Matt Colville weighs in.

[Aldarc]

I'd also point out that what you are talking about is quite a bit less than what they are talking about. You are getting only the core rules, no adventures, no database, just the books. If you were to actually subscribe (and note, Paizo's own store calls it a subscription, so, you can split hairs all you like) to get the amount of material that you would get at this "30 dollar a month" made up level, how much would it cost you? Would you be paying for something nearly every month? Yuppers, you would.

Yes, there is a difference in that you are subscribing to a printed product and you are getting a physical product for your money. For you, that is a selling point. Fair enough. But, it doesn't suddenly stop being a subscription just because you get a physical product. For me, a physical product is a total non-starter. I'm not interested. I have a blood shelf full of Dungeon and Dragon magazines just gathering mold because most likely I will never read them again. Hell, I've thrown out/sold/given away more copies of both magazines than I currently have.

Again, a digital subscription to me is a far, far more appealing product. Doesn't make it better. DOesn't mean that I'm subscribing and you aren't. It's just that there are different kinds of subscription programs.

Good grief. Ok, Paizo is not offering a subcripton service. What term would you use for what they offer that I can use so that I don't have to piss around with all this pedantic crap? Pick a term and I'll happily use that.

I think it's fair to say that both are subscriptions, but they are different subscription models. The danger lies in equivocating between these two different models and pretending that they are both the same because they are subscriptions.

Well, again, fair enough. I get that. They are different services. True. But, there are some pretty clear similarities as well - a scheduled payment made to the producer for products. That's what a subscription is. And, again, if the Pathfinder subscription is significantly more expensive (which apparently it is? I haven't done the math, so, if it's not, then mea culpa), then you are paying a premium for those print products. WotC is apparently offering a service where you gain access to all WotC material for a monthly fee. Granted, you don't get to own that material, but, perhaps there are other perks - searchable databases, linking with the VTT, that sort of thing that makes it attractive at the price point.

My point before diving down this rabbit hole is that a 30 dollar a month price point isn't necessarily an insane amount of money. Probably more than I'd pay, true, but, again, comparing it to other subscription style services, 30 bucks a month isn't terribly out of line either.

Someone made a spreadsheet estimate for a Pathfinder subscription. It's roughly about $65 per month. But keep in mind, that's subscribing to the Rulebook, Adventure Path, Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Accessories, Pathfinder Society, and Pawns lines, which would also net the physical and pdf copies. It's certainly more than $30 a month, but I would be curious how that would compare to the $30 per month for the online D&D materials plus purchasing the equivalent hard copy products for D&D in addition to that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I see the direction, I do not see them reaching that goal. This makes for a bad TTRPG and a bad CRPG. Why would I not play WoW or Diablo IV instead...

Yeah I have to say, I think Matt is wrong here.

I think assuming a novel and bizarre project like this is going to be a success, or that "13-year-olds" are so dumb they'll buy into is, frankly, really silly and emotion talking not logic.

This kind of project is inherently insanely risky. There are absolutely no guarantees. Even if WotC hadn't alienated anyone, there would be precious few guarantees, and now it's even riskier.

13-year-olds are also more cynical, and capable of detecting naughty word from game designers than he gives credit to them for. Without massive peer pressure and so on, they're not going to mindlessly go for this. Teenagers in general are a fickle bunch who enjoy hating on this, especially corporate things. That hasn't changed - indeed they may even be stronger on it than we were.

So I think he's just piling up a lot of assumptions out of depression with what is admittedly a depressing turn of events.

 

[Bagpuss]

I see the direction, I do not see them reaching that goal. This makes for a bad TTRPG and a bad CRPG. Why would I not play WoW or Diablo IV instead...

I think that comes from the fact the guy pushing (Chris Cao) it doesn't play D&D clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is about.

He wants a 3D VVT that looks spectacular, so players can by skins and virtual minis, like they do in Fortnite. What current D&D DMs want from a VTT is something that is easy to import your latest monster, 3D makes that harder. For current players D&D takes part in the imagination, 3D models actually detract from that especially if you are limited in the range of skins/models.

He wants a VTT that you can play without a DM so they can still get subscriptions from single players, or when groups can't find a DM. What current D&D players want is a DM to give the originality, flexibility and tailored experience that you can't get from a CRPG experience.

