WotC D&D Historian Ben Riggs says the OGL fiasco was Chris Cocks idea.

[Hussar]

wasn’t it? You said they wanted to turn D&D into the next 1B brand. They won’t do that by selling that many more printed books…

As to MtG, a not insignificant part comes from Arena, so yeah, video game company is the goal, or more broadly software, with DDB and their VTT

Again, it’s not a goal. It’s reality. WotC has been a video game company for years.

And despite years of online MtG play, they still routinely produce new cards.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So you're saying that those labels are equal in how apt they are? That it's just as correct to say that Shell is a cosmetics company as it is an oil company? That McDonald's can be called a real estate company just as much as a fast food company? And you think that this is actually something which abets communication and understanding? Because that's a pretty hard claim to make.

I never made a claim that the titles hold equal weight, just that both are true. Stop taking my arguments past where I have made them to knock down strawmen for your point.

This is false. They have yet to make a single video game.

Which is neither here nor there, since a VTT isn't a video game. Or do you think that people who use Roll20 are playing a video game?

Which is why it's more apt to not refer to WotC as being a video game company, since that's not their "core product," regardless of how much money is allocated to what department.

Um, what? They haven't changed it, at all, ever, in any capacity? You do know that 5.5 or whatever it's going to be called is about to come out, right?

Because they have changed it, as I noted above? Because we've seen them try and change related things, like the OGL, in an effort to boost their VTT business (remember the "no animated spell effects" clause of the OGL v1.2?). Because we've seen them use video game style pre-order pricing and promos ("free gold dragon virtual mini!"). Because they think the brand is "under-monetized" and want to create a "recurring spending environment." But please go on about how they're not going to change things.

So now the fear is that they will change DnD... because 5e is getting a 2024 rules update? You know what I meant. The core process of "you can do anything" is still there in 5e24 as it was in 1e. Creating/Licensing/Publishing a video game has never changed that core design.

Are they doing pre-order bonuses? Yeah, them and half the world. MCDM had pre-order bonuses, GtG had pre-order bonuses, heck, the Impossible Jones comic book I got from the kickstarter of Hesel and Kahn had pre-order bonuses. That is nothing to be so concerned over. Oh, and that comic book had "video game style pricing" too, because you could buy different, fancier editions if you wanted them. Are comic books now trying to be video games too? I have no idea what clause you are talking about, and I don't know why it matters, because you can't animate a spell effect on a paper map sitting on your dining room table.

And, you have still yet to demonstrate anything beyond unsubstantiated fears. A company said they weren't making as much money as they could, therefore the very fabric of TTRPG's and their success shall be torn down around our ears. Proof? Just look at the pre-order bonuses, only someone trying to create a micro-transaction subscription service of purely video game play with no ability to innovate would ever do something like that... or any pre-order campaign done on a large scale by anyone in any industry for the past decade.

That's not the point you were making before. You directly compared D&D to Champions of Krynn, holding them up side by side. I mean, I can understand changing your tune now, since that was a very poor point of comparison, but you said what you said.

No. I said DnD was turned into a digital experience, in Champions of Krynn, you know... a video game. I never expected that what you meant by "DnD as a Video Game" wasn't DnD as a video game, but all the core books being burnt in the pyre of microtransaction subscription service VTT slavery where all creative thought is forbidden and impossible. Which somehow happens because WoTC decides to make video games... like Champions of Krynn... which was made 36 years ago. And that... didn't happen then but will totally happen now because WoTC wants to make video games, but not through studios they own like they are currently doing.

Wait, so now you're saying that because a DOS-based game couldn't be turned into a micro-transaction filled recurring spending environment, that means that D&D will never be made into one, even though WotC has flat-out said that's what they want it to be? That's an...interesting, take on things. Inaccurate, but interesting.

Well, they couldn't do it with the DOS-based game. Or Planescape: Torment. Or Baldur's Gate 3. And it actually didn't happen with the rise of Roll20 or Foundry which are VTT's.... but if you can provide some proof that it could actually happen, while the DnD community is set to enjoy a free look at the entirety of the new rule books starting August 1 with no need to buy or subscribe to anything... I mean it would be more interesting than "BUT THEY SAID THEY WANT MONEY!!!"

