Sad to see it go but it seems like it was a bad idea from the start as, unfortunately, the Covid Pandemic gave a false indication of the amount of users who actually played online.
It sucks because I was originally SOOO hyped when I saw what was going to be in store for us. 'This is it' I thought - this is what will be my new VTT. I would have definitely considered using it in person with a TV displaying the maps.
As soon as I got my hands on it though, I was immediately taken aback by how unpolished and how difficult it was to use. The extreme loading times and slow down didn't help either. DM prep takes enough time as it is - Sigil was not helping this process.
Maybe Sigil was destined to fail, but I think had the product been seriously good, people would have switched over from whatever they were using before. As it stands, I've carried on making maps with Dungeon Alchemist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Folk, please try to avoid focusing on each other or on playstyles.
While the number of people who use VTTs may be relevant to the discussion of a VTT's potential, this shouldn't be twisted to disparage any playstyle by saying some are more or less worthy of support, or to place judgement on those who prefer those playstyles. If such statistics come up, try and engage with them as numerical statements rather than value judgements either way.
It's also going to be understandable if folk are upset about loosing Sigil as a potential VTT, seeing as many folk engaged with playtesting and feedback and were hopeful for what it could be. Other's might not have even been aware of Sigil's existence until now. Let people be upset, let people show confusion.
So overall- remember our rule on civility please, and stay on topic. If any post should end up focusing on a User and not a point take a moment to reread and rethink what you're wanting to engage with.
The funny thing to me, is they can try again, with a better thought-out product and process, and still do the things that the community was clamoring for with Project-Sigil. Just think of an approach that favors community needs and doesn't try to hype the investors who will bail the moment a whisper in the wind spooks them.
Less intensive engine, art style that isn't prone to age (as example, look at Metroid Prime, still looks great even today.) and clear, upfront information on how things will be monetized, what you can do with it, and requirements. Make it easy to use, and easy to override, and boom, suddenly you have a tool that would be solid foundation for 3D players. Heck, they could even liscense out a fork or modified version of Talespire or Dungeon Alchemist if they don't want to in-house it. it likely wouldn't cost 50Million either. They could do it, and they could do it in the open without the secrecy and lack of details that Kept people warry of it.
Keep the users informed, treat the staff well, and it would get a lot more traction. Also make it an open park that people can wander into and feel like staying, and not a walled garden that makes people feel trapped in it, so they won't set foot in.
Those are the majority of the concerns i have seen voiced, and WoTC can just address them, be upfront, and head a steady community.
Talk to your users, see what they value, then MAKE THAT. ( not that i think they will, after this, but, they COULD do it. )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
The funny thing to me, is they can try again, with a better thought-out product and process, and still do the things that the community was clamoring for with Project-Sigil. Just think of an approach that favors community needs and doesn't try to hype the investors who will bail the moment a whisper in the wind spooks them.
Less intensive engine, art style that isn't prone to age (as example, look at Metroid Prime, still looks great even today.) and clear, upfront information on how things will be monetized, what you can do with it, and requirements. Make it easy to use, and easy to override, and boom, suddenly you have a tool that would be solid foundation for 3D players. Heck, they could even liscense out a fork or modified version of Talespire or Dungeon Alchemist if they don't want to in-house it. it likely wouldn't cost 50Million either. They could do it, and they could do it in the open without the secrecy and lack of details that Kept people warry of it.
Keep the users informed, treat the staff well, and it would get a lot more traction. Also make it an open park that people can wander into and feel like staying, and not a walled garden that makes people feel trapped in it, so they won't set foot in.
Those are the majority of the concerns i have seen voiced, and WoTC can just address them, be upfront, and head a steady community.
Talk to your users, see what they value, then MAKE THAT. ( not that i think they will, after this, but, they COULD do it. )
The funny thing to me, is they can try again, with a better thought-out product and process, and still do the things that the community was clamoring for with Project-Sigil.
This assumes that Project Sigil was something the community was clamoring for in the first place. The core problem with Sigil was failure to understand the actual demand.
The funny thing to me, is they can try again, with a better thought-out product and process, and still do the things that the community was clamoring for with Project-Sigil.