That's not to say his new D&D won't attract players, but they are fundamentally a different audience (although there maybe some overlap).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Probably more than I'd pay, true, but, again, comparing it to other subscription style services, 30 bucks a month isn't terribly out of line either.

It is, though. For a purely digital subscription, which isn't even giving you permanent copies? It's wildly out-of-wack.

It's double the price of subscriptions which provide nigh-endless content, like Netflix or World of Warcraft.

And hell, even at $30, we've gotta assume that's including access to every single book, because otherwise, you're what, having to buy books on top of that? And no doubt you are buying minis, tiles, dice, etc. on top, even if some are "free" (lol).

PF's sub isn't really a sub as much as a decision to auto-buy everything. Because you're buying it outright. You're not renting it. It's not digital only. There's no taking it away from you. You're just getting a bunch of PDFs and potentially physical books. It's a subscription in a much more old-fashioned sense, like when a library "subscribes" to a series of books from a publisher. When I worked in the law library at my old firm we used to subscribe to books or series of books or looseleafs that way. You physically (and sometimes digitally) get everything they publish in that period. Nobody takes it away when you stop.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For current players D&D takes part in the imagination, 3D models actually detract from that especially if you are limited in the range of skins/models.

This is where I think you might not be giving enough due to what players actually want and need. Because almost all of us who buy D&D material buy all sorts of stuff that doesn't look exactly what we are imagining all the time and it doesn't detract from the game at all. And we still buy it because it does add to the game even if it doesn't look exactly as we are describing.

If I buy pre-painted plastic monster miniatures from WizKids... those minis most likely won't be wielding the weapons that I've determined the monsters will have in the upcoming encounter. But that doesn't stop me from still buying them, using them, and enjoy looking at them when on the table. Or if I lay out a scene using Dungeon Tiles or poster maps... the grass on the tiles might be greener than how I am describing it-- I might have snow down in the description but not on the tiles-- the placement of items and equipment or rocks and landscape might not completely accurately represent what I'm telling the players is there-- the heights of cliff faces, what are painted on dungeon walls etc.... but none of that stops me from buying them and using them and thinking they are adding to the experience. And even people using VTTs right now use all sorts of digital maps in their games that don't match exactly how they are using them, but they still go out of their way to find or make really cool looking ones.

So no... I do not think current D&D players are going to expect near-perfect representations in the WotC 3DVTT of what their descriptions are when they are creating adventure spaces within the system. That 3D digitized Hydra mini a person bought in-system might only have 6 heads, but they'll describe the Hydra for this encounter to start with 8. And most of us will be fine with that and it won't matter at all because we've been making these compromises between fidelity and really cool prop representation for 40 years. I just don't see us treating the 3DVTT any differently.

 

[Alzrius]

When I worked in the law library at my old firm we used to subscribe to books or series of books or looseleafs that way. You physically (and sometimes digitally) get everything they publish in that period. Nobody takes it away when you stop.

Clearly what Paizo needs to do is issue updates in the form of pocket parts you can slide into flaps in the back of their hardcover books. Or just publish their books as three-ring binders for which individual pages can be replaced when they issue new errata. Or maybe as spiral-bound books for which those replacement pages are put in via combs.

 

[mamba]

Yes, and your point?

that there are all kinds of ways in which you subscribe to things and that comparing the subscription fee of one to that of another that is rather different (WotC’s VTT vs Paizo’s) is comparing apples to oranges. I just chose a watermelon to make that issue more clear…

 

[raniE]

They don’t need four of a kind, when two pair will do nicely.

WOTC doesn’t need a mega hit like WOW.

They’d be just tickled pink with a Diablo Immortal...

A game utterly reviled by Diablo fandom; Yet it's still a multimillion dollar micro transaction money maker, that brings in that fat cheddar.

And they don't care who they have to step on, or over, to get it.

WotC is 110% Ok with this for D&D:

Diablo Immortal May Officially Be the Most Hated Game of the Past 20 Years

According to recent data, the new Diablo Immortal might prove to not only be the worst game from Activision Blizzard, but the most hated in decades.

www.cbr.com

If they also get this from the D&D OneVTT:

Diablo Immortal Has Reportedly Made Over $300 Million

Blizzard's Diablo Immortal surpasses the $300 million revenue mark in global earnings, despite controversy over the game's monetization.

gamerant.com

But that’s not two pair. From the second article:

This puts Diablo Immortal, which only came out this summer, well ahead of the curve, at least financially.

