So when you said you were one of those entitled people, that was sarcasm. Okay. I spoke my peace. No need to push my point of view any further.
Haha yeah I said that trying to play nice. I would describe myself as expectant/optimistic, but I've accepted that others call me entitled to express that they think my ideas are unrealistic and that my displeasure is unreasonable.
A larger & happier user base is impossible if the game isn't "alive" though. Same with being more connected across platforms as a community, it's not even a little bit relevant if the game isn't "alive".
So in this era of slowing down the production schedule because the life of the game requires it, how can you come to the conclusion that taking even more of a risk that sales won't cover prosperity is a thing to encourage?
Maybe it's me being completely selfish (by which I mean I want WotC and D&D Beyond making plenty of money, because if they make enough money producing quality D&D material and tools to use it with, I'll be able to have more of what I want - which is D&D and tools to use while playing it), but asking for an even lower price than the already free (both the 5th edition game and the D&D Beyond tools are free to use) core and competitively priced add-ons just strikes me as having not fully thought through the likely outcome of getting what you ask for. I mean, "be careful what you wish for" is an idiom for a reason.
A larger & happier user base is impossible if the game isn't "alive" though. Same with being more connected across platforms as a community, it's not even a little bit relevant if the game isn't "alive".
So in this era of slowing down the production schedule because the life of the game requires it, how can you come to the conclusion that taking even more of a risk that sales won't cover prosperity is a thing to encourage?
Maybe it's me being completely selfish (by which I mean I want WotC and D&D Beyond making plenty of money, because if they make enough money producing quality D&D material and tools to use it with, I'll be able to have more of what I want - which is D&D and tools to use while playing it), but asking for an even lower price than the already free (both the 5th edition game and the D&D Beyond tools are free to use) core and competitively priced add-ons just strikes me as having not fully thought through the likely outcome of getting what you ask for. I mean, "be careful what you wish for" is an idiom for a reason.
Risk vs. reward. The risk is losing profits, not recovering and going out of business. The reward is more profits, predicted long-term profits from a larger user base that is happier, less divided, and more committed. The outcome would be somewhere in the middle there. There wouldn't be the risk AND the reward.
Now are you asking how do I know that risk would pay off? I don't. I believe it would because I believe in the principles behind it such as cooperating in benefit of the users in order to increase the entire market size.
Don't forget I'm not asking for a lower price. In fact, I'm asking to please give me confidence so I can pay more.
Don't forget I'm not asking for a lower price. In fact, I'm asking to please give me confidence so I can pay more.
You aren't?
So you want to pay just the same as now (i.e. ~$155 for Tales from the Yawning Portal if you buy the physical book, fantasy grounds, roll20, and D&D beyond options at their standard prices), not even just a little bit less, and yet there is some other thing which is so fundamentally different from just paying that without anybody changing anything that you are asking for?
Don't forget I'm not asking for a lower price. In fact, I'm asking to please give me confidence so I can pay more.
You aren't?
So you want to pay just the same as now (i.e. ~$155 for Tales from the Yawning Portal if you buy the physical book, fantasy grounds, roll20, and D&D beyond options at their standard prices), not even just a little bit less, and yet there is some other thing which is so fundamentally different from just paying that without anybody changing anything that you are asking for?
Yes but let's remember in that $155 includes paying for the content once each time for all the platforms. So yeah it'd be less than $155 assuming they didn't change their prices for non-content related value. But the more cool stuff you can do with the content (digital access, download, virtual board, tools) increases the value of the content, so I could see them charging more for the one-time purchase content.
But since I was so happy with my purchase I'd spend the remaining money on more content. You could say that they'd have to sell more content to make the same amount of money.
I wonder why you guys continu to entertain people who would never be happy even if you gave them a whole collection for free ?
Lets say you gave them the tools the book and the pdf for a one time fee of 5$ theyd still find a way to say its unfair.
Why bother entertaining those people ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Don't forget I'm not asking for a lower price. In fact, I'm asking to please give me confidence so I can pay more.
You aren't?
So you want to pay just the same as now (i.e. ~$155 for Tales from the Yawning Portal if you buy the physical book, fantasy grounds, roll20, and D&D beyond options at their standard prices), not even just a little bit less, and yet there is some other thing which is so fundamentally different from just paying that without anybody changing anything that you are asking for?
