Quote from Kreakdude >>

 I have an Industrial Designer friend who would be offended by this lack of value to his contribution to the chair product.

I'm not lacking value for the design - you are just misunderstanding what I mean by the design not being valued independent of other valued qualities such as hours of work done.

your friend's designs do not exist independently of his time and creativity spent creating them - if he is being paid for one, he is being paid for both, unless he isn't getting paid fairly.

And those designs do not exist independently of the time and effort spent by whoever is building from them - if I'm being paid for following a design someone else made up, I am doing just as much work as I would following my own design (more, actually, since verifying that my work is accurate to said design is an additional step on top of the steps necessary to make a thing), so I'm either getting the same pay for my work regardless of where the design came from, or I am not being paid fairly.

Quote from mjsoctober >>

Okay, to those of you like Kreakdude's proposed model of buying the content digitally from WotC and using a code to unlock it on third-party sites (like DDB) there is a flaw with that design.

The third-party developers will need that content to exist locally on their own servers, and they will need to modify that content to fit their layout, design, and tools. There would not be a one-size-fits-all database that WotC could (or would) host for everyone else to call.

Even if they could, there is still the issue of a license. WotC is not going to let DDB or Roll20 or FG (etc) access/use that content without paying a licensing fee. If they allowed 3rd party developers to use that content without paying a licensing fee, they would defacto have to allow everyone to access that content without paying a licensing fee. If their licensing fee is "$0.00" then in a court of law (IANAL) it could be argued by someone that WotC has determined the value of their content is $0.00, and thus no one should have to pay for it.

Even if I am wrong about that, let's face it, Hasbro would never ever ever allow it. Ever. Hasbro would insist that any 3rd party vendor who wishes to use the content must pay a licensing fee.

So, then, the question I put to you is... even if WotC adopted Kreakdude's system, and still had to charge a licencing fee to 3rd party vendors, are you then arguing that those 3rd party vendors should not pass that fee on to consumers, but eat it by reducing their own profits?

What do you think that licensing fee should be? We already know (from past posts on this forum) that DDB negotiated very hard to get the final price down to what it is now (which is WAY less than Roll20 for example).

Quote from teak421 >>

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

A single source of data causes more problems then you really need to. It also means roll20 fg and ddb loses control over the content they wish to add in because now they cant control how that content is written. Anybody with little experience in database will tell you that much. While we can parse the data the way we want we are forced to use the original design of the database and when change happens you are force to go along with it.

 

Creating your own database allows you to develop the way you want to. So no the biggest flaw of his 1 place seller is that everyone else will be dependant on wotc while right now ddb is not !

Any developpers knows how important it is to have control over your stuff and not be dependant. It is this lack of control that makes places like steam nintendo eshop and basically all those site that make them suck to begin with. Now imagine if you could get your stuff from the very same place ? Why do you sony nintendo and microsft keep their stuff separate. The goal is control over your content. Something you cant have with a single source.

In the model I like control would still continue with DDB...why?  Because DDB is buying the rights to use said content.  So, let's say I went to the WoTC and purchase the DM Manual it would show that entitlement on DDB.  Then, DDB could do whatever they want to it...make additions, make their tools even better, etc.  We would be paying DDB for access to the tools and revised content they created.

teak

Quote from mjsoctober >>

Okay, to those of you like Kreakdude's proposed model of buying the content digitally from WotC and using a code to unlock it on third-party sites (like DDB) there is a flaw with that design.

The third-party developers will need that content to exist locally on their own servers, and they will need to modify that content to fit their layout, design, and tools. There would not be a one-size-fits-all database that WotC could (or would) host for everyone else to call.

Even if they could, there is still the issue of a license. WotC is not going to let DDB or Roll20 or FG (etc) access/use that content without paying a licensing fee. If they allowed 3rd party developers to use that content without paying a licensing fee, they would defacto have to allow everyone to access that content without paying a licensing fee. If their licensing fee is "$0.00" then in a court of law (IANAL) it could be argued by someone that WotC has determined the value of their content is $0.00, and thus no one should have to pay for it.