The game would be better off it were being run by robots. It's being run by corporate suits who want to prop up next quarter's profits. "Under-monetized," and all that.

Which is, once again, my central point. Having WotC become a video game company, and making D&D in that vein, means that it stops being a tabletop game.

That's possible, but when they're proceeding under the auspices of profit maximization with regards to their brand being "under-monetized," then it becomes hard to see how they could justify putting out a product (like the tabletop RPG) that isn't designed to abet the push for maximum monetization. It's nice to think that WotC would just let the tabletop part of the game be its own thing, separate from their VTT/DDB aspect of the business, but that doesn't strike me as a remotely realistic expectation of them. When the people in charge mandate profits first, and everything else second, there's no reasonable expectation that anything else will be left as-is.

See above.

This under-monetized line is two years old. So, I don't care how hard it is for you to see it, you need to open your eyes. Because they are putting out a product, specifically a Tabletop RPG, that isn't designed to push for maximum monetization. And they aren't going to make another edition of the rules this decade it seem like, so, what? They declare the brand under-monetized then wait 12 years to do anything about it? 15? 30?

No, it can't. You cannot create a digital environment where "anything can be attempted," unless you've created a working holodeck.

It didn't.

Not even once.

No, the game is not designed that way. The game is designed to allow for, as noted previously, anything to be attempted. There is no digital game that can do this, regardless of how "inspired" it might be. Show me a D&D game where your character can potentially kill any NPC (even Ultima makes Lord British unkillable, notwithstanding poison bread or falling bricks), or flood a troublesome dungeon, or lets you introduce multiple new races of your own design without needing to do any computer programming. No such thing exists.

The constraints of the format will necessarily do that, regardless of whether wants to or not. Again, show me the video game that allows for the same level of creative freedom as tabletop play. You can't do it.

On the contrary, you're unable to refute any of my points even while saying they already have been, which means that the one not making sense is necessarily you.

Wrong on both counts. See above; you don't have an example of a video game that's as limitless as tabletop play, so your assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

This is nonsense. You keep saying they are going to digitize the game, with limitations in place. Then when I say they did that... you say they never did because those versions had limits. So... which is it? Is WotC going to ruing DnD by making it digital and place limits on infinite creativity, or are they going to digitize it by making a holodeck where everyone can do anything all the time? If it is the version with limits... how is it different than the digital versions of the game with limits that already exist?

You are literally going "They are going to ruin DnD by making it a video game with limits. DnD video games exist already? No they don't, those have limits unlike DnD which has no limites, which they are going to ruin by making it a video game with limits!!"

They'll go where the money is. Or do you think that they're in the service of the hobby's good and not profit maximization?

Everything was "never done" until it was done.

Ah yes, the old "Champions of Krynn wasn't a recurrent spending environment, so there's no evidence that WotC will make their VTT one, even though they said they would" argument. This is how we know you're the one not making sense.

It's already happening. Or have you not gotten your free virtual gold dragon mini yet? Because you won't get it otherwise, and then good luck using a gold dragon in the VTT (unless you pay for it separately, once it goes on sale in their digital storefront).

"Under-monetized." 'nuff said.

Are board games a "recurrent spending environment"? Because if not, then this point doesn't hold water.

Strictly speaking the VTT isn't even a video game, though at this point you seem pretty married to using that shorthand, so I guess it's fine if you call it that (even if it's not accurate). But no one's being "fooled" since they're very open about what they're trying to do. Did you not hear the stuff about "under-monetized" and a "recurrent spending environment"? Or were you too caught up playing Champions of Krynn instead?

I didn't pre-order through WoTC, I pre-ordered through my FLGS. I'm not getting the dragon mini. I'm not using their VTT. They can make it a subscription service if they want, I'm not using it. So.... where is the threat to the game? Are my Core Rulebooks going to be blank until I put a credit card on the WoTC VTT? They can cry oceans of frustrated tears at being under-monetized all day long, but that doesn't somehow compel me to buy a product I'm not interested in.

