D&D General D&D Book Prices Are Going Up

WotC announced today that D&D books will be increasing in price this year.

Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants will be $59.99 as a preorder and $69.99 thereafter. These will apparently come as physical and digital bundles, so you won’t need to buy the D&D Beyond version separately.

This space is dedicated to communicating clearly and transparently with our players- even when the topic isn’t particularly fun. Since the release of the 2014 D&D core rulebooks, we’ve kept book prices stable. Unfortunately, with the cost of goods and shipping continually increasing, we’ve finally had to make the decision to increase the price of our new release print books. We're committed to creating high-quality products that deliver great value to our players and must increase our prices to accomplish that.

This will go into effect starting with Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants and new releases after Glory of the Giants. Digital pricing is unaffected by this MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) increase, as digital products don’t need to be printed or shipped. The increase also doesn’t impact backlist titles. While we can’t promise that there will never be a change to the prices of digital products and backlist titles, we have no plans to increase either.

Players who purchase the Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants digital-physical bundle through Dungeons & Dragons store can get the bundle for $59.95 for the entire preorder window, which is consistent with our current digital-physical bundle pricing. After the preorder window closes, digital-physical bundle prices will go to $69.95.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, it was talked about as early as 3 (or maybe 3.5) and explicitly advertised for 4e, but never happened. I think it was discussed for 5e too.

A solution off the top of my head would be to give us FLGSes DDB codes (on cards) to sell, and make a reduced price version to sell with the print books. We could keep them behind the counter. Done.

For a sealed.box set like the Dragpnlance board game or Spelljammer slipcase, I honestly see no excuse for not including a code. It would get me invested.in their ecosystem, come on guys...

 

[Oofta]

When they get asked about it directly, they often state that they would like to do it, but there are the difficulties that you mention.

They could come up with solutions, with a little work...

They have more options now than they used to, but still not sure how they would do it. If you could have some sort of unique code per book it might work because nowadays they grant access in DDB. The seller could verify the code is still good when you purchase and access could be revoked if it had already been used. However, that would require a unique code for each book of some sort which I doubt is practical.

As @FitzTheRuke mentions, you could give codes to the point of sale people so ... maybe? Seems like logistics could still be an issue, but it is far, far outside of my area of expertise.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

For a sealed.box set like the Dragpnlance board game or Spelljammer slipcase, I honestly see no excuse for not including a code. It would get me invested.in their ecosystem, come on guys...

I'm honestly surprised that they don't see it as a way to use us... to replace us. Some retailers are threatened by digital. I am not. I'd like a little cut, if I could get it.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm honestly surprised that they don't see it as a way to use us... to replace us. Some retailers are threatened by digital. I am not. I'd like a little cut, if I could get it.

WotC relationship with small retailers is quite odd. Partly well respected resource to build up the community, partly competition...

 

[Velderan]

For a sealed.box set like the Dragpnlance board game or Spelljammer slipcase, I honestly see no excuse for not including a code. It would get me invested.in their ecosystem, come on guys...

I remember the Essentials set came with a DDB code to access Dragon of Icespire Peak for free, as well as a discount code to buy the PHB 25% off. This was before they bought DDB too, so they were able to figure it out for a sealed product then. It was what got me to try DDB to begin with, not sure why they don't use the idea more for entry level products.

Edit: correction, it was 50% off the DDB PHB.

 

[Velderan]

I'm honestly surprised that they don't see it as a way to use us... to replace us. Some retailers are threatened by digital. I am not. I'd like a little cut, if I could get it.

Companies like Nintendo and Sony don't seem to see the harm in selling digital redemption codes for digital games in physical stores like GameStop, Target, or Best Buy so not sure why WotC doesn't do the same. If nothing else, they help raise awareness of their online marketplace.

 

[Parmandur]

I remember the Essentials set came with a DDB code to access Dragon of Icespire Peak for free, as well as a discount code to buy the PHB 25% off. This was before they bought DDB too, so they were able to figure it out for a sealed product then. It was what got me to try DDB to begin with, not sure why they don't use the idea more for entry level products.

Yup, that and the free to everyone Lost Mines of Phandelver and Acwuisitions Incorporated. Honestly, if I got a bundled Beyond copy with each FLGS purchase thar I am already making, that would only be good for their platform.

 

[EternalDungeonMaster]

For some reason, they usually open pre-orders before announcing what "extras" come along with the book. In the past, they have started advertising the extras before the pre-order window closes.

There probably will be extras, and if there are, you will get them. But we can't know for certain until WotC tells us. I'd wait a bit, if that's important to you.

I hear ya. I mean, it's only important to me insofar as if buying the bundle from dndstore.wizards.com saves me $15 but I don't get the extras, I'd much rather buy the physical and digital copies separately and get the extras.

 

[Mistwell]

I would recommend randomly clicking on 30 counties around the country and see if that holds for all of them (or even most). In many places that would be bare subsistence living, if that.

No, and now you're making a moving target argument. We were all talking about "I live in Virginia and the average warehouse pay at their facility here is $18/hour, " not the entire nation. From what I was able to find it's like he said: only the immediate DC Suburbs have a higher cost of living. For the rest that pay is above the living wage.

That's not something that should just be hand waived with "well OK but..." when I engaged in the argument presented in the context presented.

If you want to say it's a living wage in some places and not in others, that's fine. It's not however fine to change the argument because you didn't like the result. Which is what it looks like you just tried to do.

 

[Hex08]

No, and now you're making a moving target argument. We were all talking about Virginia, and what they pay there and the minimum wage there, not the entire nation. From what I was able to find it's like he said: only the immediate DC Suburbs have a higher cost of living. For the rest that pay is above the living wage.

That's not something that should just be hand waived with "well OK but..." when I engaged in the argument presented in the context presented.

If you want to say it's a living wage in some places and not in others, that's fine. It's not however fine to change the argument because you didn't like the result.

Nope, not making a moving target argument. I suggested a more reasonable number to get a better sample size for your argument because a sample size of one is generally considered a poor sample size. Before attempting to apply logical fallacies to rebuttals you need to make sure your original methodology is sound and one random click isn't sound methodology. What I did was make a valid critique of your statement, which is not a logical fallacy, and point you in the direction of correcting the error.

I will admit that I asked you to click on counties around the country when you were specifically referring to Virginia but that was just an error, not an attempt to get different results, If I correct that the rest still holds.

A quick Google search shows Viginia has 134 counties or equivalents. Presenting one county isn't representative of the state and therefore can be hand waived away. I am happy to admit I am wrong; you just need better evidence before you can begin to establish that.