Yes but let's remember in that $155 includes paying for the content once each time for all the platforms. So yeah it'd be less than $155 assuming they didn't change their prices for non-content related value. But the more cool stuff you can do with the content (digital access, download, virtual board, tools) increases the value of the content, so I could see them charging more for the one-time purchase content.
But since I was so happy with my purchase I'd spend the remaining money on more content. You could say that they'd have to sell more content to make the same amount of money.
I think I'm starting to realize that you just have absolutely zero concept or understanding of the work that goes into porting the content into these digital platforms. You specify that the content shouldn't be included in the cost, but it's not that simple. That content doesn't just exist for the DDB (and other virtual tools) to use. They have to recreate all of that data to be able to use it. They mentioned it with Xanathar's and with the recent UA addition that they're grinding at the wheel just to get the content delivered by release most of the time. They deserve to be paid for ALL of their time developing the tool in the first place and going forward. If you don't want to pay for the content entry they have done, you're free to add it all through the UA. Races are now available and I believe Adam said subclasses will be here shortly.
I think I'm starting to realize that you just have absolutely zero concept or understanding of the work that goes into porting the content into these digital platforms. You specify that the content shouldn't be included in the cost, but it's not that simple. That content doesn't just exist for the DDB (and other virtual tools) to use. They have to recreate all of that data to be able to use it. They mentioned it with Xanathar's and with the recent UA addition that they're grinding at the wheel just to get the content delivered by release most of the time. They deserve to be paid for ALL of their time developing the tool in the first place and going forward. If you don't want to pay for the content entry they have done, you're free to add it all through the UA. Races are now available and I believe Adam said subclasses will be here shortly.
This is also the start of another circular argument. I'll just reference this here again so I don't have to re-explain myself. D&D Digital & Physical Content Distribution Model. In short, I'm not proposing a model where tool makers do not get paid.
They you saying "I'm not asking for a lower price" is inaccurate.
I see why you'd think that. You are adding the price of the content together several times and calling that the actual price of the content. I am not. price of the content is price of the content no matter how many times you choose to repurchase it. So from my perspective, no I am not asking them to lower the price of the content (before you add it together) in fact under my proposal it makes sense to raise the price of the content. If that doesn't make sense I can break it all down again.
I see why you'd think that. You are adding the price of the content together several times and calling that the actual price of the content. I am not. price of the content is price of the content no matter how many times you choose to repurchase it. So from my perspective, no I am not asking them to lower the price of the content (before you add it together) in fact under my proposal it makes sense to raise the price of the content. If that doesn't make sense I can break it all down again.
I'm not adding together the price of the content several times - that is not a defined value, so if I were talking about it in any kind of way I'd be labeling it with a variable.
What I am doing is looking at what the current amount of money being paid by a customer, then divided up among all involved parties producing D&D material (whether physical or digital) is and seeing that you are asking for a future in which that amount is lower relative to the current conditions.
By conflating the discussions of price and trying to determine the undefined value that the content has when somehow considered as a separate thing from the efforts and time spent to make said content (or make it work in a different medium), you are coming across as disingenuous, and it is much more difficult as a result for others to understand what arguments you are actually making.
And if we take that $155 and part it out differently - each company getting a share that covers their own efforts, but instead of the licensing fees being added to what portion is paid to Curse (who are in turn passing that on to WotC), you either have WotC's portion of that $155 dollars growing such that the total paid by the customer is unchained, or you have a lower price of the content - so, in fact, if you are asking for a situation in which a customer is getting all that this $155 currently gets them, but they pay less than $155 to get it, you are by definition asking for the price of the content to be lower.
Are you saying that because the price of the content alone is unknown to the user for each purchase then the user isn't paying for the content multiple times?
Maybe we can start with the breakdown of where the $155 is coming from?
EDIT: Wait wait, maybe we don't have to go down there. I think I follow you now. So w/e the price of the content, under my model WotC would have to increase its price by 400% in order to make the same $155, right? And I'm saying that I don't think WotC could get away with charging that much, maybe 150%-300% but not 400%. So yes, less than $155 meaning WotC getting less money in that scenario. And your point is that since they are getting less money in that scenario that my proposed model would be business failure? I agree, unless they make up for it by selling more content. I believe they would sell the same content to more users (like me) AND more content modules to those more users.
