D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Parmandur]

BG3 is a very different bet. We know CRPGs are popular, we know Larian games get good reviews, we know the Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 games established the series and are well regarded. All of this makes it a somewhat limited risk, and to top it all off, it is Larian taking the risk, not WotC, and they are experienced in making these kinds of games.

On the other side we have WotC hiring a huge team to churn out a 3D VTT when those have far less of a track record than CRPGs and WotC has much less of a track record with them than Larian with games. Yet the investment by WotC is probably bigger than Larian’s, despite their poor to nonexistent track record.

On the upside WotC is bigger than Larian, so WotC can survive what would kill Larian, but as an investment, Larian is the safer bet.

WotC stepping into VTTs was inevitable, they did not dip their toe in the water however, but jumped in head first. It certainly can work out, but it is more high risk / high reward than gradually building up to it

The comparison theybwere probsvly.makimg in the decision making stage was probably Arena, which WotC made internally, and is a money engine.

 

[mamba]

The comparison theybwere probsvly.makimg in the decision making stage was probably Arena, which WotC made internally, and is a money engine.

agreed, that probably factored in. I am not saying it has to fail, only that it is a high risk / high reward approach when others were abailable.

They clearly have some info we do not that went into this, but that does not really change the approach they took, or what alternatives there were. It’s a matter of priority.

If you want a polished 3D VTT for the 50th anniversary with all 5e adventures on it, this is the way to go. If you rather spend less upfront and see whether the reception justifies the investment, and don’t mind getting to that polished, all adventures point in year 52 or 53 if things work out, you probably should have taken it slower.

 

[darjr]

The comparison theybwere probsvly.makimg in the decision making stage was probably Arena, which WotC made internally, and is a money engine.

And also a bit of a problem. It seems it may have hurt the on-boarding of new Magic players.

I think it has the chance to become “just another video game”, at least to some degree. And that might be bad for magics future. Maybe.

 

[Oofta]

agreed, that probably factored in. I am not saying it has to fail, only that it is a high risk / high reward approach when others were abailable.

They clearly have some info we do not that went into this, but that does not really change the approach they took, or what alternatives there were. It’s a matter of priority.

If you want a polished 3D VTT for the 50th anniversary with all 5e adventures on it, this is the way to go. If you rather spend less upfront and see whether the reception justifies the investment, and don’t mind getting to that polished, all adventures point in year 52 or 53 if things work out, you probably should have taken it slower.

The low risk option is the recently revealed Maps application. A very simple 2D program with just tokens on a map background not designed to do much more. Whether this is something that was in the works before the VTT, designed to test integration with DDB, is part of internal competition of ideas or something else is unknown.

However, the technology for presentation for Maps (or any of the current batch of VTT's) is completely different. If you're going the 3D route with Unreal Engine which renders on the device being used there isn't a "simple 2D" version using that technology.

 

[mamba]

The low risk option is the recently revealed Maps application. A very simple 2D program with just tokens on a map background not designed to do much more.

it certainly is low risk, but that is very barebones right now, it is more like a one developer pet project / proof of concept. I do not see it as the only alternative approach, there is a lot of room between those two

Whether this is something that was in the works before the VTT, designed to test integration with DDB, is part of internal competition of ideas or something else is unknown.

no idea which came first, you can also see that as covering two markets, just like car manufacturers have different models.

To a degree there is a certain level of competition between the two, as they serve a similar need

If you're going the 3D route with Unreal Engine which renders on the device being used there isn't a "simple 2D" version using that technology.

I thought the full VTT was supposed to also offer a 2d option.

 

[Micah Sweet]

it certainly is low risk, but that is very barebones right now, it is more like a one developer pet project / proof of concept. I do not see it as the only alternative approach, there is a lot of room between those two

So 2.5D?

 

[Oofta]

it certainly is low risk, but that is very barebones right now, it is more like a one developer pet project / proof of concept. I do not see it as the only alternative approach, there is a lot of room between those two

True, but building another Roll20 doesn't make a lot of sense either. Either have something with minimal investment but minimal functionality other than integration with DDB or go big like the VTT.

no idea which came first, you can also see that as covering two markets, just like car manufacturers have different models.

To a degree there is a certain level of competition between the two, as they serve a similar need

Competition or just a low cost "gateway VTT"? After all if you get people used to using the "official" low cost VTT when and if they're ready to use something more sophisticated there's an official VTT. Just like many upscale auto manufacturers have entry level models.

I thought the full VTT was supposed to also offer a 2d option.

It will be interesting if they do that. But the primary goal is 3D rendered in UE, seems like the 2D model would be an optional nice to have. Maybe they'll render the 3D map to 2D and then utilize Maps and this is really just parallel development that are branded as separate applications.

 

[mamba]

True, but building another Roll20 doesn't make a lot of sense either. Either have something with minimal investment but minimal functionality other than integration with DDB or go big like the VTT.

depends on your priorities.

If you can throw together a Roll20 alternative with DDB integration with say 50 developers over two years and get 50% of the D&D VTT market simply through brand recognition, that sounds feasible to me, and you can build out from there

Alternatively you can have 400 people work on it for four years and hopefully end up with a VTT that blows the competition away and gains an unknown percentage of the D&D VTT customers.
That number could be lower or higher however, depending on your fees and how much interest for the fancy features there actually is.

 

[mamba]

So 2.5D?

no, still 3d (with optional 2d), just with fewer bells and whistles, and maybe only a third of the published adventures right out of the gate (some classics, plus the most recent two or so, nothing crazy like Planescape / Spelljammer to cut down on assets), with improvements and more adventures to come in time

 

[Oofta]

depends on your priorities.

If you can throw together a Roll20 alternative with DDB integration with say 50 developers over two years and get 50% of the D&D VTT market simply through brand recognition, that sounds feasible to me, and you can build out from there

Alternatively you can have 400 people work on it for four years and hopefully end up with a VTT that blows the competition away and gains an unknown percentage of the D&D VTT customers.
That number could be lower or higher however, depending on your fees and how much interest for the fancy features there actually is.

But if you "throw together" an app, you aren't really giving people much incentive to switch. Why build something that works just like your competitor when you can get the company to invest in something truly different.

I also have no idea where you're getting the "400 people" from, I've never seen an IT project that had that many people working on a single application. Even AAA video games have 10-40 programmers with potentially up to 200 individuals doing scripting, art, voice acting and testing. I'd be surprised if they have even 50 people working on the VTT project, I assume it's much, much lower.