A Discussion on how WoTC can make money and not make people mad

Bothsidesism is gross false equivalence and unproductive in serious conversation. Calling the updated 2024 ruleset 5.5 in 2024 was a dogwhistle and it was rooted in attempts to start edition wars and some of the people driving that activity were doing it because they were upset WotC was continuing the removal of racist stereotypes that they started back with Monsters of the Multiverse. There's no pretending those facts aren't facts.

New leadership at WotC decided only recently to adopt the 5.5 language for multiple reasons (not least of which is how awkward it was referring to everything released in 2025 and 2026 as 2024 products). But notice that there weren't cheers of joy for the 5.5 naming convention folks getting what they wanted. The perpetually angry crowd just kept being perpetually angry and re-litigating old issues. Oh, and they also got mad that WotC adopted the 5.5 naming convention after not adopting it earlier. As I've said several times now, there's no winning for WotC in regards to chasing after that crowd because nothing they do will make that crowd happy. They can only dig themselves deeper into a position of being resented by that crowd. When it comes to the extremely vocal, terminally online haters, Wizards of the Coast is trapped in zugzwang.

Meanwhile, the rest of us - the majority of their customers - can be critical of the occasional fumble but are otherwise happy with the products, services, and business decisions from Wizards of the Coast. When it comes to the Drops I don't even see anything to be mad about for my own sake, because as a longtime subscriber I'm already paying and now I'm getting additional stuff without paying additional money. From my point of view it's extremely difficult to argue WotC is being greedy by giving me more stuff without charging me more money. I've got practically every streaming service upping their subscription rates, and practically every SaaS application also upping subscriptions and shoehorning AI functionality no one wants into their products. WotC adding more content without increasing prices feels a lot like a value add to me. But just because I'm copacetic with the Drops doesn't me I - and the majority of content customers like me - are going to be toxic with the people who are complaining. Mostly I'm seeing folks who are happy with the Drops content offering helpful advice like "make homebrew copies to share with your players" to the folks who are grumbling. It's more than a stretch to call that toxic just to make a tortured "both sides are bad" argument in bad faith.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper>>

So, overall:

PDFs:Good idea, but not for the people w/decision-making powers.

 

No, bad idea because the size of the target audience makes it a ripe target for abuse of such an easily copied and disseminated medium. Please keep in mind that the net effect of large scale piracy is to hurt the quality of future products, since the company both won't be making as much money to turn back around into future development and investors will either be turned off altogether or reasonably advocate that the company allocate funds into avenues that generate larger- or even positive, if it gets bad enough- returns. I realize it's in vogue to get all high and mighty about how morally bankrupt it is for companies to focus on making profits, but the funny thing is that companies or divisions thereof that fail to stay in the black end up literally bankrupt instead, which isn't really conducive to keeping product lines alive.

 Virtually every other tabletop RPG sells their books in PDF format without any issues of piracy harming them in any major scale.  There's nothing special about D&D that would cause it to be different in that respect.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper>>

 Virtually every other tabletop RPG sells their books in PDF format without any issues of piracy harming them in any major scale.  There's nothing special about D&D that would cause it to be different in that respect.

 
The fact that D&D is far and away the biggest in the industry - and the one thus most likely to be pirated - is a pretty clear difference. But let us pretend piracy is not an issue.  That does not mean Wizards would be better off selling PDFs.  

Other companies sell PDFs not because they think it helps the customer per se - they sell PDFs because they have to.  They simply do not have the audience to justify expensive digital platforms - platforms that are expensive to both build and maintain.  Even games like Pathfinder are small fish compared to D&D, so they have to do what financially makes sense for them. I feel pretty confident that many of them would abandon PDFs for a Beyond like system if it financially made sense.

Why?  Even ignoring piracy, Beyond offers more value to players.  Digital tools.  Search systems (which, while the current systems are terrible, are still better than a PDF’s complete lacking). Homebrew systems. Etc.

From the financial perspective, the ability to sell a subscription for content sharing, pages that remind you there’s content you do not own and could purchase, and an easy marketplace all are value adds for Wizards.

