D&D (2024) The Very Real Possibility and Impact of Microtransactions in One D&D

[doctorbadwolf]

I think people are expecting Wizards to completely abandon the tabletop and focus only on the virtual tabletop. To stop publishing books and only publish rules electronically. That there won't be any new hardcovers with "Dungeons and Dragons" blazoned on the cover but you can only get your D&D rules by subscribing to D&D Beyond.

I admit that I can see a future where that happens, but it isn't next year. It's sometime in the far future when paper books are like vinyl is for records now. As long as publishing books remains a profitable industry they're going to keep making books. Their digital strategy is where they see growth, but the books are where they get a constant stream of revenue currently. You don't destroy your revenue stream just to pursue another one unless you're really bad at business. Unless an alien paper-devouring microbe comes to Earth in the next year and destroys our ability to print books, we're going to get new books next year.

(And yes, I am on record as saying that the executives at Wizards are bad at business. But if they're THAT bad at business Wizards has bigger problems.)

Yeah they’re absolutely putting out books next year, and I sincerely doubt there is any plan to kill the physical tabletop at all.

 

[Remathilis]

So hot prediction: the game isn't going to be any not microtransactioned then it is currently. Books will still be a thing. The PHB, DMG, and MM will be complete books. Supplements will still be regularly printed. D&D Beyond will still sell books piecemeal if you want. The only microtransactions I could see are additional D&DB supplements (like the Vecna Dossier of the supplement monsters for SJ and DL) or a return to web enhancements (additional encounters, maybe a new monster or spell) nothing that will make content useless.

The VTT is a different beast, but I think they are going to make their money selling us visuals rather than content. Spell effects, outfit styles, glowly weapon effects. Dice and character sheet frames, etc. You'll still need to buy the content for the VTT, but they are going to get you on making the experience very pretty. One need only look at how MTG Arena sells Magic on effects, avatars, alt card art and card backs ("sleeves") to see that in play. Add in those fomo content drops (fight Vecna! This week only! Earn a special visual effect for winning! Only $2.99)

What I don't see is a book like Tasha's chopped up, sold in loot boxes, or similar. There will be no pay to win because you can't win against a live DM. But you can sell magic effects that come in different colors or purple skin for your tieflings on the VTT. And you can sell them extra stuff like they do now. And I see both of those being things down the road. But if you play using just your PHB, things won't change.

 

[wingsandsword]

Yes, but TSR failed because of the way they were structured, especially their finances, not because D&D wasn't selling well enough.

TSR failed for a number of reasons:

• Total and complete lack of market research.
• Low-quality products that were never playtested (as Lorraine Williams forbade the playtesting of products on company time).
• Spreading out the product line across a vast number of settings, making many books setting-specific that could have been made more appealing to more players by making them setting-neutral.
• A large number of poorly selling dubious product launches like Dragonlance Saga and Dragon Dice.
• A large number of Buck Rogers games printed that virtually nobody wanted to buy (and no stores wanted to sell, so they sat in warehouses) that were made entirely because Lorraine Williams personally got royalties for each product printed as the heir to the Buck Rogers IP.

. . .and yeah, some absurdly mismanaged finances too.

TSR failed for a number of reasons, and its a tribute to how successful and popular D&D is that it took years of that kind of extreme mismanagement to drive it into the ground. It survived for a long time in spite of incredible mismanagement.

As to the idea of microtransactions. . .while I'm generally skeptical of microtransactions in general, all I can think is how many times people bought a specific splatbook for one specific race, class, feat, or spell. How many people bought a book for just a few "crunchy bits? I also know people who would have bought those books, but couldn't justify spending $20 or $30 for just one thing they want, so I can see the appeal from a sales angle of just being able to sell the ONE thing that people want. I didn't want to buy the Eberron Campaign Setting for 3e, because I never really got the appeal of Eberron as a setting and couldn't justify a $50 purchase for a hardcover of a setting I'd never play or run, but I was interested in the Warforged race and Artificer class. If they'd had a cheaper publication that just had those elements, I would have bought those at the time instead.

