"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement," Williams told investors. "But the brand is really under-monetized." Williams pointed to market data from the recently acquired D&D Beyond that showed that Dungeon Masters made the vast majority of purchases related to Dungeons & Dragons, despite making up only 20% of the game's user base.
File this quote under "Tell me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works without telling me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works." Seems like the sort of executive who will flip out when they find out about DDB content sharing, beginning a process that will cede DDB's virtual space marketshare to other vendors. Let's hope the exec listens to their designers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I mean, I don't mind if they want to release some digital-only content, that's not unusual these days. It's going to depend heavily on what they actually want to do with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I’d kind of assumed they were coming with the VTT. Cosmetics for your character, not to mention for the dungeons. Standard looking chain mail, cooler looking chain mail. Standard stone wall, cooler stone wall. That kind of thing. Personally, I have no problem with micro transactions, it’s pay to win that’s the problem. And since D&D doesn’t do PvP, I don’t know how it could be a real problem.
You do realize that microtransactions have been here for ages? Digital dice and the ability to buy individual monsters, items, etc, both qualify as microtransactions.
Now, trying to get players (rather than DMs) to spend money is probably going to need to involve cosmetics. I suspect Heroforge doesn't have the same ratios.
"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement," Williams told investors. "But the brand is really under-monetized." Williams pointed to market data from the recently acquired D&D Beyond that showed that Dungeon Masters made the vast majority of purchases related to Dungeons & Dragons, despite making up only 20% of the game's user base.
File this quote under "Tell me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works without telling me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works." Seems like the sort of executive who will flip out when they find out about DDB content sharing, beginning a process that will cede DDB's virtual space marketshare to other vendors. Let's hope the exec listens to their designers.
If you go to the source - an interview with the head of Hasbro (who was the former head of Wizards) and current head of Wizards - it is pretty clear they do understand D&D quite well.
D&D does have an under monetisation issue - meaning they have a large part of their player base which pays nothing or next to nothing for the product, somewhere around 80% per the interview. That is a massive untapped revenue stream that any company would want to tap into - which also means products designed for those players, increasing options available to folks.
More importantly, it shows they understand that they cannot oversaturated DMs - lots of companies might try to increase the number of their regular releases to make more money. This, however, shows they understand pushing more regular releases would only put a greater financial burden on the 20% of us who prop up the other 80%, and that they know that would not be sustainable.
All told, more products of new types, directed at folks who might not otherwise want to buy in is good for both the consumer and the company - as is acknowledgement they can’t just try to draw more blood from the DM stone.
D&D does have an under monetisation issue - meaning they have a large part of their player base which pays nothing or next to nothing for the product, somewhere around 80% per the interview. That is a massive untapped revenue stream that any company would want to tap into - which also means products designed for those players, increasing options available to folks.
Honestly, 20% are paying is doing pretty well; compare to the typical breakout of free to play games.
Looking like a great time to start learning Pathfinder 2e. The complexity of the system has always put me off. But if DnD ends up like the countless video games which have been ruined by executives, switching over is definitely incentivised.
Worried DnD will end up like Halo. 90% storefront, 10% barely functioning game which is a shadow of its former self.
"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement," Williams told investors. "But the brand is really under-monetized." Williams pointed to market data from the recently acquired D&D Beyond that showed that Dungeon Masters made the vast majority of purchases related to Dungeons & Dragons, despite making up only 20% of the game's user base.
File this quote under "Tell me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works without telling me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works." Seems like the sort of executive who will flip out when they find out about DDB content sharing, beginning a process that will cede DDB's virtual space marketshare to other vendors. Let's hope the exec listens to their designers.
If you go to the source - an interview with the head of Hasbro (who was the former head of Wizards) and current head of Wizards - it is pretty clear they do understand D&D quite well.
D&D does have an under monetisation issue - meaning they have a large part of their player base which pays nothing or next to nothing for the product, somewhere around 80% per the interview. That is a massive untapped revenue stream that any company would want to tap into - which also means products designed for those players, increasing options available to folks.
More importantly, it shows they understand that they cannot oversaturated DMs - lots of companies might try to increase the number of their regular releases to make more money. This, however, shows they understand pushing more regular releases would only put a greater financial burden on the 20% of us who prop up the other 80%, and that they know that would not be sustainable.