I find it extremely hard to buy the “Wizards would make more money if they sold PDFs” arguments.  The value add would be “folks who want a digital version, but don’t want the digital perks that come with it”.  Any time you are looking at a smaller part of a population, your expected value is diminished due to smaller expected returns.  Your value loss is potential subscription funds (even ignoring piracy, folks might choose a PDF and loss of tools to easily share a document with their playgroup) and upsells when folks are looking at Beyond and say “maybe I want that also.”  Not to mention any incidental infrastructure costs of selling the PDFs.

I think that delta works out for a net loss if Wizards sells PDFs.  Whether it might be a good thing overall for the game (and I highly doubt it would be) is not really the point of this thread.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Bothsidesism is gross false equivalence and unproductive in serious conversation. Calling the updated 2024 ruleset 5.5 in 2024 was a dogwhistle and it was rooted in attempts to start edition wars and some of the people driving that activity were doing it because they were upset WotC was continuing the removal of racist stereotypes that they started back with Monsters of the Multiverse. There's no pretending those facts aren't facts.

New leadership at WotC decided only recently to adopt the 5.5 language for multiple reasons (not least of which is how awkward it was referring to everything released in 2025 and 2026 as 2024 products). But notice that there weren't cheers of joy for the 5.5 naming convention folks getting what they wanted. The perpetually angry crowd just kept being perpetually angry and re-litigating old issues. Oh, and they also got mad that WotC adopted the 5.5 naming convention after not adopting it earlier. As I've said several times now, there's no winning for WotC in regards to chasing after that crowd because nothing they do will make that crowd happy. They can only dig themselves deeper into a position of being resented by that crowd. When it comes to the extremely vocal, terminally online haters, Wizards of the Coast is trapped in zugzwang.

Meanwhile, the rest of us - the majority of their customers - can be critical of the occasional fumble but are otherwise happy with the products, services, and business decisions from Wizards of the Coast. When it comes to the Drops I don't even see anything to be mad about for my own sake, because as a longtime subscriber I'm already paying and now I'm getting additional stuff without paying additional money. From my point of view it's extremely difficult to argue WotC is being greedy by giving me more stuff without charging me more money. I've got practically every streaming service upping their subscription rates, and practically every SaaS application also upping subscriptions and shoehorning AI functionality no one wants into their products. WotC adding more content without increasing prices feels a lot like a value add to me. But just because I'm copacetic with the Drops doesn't me I - and the majority of content customers like me - are going to be toxic with the people who are complaining. Mostly I'm seeing folks who are happy with the Drops content offering helpful advice like "make homebrew copies to share with your players" to the folks who are grumbling. It's more than a stretch to call that toxic just to make a tortured "both sides are bad" argument in bad faith.

 
gonna file this under "Exhibit A"

The reality is, PDF is a kind of cruddy electronic format, properly hyperlinked text is much better.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper>>

 Virtually every other tabletop RPG sells their books in PDF format without any issues of piracy harming them in any major scale.  There's nothing special about D&D that would cause it to be different in that respect.

 
The fact that D&D is far and away the biggest in the industry - and the one thus most likely to be pirated - is a pretty clear difference. But let us pretend piracy is not an issue.  That does not mean Wizards would be better off selling PDFs.  

Other companies sell PDFs not because they think it helps the customer per se - they sell PDFs because they have to.  They simply do not have the audience to justify expensive digital platforms - platforms that are expensive to both build and maintain.  Even games like Pathfinder are small fish compared to D&D, so they have to do what financially makes sense for them. I feel pretty confident that many of them would abandon PDFs for a Beyond like system if it financially made sense.

Why?  Even ignoring piracy, Beyond offers more value to players.  Digital tools.  Search systems (which, while the current systems are terrible, are still better than a PDF’s complete lacking). Homebrew systems. Etc.

From the financial perspective, the ability to sell a subscription for content sharing, pages that remind you there’s content you do not own and could purchase, and an easy marketplace all are value adds for Wizards.

I find it extremely hard to buy the “Wizards would make more money if they sold PDFs” arguments.  The value add would be “folks who want a digital version, but don’t want the digital perks that come with it”.  Any time you are looking at a smaller part of a population, your expected value is diminished due to smaller expected returns.  Your value loss is potential subscription funds (even ignoring piracy, folks might choose a PDF and loss of tools to easily share a document with their playgroup) and upsells when folks are looking at Beyond and say “maybe I want that also.”  Not to mention any incidental infrastructure costs of selling the PDFs.

I think that delta works out for a net loss if Wizards sells PDFs.  Whether it might be a good thing overall for the game (and I highly doubt it would be) is not really the point of this thread.