And if you are going to argue they will make it so good, so amazing, so indespinsable that I will have no choice but to buy a subscription to this life-changing VTT.... then great! That's amazing. Making high-qualitiy products worthy of spending money on is a GOOD thing. And if they are going to somehow make the core rulebooks unusable without their VTT.... how? Explain it. Don't just say they will lock gold dragon minis behind a digital store, because I don't use minis, and a VTT mini is useless if I'm not using the VTT.

So now you're denying that you used the terms "True Artificial Intelligence" and "The Matrix" and tried to characterize that as what I was saying? Because we can all see your post history, you know. And if you think WotC can't digitize D&D further than they already have, well, you clearly haven't been paying attention. Gold dragon mini, and all that.

I said that to achieve the unlimited digitization where the creativity of DM is included, the thing you keep insisting is lacking and why the Video Games don't count, then they would need Artificial Intelligence on the level of the Matrix. The problem is you won't pick a lane. They are going to make Video Games, which means they are going to make a subscription service VTT which is going to be different from the video games and VTTs that already exist... for reasons! Because Gold Dragon virtual minis!!!!

"True Artificial Intelligence." "The Matrix." Own the behaviors you ascribe to others.

And yet I've successfully rebutted every one of your points.

The irony is that you're the one who's confused, even though I keep explaining things to you.

Taking a single sentence, and breaking it into three posts, to snark at me in two of them. Real classy behavior.

No, it doesn't. There are games with that brand logo attached to them, but playing those is not playing D&D.

It didn't.

It wasn't. Champions of Krynn is not D&D in digital form.

Which will become less true if WotC keeps going forward with their plan to make the tabletop game into an adjunct/on-ramp for the VTT.

How will they do that? I don't want their mini. Their gambit failed. I'm not hooked on the desperate need for pixels on my screen. So what's their next move? How do they accomplish their evil plan?

They really don't. No one plays Champions of Krynn alone in their room and thinks that they've just played D&D (and if they do, they're wrong).

There's every logical reason that making D&D into a digital experience ("video game" in your lingo) would affect the tabletop game, because the priorities of the company that makes both favor the digital recurrent spending environment that they can monetize over the tabletop game that they can't monetize nearly as much.

You keep thinking the past predicts the future, even when WotC has flat-out told us that the future they want to create is the exact opposite of what you're saying they'll do.

No, they didn't. Repeating this falsehood won't make it true.

Slapping the brand name onto a product doesn't mean that playing D&D means playing that product. Again, no one says that they're a D&D player because they beat Champions of Krynn.

See above.

I'll note again that Champions of Krynn was not a recurrent spending environment. You keep comparing apples to oranges, but they're not the same.

No, not in the least.

Making up a fictitious scenario doesn't really abet your point.

Right, so any company that designs their own webpage is a webpage design company by your logic. Just don't expect that logic to catch on with anyone else.

Most of this is just you continuing to be rude and snapping sentences into three or four parts to make more rude pot shots.

Did they make a statement about turning their books into recurrent spending environments because they've been under-monetized? You keep forgetting that WotC already told us that they want to do what I'm saying they'll do; that's why I'm saying it.

WSP said they would be carbon neutral by 2025. Think they made it? Or how about the decades of industries saying that plastic recycling will become a viable thing, yet has continuously failed?

The company said they want money and they want a subscription service. Yet you've never shown how, even if they have DnD Beyond as a subscription service and the VTT as a subscription service, how that will destroy the core rulebooks and force everythign to be run by robots. Roll20 has a subscription service. GMs still run games, not robots. DnD Beyond has had a subscription service for WoTC since they declared themselves under-monetized... GMs still run games, not robots. You are flailing around in a panic because they said something vague about wanting money, but you can't show the industry realities that would lead to your dark future.

Then you should have no complaints, because a single post with everything in it is easier to follow than multiple posts in rapid succession.

I'll point out here that you don't speak for other people's reading habits; maybe limit things to your own point of view, since short of a declarative statement that's all you can really speak to anyway.

See above. All text looks the same "at a quick glance." That's why you have to actually stop and, you know, read it.

If you don't want to be polite to other people, that's on you. I just mentioned it because it was an egregious example.