All told, more products of new types, directed at folks who might not otherwise want to buy in is good for both the consumer and the company - as is acknowledgement they can’t just try to draw more blood from the DM stone.
So, I don't have the UBS fireside chat transcript but would welcome it. If your contention is true, CBR is misattributing sources (which is not out of the scope of CBR writing). The language I'm quoting is entirely attributed as either direct quote or paraphrase of Cynthia Williams, whose resume's highlights were Amazon and Microsoft (her hire's press release specifically citing her expertise in e-commerce and cloud-based gaming products). Cooks has the WotC/Hasbro pedigree but CBR limited his contribution to the talk as an assertion of brand strength with potential untapped outside TTRPG market.
You're probably right, Cooks likely knows why DMs make the lion's share of D&D purchases, but it was Williams who shapes it as an apparent problem or challenge to be surmounted for greater revenue (because the past years of windfalls are not enough because late stage capitalism and Microsoft via Amazon min/maxing). As for your analysis of the "truth" of the claim, are there TTRPGs where the there isn't a sales are largely attributable to GMs and the bulk of the player base are "freeloaders"? Other than affinity merchandising and lifestyle accessories (ok, and dice) what can D&D sell players that players can buy and bring to the table that the DM need not lay eyes on? At actual tables, I can't think of anything. However on DDB I could, as I noted, see an exec saying "wtf!" at content sharing and encouraging DDB to force DDB players to actually purchase the player options they want to play rather than relying on content sharing. I think actual product teams and maybe someone like Cooks could try to talk down that directive and maybe succeed.
In the end this sounds like analyst courting in the wake of the BoA memo ("we need a bigger bank"), it's just that the messaging didn't take into account that talks like these rarely take place behind closed doors anymore, and are sometimes even press attended, or worse "fan press" attended (or at least notice, I use "fan press" as we're talking about a genre of publication that really isn't "trade").
You do realize that microtransactions have been here for ages? Digital dice and the ability to buy individual monsters, items, etc, both qualify as microtransactions.
Now, trying to get players (rather than DMs) to spend money is probably going to need to involve cosmetics. I suspect Heroforge doesn't have the same ratios.
Cosmetics is one thing, I don’t pay for those currently and don’t plan to start because I honestly don’t really care. And à la carte purchases where the amount paid counts towards future purchases of the entire product is genuinely good for both the platform and consumers. And it’s still genuinely cheaper to purchase the whole book anyway, so I feel I pay way less than $1.99 per subclass, etc. However, if they’re gonna start releasing individual subclasses, etc., so that purchasing it will count towards nothing since it would be its own whole product is just robbery.
Looking like a great time to start learning Pathfinder 2e. The complexity of the system has always put me off. But if DnD ends up like the countless video games which have been ruined by executives, switching over is definitely incentivised.
Worried DnD will end up like Halo. 90% storefront, 10% barely functioning game which is a shadow of its former self.
I took the under-monitized comment to also to other revenue streams. Things like the movie, Baulder’s Gate 3 and other video games, merch. That kind of thing. It was more like, they have a brand with almost 50 years of name recognition, they should find more products to sell with a D&D logo on it besides just the game. They specifically brought up things like Harry Potter and marvel as comparable concepts. Not just milking the game for everything they can, but finding ways to profit from the brand name that don’t necessarily involve playing. Then you create a cycle, we play the game, and I’ll bet most of us will also go see the movie. Then maybe you get people who like the movie, and decide to check out the tabletop game, or play baulder’s gate. Find multiple different ways to take the same person’s money.
So I’m a DM, bought all my books twice in physical and Beyond, purely so I could share them with my players so they don’t have to buy them themselves. We started playing about a year ago at my suggestion, and my group has learned the game together.
We play on Zoom, and several party members live in different parts of the country. I fork out for a Master Subscription here every month, purely to share my sourcebooks. None of the party own any books themselves, and several of them are pretty hard up. We live in the UK, and like everywhere else, out economy is in the toilet and people are genuinely struggling to make ends meet. My game is the highlight of a year that has been the roughest I can remember, it’s the only thing in my life that I do just for me.
My nightmare scenario with this (and one that I think most likely) is that Wizards kill Master Tier content sharing, and get the PCs to buy all this stuff themselves. Some of my party can’t afford the books, and I am left with a bunch of product I bought digitally for the sole purpose of sharing it with my group. And I won’t be able to share it any more.