 I'd like to point out that WotC didn't even create this digital platform.  A third party did and WotC just bought it a few years later.  WotC has been spectacularly unsuccessful at digital content of any kind on their own.

And regarding piracy and how protective companies have to be regarding it, decades of research has shown that there's one thing that affects piracy of product more than anything else: the ease at which consumers can get access to the product legitimately.  

If my memory serves me right, I seem to recall that when streaming services like Netflix became popular, piracy rates dropped.

We know very well that producing an animated series requires time, money and a team of professionals, but on YouTube we can see TV series from Hasbro franchises, and they are financed with advertising. Producing TTRPG online content doesn't need so much, and printing, transport and storage costs are saved.

The consumer who spends her money to buy official products is loyal but to earn this loyalty demands to obey certain principles. The consumer shouldn't feel to be tricked or abused by the company.

I am not a true player but a collector and I bought a lot of titles in the 3E. If I want to collect something I would rather to buy a physicial product, or maybe digital content it can be used in off-line mode. I bought all the things from the Sims 3 but after I lost total interest into the Sims 4. I bought some things from Fortnite but I don't play anymore because my graphic-card isn't enoughly good and playing stopped to be fun when I lost conection. I don't want to spend money on something that depends on an internet connection or external servers.

I don't like to pay by online but I do it to buy content of the online videogame "Shop Titans". And if I pay with my money I would rather content in my first languange. 

I wonder about Epic Games producing its own VTT for Fornite and here Hasbro arrived for different collabs, for example VTT for a new edition of Gamma World (and skins of Fortnite could be used for virtual miniatures).

Quote from Tilda_Wildbramble >>

 

 Well as you can see, if you don't like certain content being locked behind a subscription, you are a WotC Hating Rable Rouser and Racist. So it is best if you don't like something, not to mention it here. 

I personally don't like Character Content such as feats and subclasses to be tied to Subs. I think things that are tied to Maps makes sense. Maps is a very specifically a digital website dependent product. But, if I say that, I am a Rable Rousing Racist and should be ashamed for having an opinion that doesn't lick the boots of the great and powerful WotC. So I won't say it here. 

As a counter point, I don't particularly like things (e.g., the updated encounter builder) being tied to maps, because I don't use maps. That said, I know it's an extremely popular feature, so I understand why they do it and good for them. I think adding additional perks for subscribers makes sense but I'm a subscriber, so of course I'm biased (and I don't mean that to be sarcastic). Whether or not we agree, saying "I don't like character content being tied to subs" is a much more nuanced argument than much of what has been happening here.

Quote from BigHeartedGuy >>

Quote from Tilda_Wildbramble >>

 

 Well as you can see, if you don't like certain content being locked behind a subscription, you are a WotC Hating Rable Rouser and Racist. So it is best if you don't like something, not to mention it here. 

I personally don't like Character Content such as feats and subclasses to be tied to Subs. I think things that are tied to Maps makes sense. Maps is a very specifically a digital website dependent product. But, if I say that, I am a Rable Rousing Racist and should be ashamed for having an opinion that doesn't lick the boots of the great and powerful WotC. So I won't say it here. 

 

As a counter point, I don't particularly like things (e.g., the updated encounter builder) being tied to maps, because I don't use maps. That said, I know it's an extremely popular feature, so I understand why they do it and good for them. I think adding additional perks for subscribers makes sense but I'm a subscriber, so of course I'm biased (and I don't mean that to be sarcastic). Whether or not we agree, saying "I don't like character content being tied to subs" is a much more nuanced argument than much of what has been happening here.

 Same boat with the encounter builder. I would have preferred it continuing to be developed as its own thing because I liked how the old one worked and haven't dived into using maps with my group. But I'm not going to get upsetti spaghetti about it because a lot of people really dig Maps and broadly speaking all the changes to the platform are making things better overall.

Nuance is good and and productive. Dishonest oversimplification like those two responses to my post, less so.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Quote from BigHeartedGuy >>

Quote from Tilda_Wildbramble >>

 

 

 Same boat with the encounter builder. I would have preferred it continuing to be developed as its own thing because I liked how the old one worked and haven't dived into using maps with my group.