This assumes that Project Sigil was something the community was clamoring for in the first place. The core problem with Sigil was failure to understand the actual demand.
I think this is probably true. They may have conflated younger players with gamers and hoped that the younger players would prop it up. My guess is that younger players are heavily engaged in mobile platforms, and gamers don't necessarily play D&D. I myself am a gamer who also plays D&D, but that's apparently the middle of the Venn Diagram that doesn't overlap too much.
The funny thing to me, is they can try again, with a better thought-out product and process, and still do the things that the community was clamoring for with Project-Sigil.
This assumes that Project Sigil was something the community was clamoring for in the first place. The core problem with Sigil was failure to understand the actual demand.
I don't think it was. Maybe in the future when the necessary specs will be trivial it'd be something that people would love but right now... it's hard enough just getting something as simple as Roll20 to work smoothly and nicely. Internet connections need to catch up as well as computer specs though.
The other issue is that I suspect that WotC would want to microtransaction the life out of it. That would not have been attractive.
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 don't think it was. Maybe in the future when the necessary specs will be trivial it'd be something that people would love but right now... it's hard enough just getting something as simple as Roll20 to work smoothly and nicely. Internet connections need to catch up as well as computer specs though.
The other issue is that I suspect that WotC would want to microtransaction the life out of it. That would not have been attractive.
All that comes down to "not understanding the actual demand". If people want something that runs on their 2015 laptop, well, that's part of the demand. As for microtransactions, while WotC never figured out their business model, the most likely model for microtransactions is selling maps and models.... just like other VTTs.
I threw together a graveyard map. This took me, from the moment I logged in until completion, 10 minutes and 45 seconds (I timed it). Granted, it is a simple map, but it really is easy and fast to use. But if this took me less than 11 minutes, more traditional dungeons aren't going to require a lot more time. I think a 2d graveyard map would probably have taken roughly the same amount of time if we wanted to put as many bells and whistles on it.
I don't think it was. Maybe in the future when the necessary specs will be trivial it'd be something that people would love but right now... it's hard enough just getting something as simple as Roll20 to work smoothly and nicely. Internet connections need to catch up as well as computer specs though.
The other issue is that I suspect that WotC would want to microtransaction the life out of it. That would not have been attractive.
All that comes down to "not understanding the actual demand". If people want something that runs on their 2015 laptop, well, that's part of the demand. As for microtransactions, while WotC never figured out their business model, the most likely model for microtransactions is selling maps and models.... just like other VTTs.
Also animations (e.g. spell effects, flickering torches, weather etc) and premium features (e.g. dynamic lighting).
But the main takeaway from this for WotC should be to outsource their talent to the people who know what they're doing. They bought DDB's storefront for this exact reason, they could have either contracted or purchased a VTT too.
I don't think it was. Maybe in the future when the necessary specs will be trivial it'd be something that people would love but right now... it's hard enough just getting something as simple as Roll20 to work smoothly and nicely. Internet connections need to catch up as well as computer specs though.
The other issue is that I suspect that WotC would want to microtransaction the life out of it. That would not have been attractive.
All that comes down to "not understanding the actual demand". If people want something that runs on their 2015 laptop, well, that's part of the demand. As for microtransactions, while WotC never figured out their business model, the most likely model for microtransactions is selling maps and models.... just like other VTTs.
Also animations (e.g. spell effects, flickering torches, weather etc) and premium features (e.g. dynamic lighting).
But the main takeaway from this for WotC should be to outsource their talent to the people who know what they're doing. They bought DDB's storefront for this exact reason, they could have either contracted or purchased a VTT too.
Assuming anyone was selling at a price they were willing to pay.
But the main takeaway from this for WotC should be to outsource their talent to the people who know what they're doing. They bought DDB's storefront for this exact reason, they could have either contracted or purchased a VTT too.
There is an argument for building a new thing, dealing with piles of legacy code has its own issues. Sigil got killed because it didn't seem to have a monetization path worth the cost, not because of inherently unfixable problems.
But the main takeaway from this for WotC should be to outsource their talent to the people who know what they're doing. They bought DDB's storefront for this exact reason, they could have either contracted or purchased a VTT too.