 

[TiQuinn]

Again, it’s not a goal. It’s reality. WotC has been a video game company for years.

And despite years of online MtG play, they still routinely produce new cards.

Yes, but they probably want to be MORE of a video game company than they are now. They do some in house development but there’s also a lot that is licensed out like with what happened with Baldur’s Gate and Larian. Same with Monopoly Go which apparently made beaucoup bucks. But then by the same token, they also shuttered a bunch of video game projects too.

My guess is that they made good money on licensing this stuff but want to try bringing more development in house so they don’t have to share the pot.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, but they probably want to be MORE of a video game company than they are now. They do some in house development but there’s also a lot that is licensed out like with what happened with Baldur’s Gate and Larian. Same with Monopoly Go which apparently made beaucoup bucks. But then by the same token, they also shuttered a bunch of video game projects too.

My guess is that they made good money on licensing this stuff but want to try bringing more development in house so they don’t have to share the pot.

In-house video game development is already moat of what WotC does now: they have five dedicated video game studios thst do nothing else.

 

[TiQuinn]

In-house video game development is already moat of what WotC does now: they have five dedicated video game studios thst do nothing else.

You mean in terms of number of people working in those areas?

 

[Parmandur]

You mean in terms of number of people working in those areas?

Yes, the number of people working at WotC for the past half decade have been mostly at one of their 4 AAA video game studios, or their mobile game studio. Seperate from Atena or Beyond, even.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes, the number of people working at WotC for the past half decade have been mostly at one of their 4 AAA video game studios, or their mobile game studio. Seperate from Atena or Beyond, even.

Makes sense.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes, the number of people working at WotC for the past half decade have been mostly at one of their 4 AAA video game studios, or their mobile game studio. Seperate from Atena or Beyond, even.

I can't argue with your logic. I'll confess though that psychologically, WotC feels to me as a card and RPG company. Undoubtedly, as the videogames come out, my perspective will shift, but as of now it is like this (also considering that I don't play Arena).

 

[Alzrius]

it’s more than anything you offered, so there is that.

Not really, no. You do realize that misinterpreting data can make your guesses less accurate, right?

If your standard is that unless you get WotC’s exact numbers, anything is just nonsense

Again, you're misinterpreting what I said; I'm pointing out that your standard is based on data you don't actually have, making it inherently flawed at best.

and you can stick to your guns, there is nothing to discuss.

I mean, I'm not the one who originally went off on a tangent about "WotC is a video game company" to try and justify the idea that Hight will somehow be a better president than his predecessors. When you're that married to an idea, rather than changing your mind to fit facts, that's not so much "sticking to your guns" as it is plain old intransigence.

Your BS is not backed up by anything whatsoever,

Leaving aside the "BS" projection, selectively interpreting data to fit a preexisting mindset (and a bizarre one at that) doesn't really give you a leg to stand on with regard to casting aspersions about other people's determinations.

so why should I accept it over the available data,

Again, you have a tiny selection of incomplete data, and are interpreting it to fit your existing biases. That's the equivalent of following a map of LaGuardia Airport to guide you through the Grand Canyon, under the idea that "at least I'm following some kind of data." It's actually leading you astray more than if you were working off of nothing at all.

even if it is not the best possible data

See above. You're actually adopting a standard that's worse than nothing and congratulating yourself for it.

or a VTT rather than a CRPG

So you think that a VTT will allow for anything to be attempted? Remember, according to the data, WotC wants their VTT to be interactive, so it's interactivity will need to allow for the same range of possibilities as the tabletop game (i.e. infinite possibilities), which I don't see them pulling off. Rather, I see them encouraging people to be constrained with a limited version of the game.

I never made a claim that the titles hold equal weight, just that both are true.

Which means that you're admitting that some titles hold more weight than others, e.g. that WotC isn't a video game company nearly as much as it's an TTRPG company. Glad to see you agree with me after all.

Stop taking my arguments past where I have made them to knock down strawmen for your point.

Again, you said that I was talking about "True Artificial Intelligence" and "The Matrix." Maybe live up to the standards that you demand of others? Otherwise you get back what you put out.