Even if I am wrong about that, let's face it, Hasbro would never ever ever allow it. Ever. Hasbro would insist that any 3rd party vendor who wishes to use the content must pay a licensing fee.

So, then, the question I put to you is... even if WotC adopted Kreakdude's system, and still had to charge a licencing fee to 3rd party vendors, are you then arguing that those 3rd party vendors should not pass that fee on to consumers, but eat it by reducing their own profits?

What do you think that licensing fee should be? We already know (from past posts on this forum) that DDB negotiated very hard to get the final price down to what it is now (which is WAY less than Roll20 for example).

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

Quote from teak421 >>

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

A single source of data causes more problems then you really need to. It also means roll20 fg and ddb loses control over the content they wish to add in because now they cant control how that content is written. Anybody with little experience in database will tell you that much. While we can parse the data the way we want we are forced to use the original design of the database and when change happens you are force to go along with it.

 

Creating your own database allows you to develop the way you want to. So no the biggest flaw of his 1 place seller is that everyone else will be dependant on wotc while right now ddb is not !

Any developpers knows how important it is to have control over your stuff and not be dependant. It is this lack of control that makes places like steam nintendo eshop and basically all those site that make them suck to begin with. Now imagine if you could get your stuff from the very same place ? Why do you sony nintendo and microsft keep their stuff separate. The goal is control over your content. Something you cant have with a single source.

In the model I like control would still continue with DDB...why?  Because DDB is buying the rights to use said content.  So, let's say I went to the WoTC and purchase the DM Manual it would show that entitlement on DDB.  Then, DDB could do whatever they want to it...make additions, make their tools even better, etc.  We would be paying DDB for access to the tools and revised content they created.

teak

 You dont understand what i mean...

You want wotc to have everything and only them. Then others come and use whats on wotc. Its not a single site and server if you can download things separately. Which is what ddb does already. If you keep it all in one place and allow everyone to modify your database then you end with tons of software ever changing. Imagine this... You have a glass of water everyone uses it. In the end you may end up adding water while there is still pepsi in it. Thats one place servers for you. So in the end they tell people they cant change db and have to program in a standard way which makes it bad on developpers.

 

Now if you are talking about liscenses only... That already how liscences works. All of wotc liscenses are wotc only. So i dont understand where you think it like that. The reality is always the same. 

You paid for a hard cover... The digital content is entirely different. So its literally not the same book. The same way you can pay regular price for a book and then see a special edition thays literally twice the price for exactly the same content ?!! Are you saying you shouldnt pay more for special editions cause they are same content ?

If you dont see the problems here then seriously you shouldnt entertain his vision. Because in reality it is pretty much more flawed then what we have now. Because it leads to standardisation and basically making everything exactly the same. Not just in paiment but in content as well.

DDB already has its own system for knowing how much content you have. They do their own internal proof of purchasing. If I buy a feat for $1.99 then I buy the whole bundle of feats for $3.99 they prove my purchase, prevent me from paying for the same feat twice, and put my $1.99 toward the $3.99. Am I wrong about this?

The principle is sound. The goal is to expand this across platforms. Many have pointed out valid difficulties (not impossibilities) in the tech implementation, in the business negotiations, and in the risk vs. reward. Maybe it's too late for 5e, but it wouldn't be impossible.

But the only entity who would care if you previously purchased would be WOTC.  Individual retailers wouldn't be concerned about honoring a purchase you made elsewhere.  If you gave your money to Fantasy Grounds and have the proof, Roll20 (having seen none of that revenue) wouldn't be too keen on simply giving access away for nothing.  Likewise, Fantasy Grounds wouldn't be keen on writing Roll20 a check so you could play over there.

The owner of a license collects from everyone, so this would be the point of contact for 'splitting the bill'.  Of course, if they're happy with receiving duplicate payments from people, they may be hard-pressed to stop doing that.