There is an argument for building a new thing, dealing with piles of legacy code has its own issues. Sigil got killed because it didn't seem to have a monetization path worth the cost, not because of inherently unfixable problems.
Except, good design has a solid plan for sensible monetization baked in. Not a half-baked "They like BG3 and we can make them pay for minis" concept of a plan.
If they'd said "This is a separate subscription only platform, where each month you get more minis bundled with your subscription, but you can buy specific minis, or past months bundles that you missed", or something better than that (I'm not a games marketer" then it would have been a plan. But from all reports, they wanted to go with the predatory freemium model.
But the main takeaway from this for WotC should be to outsource their talent to the people who know what they're doing. They bought DDB's storefront for this exact reason, they could have either contracted or purchased a VTT too.
There is an argument for building a new thing, dealing with piles of legacy code has its own issues. Sigil got killed because it didn't seem to have a monetization path worth the cost, not because of inherently unfixable problems.
Except, good design has a solid plan for sensible monetization baked in. Not a half-baked "They like BG3 and we can make them pay for minis" concept of a plan.
If they'd said "This is a separate subscription only platform, where each month you get more minis bundled with your subscription, but you can buy specific minis, or past months bundles that you missed", or something better than that (I'm not a games marketer" then it would have been a plan. But from all reports, they wanted to go with the predatory freemium model.
Do you have any particular reports you can link for our review to prove this? And no, just citing the comment that the playerbase is "undermonetized" is not evidence they had any particular tactic in mind.
Except, good design has a solid plan for sensible monetization baked in. Not a half-baked "They like BG3 and we can make them pay for minis" concept of a plan.
If they'd said "This is a separate subscription only platform, where each month you get more minis bundled with your subscription, but you can buy specific minis, or past months bundles that you missed", or something better than that (I'm not a games marketer" then it would have been a plan. But from all reports, they wanted to go with the predatory freemium model.
For them to go with a predatory freemium model assumes that they had a business model to start with, which as we've been discussing, they did not. Freemium is not necessarily predatory, it depends on how it's structured. Obviously Wizards is not immune to the temptations of predatory practices, they did first establish themselves with Magic the Gathering, which is, to be honest, the physical equivalent of lootboxes, but you can't call a nonexistent business model predatory.
In any case, the first issue of a business plan would be getting an understanding of what people actually want and are willing to pay for, and the thing about VTTs is, they're tools. The primary focus of an RPG played on a VTT is still the RPG, the VTT is just assisting with the experience (primarily by allowing people to play by remote; other features are there to make the experience of playing remote more appealing).
I will chime in with my two pennies:
Sad to see it go but it seems like it was a bad idea from the start as, unfortunately, the Covid Pandemic gave a false indication of the amount of users who actually played online.
It sucks because I was originally SOOO hyped when I saw what was going to be in store for us. 'This is it' I thought - this is what will be my new VTT. I would have definitely considered using it in person with a TV displaying the maps.
As soon as I got my hands on it though, I was immediately taken aback by how unpolished and how difficult it was to use. The extreme loading times and slow down didn't help either. DM prep takes enough time as it is - Sigil was not helping this process.
Maybe Sigil was destined to fail, but I think had the product been seriously good, people would have switched over from whatever they were using before. As it stands, I've carried on making maps with Dungeon Alchemist.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorFolk, please try to avoid focusing on each other or on playstyles.
While the number of people who use VTTs may be relevant to the discussion of a VTT's potential, this shouldn't be twisted to disparage any playstyle by saying some are more or less worthy of support, or to place judgement on those who prefer those playstyles. If such statistics come up, try and engage with them as numerical statements rather than value judgements either way.
It's also going to be understandable if folk are upset about loosing Sigil as a potential VTT, seeing as many folk engaged with playtesting and feedback and were hopeful for what it could be. Other's might not have even been aware of Sigil's existence until now. Let people be upset, let people show confusion.
So overall- remember our rule on civility please, and stay on topic. If any post should end up focusing on a User and not a point take a moment to reread and rethink what you're wanting to engage with.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
The funny thing to me, is they can try again, with a better thought-out product and process, and still do the things that the community was clamoring for with Project-Sigil. Just think of an approach that favors community needs and doesn't try to hype the investors who will bail the moment a whisper in the wind spooks them.
