I think there might be a misunderstanding about the terminology here. In the world of digital games, recurrent spending refers not only to subscriptions that recur periodically, but also to things like microtransactions, purchasing add-on content, and selling virtual currency. So, when you say, "You can of course buy stuff too," you're referring to recurrent spending. Like, if people are buying feats, classes, or bundles of spells or whatever? That's recurrent spending.You can have a free subscription to DND Beyond (I do), which has no recurrent fees. This gives you access to the basic rules and SRD, articles, free monsters (like spelljammer and dragonlance), other free goodies, and a ton of homebrew content. I don't know if it includes the encounter builder as I have never used that tool. You can of course buy stuff too if you want (which I do), but that is no more recurrent than buying the physical books (which I haven't until the DL bundle).
I understood the terminology. However,...I think there might be a misunderstanding about the terminology here.
...I never got that this was what you were trying to argue. If anyone said this was the case, I missed it.That's sort of beside my point, though, which is that it's inaccurate to say that WotC is blocked from making money off of recurrent spending by the OGL.
The 3D VTT, if it proves popular, is a gold mine for recurring spending. Just look around at software that you can make battle maps with; many of them sell asset packs to expand your options. Want a new set of tavern furniture? $4.99 please. A single new model for your PC or NPC? 99 cents please. New packs of monsters with stat blocks to go with them? That'll be $9.99. There won't be the same spending opportunity for players as DMs, but giving players the ability to buy cosmetics is a start towards closing the gap between player and DM spending IMO.I think there might be a misunderstanding about the terminology here. In the world of digital games, recurrent spending refers not only to subscriptions that recur periodically, but also to things like microtransactions, purchasing add-on content, and selling virtual currency. So, when you say, "You can of course buy stuff too," you're referring to recurrent spending. Like, if people are buying feats, classes, or bundles of spells or whatever? That's recurrent spending.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong when you say that such purchases are no more recurrent than buying the physical books. I mean, it would be possible to argue that roleplaying games are built on a primitive precursor to the recurrent spending model, in that the business is sustained not only by selling the base game, but by selling add-ons, such as supplements, adventures, and miniatures.
While that might be an interesting discussion, I think it would miss the point. When Cynthia Williams talks about the potential of digital tools to "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games," she's not talking about buying a couple of books over the course of a game's lifecycle. Things like D&D Beyond subscriptions or paying $0.99 for a background or a spell (or however much they cost) are merely the first baby steps toward a massive transformation.
That's sort of beside my point, though, which is that it's inaccurate to say that WotC is blocked from making money off of recurrent spending by the OGL.
In the post you initially responded to, I wrote:...I never got that this was what you were trying to argue. If anyone said this was the case, I missed it.
And that was in response to TheSword, who wrote, "There is plenty of recurrent spending none of it goes to WoTC though because of the OGL." (The block quote was in my response, but I can't quote a block quote here.)All of that is recurrent spending, and since WotC spent blockbuster movie money (~$150 million) to buy D&D Beyond, all of that recurrent spending goes to them now. So, while it may be true that none of your recurrent spending goes to WotC, plenty of recurrent spending does. That is despite the existence of the OGL.
I think it's simpler than that: when you want to charge somebody a monthly subscription price to play via VTT, you want to be sure that your VTT is great AND that you are the only VTT option available. Hasbro appreciates the concept of "Monopoly"!In the post you initially responded to, I wrote:
And that was in response to TheSword, who wrote, "There is plenty of recurrent spending none of it goes to WoTC though because of the OGL." (The block quote was in my response, but I can't quote a block quote here.)
I was responding to the inaccurate claim that WotC is unable to take advantage of recurrent spending because of the OGL by pointing out that they own what is almost certainly the largest platform for D&D-related recurrent spending, and that they are developing a platform that will offer additional extremely lucrative opportunities for recurrent spending, and none of that is hindered by the OGL in any meaningful way.
Hopefully that clears things up.
Absolutely.The 3D VTT, if it proves popular, is a gold mine for recurring spending. Just look around at software that you can make battle maps with; many of them sell asset packs to expand your options. Want a new set of tavern furniture? $4.99 please. A single new model for your PC or NPC? 99 cents please. New packs of monsters with stat blocks to go with them? That'll be $9.99. There won't be the same spending opportunity for players as DMs, but giving players the ability to buy cosmetics is a start towards closing the gap between player and DM spending IMO.
I suspect we agree more than we disagree.I think it's simpler than that: when you want to charge somebody a monthly subscription price to play via VTT, you want to be sure that your VTT is great AND that you are the only VTT option available. Hasbro appreciates the concept of "Monopoly"!
From that central commercial objective, all else follows. Other changes to the OGL become a shopping list of druthers and add-ons. Important, sure, but not THE REASON.