So now the fear is that they will change DnD... because 5e is getting a 2024 rules update?

Remember what you just said about not putting words in other people's mouths? Seriously, I expected you to try and be consistent for more than a single paragraph, and I was already disappointed.

You know what I meant.

Ah, so now you're admitting that it's expected that your interpretation will be intuited, rather than looking at what you actually wrote. Will you abide by this same standard, I wonder?

The core process of "you can do anything" is still there in 5e24 as it was in 1e.

I'll point out that the standard is not "you can do anything," since your characters can't literally do anything. They can try to do anything. Which is why the core processes (it's actually a more of a premise) is "anything can be attempted."

Creating/Licensing/Publishing a video game has never changed that core design.

So you think that anything can be attempted within the context of Champions of Krynn? Because if so, I have to ask if you ever actually played the game.

Are they doing pre-order bonuses? Yeah, them and half the world.

And how many of those offered a free virtual mini for a VTT that doesn't exist yet?

MCDM had pre-order bonuses, GtG had pre-order bonuses, heck, the Impossible Jones comic book I got from the kickstarter of Hesel and Kahn had pre-order bonuses.

Did they also create a "recurrent spending environment"? No? Then maybe take your own advice re: you know what I meant.

That is nothing to be so concerned over.

Context matters. You have to look at the entirety of what WotC is doing. Or, you know, just listen to what they've said they want to do.

Oh, and that comic book had "video game style pricing" too, because you could buy different, fancier editions if you wanted them. Are comic books now trying to be video games too?

So now you're saying that comic books are trying to create a recurrent spending environment the way WotC is? Or maybe you're going to put forward that any sort of existing product line is a recurrent spending environment, and so there's no difference between a micro-transaction-filled VTT and buying comic books. Of course, you've already said that Shell can be called a cosmetics company and that any company that makes their own webpage is a web design company, so I don't find what you're saying here particularly persuasive.

I have no idea what clause you are talking about,

Why am I not surprised. Did you pay attention to the OGL scandal at all? Go over here and scroll down to the "Thou Shalt Not Animate" section.

and I don't know why it matters,

Read the link I posted above, and educate yourself.

because you can't animate a spell effect on a paper map sitting on your dining room table.

You can't create a lot of graphics in a tabletop setting, sure; that's not relevant. What's relevant is the evidence of how WotC is trying to monetize the digital version of the game in a way beyond anything Champions of Krynn ever did.

And, you have still yet to demonstrate anything beyond unsubstantiated fears.

Other than quoting WotC flat-out saying that they want to do what I'm saying they want to do. Funny how that part keeps getting ignored by you.

A company said they weren't making as much money as they could, therefore the very fabric of TTRPG's and their success shall be torn down around our ears.

Leaving aside that you ignored the fact that it's a question of them not making as much money as they think they could (whether or not they can remains an open question), I'm of the opinion that trying to digitize a game where "anything can be attempted" is the central process is going to necessarily limit it. Which you yourself already admitted. So again, I'm glad you agree with me on this point.

Proof? Just look at the pre-order bonuses,

Which as part of their "recurrent spending environment" plan is indeed proof. But I look forward to you twisting that to not being "actual" proof, and that McDonald's is actually a real estate company.

only someone trying to create a micro-transaction subscription service of purely video game play with no ability to innovate would ever do something like that...

Which, again, is what WotC has said they want to do. But why should you listen to the company you're defending's own words?

or any pre-order campaign done on a large scale by anyone in any industry for the past decade.

Ah, so now you're saying that there's no difference between the industry WotC works in and any other industry? I suppose that makes sense, since you think that designing your own website makes a company part of the web design industry. Apparently all industries are the same, in your world.

No. I said DnD was turned into a digital experience, in Champions of Krynn, you know... a video game.

Right, because sitting alone in your room playing a single-player DOS game is the same experience as sitting around a table playing D&D 5E. Good luck putting that idea forward.

I never expected that what you meant by "DnD as a Video Game" wasn't DnD as a video game,

And yet you went with the idea of "you know what I meant" above. I'll repeat that if you set a standard, it helps to live up to it.

but all the core books being burnt in the pyre of microtransaction subscription service VTT slavery where all creative thought is forbidden and impossible.

