Hey, I'm sorry if this has been asked before but Looking through the sub types, it looks like the only difference between Hero and Master tiers is a single thing: Content Sharing, yet it's over double the cost.

Hero tier is a great price and well worth the money but doubling that for ONLY three campaigns, seems...  underwhelming.  More so, if you have the Legendary bundle.

Is this something they're working on?  Are they going to be adding any additional value to Master tier, for said price?  Realistically, I wouldn't want them to lower the value of the Hero tier but it seems like Hero tier should have one campaign sharing and Master should be way more than three, if that's the *ONLY* additional bonus at double the cost.

TL;DR:  Is Master Tier worth over double the cost of Hero Tier with only one minor benefit to it?

Content sharing is not a minor benefit, it is the primary reason to get a sub at all. I've been on this site for almost 2 years, have every book and never once bought a sub because someone else in my group has a master tier and the hero tier doesn't entice me.

Content sharing lets the members of up to 3 campaigns at a time share every purchase they have made on DDB with each other. That essentially means that only 1 person out of up to 36 needs to buy books, saving thousands of dollars as a group.

Let's look at it this way:

Each campaign can have 11 other players in each, you get 3 campaigns so that is 33 other people.

You have $600 worth of content unlocked. You decide to share. You pay the measly, barely signficant cost of the Master Tier sub.

Now, all those 33 other peeps get access and use to $600 worth of content - something that otherwise would have cost $19,800.

Now change perspective to D&D Beyond and WotC who realise that for the cost of the Master sub, somebody with all content could just sub for 1 month and those 33 people now have the opportunity to spend that month creating homebrew copies and saving the compendium pages to effectively give themselves permanent free access to all content - meaning that the companies lose out on potential $19.8k if this happens (and I have no doubt it does).

That -technically theft- copying is a risk, it may not occur often but it will happen so the price point of the Sub which allows such a thing to possibly occur must factor in that risk.

All things considered, it's a fraction of the price they could charge. So yes, not only is it, financially speaking, A HUGE MASSIVE benefit but it's cheap as chips and technically underpriced - if WotC were newer, they would not be able to grant D&D Beyond such a deal, meaning you wouldn't even get the option. You only get this option because WotC are established and successful enough to accept the potential loss of profit it can invite.

So, yes, the tiny price for the great big whopping benefit, is absolutely more than worth it and I am grateful it's even an option let alone for how cheap it is.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Let's look at it this way:

Each campaign can have 11 other players in each, you get 3 campaigns so that is 33 other people.

You have $600 worth of content unlocked. You decide to share. You pay the measly, barely signficant cost of the Master Tier sub.

Now, all those 33 other peeps get access and use to $600 worth of content - something that otherwise would have cost $19,800.

Now change perspective to D&D Beyond and WotC who realise that for the cost of the Master sub, somebody with all content could just sub for 1 month and those 33 people now have the opportunity to spend that month creating homebrew copies and saving the compendium pages to effectively give themselves permanent free access to all content - meaning that the companies lose out on potential $19.8k if this happens (and I have no doubt it does).

That -technically theft- copying is a risk, it may not occur often but it will happen so the price point of the Sub which allows such a thing to possibly occur must factor in that risk.

All things considered, it's a fraction of the price they could charge. So yes, not only is it, financially speaking, A HUGE MASSIVE benefit but it's cheap as chips and technically underpriced - if WotC were newer, they would not be able to grant D&D Beyond such a deal, meaning you wouldn't even get the option. You only get this option because WotC are established and successful enough to accept the potential loss of profit it can invite.

So, yes, the tiny price for the great big whopping benefit, is absolutely more than worth it and I am grateful it's even an option let alone for how cheap it is.

Personally, I think that kind of copying is against the spirit of content sharing and I would definatly report someone to the DDB staff, if I thought that they were using content sharing for this purpose.

Whether the anything would happen is another thing entirely, but the thought that people might actually be doing this gives me a nasty taste in my mouth.

Sharing is good, copying an entire work, so you don't have to pay for it is not, so I really hope this isn't actually happening.

To answer the original question though, the Master Tier is definatly worth the cost.  Especially if you want to DM more than play.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Now change perspective to D&D Beyond and WotC who realise that for the cost of the Master sub, somebody with all content could just sub for 1 month and those 33 people now have the opportunity to spend that month creating homebrew copies and saving the compendium pages to effectively give themselves permanent free access to all content - meaning that the companies lose out on potential $19.8k if this happens (and I have no doubt it does).

 You can't make homebrew copies of shared content for precisely this reason. Though the only think stoping you from copying all the shared compendiums is what a pain in the a** it is to do so.

Quote from DxJxC >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Now change perspective to D&D Beyond and WotC who realise that for the cost of the Master sub, somebody with all content could just sub for 1 month and those 33 people now have the opportunity to spend that month creating homebrew copies and saving the compendium pages to effectively give themselves permanent free access to all content - meaning that the companies lose out on potential $19.8k if this happens (and I have no doubt it does).