Quote from Sedge >>

But the only entity who would care if you previously purchased would be WOTC.  Individual retailers wouldn't be concerned about honoring a purchase you made elsewhere.  If you gave your money to Fantasy Grounds and have the proof, Roll20 (having seen none of that revenue) wouldn't be too keen on simply giving access away for nothing.  Likewise, Fantasy Grounds wouldn't be keen on writing Roll20 a check so you could play over there.

The owner of a license collects from everyone, so this would be the point of contact for 'splitting the bill'.  Of course, if they're happy with receiving duplicate payments from people, they may be hard-pressed to stop doing that.

Quote from Kreakdude >>

The principle is sound. The goal is to expand this across platforms. Many have pointed out valid difficulties (not impossibilities) in the tech implementation, in the business negotiations, and in the risk vs. reward. Maybe it's too late for 5e, but it wouldn't be impossible.

• Happy shareholders because low risk for good return (historically, in the case of D&D).
• Happy 3rd party providers because they get a business opportunity. 
• Happy customers because they get a range of sustainable products (okay, I know there's a lot of ticked off customers, but stealing IP does not a sustainable business make in the long term). 

It's amazing that AAA game developer companies can do all that and so much more while still selling their product for $60. Maybe I've been spoiled and that's why I'm entitled.

Quote from Kreakdude >

This is where I don't follow you. Isn't this the reason for licensing deals? It forms the bond between content designers and content builders (content creators and content distributors). If they didn't exist independently then why is there a need to form a bond between them?

Quote from AaronOfBarbaria >>

Quote from Kreakdude >

This is where I don't follow you. Isn't this the reason for licensing deals? It forms the bond between content designers and content builders (content creators and content distributors). If they didn't exist independently then why is there a need to form a bond between them?

The reason for licensing deals is not the bond between content designers and content builders - it's that the customers want the builder to build them a particular designer's particular designs. To keep the carpentry analogy going because we've both understood it thus far; Licensing deals are the difference between you being able to buy whatever style of chair I happen to make from me, or you being able to buy a D&D chair from me.

Ok, this all stems back to WOTC. So WOTC would have to have the setup as a digital distributor.

1. They don't have that in place and it would cost money to build, maintain and troubleshoot or they could outsource it and spend lots of money for a 3rd party to act as distributor or they can just sell a license to a 3rd party company to make their own digital version to be used on their platform.  (this would include a system for the companies to report back what you bought so that you could use it on a different company's system. Worried about privacy much as all 4 companies could then see your personal info and more?)
2. Then they can push out the digital content to Roll20, FG and DDB (and more if others wanted to add in the mix). Now here is the down side, either WOTC would have to keep an altered copy of the data to fit the company or each company would have to alter that feed of content to make it fit their platform (more work for either side honestly). DDB can't just get a source file from WOTC and plug it in. there is a crap ton of work to make it into what you see with the ability for microtransactions/searching/scaling/etc. Or they can just get a license and build it themselves as they are now.
3. I don't see either the companies or WOTC wanting WOTC to house that altered data. WOTC would have to alter the data to that company opening all sorts of liability issues. What if they accidentally sent the wrong data feed to the wrong company, now that company can see how it is done and start building in house to mimic that other companies technology. No matter what safe guards you will put in place, a human can screw it up. This ends in litigation and our hobby is gone because WOTC had to spend money on lawyers. Or they can just sell a license and the companies can build it themselves as they are now.
4. I don't see WOTC wanting to be in that market at all. they are a publisher, not a tech company. again, added cost they do not want or they can just sell a license and make money they do want.* 
5. If WOTC makes a bad update, all three companies are screwed and all the customers are pissed off, WOTC looks bad, profits go down, companies complain of lost revenue. where as now if one company screws it up, it's on them. (The sync would be down feed only as they would not allow a 3rd party to upload to them so they cannot poison the source.)  Or WOTC can just sell a license, have no extra work, no extra tracking, no extra costs. Companies can just buy a license, mark it at a price they think the market will bare, have no extra tracking in a software piece (added costs) that has to be updated and maintained (extra costs) back to a source of who bought what VS we sold x number of copies, here is your check WOTC, 