At that point, I am off Beyond for good. I will buy cheap PHBs for everyone off Amazon or wherever, and just go through their character options from Xanathar’s etc with each player over the phone. The current price modelling of Beyond justifies buying digital material alongside physical books, but if they ditch Master Tier sharing (and they’re a company, so why wouldn’t they?) then I am going to feel like a chump for dropping a month’s rent on digital versions of something I already own.
Sorry for the wall of text, I just needed to get that off my chest somewhere.
The thing about turning DDB into a microtransactionfest is that even if they somehow succeeded and didn't die an ignoble death, it's still something that is only used by a fraction of D&D's total playerbase. If they want to improve D&D's monotization, DDB isn't the place to do it, they need to get out more physical D&D products that fans want to buy. I doubt they're unaware of this (though who knows, CEOs make extremely dumb decisions too).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement," Williams told investors. "But the brand is really under-monetized." Williams pointed to market data from the recently acquired D&D Beyond that showed that Dungeon Masters made the vast majority of purchases related to Dungeons & Dragons, despite making up only 20% of the game's user base.
File this quote under "Tell me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works without telling me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works." Seems like the sort of executive who will flip out when they find out about DDB content sharing, beginning a process that will cede DDB's virtual space marketshare to other vendors. Let's hope the exec listens to their designers.
That fact IMHO has been in effect since PnP RPGs have existed. GM's buy a lot of stuff and players occasionally buy stuff. If WotC wants to change that dynamic I am interesting in seeing how they attempt to do it and if it succeeds or kills the game.
The thing is, what does increasing monetisation even mean?
Like, is it just investing in more things to buy? More player options? More things like computer games, films? More stuff like terrain and figures? Most of that is would be good for the game, or at worst, neutral, and is the good option. Unless, of course, they try cutting corners and rather than investing in the extra content, demand that the current people and resources just magically become more productive...which would only happen by [even further] reducing quality. That's bad option number one. Still, if they're going to offer more products, then if they have any sense about them, it'll improve the game overall.
The other direction they could go is to further monetise what we already have. Start charging everyone the master tier sub is an obvious step. Getting the master tier allows you to share your materials with, and share materials from, other master subscribers. Another way would be to charge for campaigns. You pay $X and you get a campaign space for a few months. Alternatively, the character builder itself could become more monetised. You only get 3 free spots. Or perhaps you pay per use. That kind of thing is bad option number two.
I'm not saying that's what's on the horizon, just suggesting different possible routes for how they could monetise stuff.
I really hope they go down good option route. And it's possible that was the game plan. I pointed out months ago that WotC purchased DDB because they foresaw that they could do a lot more with it under their wing than it could do independently. That strongly suggests that WotC wants to invest and improve the game. So there's good reason to hope that this is a positive step in the right direction.
The cynic in me knows that people (and therefore companies) don't like doing things properly. The first instinct is always to just insist people (usually others) work harder rather than resolve the issues and barriers. The cynic says that they'll probably end up going for bad option number one or two, or both. It's not like those concerns are baseless, given recent releases.
We'll see, I guess. I just really hope they don't increase the cost burden, especially in DMs. The hobby is already quite expensive as it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
a large part of their player base which pays nothing or next to nothing for the product, somewhere around 80% per the interview. That is a massive untapped revenue stream that any company would want to tap into - which also means products designed for those players, increasing options available to folks.
I am highly skeptical of those numbers. That 80 percent absolutely spends money on D&D -- they just don't spend it on things Hasbro's getting much of a cut of past an initial PHB purchase or whatever. They're still out there buying dice, minis etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Worried DnD will end up like Halo. 90% storefront, 10% barely functioning game which is a shadow of its former self.
I genuinely wonder whether some people understand this isn't a video game
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
a large part of their player base which pays nothing or next to nothing for the product, somewhere around 80% per the interview. That is a massive untapped revenue stream that any company would want to tap into - which also means products designed for those players, increasing options available to folks.
I am highly skeptical of those numbers. That 80 percent absolutely spends money on D&D -- they just don't spend it on things Hasbro's getting much of a cut of past an initial PHB purchase or whatever. They're still out there buying dice, minis etc.