You do realize that hyperbole doesn't actually negate the point in question, right? "The medium becomes the message" is a truism for a reason, and if the VTT's much-vaunted interactivity doesn't allow for a possibility, then that possibility is less likely to be acted upon by a group, encouraging the range of play to be narrowed. Of course, you think that Champions of Krynn's "digital experience" is representative of D&D, so your games must already be pretty narrow, which I suppose explains why you can't see the difference.

Which somehow happens because WoTC decides to make video games... like Champions of Krynn... which was made 36 years ago.

Like I said, if Champions of Krynn is the standard by which you judge "the D&D experience," then it's easy to understand why you don't see the narrowing of the possibilities of play. But your standard, in that regard, is pretty idiosyncratic.

And that... didn't happen then

And here comes the comparison between Champions of Krynn and the VTT...wait for it...

but will totally happen now because WoTC wants to make video games,

And there it is! Yes, clearly because TSR couldn't create a recurrent spending environment in a single-player DOS-based game that someone else developed and published, WotC won't be able to with their subscription-based micro-transaction-filled VTT! The two are clearly comparable! (To be clear, that last part is sarcasm; I point that out so you won't be able to say you didn't know what I meant later.)

but not through studios they own like they are currently doing.

See above. If you don't think WotC is trying to do what they said they want to do, that one's on you for thinking they're liars.

Well, they couldn't do it with the DOS-based game. Or Planescape: Torment. Or Baldur's Gate 3.

Which are clearly technologically identical to what WotC is trying to make now. Good comparison there! (Again, sarcasm; this is not actually a good comparison.)

And it actually didn't happen with the rise of Roll20 or Foundry which are VTT's....

Good, good, now ask yourself why that was, and how that's different from WotC's recurrent spending environment paradigm. Here's a hint: neither offered a virtual gold dragon mini to incentivize a purchase.

but if you can provide some proof that it could actually happen,

If that's what you want, go back and read the thread. Of course, given that you've ignored WotC's own statements in this matter, I'm not sure what else could convince you.

while the DnD community is set to enjoy a free look at the entirety of the new rule books starting August 1 with no need to buy or subscribe to anything...

Which is the hope. If we can force their hand with the OGL debacle, we can do so again now. But if they follow your line of reasoning, and see the VTT as functionally identical to Champions of Krynn, well, things might be much more bleak.

I mean it would be more interesting than "BUT THEY SAID THEY WANT MONEY!!!"

It must be nice to have so much trust in multinational corporations that, according to leaks from the OGL scandal, see you as a barrier between them and their money. But I'm sure you don't trust those leaks either, because they make WotC look bad.

This under-monetized line is two years old.

It's actually several months less than that. Details matter.

So, I don't care how hard it is for you to see it, you need to open your eyes.

This statement doesn't really mean anything, save to tar you with an apt "pot calling the kettle black" sentiment.

Because they are putting out a product, specifically a Tabletop RPG, that isn't designed to push for maximum monetization.

Except for the part where they've said that they want to design it for maximum monetization. Or did you think that "under-monetized" comment had some sort of expiration date? If so, what was that specific expiration date?

And they aren't going to make another edition of the rules this decade it seem like, so, what?

"It seems like"? So now you're saying you know the future?

They declare the brand under-monetized then wait 12 years to do anything about it? 15? 30?

"Twelve years"? You think they made that comment in a vacuum, from the president of the company to the CEO of the parent company, and that it was indicative of some vague future plan? Seriously?

This is nonsense.

Again, you've said that any company which designs their own website is a web design company. Things like that erode faith in your declarations of what is and isn't sensical.

You keep saying they are going to digitize the game, with limitations in place.

Digitizing the game is inherently limited. You might see no different between any D&D game that ever has or ever will happen and Champions of Krynn, but for the rest of us, there's a huge difference.

Then when I say they did that...

Which they didn't.

you say they never did because those versions had limits.

Correct. You cannot digitize a game where "anything can be attempted" without limiting that central premise.

So... which is it?

See above.

Is WotC going to ruing DnD by making it digital and place limits on infinite creativity, or are they going to digitize it by making a holodeck where everyone can do anything all the time?

