D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[mamba]

I think it’s important to note here that the 350 people hired were for DnDBeyond as a whole.

not sure how many people worked there before, but when looking at the progress DDB has made since the hiring spree, I have a hard time saying ‘yeah, this is what they needed any of them for’

So to me they pretty much exclusively work for the VTT, whether that is adding features for the DDB integration or the VTT directly

 

[darjr]

not sure how many people worked there before, but when looking at the progress DDB has made since the hiring spree, I have a hard time saying ‘yeah, this is what they needed any of them for’

So to me they pretty much exclusively work for the VTT, whether that is adding features for the DDB integration or the VTT directly

I do think you’re right. And I think there is a clarification somewhere that indeed makes that case. As of now I can’t find it.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Even if they were just essentially on par, they would draw attention and customers, just like their adventure books sell significantly more without necessarily being significantly better. They can always build from there without the giant upfront investment

This is totally not meant to be snarky, but, define better.

WotC adventure books are probably among the top of production quality. Some of the best artists in the RPG industry. Excellent physical books. Well edited, that sort of thing. And, they are marketed better than just about anyone else - front and center of any RPG display in virtually any venue. The quality of the adventures themselves? Sure, we can argue about that. But none of them are actually bad. I like some, I do not like others or am not interested in others for a variety of reasons. But none of them are actually bad adventures.

I think it would be something of a disservice to DnD as a brand for WotC to just bang out yet another 2d VTT. We already have many of those. And, inevitably, that would be the comparison. We do not want to use the WOtC VTT because it is not any better than anything I can already use goes the innevitable argument. OTOH, if they can point to how thier VTT is different and distinct from others, then, well, that is not a bad thing.

 

[mamba]

This is totally not meant to be snarky, but, define better.

doesn’t really matter, it’s not like everyone will agree with my definition or even to a common one anyway. The point is their VTT would not have to be significantly better than existing ones to attract a lot of customers, esp. when it is integrated with DDB - and it still could be considerably better at a fraction of the investment

So they do not really need to go to all bells and whistles 3d right from the very start in order to be a force in the VTT space

they are marketed better than just about anyone else

that they are, but that is irrespective of quality and would be true for their VTT as well

I think it would be something of a disservice to DnD as a brand for WotC to just bang out yet another 2d VTT.

I did not say 2d, even though I’d argue that would be enough to justify the investment and capture quite a bit of the market. I said not all bells and whistles and a limited number of adventures / assets, instead of all of them in day one

 

[Parmandur]

doesn’t really matter, it’s not like everyone will agree with my definition or even to a common one anyway. The point is their VTT would not have to be significantly better than existing ones to attract a lot of customers, esp. when it is integrated with DDB - and it still could be considerably better at a fraction of the investment

So they do not really need to go to all bells and whistles 3d right from the very start in order to be a force in the VTT space


that they are, but that is irrespective of quality and would be true for their VTT as well


I did not say 2d, even though I’d argue that would be enough to justify the investment and capture quite a bit of the market. I said not all bells and whistles and a limited number of adventures / assets, instead of all of them in day one

But there is a dual purpose: theybare going big enough so that nobody in the TTRPG space can possibly enter at the same level, just for money reasons. But they are also going big enough and cutting edge enough, that it is hard for big deep pockets coming from outside thr industry to see entering as being attractive.

It isnhigh risk/high reward, but that is worth it for them to maintain their position.

 

[mamba]

But there is a dual purpose: theybare going big enough so that nobody in the TTRPG space can possibly enter at the same level, just for money reasons. But they are also going big enough and cutting edge enough, that it is hard for big deep pockets coming from outside thr industry to see entering as being attractive.

I am not saying they should cut their budget altogether and just create a 2d VTT on par with everyone else. I am saying an earlier rollout with fewer features to test the waters instead of spending 100M before anyone can use it might be the better approach.

That does not mean you have to stop there, just that you get there in stages. That still would accomplish your goals of keeping competition at bay. Let's face it, no one in the TTRPG space could even compete with that level of spending.

It isnhigh risk/high reward, but that is worth it for them to maintain their position.

they would be in the same position either way

 

[Parmandur]

they would be in the same position either way

Now, but investing a ton over a long amount of time secures the future.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

It would be less about people switching and more about a) existing dnd beyond users who just wants something light that uses dndbeyond and especially b) new players. Since they are the ones selling the product, they could easily direct people toward their platform and away from the others. This seems like low hanging fruit. The not so easy to get fruit would be to do what they are doing, which is to build a more complex vtt and hope that it’s compelling enough that they can fully monetize the online dnd experience.

 

[mamba]

Now, but investing a ton over a long amount of time secures the future.

I don't follow. Investing a large amount over a long time (long is relative, maybe 2-3 years more than they are doing now) is my case.

The main difference between what they are doing and my scenario is the timeline, not the goal or amount spent in the end (assuming that along the timeline it keeps on making sense to continue towards the original goal). WotC still ends up with a polished 3d VTT either way.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't follow. Investing a large amount over a long time (long is relative, maybe 2-3 years more than they are doing now) is my case.

The main difference between what they are doing and my scenario is the timeline, not the goal or amount spent in the end (assuming that along the timeline it keeps on making sense to continue towards the original goal). WotC still ends up with a polished 3d VTT either way.

Yes, they have been working for a while now on something that will be available in a couple of years...? Longterm, large investment with a giant headstart on any potential competition. The reason to go big is so they cannot be easily outmanuvered.