So there’s nothing easy about Diablo Immortal’s performance. WOW isn’t four of a kind, it’s the Royal Straight Flush. Diablo Immortal? At least a Flush. Maybe a full house. D&D as it exists now? That’s two pair. And right now? WotC might end up with a king high or something.

 

[Remathilis]

Then again it is possible and Chris Cao did do Magic Arena. So we'll see.

So Magic has a virtual tabletop system, it's called Magic Online. It's old. It's buggy. But it does exactly what it says on the tin; you can play Magic against anyone in any format online. You can buy singles, make decks, play anything from vintage to standard to 4 person commander. You can sell your decks and even "cash out" and request paper copies of any complete set. (Or, you could). In short, it handled everything you can do tabletop. You could even buy and play Black Lotus because the reserve list didn't apply to digital cards

Also, Magic has Arena. It's newer and slicker. Pretty graphical flourishes, etc. And it has a bunch of things you can't do that you can do with Online. You can only play one opponent at a time. You can't play commander. You are limited to only sets from the last few years (so much so, you can't play it's most recent legacy format Pioneer, but can play a bastardized version called Historic). They have changed cards, effectively errataing them (called Alchemy) and have cards with mechanics that would be impossible to do in paper Magic. You can buy wildcards and packs, but you can't buy and sell individual cards. It's very much designed to play Magic, but not emulate playing Magic, as online was.

D&D Beyond, in its current format, feels a little more like Magic Online. It's designed to assist and emulate tabletop D&D. So far, there is nothing you can do on it that you can't do with a pen and paper. But what if the vtt is like Arena; a curated experience not designed to strictly emulate the TT experience but provide a similar, highly controlled and monetized one. It's designed for players who want to use official rules to play official modules with other players (groups or random) against a DM who will have all sorts of tools for running that module (including that dreaded AI). A VTT that is designed to play D&D, but not to emulate playing D&D.

Also, since we're talking about a separate experience, it will have limited integration with Beyond. After all, buying a card on MTGO doesn't get you access to the card on Arena or IRL.

But Cao might actually be a mad lad. Just like how Arena didn't kill competitive Magic, but provided a limited style of play to anyone who has some time to play but not the ability to find a play group, this could do the same for D&D. And Cao could have been upset when he found out Wizards just bought another Magic Online in Beyond to muck up his plans for a single curated online play system.

But the more I think about it, the more D&DB:VTT :: MTGO:Arena makes sense.

 

[TheSword]

I think that comes from the fact the guy pushing (Chris Cao) it doesn't play D&D clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is about.

He wants a 3D VVT that looks spectacular, so players can by skins and virtual minis, like they do in Fortnite. What current D&D DMs want from a VTT is something that is easy to import your latest monster, 3D makes that harder. For current players D&D takes part in the imagination, 3D models actually detract from that especially if you are limited in the range of skins/models.

He wants a VTT that you can play without a DM so they can still get subscriptions from single players, or when groups can't find a DM. What current D&D players want is a DM to give the originality, flexibility and tailored experience that you can't get from a CRPG experience.

That's not to say his new D&D won't attract players, but they are fundamentally a different audience (although there maybe some overlap).

I don’t think you are in a position to say what current DM’s want.

I don’t even think current DMs are in a position to say what they want when they don’t know what the proposal actually will end up like. It needs to be demo’d and trialed and tested. Then we find out if we want it or not.

I didn’t know I wanted VTT until Covid made it a necessity. Now we play face to face again I still use VTT elements in our F2F games but also play D&D twice as often by adding in a weekly online game. Who’d have thought!

But just to take issue with what you claim about current DMs… some are happy using backgammon tokens or dice to represent creatures. Some use printed 2D tokens or pawns like pathfinder. A hell of a lot will use fully realized plastic 3D models and a huge lucrative business has grown up selling these. To make a sweeping statement that current DMs don’t want 3D models because D&D takes place in the imagination is clearly bunkum. Out most ‘old school DM’ @GuyBoy who was the last to come to VTT in our group, loves using 3D models and always has. He has a frankly amazing collection of painted repair minis.