Wait...you actually think that WotC can potentially design a holodeck-like environment where anything can be attempted in a digital realm? You seriously think that's a possibility of theirs, as opposed to what I've said about the inherent limits of a digitized space? Wow, just...wow.

If it is the version with limits... how is it different than the digital versions of the game with limits that already exist?

It's not; that's the point. Again, you might not see a difference between playing the game around a table with friends as being any different from playing Champions of Krynn, as far as "the D&D experience" goes, but everyone else can see major differences, in that the latter is highly limited and the former isn't.

You are literally going "They are going to ruin DnD by making it a video game with limits.

Which is correct.

DnD video games exist already? No they don't,

WotC hasn't made any video games, rather. They can, and have, slapped the label on all sorts of things.

those have limits unlike DnD which has no limites,

Hey, now you're catching on!

which they are going to ruin by making it a video game with limits!!"

Which is correct. Of course, you left out the part about the difference between a subscription-based, micro-transaction-filled, recurrent spending environment. But clearly there's no difference between an interactive VTT that integrates with DDB and the old DOS games, amirite? (Note the sarcasm again, there; they are, in fact, very different.)

I didn't pre-order through WoTC, I pre-ordered through my FLGS.

Good for you. Seriously, good on you for that one.

I'm not getting the dragon mini. I'm not using their VTT.

And I hope more people follow your example in that regard. Truly, I do. But I'm not very hopeful, insofar as digital engagement goes.

They can make it a subscription service if they want, I'm not using it.

For what it's worth, I'm not either.

So.... where is the threat to the game?

That a lot of people will use that service, that they'll use it not only as their introduction to the game, but as the primary mode of engagement with it. That future books will be written so as to dovetail with what that digital service offers, rather than presenting the tabletop version in all of its limitless potential, further narrowing appreciation of what you can do around a tabletop that a digital environment can't recreate.

Are my Core Rulebooks going to be blank until I put a credit card on the WoTC VTT?

If you're only focused on yourself, then it's no wonder you're not concerned. I prefer to take a less self-centered view, but I guess that's just me.

They can cry oceans of frustrated tears at being under-monetized all day long, but that doesn't somehow compel me to buy a product I'm not interested in.

Good for you, but I'm more concerned for the hobby as a whole. I don't think it's good when the industry leader encourages the community to engage with a form of play that's necessarily more limited than the current form. The results can be subtle, and can take time to manifest, but that doesn't make them less bad.

And if you are going to argue they will make it so good, so amazing, so indespinsable that I will have no choice but to buy a subscription to this life-changing VTT.... then great! That's amazing.

It's really not. It's more of an awful thing, as it locks them into the WotC digital environment much like how people become locked into the Apple Store, to the point where leaving it becomes an issue of what's lost in terms of saved character sheets, purchased items that are effectively deleted, etc. It becomes a sunk costs issue as much as an enjoyment one.

Making high-qualitiy products worthy of spending money on is a GOOD thing.

Not when the trade-off is limiting a game type that's limitless.

And if they are going to somehow make the core rulebooks unusable without their VTT.... how? Explain it.

No one ever said "unusable" any more than anyone said anything about "True Artificial Intelligence" or "The Matrix."

Don't just say they will lock gold dragon minis behind a digital store, because I don't use minis, and a VTT mini is useless if I'm not using the VTT.

Because they don't need them in Champions of Krynn, sure. And neither do people playing around a tabletop. But that doesn't mean that Champions of Krynn is the same D&D experience as playing around a tabletop.

I said that to achieve the unlimited digitization where the creativity of DM is included, the thing you keep insisting is lacking and why the Video Games don't count, then they would need Artificial Intelligence on the level of the Matrix.

Which is clearly never going to happen, hence why WotC will never be able to create a digital iteration of D&D that offers the same range of possibilities as the tabletop version. Hence why video games aren't D&D, regardless of slapping the brand name on the box cover.

The problem is you won't pick a lane.

Well that's obviously not true.