Are you saying that because the price of the content alone is unknown to the user for each purchase then the user isn't paying for the content multiple times?
Maybe we can start with the breakdown of where the $155 is coming from?
No... Were saying you dont understand how capitalism works... Sorry but its not up to other companies to tell me how much my work is worth. Exemple of fg making money out of free srd stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Are you saying that because the price of the content alone is unknown to the user for each purchase then the user isn't paying for the content multiple times?
No, I'm saying that "the price of the content" is not a distinct separate thing from "the price of what a customer can currently buy" - such as us not being able to subtract things like the wages of the developers, money paid to artists, printing costs, and all the other measurable things which go into what Dungeons & Dragons costs and end up with a definitive resulting number that is what the content, and only the content, costs.
I'm not saying that I haven't paid for the same content multiple times since I have 2 physical player's handbooks and have bought the player's handbook on D&D Beyond - just that the precise portion of what I've paid that is "the content" and not also something else like "the effort" or "the creativity" is an unknown quantity (that in my opinion can't become a known quantity because it is intrinsically bound up with all of the other things which are being paid for when one buys a D&D book or the data for D&D beyond).
And your point is that since they are getting less money in that scenario that my proposed model would be business failure? I agree, unless they make up for it by selling more content. I believe they would sell the same content to more users (like me) AND more content modules to those more users.
It's not just "more users" or "more content" that is required to make equal success as current with lesser prices for customers. It's significantly more users or more content (especially the later, given that having more content necessitates have more costs as well since people have to do the work to make the content).
Using some numbers for illustrative purposes, if we say that the current business model is to have a customer pay $150 to get a single adventure worth of content in every possible way, and the proposed change would be for a customer to pay $100 for the same content and utility, we see that 1 more customer would need to be added for every 2 current customers (intentionally ignoring the transitory period and just looking at some hypothetical future adventure book - and either option A) current pricing, or option B) the hypothetical lower pricing). That's not a lot of people when you think of it as just 1 extra person that you and I would need to find... but when you look at the number in context of number of customers that there currently are, it takes on a much more different appearance.
Let's just use a rough approximation of the number of users on this website alone, instead of trying to guess at the approximate number of people that have bought a particular book. That gives us 500,000. So to prosper to the same degree as is possible with the current $150 price to customers, the lower price of $100 would have to attract at least 250,000 more people.
Do you know 249,999, or more, other people that would be making more purchases if the price were lowered but not completely removed? I don't - and that's why I don't think lowering the prices further than have already been done will result in good things happening.
This is also the start of another circular argument. I'll just reference this here again so I don't have to re-explain myself. D&D Digital & Physical Content Distribution Model. In short, I'm not proposing a model where tool makers do not get paid.
I REALLY like the model you came up with for electronic distribution. I have no plans on purchasing physicals copies, so I stopped reading.
teak
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men... - Willy Wonka
Are you saying that because the price of the content alone is unknown to the user for each purchase then the user isn't paying for the content multiple times?
No, I'm saying that "the price of the content" is not a distinct separate thing from "the price of what a customer can currently buy" - such as us not being able to subtract things like the wages of the developers, money paid to artists, printing costs, and all the other measurable things which go into what Dungeons & Dragons costs and end up with a definitive resulting number that is what the content, and only the content, costs.
I'm not saying that I haven't paid for the same content multiple times since I have 2 physical player's handbooks and have bought the player's handbook on D&D Beyond - just that the precise portion of what I've paid that is "the content" and not also something else like "the effort" or "the creativity" is an unknown quantity (that in my opinion can't become a known quantity because it is intrinsically bound up with all of the other things which are being paid for when one buys a D&D book or the data for D&D beyond).
And your point is that since they are getting less money in that scenario that my proposed model would be business failure? I agree, unless they make up for it by selling more content. I believe they would sell the same content to more users (like me) AND more content modules to those more users.
It's not just "more users" or "more content" that is required to make equal success as current with lesser prices for customers. It's significantly more users or more content (especially the later, given that having more content necessitates have more costs as well since people have to do the work to make the content).