Wizards actually provided a response on this recently. Per a Q&A, the encounter builder, like so much else on this site, is built on top of really bad spaghetti code.  The 2014 calculations are apparently structural to the entire pile of code and Wizards realized it would take more effort to fix the 2014 encounter builder than just build a new system from scratch as part of their overhaul of the entire site.

I recall they indicated the encounter builder was likely going to be in the second round of overhauls, after some of the more commonly used player-facing options get fixed.

To keep this on topic for the thread, I would point out this demonstrates two ways Wizards is trying to value add to the game - fixing the mess that is Beyond’s code is good for everyone, and Wizards’ current efforts to keep in communication with players go a long way toward building trust with the community. At least among those who are willing to actually accept the olive branch.

Quote from hollowtpm >>

I find it funny though that many of the voices here who are saying WoTC is the issue, or along those lines chose to not engage with my actual purpose of the post

Share ideas for the company to make money and make those people who are upset at how they made money happy.

If people are unhappy instead of complaining, I wanted to also bring a space to promote and engage in the solution. Part of identifying a problem is also helping to find the solution.

Hence why when stated that the problem is WoTC owning more than 50% of the market, I asked how to make it so they do not and are still making a goof profit - That is the kind of discourse we need to help the "corporate" side of this Hobby. Yes we the community own D&D in the sense, but frankly I want both 3rd party and WoTC to be profitable so I can keep spending my money on their things. I like buying premade stuff and tweaking it, so I would like to see their ideas work. Not just be shut down as "money grabbing."

To make informed suggestions, a general consensus must first be reached about the nature and collateral effects of the problem.    It’s like telling someone with a peanut allergy to use a non-peanut alternative. Technically its good advise, but ignores a lot of surrounding context (ie nut oil cross contamination is extremely common in industrial scale food processing) that is of critical importance in proposing an effective solution.  

Having a dominant market share in of itself is not the problem.  Steam has a massive share of the PC market, but its practices has not prevented other publishers from having a much bigger impact on the state of game design and monetization. The issue is the consistent pursuit of share value over sustainable, healthy business practices.  And people are revolting and becoming overly cynical, because the company has already cashed out all of its trust and reputation in multiple get rich quick schemes.

 So it should surprise no one when the burden of proof has been shifted on WOTC that this will not inevitably cost the players, fans and customer base when it doesn’t result in unrealistic, unsustainable profit growth.   The only thing that keeps the real power and beneficiary, the share holders, at bay

Quote from GnollitAll78450 >>

It's the Try before you buy concept. It is something that happened when I was teaching the game in meatspace. I would share my materials with my players, and those that got really into it, then they would go out and buy it if they could. Because they got into things, and knew i wasn't going to be around all the time, so they needed it themselves.
If I can wheel one of my players to the game store in wheelchair that was way too small for me to push without shrimping into a question mark for several blocks, then Beyond can let the highest paying members share what they own so that others might decide a sub is worth it.
The game grew by sharing and permissive licenses. It is baked into the Culture of the Game. 

 While I understand your argument, I disagree with the concept in practice.  Because those who buy anything beyond the PHB are generally the DM.  And sharing doesn't benefit the DM.  As someone who's been involved in a lot of AL as well as multiple campaign groups of my home games, the expectation remains on the DM to provide pretty much everything. The one time I joined a group as a player, the DM took one look at all the extra content he'd gained, and didn't want me to leave the campaign ever.  And if DMs don't buy, people will just play with what they've got.  Because if the DM buys an item, the player doesn't need to, and if the player doesn't see the item, they won't buy it. So the players never see the items to buy them.

The number of people who will see something from the Subscribers Drops, and decide to subscribe because they want it is... likely zero.  That's why there's such an uproar.  Players believe they're entitled to content because their DM is paying.

To address the actual topic, I think they've done some good work in expanding D&D Beyond with things like the Class Packs.  Once there's enough additional subclasses etc, they could repeat that with Class expansions too. And I've been quite happy with the expansion of third party content. That said, as a primarily in-person DM, the big things I'd pay for from WTOC extend beyond the D&D Beyond platform.

1. Monster Stat Cards, like the Heroes of the Borderlands set
2. Class Spell or Ability cards
3. Updated Setting book for Greyhawk
4. Updated versions of many of the older edition books, like the Eberron topic books, or the Forgotten Realms region guides.  I'd even accept these as digital only.