From Hasbro’s perspective, that is not spending money on the game - it might be from a colloquial understanding of what constitutes the game, as you note, that is not going to Hasbro. I suspect Hasbro is looking into what to capture those markets, but they are presently being captured and therefore represent a growth opportunity.
Though, it is probably worth noting that dice and miniatures are not the largest growth potentials out there. Most minis are probably purchased by DMs, other than maybe a small number for individual use (after all, a player only needs the one for a campaign; the DM needs monsters and such. Not to mention many DMs buy their players’ minis). I am also guessing the majority of players do not buy too many dice - though there’s certainly plenty of dice folks out there. That’s a harder market to break into though - lots of great options on the market and, unlike 3D printed minis which have fragility issues compared to things like WizKids’ or Reaper’s, dice can be made pretty easily by anyone with the ability to shape resin.
If you listen to the interview the “under-monetized” comment is in reference to 2 things:
1) Licensing, merchandising, etc. and growing ways to make more revenue from D&D beside just the game. They 100% explicitly state this as one of their major goals since the brand is so widely recognized beyond just the people who play. (At least half of the time they spend talking about D&D is specifically about revenue other than the game itself - the movie, video games, licensed merchandise, etc.)
2) The question and answer both also directly reference the M:tG discussion earlier in the interview - specifically a discussion of their focus shifting from only on professional M:tG players to instead 3 segments of players - professional, casual, and collector with realizing each segment has different interests and they should provide ways that work for each of the 3. So reading into that “non-DMs don’t buy enough, so let’s milk more $ out of them with micro transactions” is a grossly over simplified interpretation. It’s more like realizing “what non-DMs want to buy is different from what we are providing. We are (possibly) only focusing on one segment and ignoring the interests of another.” It is specifically about giving players what they want.
Lastly, in the interview (which is 85% M:tG and 1 question about D&D squeezed in at the end, so much more condensed and not as in-depth as the M:tG portion) they also very clearly state that D&D growth is going to be focused on new player growth, bringing back players who haven’t played in a while, and more non-game revenue.
https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/wizards-of-the-coast-presidents-believes-dungeons-dragons-is-really-under-monetized/
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
File this quote under "Tell me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works without telling me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works." Seems like the sort of executive who will flip out when they find out about DDB content sharing, beginning a process that will cede DDB's virtual space marketshare to other vendors. Let's hope the exec listens to their designers.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I mean, I don't mind if they want to release some digital-only content, that's not unusual these days. It's going to depend heavily on what they actually want to do with it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I’d kind of assumed they were coming with the VTT. Cosmetics for your character, not to mention for the dungeons. Standard looking chain mail, cooler looking chain mail. Standard stone wall, cooler stone wall. That kind of thing.
Personally, I have no problem with micro transactions, it’s pay to win that’s the problem. And since D&D doesn’t do PvP, I don’t know how it could be a real problem.
You do realize that microtransactions have been here for ages? Digital dice and the ability to buy individual monsters, items, etc, both qualify as microtransactions.
Now, trying to get players (rather than DMs) to spend money is probably going to need to involve cosmetics. I suspect Heroforge doesn't have the same ratios.
If you go to the source - an interview with the head of Hasbro (who was the former head of Wizards) and current head of Wizards - it is pretty clear they do understand D&D quite well.
D&D does have an under monetisation issue - meaning they have a large part of their player base which pays nothing or next to nothing for the product, somewhere around 80% per the interview. That is a massive untapped revenue stream that any company would want to tap into - which also means products designed for those players, increasing options available to folks.
More importantly, it shows they understand that they cannot oversaturated DMs - lots of companies might try to increase the number of their regular releases to make more money. This, however, shows they understand pushing more regular releases would only put a greater financial burden on the 20% of us who prop up the other 80%, and that they know that would not be sustainable.
All told, more products of new types, directed at folks who might not otherwise want to buy in is good for both the consumer and the company - as is acknowledgement they can’t just try to draw more blood from the DM stone.
Honestly, 20% are paying is doing pretty well; compare to the typical breakout of free to play games.
Looking like a great time to start learning Pathfinder 2e. The complexity of the system has always put me off. But if DnD ends up like the countless video games which have been ruined by executives, switching over is definitely incentivised.
Worried DnD will end up like Halo. 90% storefront, 10% barely functioning game which is a shadow of its former self.