Less intensive engine, art style that isn't prone to age (as example, look at Metroid Prime, still looks great even today.) and clear, upfront information on how things will be monetized, what you can do with it, and requirements. Make it easy to use, and easy to override, and boom, suddenly you have a tool that would be solid foundation for 3D players. Heck, they could even liscense out a fork or modified version of Talespire or Dungeon Alchemist if they don't want to in-house it.
it likely wouldn't cost 50Million either. They could do it, and they could do it in the open without the secrecy and lack of details that Kept people warry of it.
Keep the users informed, treat the staff well, and it would get a lot more traction. Also make it an open park that people can wander into and feel like staying, and not a walled garden that makes people feel trapped in it, so they won't set foot in.
Those are the majority of the concerns i have seen voiced, and WoTC can just address them, be upfront, and head a steady community.
Talk to your users, see what they value, then MAKE THAT. ( not that i think they will, after this, but, they COULD do it. )
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
You basically just described Talespire dead-on.
This assumes that Project Sigil was something the community was clamoring for in the first place. The core problem with Sigil was failure to understand the actual demand.
I think this is probably true. They may have conflated younger players with gamers and hoped that the younger players would prop it up. My guess is that younger players are heavily engaged in mobile platforms, and gamers don't necessarily play D&D. I myself am a gamer who also plays D&D, but that's apparently the middle of the Venn Diagram that doesn't overlap too much.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I don't think it was. Maybe in the future when the necessary specs will be trivial it'd be something that people would love but right now... it's hard enough just getting something as simple as Roll20 to work smoothly and nicely. Internet connections need to catch up as well as computer specs though.
The other issue is that I suspect that WotC would want to microtransaction the life out of it. That would not have been attractive.
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.
All that comes down to "not understanding the actual demand". If people want something that runs on their 2015 laptop, well, that's part of the demand. As for microtransactions, while WotC never figured out their business model, the most likely model for microtransactions is selling maps and models.... just like other VTTs.
Jumping back to application and ease of use:
I threw together a graveyard map. This took me, from the moment I logged in until completion, 10 minutes and 45 seconds (I timed it). Granted, it is a simple map, but it really is easy and fast to use. But if this took me less than 11 minutes, more traditional dungeons aren't going to require a lot more time. I think a 2d graveyard map would probably have taken roughly the same amount of time if we wanted to put as many bells and whistles on it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Also animations (e.g. spell effects, flickering torches, weather etc) and premium features (e.g. dynamic lighting).
But the main takeaway from this for WotC should be to outsource their talent to the people who know what they're doing. They bought DDB's storefront for this exact reason, they could have either contracted or purchased a VTT too.
Assuming anyone was selling at a price they were willing to pay.
There is an argument for building a new thing, dealing with piles of legacy code has its own issues. Sigil got killed because it didn't seem to have a monetization path worth the cost, not because of inherently unfixable problems.
Except, good design has a solid plan for sensible monetization baked in. Not a half-baked "They like BG3 and we can make them pay for minis" concept of a plan.
If they'd said "This is a separate subscription only platform, where each month you get more minis bundled with your subscription, but you can buy specific minis, or past months bundles that you missed", or something better than that (I'm not a games marketer" then it would have been a plan. But from all reports, they wanted to go with the predatory freemium model.
Do you have any particular reports you can link for our review to prove this? And no, just citing the comment that the playerbase is "undermonetized" is not evidence they had any particular tactic in mind.
For them to go with a predatory freemium model assumes that they had a business model to start with, which as we've been discussing, they did not. Freemium is not necessarily predatory, it depends on how it's structured. Obviously Wizards is not immune to the temptations of predatory practices, they did first establish themselves with Magic the Gathering, which is, to be honest, the physical equivalent of lootboxes, but you can't call a nonexistent business model predatory.
In any case, the first issue of a business plan would be getting an understanding of what people actually want and are willing to pay for, and the thing about VTTs is, they're tools. The primary focus of an RPG played on a VTT is still the RPG, the VTT is just assisting with the experience (primarily by allowing people to play by remote; other features are there to make the experience of playing remote more appealing).