some kind of algorithm is running the show and needs to accept whatever inputs it’s given. It’s an aid for tabletop.
What stops the DM?
The players, even without a VTT if a DM hand waved an additional spell slot because a player paid them I would leave that game.
D&D isn't a game a player "wins" so pay to win profit models are going to be a tough method of generating revenue.
Skins and cosmetic things sure, but armor and spell slots?
The fact that the game isn't played that way, and so if they do pursue this model they're no longer offering a VTT, they're offering a gacha game, which the fanbase is highly unlikely to receive positively or invest in enough to make the project profitable.
Asking people to prove a negative is a logical fallacy in any case.
Which was my point, if mechanics are monetised and added into the ruleset it would be received negatively by the fanbase. But people have put more money into stupider ideas. If the company is measuring success of the game by short-term profits, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from compromising the long-term integrity of the game in exchange for that.
I've not asked anyone to prove anything? I put forward a hypothetical scenario where the game is ruined. Nothing more, nothing less.
they complain that very little work has been done recently.
Aside from the VTTs you mean? Both of them?
Many will get little to no use from those tools for various reasons, but many would benefit from patches to bug reports as old as the site, regardless of who currenyly owns the site. Who wants to buy in to a system that is more focused on marketing to new customers than providing fixes to complaints that are years old and hundreds of forum pages deep?
In the software business, fixing bugs for existing code is never as sexy as working on the Next Thing. ;)
Yes but getting people to continue to purchase/subscribe without finishing past projects makes it hard to pay for working on the Next Thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The fact that the game isn't played that way, and so if they do pursue this model they're no longer offering a VTT, they're offering a gacha game, which the fanbase is highly unlikely to receive positively or invest in enough to make the project profitable.
Asking people to prove a negative is a logical fallacy in any case.
Which was my point, if mechanics are monetised and added into the ruleset it would be received negatively by the fanbase. But people have put more money into stupider ideas. If the company is measuring success of the game by short-term profits, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from compromising the long-term integrity of the game in exchange for that.
I've not asked anyone to prove anything? I put forward a hypothetical scenario where the game is ruined. Nothing more, nothing less.
Regardless, "whataboutisms" aren't the best talking point when you're just tossing out hypothetically possible scenarios with no specific evidence to support the idea that they're likely to occur. WotC has been very clear that they're looking to make a VTT, and what you're describing is not a VTT, ergo we can logically infer that it is unlikely to bear much resemblance to the final product based on the available evidence.
Regardless, "whataboutisms" aren't the best talking point when you're just tossing out hypothetically possible scenarios with no specific evidence to support the idea that they're likely to occur. WotC has been very clear that they're looking to make a VTT, and what you're describing is not a VTT, ergo we can logically infer that it is unlikely to bear much resemblance to the final product based on the available evidence.
Hence the "How long before?" question. You know, to infer it wont be immediate.
Beyond20 gives a pretty good integration already, so while having that baked in is nice, it doesn't really make their VTT stand out from the pack.
Beyond20 carries rolls over, but not things like token art for every printed monster or combat logs. So I stand by what I said.
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.
1st party integration, if it is done well, is unbeatable. If it isn't done well 3rd party will do the best they can until 1st party realizes they left all that money on the table and does it well.
Look at character sheets, and the character creator pretty much everyone I know uses them. Every once in a while I will see something about 3rd party options for them, most often if a reason is given it is they want something that can be used offline in ways that DDB can not.
Regardless, "whataboutisms" aren't the best talking point when you're just tossing out hypothetically possible scenarios with no specific evidence to support the idea that they're likely to occur. WotC has been very clear that they're looking to make a VTT, and what you're describing is not a VTT, ergo we can logically infer that it is unlikely to bear much resemblance to the final product based on the available evidence.
Hence the "How long before?" question. You know, to infer it wont be immediate.
Which is still baseless speculation; we have no tangible reason to believe this will happen beyond the standard "watch out, those corpos all want your money, your life, and your soul" assumptions.