 

[Maxperson]

I assume pretty much along the lines of Path of Exile, so 'skins' and effects. For the DM, maybe assets to build environments with,

I think there will be adventures, subclasses, spells and magic items that are also purchasable only through DDB. Not entire books, but smaller amounts of stuff for a few bucks.

 

[cranberry]

What I don't see is a book like Tasha's chopped up, sold in loot boxes, or similar. There will be no pay to win because you can't win against a live DM. But you can sell magic effects that come in different colors or purple skin for your tieflings on the VTT. And you can sell them extra stuff like they do now. And I see both of those being things down the road. But if you play using just your PHB, things won't change.

I hope their VTT is open ended enough to allow DM's to play they want to play. I think it's technically possible for WoTC to require people who use the VTT to play WoTC's way. What I mean, is if WoTC wants players to be able to purchase advantages, then the DM will be required to accept that...or not use the VTT.

 

[wingsandsword]

Yeah they’re absolutely putting out books next year, and I sincerely doubt there is any plan to kill the physical tabletop at all.

I can see them wanting to de-emphasize it over time. I think they know a hard stop to physical tabletop products would be a deal killer and cause outrage similar to the one they just experienced with the OGL, but I could see a long-term business strategy to slowly push players more to online offerings over physical ones.

 

[Remathilis]

I hope their VTT is open ended enough to allow DM's to play they want to play. I think it's technically possible for WoTC to require people who use the VTT to play WoTC's way. What I mean, is if WoTC wants players to be able to purchase advantages, then the DM will be required to accept that...or not use the VTT.

You can't buy advantages against a DM who can control content. "You paid $5.99 for a +3 sword? Ok. Your next fight is against Tiamat. Roll for initiative."

The closest you could get to something like this would be a digital equivalent to Adventurer's League with strict chargen rules, premade modules and drop-in/drop-out style of play. But the RPGA/AL has run for decades, they can figure out how to make this style work. And it still means nothing to home games using the vtt.

 

[Remathilis]

I can see them wanting to de-emphasize it over time. I think they know a hard stop to physical tabletop products would be a deal killer and cause outrage similar to the one they just experienced with the OGL, but I could see a long-term business strategy to slowly push players more to online offerings over physical ones.

And everyone assumed that Magic Online/Magic Arena would kill paper Magic.

 

[Jer]

The closest you could get to something like this would be a digital equivalent to Adventurer's League with strict chargen rules, premade modules and drop-in/drop-out style of play. But the RPGA/AL has run for decades, they can figure out how to make this style work. And it still means nothing to home games using the vtt.

I do think that the VTT will end up being more restrictive, such that AL style play is basically enforced in areas where they need to pick some way to implement things. Not for any real money-making purposes or because they have some master plan to change the game, but because software development is hard. Building something open-ended is tougher than building something with clear boundaries or with explicit rules to enforce.

(I also suspect that this will slow the mechanical innovation in the game to an even slower crawl than it's been under 5e to date. Again not from any nefarious purpose, but because there will be two software projects involved that will need to be able to implement new rules in software, and so they'll have a level of veto power over new rules as well. Whether this is considered a good or bad thing is an exercise left to the individual tho.)

 

[Clint_L]

TSR failed for a number of reasons, and its a tribute to how successful and popular D&D is that it took years of that kind of extreme mismanagement to drive it into the ground. It survived for a long time in spite of incredible mismanagement.

This. I don't want to single out Lorraine Williams, though, because she, though not good, was an improvement in management over what had been happening under Gygax and the Blumes - as Ben Riggs points out in Slaying the Dragon, he interviewed basically everyone he could find from that era and none of them thought things were run better before her. Also, the Buck Rogers things is an exaggeration - it's true that her family owned the IP and she pushed through several products that didn't sell, but these were a drop in the bucket compared to all the D&D stuff that was sitting in warehouses. She didn't fix TSR, but she bought it an extra decade.

Basically, TSR was mismanaged from Day One, and D&D only survived because it is just that good of an idea. That's why I think any predictions of the game's demise are unlikely.