Using some numbers for illustrative purposes, if we say that the current business model is to have a customer pay $150 to get a single adventure worth of content in every possible way, and the proposed change would be for a customer to pay $100 for the same content and utility, we see that 1 more customer would need to be added for every 2 current customers (intentionally ignoring the transitory period and just looking at some hypothetical future adventure book - and either option A) current pricing, or option B) the hypothetical lower pricing). That's not a lot of people when you think of it as just 1 extra person that you and I would need to find... but when you look at the number in context of number of customers that there currently are, it takes on a much more different appearance.
Let's just use a rough approximation of the number of users on this website alone, instead of trying to guess at the approximate number of people that have bought a particular book. That gives us 500,000. So to prosper to the same degree as is possible with the current $150 price to customers, the lower price of $100 would have to attract at least 250,000 more people.
Do you know 249,999, or more, other people that would be making more purchases if the price were lowered but not completely removed? I don't - and that's why I don't think lowering the prices further than have already been done will result in good things happening.
Yeah, what you're saying is it's going to be really hard to beat 400%, right? Harder than I've let on. I won't fight that. They've convinced a core set of users to pay for the content multiple times. Good for them. It's a niche market, a relatively small user base willing to pay high costs (also put up with sub-par buying experience). It's the reason they have to even have threads like this (the first post) that niche users will read and say "oh ok, yeah I'll buy it".
Hopefully someday D&D continues to grow, change, modernize, digitize, and mainstream reaching a more diverse user base, more non-niche users like me. If and when it hopefully does, I think less and less we'll see these niche market strategies and they'll have to streamline.
Now why did you have to go an create teams, and insist I'm on the other one? That's no way to continue intelligent discourse.
I guess I defined a niche user as someone willing to be convinced to repurchase the content multiple times or at least support that kind of model. Sorry, all I know about you is the latter. You could be playing devil's advocate this whole time and I wouldn't know. Either way, thanks for putting my points to the test.
Now why did you have to go an create teams, and insist I'm on the other one? That's no way to continue intelligent discourse.
Because hes a troll and will never be pleased regardless.
But ill say this much...
They succeeded in convincing us ? Dude seriously... They forced no one in buying their shit. Stop acting like they did. If you dislike their business model then just go away man. There is no convincing anybody here there is no brainwash there is only what people want and what people are willing to do to get it. Thats exchange 101. Even your business model you showed as flaws yet you are convincing yourself that it is still much better and should absolutely be used.
The question here is... Who convinced who ?
For all im seeing.... We all have convinced ourselves of playing this thing we really dont need.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I guess I defined a niche user as someone willing to be convinced to repurchase the content multiple times or at least support that kind of model. Sorry, all I know about you is the latter. You could be playing devil's advocate this whole time and I wouldn't know. Either way, thanks for putting my points to the test.
That's just the thing. The problem with you creating teams and then assigning me to one of them is that you made up traits that members of that team supposedly have, traits which you think of in a negative way, and now you are assigning those traits to me - not because you actually know anything about me, as you even admit a lack of knowledge in the area, but because that's just how teams work; there is always "my team" and "the wrong team."
Which is why you and I likely won't have much in the way of meaningful conversations from this point forward - because you chose to judge me on some artificial traits you made up, rather than on who I actually am or what thoughts I have actually expressed.
One final point: I have not been convinced to repurchase content. I have been convinced that what I get if I pay (the ability to reference, search, organize, filter, hyperlink, tool-tip, and otherwise manipulate the whole of the D&D game in ways that are both quicker and more useful than I could do without purchase) is worth what I am being asked to pay. Saying I've paid for the content "twice" is failing to acknowledge that the content does not exist independent of the efforts of the people working to write it - I've paid WotC for their efforts designing the game (both in the game mechanics and aesthetic), I've paid the distributor for putting the game in my FLGS, I've paid my FLGS for customer service (including getting the book to me before it was available by other means), and I've paid Curse to make the game available to me within their wonderful (and likely to become more wonderful) tools. That is "the content", and I see no repeat purchases (excepting that I did literally buy the player's handbook twice from my FLGS because it is handy to have more than one copy on hand during sessions, even while I am using D&D Beyond, because my players can use both copies at the same time if they want to look something up without interrupting whatever else is going on at the time by having me do it - though I will acknowledge the physical books will feel nearly obsolete once the group goes in for a master tier subscription).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A larger & happier user base is impossible if the game isn't "alive" though. Same with being more connected across platforms as a community, it's not even a little bit relevant if the game isn't "alive".