 You can't make homebrew copies of shared content for precisely this reason. Though the only think stoping you from copying all the shared compendiums is what a pain in the a** it is to do so.

 
You can make homebrew copies. Have it open in one tab and in another choose to create from scratch and replicate it. It can be a pain to do, but some people would be willing to do that..

Quote from SocialFoxes >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Let's look at it this way:

Each campaign can have 11 other players in each, you get 3 campaigns so that is 33 other people.

You have $600 worth of content unlocked. You decide to share. You pay the measly, barely signficant cost of the Master Tier sub.

Now, all those 33 other peeps get access and use to $600 worth of content - something that otherwise would have cost $19,800.

Now change perspective to D&D Beyond and WotC who realise that for the cost of the Master sub, somebody with all content could just sub for 1 month and those 33 people now have the opportunity to spend that month creating homebrew copies and saving the compendium pages to effectively give themselves permanent free access to all content - meaning that the companies lose out on potential $19.8k if this happens (and I have no doubt it does).

That -technically theft- copying is a risk, it may not occur often but it will happen so the price point of the Sub which allows such a thing to possibly occur must factor in that risk.

All things considered, it's a fraction of the price they could charge. So yes, not only is it, financially speaking, A HUGE MASSIVE benefit but it's cheap as chips and technically underpriced - if WotC were newer, they would not be able to grant D&D Beyond such a deal, meaning you wouldn't even get the option. You only get this option because WotC are established and successful enough to accept the potential loss of profit it can invite.

So, yes, the tiny price for the great big whopping benefit, is absolutely more than worth it and I am grateful it's even an option let alone for how cheap it is.

 

Personally, I think that kind of copying is against the spirit of content sharing and I would definatly report someone to the DDB staff, if I thought that they were using content sharing for this purpose.

Whether the anything would happen is another thing entirely, but the thought that people might actually be doing this gives me a nasty taste in my mouth.

Sharing is good, copying an entire work, so you don't have to pay for it is not, so I really hope this isn't actually happening.

To answer the original question though, the Master Tier is definatly worth the cost.  Especially if you want to DM more than play.

 
Unfortunately it would be happening. Some people are determined to get as much as they can for free even if it means doing so illegally. When you run a business like this you have to account for people trying to exploit things.

Just look at what happened with the recent promo codes. The code was giving $8 off per book towards total, resulting in massive discounts - several books for just a few bucks. It was clearly a mistake and instead of stopping and going "wow this seems wrong, let's check this is right" they just go "ooh, I can get tons of content for next to nothing, bad luck D&D beyond!" and went ahead. When it got fixed, people have actually whined that it did.

There will always be some people who don't give a crap. Thankfully they are much less than those who like us who prefer doing things the legal way.

The prices, subs, and deals made are all designed with this potential exploitive mindset factored in. This is why the limits are what they are, and why the prices are what they are.

I'm glad to see the feedback.  One of the reasons I asked is because our current DM is maxed out at the share level, so I was debating on whether upping mine to help out would be worth the money.  I still would like the ability to share more, as a lot of groups have their established DM but will often run multiple games, as well as have those players who want to run a one-shot or short campaign.  I've upped the membership, obviously, to ease her burden with the sharing, but overall, it was good getting some responses that weren't just entirely trying to shut down or complain like other gaming forums, lol.  So, thank you.

Quote from Wraith_Shadowborne >>

I'm glad to see the feedback.  One of the reasons I asked is because our current DM is maxed out at the share level, so I was debating on whether upping mine to help out would be worth the money.  I still would like the ability to share more, as a lot of groups have their established DM but will often run multiple games, as well as have those players who want to run a one-shot or short campaign.  I've upped the membership, obviously, to ease her burden with the sharing, but overall, it was good getting some responses that weren't just entirely trying to shut down or complain like other gaming forums, lol.  So, thank you.

 If someone in your play group already has it, then the value diminishes a bit.

Have you tried combining campaigns (multiple parties per campaign) to get the number under 3? Is just disabling and moving content sharing where needed not an option?

Quote from DxJxC >>

Quote from Wraith_Shadowborne >>

I'm glad to see the feedback.  One of the reasons I asked is because our current DM is maxed out at the share level, so I was debating on whether upping mine to help out would be worth the money.  I still would like the ability to share more, as a lot of groups have their established DM but will often run multiple games, as well as have those players who want to run a one-shot or short campaign.  I've upped the membership, obviously, to ease her burden with the sharing, but overall, it was good getting some responses that weren't just entirely trying to shut down or complain like other gaming forums, lol.  So, thank you.

 If someone in your play group already has it, then the value diminishes a bit.

Have you tried combining campaigns (multiple parties per campaign) to get the number under 3? Is just disabling and moving content sharing where needed not an option?

 I'm the new guy to the group, so i haven't but i don't think they have either.  That's actually a great idea, so i will have to bring it up.  Thank you!

Also, obviously, thanks to the team for raising that share limit for the current situation.