So, I don't have the UBS fireside chat transcript but would welcome it. If your contention is true, CBR is misattributing sources (which is not out of the scope of CBR writing). The language I'm quoting is entirely attributed as either direct quote or paraphrase of Cynthia Williams, whose resume's highlights were Amazon and Microsoft (her hire's press release specifically citing her expertise in e-commerce and cloud-based gaming products). Cooks has the WotC/Hasbro pedigree but CBR limited his contribution to the talk as an assertion of brand strength with potential untapped outside TTRPG market.
You're probably right, Cooks likely knows why DMs make the lion's share of D&D purchases, but it was Williams who shapes it as an apparent problem or challenge to be surmounted for greater revenue (because the past years of windfalls are not enough because late stage capitalism and Microsoft via Amazon min/maxing). As for your analysis of the "truth" of the claim, are there TTRPGs where the there isn't a sales are largely attributable to GMs and the bulk of the player base are "freeloaders"? Other than affinity merchandising and lifestyle accessories (ok, and dice) what can D&D sell players that players can buy and bring to the table that the DM need not lay eyes on? At actual tables, I can't think of anything. However on DDB I could, as I noted, see an exec saying "wtf!" at content sharing and encouraging DDB to force DDB players to actually purchase the player options they want to play rather than relying on content sharing. I think actual product teams and maybe someone like Cooks could try to talk down that directive and maybe succeed.
In the end this sounds like analyst courting in the wake of the BoA memo ("we need a bigger bank"), it's just that the messaging didn't take into account that talks like these rarely take place behind closed doors anymore, and are sometimes even press attended, or worse "fan press" attended (or at least notice, I use "fan press" as we're talking about a genre of publication that really isn't "trade").
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Cosmetics is one thing, I don’t pay for those currently and don’t plan to start because I honestly don’t really care. And à la carte purchases where the amount paid counts towards future purchases of the entire product is genuinely good for both the platform and consumers. And it’s still genuinely cheaper to purchase the whole book anyway, so I feel I pay way less than $1.99 per subclass, etc. However, if they’re gonna start releasing individual subclasses, etc., so that purchasing it will count towards nothing since it would be its own whole product is just robbery.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
🛎️ DINGDINGEING 🛎️ Nailed it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I took the under-monitized comment to also to other revenue streams. Things like the movie, Baulder’s Gate 3 and other video games, merch. That kind of thing. It was more like, they have a brand with almost 50 years of name recognition, they should find more products to sell with a D&D logo on it besides just the game.
They specifically brought up things like Harry Potter and marvel as comparable concepts. Not just milking the game for everything they can, but finding ways to profit from the brand name that don’t necessarily involve playing.
Then you create a cycle, we play the game, and I’ll bet most of us will also go see the movie. Then maybe you get people who like the movie, and decide to check out the tabletop game, or play baulder’s gate. Find multiple different ways to take the same person’s money.
So I’m a DM, bought all my books twice in physical and Beyond, purely so I could share them with my players so they don’t have to buy them themselves. We started playing about a year ago at my suggestion, and my group has learned the game together.
We play on Zoom, and several party members live in different parts of the country. I fork out for a Master Subscription here every month, purely to share my sourcebooks. None of the party own any books themselves, and several of them are pretty hard up. We live in the UK, and like everywhere else, out economy is in the toilet and people are genuinely struggling to make ends meet. My game is the highlight of a year that has been the roughest I can remember, it’s the only thing in my life that I do just for me.
My nightmare scenario with this (and one that I think most likely) is that Wizards kill Master Tier content sharing, and get the PCs to buy all this stuff themselves. Some of my party can’t afford the books, and I am left with a bunch of product I bought digitally for the sole purpose of sharing it with my group. And I won’t be able to share it any more.
At that point, I am off Beyond for good. I will buy cheap PHBs for everyone off Amazon or wherever, and just go through their character options from Xanathar’s etc with each player over the phone. The current price modelling of Beyond justifies buying digital material alongside physical books, but if they ditch Master Tier sharing (and they’re a company, so why wouldn’t they?) then I am going to feel like a chump for dropping a month’s rent on digital versions of something I already own.
Sorry for the wall of text, I just needed to get that off my chest somewhere.
The thing about turning DDB into a microtransactionfest is that even if they somehow succeeded and didn't die an ignoble death, it's still something that is only used by a fraction of D&D's total playerbase. If they want to improve D&D's monotization, DDB isn't the place to do it, they need to get out more physical D&D products that fans want to buy. I doubt they're unaware of this (though who knows, CEOs make extremely dumb decisions too).