They are going to make Video Games, which means they are going to make a subscription service VTT

You'll notice that I've previously stated multiple times in this thread that a VTT isn't a video game, hence why I keep saying "digital" or "digitized" rather than video game. But I'm not surprised you've overlooked this, since otherwise it would destroy your central point.

which is going to be different from the video games and VTTs that already exist... for reasons!

So once again, you're saying that WotC's VTT will be indistinguishable from Champions of Krynn? Yeah, that's really not going to pass muster to anyone.

Because Gold Dragon virtual minis!!!!

Just out of curiosity, do you capitalize all of your monster names and add excessive punctuation to them? Is your style of play to tell the PCs, "here comes a Goblin Shaman!!!!"

Taking a single sentence, and breaking it into three posts, to snark at me in two of them. Real classy behavior.

Wait, you're going to complain about snark? Really? You? Did you forget the part about living up to the standard you set for others?

How will they do that? I don't want their mini. Their gambit failed.

Hang on, are you under the impression that WotC is going through all of this effort just to capture you, personally, in their recurrent spending environment? That it was always about you, from the beginning, and that if they couldn't get you to sign in, that was the entire thing failing? Because I thought it was about the hobby as a whole.

I'm not hooked on the desperate need for pixels on my screen. So what's their next move? How do they accomplish their evil plan?

I mean, I would have thought that they'd go for luring in, you know...other people. But if it was always about you personally, then clearly WotC must be going back to the drawing board. Expect a new announcement from them in the next few days that they're scrapping the VTT.

Most of this is just you continuing to be rude and snapping sentences into three or four parts to make more rude pot shots.

You do realize that this describes your posting style more than mine, right? If you're concerned about the tenor of the discourse, live up to the expectations you have of others.

WSP said they would be carbon neutral by 2025. Think they made it? Or how about the decades of industries saying that plastic recycling will become a viable thing, yet has continuously failed?

Your point here being that you think WotC will fail in their efforts to digitize D&D? I certainly hope so. But if so, they seem intent on trying again and again, since we've been down this road before. Again, Gleemax was a thing.

The company said they want money and they want a subscription service.

Okay, glad we can agree on this premise.

Yet you've never shown how, even if they have DnD Beyond as a subscription service and the VTT as a subscription service, how that will destroy the core rulebooks and force everythign to be run by robots.

Leaving aside the robots thing, since they've said they're backing off of AI DMs (though it's questionable if they'll really leave that alone), it's fairly obvious that WotC won't speak about the drawbacks of their plan in terms of the effect on the community. Though after the OGL debacle, there's no reason to think that they care about the community at all.

Roll20 has a subscription service. GMs still run games, not robots.

So now your point is that Roll20 is no different from WotC? Not in any regard, in terms of what they own, how much money they have, what their goals are, etc.? No difference at all?

DnD Beyond has had a subscription service for WoTC since they declared themselves under-monetized...

Which should be telling.

GMs still run games, not robots.

And you're going to say that this means that the digital medium is just as open as the tabletop medium? That there are no technical restrictions whatsoever?

You are flailing around in a panic

Remember how you were complaining about potshots? Seriously, try and be consistent about this. It won't make your points more coherent, but it will at least keep the tone elevated.

because they said something vague about wanting money,

Declaring that they want to create a recurrent spending environment isn't vague, it's a statement of purpose. Or did you want the technical specifications upfront?

but you can't show the industry realities that would lead to your dark future.

So you think that it needs to be demonstrated that digital environments are less open than imaginative play? And here I thought it was self-evident.

If you don't want to be polite to other people, that's on you.

Says the "flailing around in a panic" guy. How is it that the people who so easily engage in rudeness are also the first to complain about it.

I just mentioned it because it was an egregious example.

You do realize that after "True Artificial Intelligence" and "The Matrix," you don't really have a leg to stand on where egregious examples are concerned, right?

 

[Parmandur]

I can't argue with your logic. I'll confess though that psychologically, WotC feels to me as a card and RPG company. Undoubtedly, as the videogames come out, my perspective will shift, but as of now it is like this (also considering that I don't play Arena).

I mean, they won't stop doing that, either, I am sure. They are a game company, full stop...but since their primary activity now is making video games, a video game executive makes sense.