Which is still baseless speculation; we have no tangible reason to believe this will happen beyond the standard "watch out, those corpos all want your money, your life, and your soul" assumptions.
Not an assumption. Literally what they have already said; they want to "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games."
Guess what I see in digital games these day? That's right, monetized mechanics and loot crates.
Which is still baseless speculation; we have no tangible reason to believe this will happen beyond the standard "watch out, those corpos all want your money, your life, and your soul" assumptions.
Not an assumption. Literally what they have already said; they want to "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games."
Guess what I see in digital games these day? That's right, monetized mechanics and loot crates.
How does that work in D&D, you can't "win or beat" the game in the same sense you can "win or beat" a video game?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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.
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
Which was my point, if mechanics are monetised and added into the ruleset it would be received negatively by the fanbase. But people have put more money into stupider ideas.
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
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)
Which is still baseless speculation; we have no tangible reason to believe this will happen beyond the standard "watch out, those corpos all want your money, your life, and your soul" assumptions.
Not an assumption. Literally what they have already said; they want to "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games."
Guess what I see in digital games these day? That's right, monetized mechanics and loot crates.
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.
The DM, obviously, is what’s stopping them. This isn’t a computer game where some kind of algorithm is running the show and needs to accept whatever inputs it’s given. It’s an aid for tabletop.
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
[REDACTED]
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. [REDACTED]
What stops the DM?
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].Beyond20 gives a pretty good integration already, so while having that baked in is nice, it doesn't really make their VTT stand out from the pack.
The fact that the game isn't played that way, and so if they do pursue this model they're no longer offering a VTT, they're offering a gacha game, which the fanbase is highly unlikely to receive positively or invest in enough to make the project profitable.
Asking people to prove a negative is a logical fallacy in any case.
In the software business, fixing bugs for existing code is never as sexy as working on the Next Thing. ;)
The players, even without a VTT if a DM hand waved an additional spell slot because a player paid them I would leave that game.
D&D isn't a game a player "wins" so pay to win profit models are going to be a tough method of generating revenue.
Skins and cosmetic things sure, but armor and spell slots?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Which was my point, if mechanics are monetised and added into the ruleset it would be received negatively by the fanbase. But people have put more money into stupider ideas. If the company is measuring success of the game by short-term profits, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from compromising the long-term integrity of the game in exchange for that.
I've not asked anyone to prove anything? I put forward a hypothetical scenario where the game is ruined. Nothing more, nothing less.
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].Yes but getting people to continue to purchase/subscribe without finishing past projects makes it hard to pay for working on the Next Thing.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Regardless, "whataboutisms" aren't the best talking point when you're just tossing out hypothetically possible scenarios with no specific evidence to support the idea that they're likely to occur. WotC has been very clear that they're looking to make a VTT, and what you're describing is not a VTT, ergo we can logically infer that it is unlikely to bear much resemblance to the final product based on the available evidence.
Hence the "How long before?" question. You know, to infer it wont be immediate.
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].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.
1st party integration, if it is done well, is unbeatable. If it isn't done well 3rd party will do the best they can until 1st party realizes they left all that money on the table and does it well.
Look at character sheets, and the character creator pretty much everyone I know uses them. Every once in a while I will see something about 3rd party options for them, most often if a reason is given it is they want something that can be used offline in ways that DDB can not.
If they get the VTT right it will be big.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Which is still baseless speculation; we have no tangible reason to believe this will happen beyond the standard "watch out, those corpos all want your money, your life, and your soul" assumptions.
Not an assumption. Literally what they have already said; they want to "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games."
Guess what I see in digital games these day? That's right, monetized mechanics and loot crates.
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].How does that work in D&D, you can't "win or beat" the game in the same sense you can "win or beat" a video game?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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 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
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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
[REDACTED]
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)
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.
Stops the DM from doing what?
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.
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.
All due respect, this is the third time you've mischaracterised my arguments. [REDACTED]
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].