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).
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).