So in this era of slowing down the production schedule because the life of the game requires it, how can you come to the conclusion that taking even more of a risk that sales won't cover prosperity is a thing to encourage?
Maybe it's me being completely selfish (by which I mean I want WotC and D&D Beyond making plenty of money, because if they make enough money producing quality D&D material and tools to use it with, I'll be able to have more of what I want - which is D&D and tools to use while playing it), but asking for an even lower price than the already free (both the 5th edition game and the D&D Beyond tools are free to use) core and competitively priced add-ons just strikes me as having not fully thought through the likely outcome of getting what you ask for. I mean, "be careful what you wish for" is an idiom for a reason.
I wonder why you guys continu to entertain people who would never be happy even if you gave them a whole collection for free ?
Lets say you gave them the tools the book and the pdf for a one time fee of 5$ theyd still find a way to say its unfair.
Why bother entertaining those people ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
They you saying "I'm not asking for a lower price" is inaccurate.
Are you saying that because the price of the content alone is unknown to the user for each purchase then the user isn't paying for the content multiple times?
Maybe we can start with the breakdown of where the $155 is coming from?
EDIT: Wait wait, maybe we don't have to go down there. I think I follow you now. So w/e the price of the content, under my model WotC would have to increase its price by 400% in order to make the same $155, right? And I'm saying that I don't think WotC could get away with charging that much, maybe 150%-300% but not 400%. So yes, less than $155 meaning WotC getting less money in that scenario. And your point is that since they are getting less money in that scenario that my proposed model would be business failure? I agree, unless they make up for it by selling more content. I believe they would sell the same content to more users (like me) AND more content modules to those more users.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
No, I'm saying that "the price of the content" is not a distinct separate thing from "the price of what a customer can currently buy" - such as us not being able to subtract things like the wages of the developers, money paid to artists, printing costs, and all the other measurable things which go into what Dungeons & Dragons costs and end up with a definitive resulting number that is what the content, and only the content, costs.
I'm not saying that I haven't paid for the same content multiple times since I have 2 physical player's handbooks and have bought the player's handbook on D&D Beyond - just that the precise portion of what I've paid that is "the content" and not also something else like "the effort" or "the creativity" is an unknown quantity (that in my opinion can't become a known quantity because it is intrinsically bound up with all of the other things which are being paid for when one buys a D&D book or the data for D&D beyond).
It's not just "more users" or "more content" that is required to make equal success as current with lesser prices for customers. It's significantly more users or more content (especially the later, given that having more content necessitates have more costs as well since people have to do the work to make the content).Using some numbers for illustrative purposes, if we say that the current business model is to have a customer pay $150 to get a single adventure worth of content in every possible way, and the proposed change would be for a customer to pay $100 for the same content and utility, we see that 1 more customer would need to be added for every 2 current customers (intentionally ignoring the transitory period and just looking at some hypothetical future adventure book - and either option A) current pricing, or option B) the hypothetical lower pricing). That's not a lot of people when you think of it as just 1 extra person that you and I would need to find... but when you look at the number in context of number of customers that there currently are, it takes on a much more different appearance.
Let's just use a rough approximation of the number of users on this website alone, instead of trying to guess at the approximate number of people that have bought a particular book. That gives us 500,000. So to prosper to the same degree as is possible with the current $150 price to customers, the lower price of $100 would have to attract at least 250,000 more people.
Do you know 249,999, or more, other people that would be making more purchases if the price were lowered but not completely removed? I don't - and that's why I don't think lowering the prices further than have already been done will result in good things happening.
Because he does have valid points... Valid doesn't mean agreement... But, I can see where he is coming from.
teak
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...
- Willy Wonka
I REALLY like the model you came up with for electronic distribution. I have no plans on purchasing physicals copies, so I stopped reading.
A little bit of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...
- Willy Wonka
Now why did you have to go an create teams, and insist I'm on the other one? That's no way to continue intelligent discourse.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)