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That fact IMHO has been in effect since PnP RPGs have existed. GM's buy a lot of stuff and players occasionally buy stuff. If WotC wants to change that dynamic I am interesting in seeing how they attempt to do it and if it succeeds or kills the game.
The thing is, what does increasing monetisation even mean?
Like, is it just investing in more things to buy? More player options? More things like computer games, films? More stuff like terrain and figures? Most of that is would be good for the game, or at worst, neutral, and is the good option. Unless, of course, they try cutting corners and rather than investing in the extra content, demand that the current people and resources just magically become more productive...which would only happen by [even further] reducing quality. That's bad option number one. Still, if they're going to offer more products, then if they have any sense about them, it'll improve the game overall.
The other direction they could go is to further monetise what we already have. Start charging everyone the master tier sub is an obvious step. Getting the master tier allows you to share your materials with, and share materials from, other master subscribers. Another way would be to charge for campaigns. You pay $X and you get a campaign space for a few months. Alternatively, the character builder itself could become more monetised. You only get 3 free spots. Or perhaps you pay per use. That kind of thing is bad option number two.
I'm not saying that's what's on the horizon, just suggesting different possible routes for how they could monetise stuff.
I really hope they go down good option route. And it's possible that was the game plan. I pointed out months ago that WotC purchased DDB because they foresaw that they could do a lot more with it under their wing than it could do independently. That strongly suggests that WotC wants to invest and improve the game. So there's good reason to hope that this is a positive step in the right direction.
The cynic in me knows that people (and therefore companies) don't like doing things properly. The first instinct is always to just insist people (usually others) work harder rather than resolve the issues and barriers. The cynic says that they'll probably end up going for bad option number one or two, or both. It's not like those concerns are baseless, given recent releases.
We'll see, I guess. I just really hope they don't increase the cost burden, especially in DMs. The hobby is already quite expensive as it is.
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 am highly skeptical of those numbers. That 80 percent absolutely spends money on D&D -- they just don't spend it on things Hasbro's getting much of a cut of past an initial PHB purchase or whatever. They're still out there buying dice, minis etc.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I genuinely wonder whether some people understand this isn't a video game
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
From Hasbro’s perspective, that is not spending money on the game - it might be from a colloquial understanding of what constitutes the game, as you note, that is not going to Hasbro. I suspect Hasbro is looking into what to capture those markets, but they are presently being captured and therefore represent a growth opportunity.
Though, it is probably worth noting that dice and miniatures are not the largest growth potentials out there. Most minis are probably purchased by DMs, other than maybe a small number for individual use (after all, a player only needs the one for a campaign; the DM needs monsters and such. Not to mention many DMs buy their players’ minis). I am also guessing the majority of players do not buy too many dice - though there’s certainly plenty of dice folks out there. That’s a harder market to break into though - lots of great options on the market and, unlike 3D printed minis which have fragility issues compared to things like WizKids’ or Reaper’s, dice can be made pretty easily by anyone with the ability to shape resin.
If you listen to the interview the “under-monetized” comment is in reference to 2 things:
1) Licensing, merchandising, etc. and growing ways to make more revenue from D&D beside just the game. They 100% explicitly state this as one of their major goals since the brand is so widely recognized beyond just the people who play. (At least half of the time they spend talking about D&D is specifically about revenue other than the game itself - the movie, video games, licensed merchandise, etc.)
2) The question and answer both also directly reference the M:tG discussion earlier in the interview - specifically a discussion of their focus shifting from only on professional M:tG players to instead 3 segments of players - professional, casual, and collector with realizing each segment has different interests and they should provide ways that work for each of the 3. So reading into that “non-DMs don’t buy enough, so let’s milk more $ out of them with micro transactions” is a grossly over simplified interpretation. It’s more like realizing “what non-DMs want to buy is different from what we are providing. We are (possibly) only focusing on one segment and ignoring the interests of another.” It is specifically about giving players what they want.
Lastly, in the interview (which is 85% M:tG and 1 question about D&D squeezed in at the end, so much more condensed and not as in-depth as the M:tG portion) they also very clearly state that D&D growth is going to be focused on new player growth, bringing back players who haven’t played in a while, and more non-game revenue.