That said, D&D Beyond already gets my DM Tier subscription, and I've bought almost everything except for some of the 'other' Setting Books like Taldorei and Strixhaven (yeah yeah), so I'm probably not a good guide on what people won't buy.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 

Wizards actually provided a response on this recently. Per a Q&A, the encounter builder, like so much else on this site, is built on top of really bad spaghetti code.  The 2014 calculations are apparently structural to the entire pile of code and Wizards realized it would take more effort to fix the 2014 encounter builder than just build a new system from scratch as part of their overhaul of the entire site.

I recall they indicated the encounter builder was likely going to be in the second round of overhauls, after some of the more commonly used player-facing options get fixed.

To keep this on topic for the thread, I would point out this demonstrates two ways Wizards is trying to value add to the game - fixing the mess that is Beyond’s code is good for everyone, and Wizards’ current efforts to keep in communication with players go a long way toward building trust with the community. At least among those who are willing to actually accept the olive branch.

 Probably explains why Encounter Builder never came out of Beta after 5ish years, they probably got halfway through designing it and realised there was no way it could be finished without rebuilding half the site. I know the upcoming rebuild is starting to turn into a "jam tomorrow" situation but it will be nice once it's happened to see where we stand and what long running pain points they can actually start to fix 

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from GnollitAll78450 >>

It's the Try before you buy concept. It is something that happened when I was teaching the game in meatspace. I would share my materials with my players, and those that got really into it, then they would go out and buy it if they could. Because they got into things, and knew i wasn't going to be around all the time, so they needed it themselves.
If I can wheel one of my players to the game store in wheelchair that was way too small for me to push without shrimping into a question mark for several blocks, then Beyond can let the highest paying members share what they own so that others might decide a sub is worth it.
The game grew by sharing and permissive licenses. It is baked into the Culture of the Game. 

 While I understand your argument, I disagree with the concept in practice.  Because those who buy anything beyond the PHB are generally the DM.  And sharing doesn't benefit the DM.  As someone who's been involved in a lot of AL as well as multiple campaign groups of my home games, the expectation remains on the DM to provide pretty much everything. The one time I joined a group as a player, the DM took one look at all the extra content he'd gained, and didn't want me to leave the campaign ever.  And if DMs don't buy, people will just play with what they've got.  Because if the DM buys an item, the player doesn't need to, and if the player doesn't see the item, they won't buy it. So the players never see the items to buy them.

The number of people who will see something from the Subscribers Drops, and decide to subscribe because they want it is... likely zero.  That's why there's such an uproar.  Players believe they're entitled to content because their DM is paying.

To address the actual topic, I think they've done some good work in expanding D&D Beyond with things like the Class Packs.  Once there's enough additional subclasses etc, they could repeat that with Class expansions too. And I've been quite happy with the expansion of third party content. That said, as a primarily in-person DM, the big things I'd pay for from WTOC extend beyond the D&D Beyond platform.

1. Monster Stat Cards, like the Heroes of the Borderlands set
2. Class Spell or Ability cards
3. Updated Setting book for Greyhawk
4. Updated versions of many of the older edition books, like the Eberron topic books, or the Forgotten Realms region guides.  I'd even accept these as digital only.

That said, D&D Beyond already gets my DM Tier subscription, and I've bought almost everything except for some of the 'other' Setting Books like Taldorei and Strixhaven (yeah yeah), so I'm probably not a good guide on what people won't buy.

 
Maybe it is a Culture difference between online and in person that I have been totally missing.
I was thinking of trying to rebut this, but in doing so I realized all my examples are in meatspace. In person they can see the book i have, and they know they can't take it with them when they leave my table, so they buy it.
i will also admit it wasn't high percentage, but that is always kinda how it was and i chalked it up D&D being ultra niche at the time, and many people i played with didn't stick with the hobby after trying it. 
it was maybe 20% of the people I played with went on to buy their own books or the supplement I was using. (At least while i was there, i have no idea what people bought did after Leaving my table.)
Less when it was Dragon magazine but that was because they didn't always have the back issue that had the thing they wanted.
Don't know what WoTC's target numbers are, but i think 20% was pretty decent.

As too "The DM not gaining anything" I would say 'half right but disagree' because I got to let people have fun and try new things. I didn't gain anything material, but I got to give people experiences. 

As to your suggestions for the topic specifically, yeah i second those suggestions, they are pretty solid.