Now lets talk licensing fee's. I think you are under a misinterpretation. I said I guessed that the digital license here is between $5 and $10 a book. However, a physical book is much different. i am betting that each book costs the online retailer about $25 because of the bulk they purchase. Thus, that is why Amazon and Walmart sell it for about $30 to $35 to make a little money off each book of the thousands they sell vs the few books the FLGS sells and need to sell it at MSRP to make a profit. Speaking of, B&M stores costs could be as high as $35 a book. Of that money, WOTC has to pay for the printing and shipping. Granted, when you are making a million books, you get a discount on these things, but still it costs. Thus they are probably making about $10 - $15 a book. Guess what, that is about the same amount as what they make off a digital copy.
To WOTC their part of the work is the same no matter who gets it in what format. They had to pay to create, design, playtest, lawyer up, etc just to make a single content book. As stated earlier, that amount is broken down over that million copies they sell. None of that changes from digital to physical. So why should the license amount change just because you want to play it else where. If they have to give out free or a discount, then either they have to charge more (people will be pissed to pay more for their hobby), sell more to make up the difference (in an ideal world), or take a lesser profit (not happening) which would leave less for them to produce new content. i don't want to have to pay more for my physical copy just so you can play it on a different platform that i may never will. How is that fair to me as a physical book customer? Honestly, this is the most fair way whether you are a physical or digital book buyer. and alas, if you had read the terms and agreements on any of the sites, it doesn't promise, obligate, or even hint that just because you bought a physical, you would get a reduced fee or free digital. And when you bought the digital either at Roll20 or FG that it said you would get it here for free either (and vice versa from here to there). What of those that have no interest in playing on a VTT? why should i pay more for that? (and we all would because of the extra damn costs to implement a tracking feature of what you bought where so it can transfer to there).

and to end it, this is low risk/high reward for WOTC. If DDB/Roll20/FG fail, WOTC loses nothing. if the digital market would somehow collapse, WOTC is fine and can keep making paper copies no problem. The only risk they carry is if someone goes against the licensing agreement. then they can pull it and stop that company. Would you have pissed off customers ? sure, but they would (or should) be pissed at the company, not WOTC for screwing up.

* IF they really wanted to continue in the digital market, they would have kept the platform used for D&D Online (D&D 4.0 digital).  

Its sooo easy.

Just double the price on the physical book if you want a code inside for DDB.

The local shops need to buy the book for more money to sell this.

Then when you use the code, DDB have to contact WotC to get reimbursed.

Easy-peasy  (just kidding. this will never work. but its a thought)

Or... People pay a normal price for the physical book and if you want to use DDB you pay for their service too that include paying for the book you need.

Quote from Kreakdude >>

 That sounds exactly like what I said plus adding in the element of the sale.

PDF's don't go away and would be a "physical" copy of what you bought. I download the PDF's for UA when they come out and also print them and keep them in a binder (cuz I'm a super nerd). If these purchases came with PDF's they would be more valuable and not depend on Curse not going under. Pricing seems to be a bit high too as physical books never sell for full retail. Give us PDF's with the service and I'll be buying both the physical and these, if not then people will probably still go old school. I doubt there is one person out there who would use this exclusively without physical copies of character sheets, a pencil, tablet, and our dice we love so damn much.

Quote from Spastik >>

...physical books never sell for full retail.

That is not a fact.

Quote from Spastik >>

PDF's don't go away and would be a "physical" copy of what you bought.

Quote from Spastik >>

If these purchases came with PDF's they would be more valuable and not depend on Curse not going under.

Quote from Spastik >>

Pricing seems to be a bit high too as physical books never sell for full retail.

Quote from Spastik >>

I doubt there is one person out there who would use this exclusively without physical copies of character sheets, a pencil, tablet, and our dice we love so damn much.

As chime in on AdventureFight.
Our group has started to use DnD beyond and we only need one set of books instead of the usual four sets.
When DDB evolve i dont think we need that much anymore.