D&D General Interview with D&D VP Jess Lanzillo on Comicbook.com

[occam]

No you didn't. You licensed access to content they own. You should read that license agreement you agreed to.

That may be, but I made one-time purchases for access to specific content: I never did that on DDI. When someone does that, it comes with at least an implication of ownership; the customer expectation is completely different. Could WotC remove access to paid content on DDB without providing a means to retain the content, or a monetary refund, or some other form of compensation? Maybe. Would they want to p--- off their paying customers like that?

 

[occam]

I've bolded it for you to make it real easy.

Nothing you've presented contradicts that position.

Thank you, oh master of the English language, for your attempt to ease the burden upon my frail mind. But with all due humility, may I propose that this depends upon what one's view of "significant" means? The argument that WotC has a plan in place to do away with physical books is promoted by enough people that it continues to come up as a point to argue in threads like this one. For those who want to challenge such an argument, the number of people making it may count as significant.

 

[Daztur]

I'm ok with a shift to digital play, and I agree that this kind of hardhitting journalism needs to be done and they need to be kept accountable. While the slippery slope fallacy is normally incorrect, in this case, I have no doubt that WotC will sink into the same market-depravity other digital-focused media have fallen too. Abusive subscription increases every year; exclusive content that powercreeps the game; the inability to use core tools without paying for them, which you already bought once via the hardcover book -- these things need to be looked out for.

But, I am a primarily digital player, and I am hopeful that WotC puts out a good digital setup that I can enjoy BEFORE shareholder greed inevitably enshittifies it.

I also just fon't think it will work. WotC just doesn't have enough of a hold on the D&D community to make people put up with that kind of behavior. Just look at the backlash to the OGL fuckery last year.

 

[Mistwell]

They took away the ability to buy individual mechanics from books. That wasn't a benefit to customers, it was a limitation. Maybe you didn't use it but that doesn't matter. Lots of people did.

That's an example of them changing how the whole site works for their own business needs in a way that limits what customers could do with it. It's not hypothetical. It happened.

Maybe because people kept accusing them, in a negative tone, of pushing microtransactions. Like, for example, you. Then they took away microtransactions, and people said they're taking something away that many people liked. Like for example, you.

These appear to be mutually exclusive positions you've staked out on this topic.

 

[mamba]

These appear to be mutually exclusive positions you've staked out on this topic.

Only if you consider buying individual items from the books microtransactions. They are relatively cheap, but other than that they are not all that much like what people frequently mean by the term microtransaction, I for example did not consider them to be MTs

 

[Mistwell]

Only if you consider buying individual items from the books microtransactions. They are relatively cheap, but other than that they are not all that much like what people frequently mean by the term microtransaction, I for example did not consider them to be MTs

It's a digital micro-purchase that unlocks specific features or special content which is an add-on to the core content of the game, a small fraction of the whole content, and unnecessary to play the game. It's a microtransaction, people have described it as a microtransaction here and pretty much everywhere else.

I think people just like this microtransaction, and so think it doesn't count as one because they don't like microtransactions as a concept. It counts though, as much as digital dice and a digital figure for a VTT counts. I can't verify they took them away because people kept complaining about microtransactions, but I bet those complaints didn't help.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thank you, oh master of the English language, for your attempt to ease the burden upon my frail mind. But with all due humility, may I propose that this depends upon what one's view of "significant" means? The argument that WotC has a plan in place to do away with physical books is promoted by enough people that it continues to come up as a point to argue in threads like this one. For those who want to challenge such an argument, the number of people making it may count as significant.

I don't think anyone reasonable is going to see "significant proportion" in this context as like, less than say, 10%. Where I've seen it defined, people usually tend to see it as more like 30%. I've never seen it suggested that below 10% is a "significant proportion". I think the "significant" qualifier is pretty important there. I wrote those words specifically to pre-empt trivial stuff like "I saw one guy say this once years ago!".

As for "well people keep bringing it up", as far as I can see here, the main people who "keep bringing it up" in this case are the people who are claiming "people keep bringing it up", not people, actually y'know, saying they plan to go full-digital.

Going full-digital doesn't even really make sense because WotC still makes money on the books, and they're still a major part of the brand, especially as a lifestyle brand, which WotC have been pretty clear that they want D&D to be. Even if their sales steadily decline, WotC will probably just keep making them more expensive and more "luxury" to ensure they remain profitable.

The bigger short-to-mid-term concerns re: digital, are well stated in @Shardstone's post. Enshittification is not certain but it is, historically, quite close to certain.

I also just fon't think it will work. WotC just doesn't have enough of a hold on the D&D community to make people put up with that kind of behavior. Just look at the backlash to the OGL fuckery last year.

There's definitely some truth to this, but it very much depends on how WotC does it.

If WotC say, released a big product with a heavy mechanical element, like strong/interesting/cool new subclasses, races, spells etc. and made it digital only, I do think the community backlash would be immediate and severe, and potentially force them to backpedal and not do it again anytime soon.

However, if WotC start releasing the odd mechanical bit here and there, like a subclass here, a race there, digital only, particularly if they don't charge for the first ones, I think they may well be able to get a "boiled frog" scenario going. Enough people will tolerate and defend it that it won't get the brakes thrown. D&D Influences will probably critique it and warn people that this could be a dangerous trend, but they'll likely get ignored or shouted down.

And if WotC then just collect a year or two of previously digital-only mechanical content in a Tasha's-style book which they do print, people will say "See, what were you worried about?".

Then WotC can go increasingly heavy on this, because they've basically normalized it, and are shifting customers to digital subscriptions because really, an awful lot of groups don't want to wait 1-2 years to use new races/subclasses/spells, etc. Maybe errata will start becoming more regular and being applied to the digital game directly and immediately, and I'm sure they'll also list the errata on a website anyone can browse, but by moving to more frequent ones, they're again making it more convenient to go digital.

There's a lot more that could happen too, but I'll leave it at that for now. I think that given recent shocks, the community is pretty well-protected against major, sudden, obvious bad decisions from WotC, but more subtle acclimatization and slow change over a few years? I think that's a lot less likely to be opposed, and much more likely to be defended.

 

[Oofta]

Only if you consider buying individual items from the books microtransactions. They are relatively cheap, but other than that they are not all that much like what people frequently mean by the term microtransaction, I for example did not consider them to be MTs

So I'll ask again for what feels like the hundredth time. What type of microtransaction could be harmful to the game? They're never going to let you buy magic items, characters levels, special abilities. It's going to be cool minis, special dice, likely special terrain and visual pizzaz. Which is similar to what people have been purchasing forever.

What harm do microtransactions cause and what specific could they sell other than the old standby "Look at what they did to MMOs!"

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't think anyone reasonable is going to see "significant proportion" in this context as like, less than say, 10%. Where I've seen it defined, people usually tend to see it as more like 30%. I've never seen it suggested that below 10% is a "significant proportion". I think the "significant" qualifier is pretty important there. I wrote those words specifically to pre-empt trivial stuff like "I saw one guy say this once years ago!".

As for "well people keep bringing it up", as far as I can see here, the main people who "keep bringing it up" in this case are the people who are claiming "people keep bringing it up", not people, actually y'know, saying they plan to go full-digital.

Going full-digital doesn't even really make sense because WotC still makes money on the books, and they're still a major part of the brand, especially as a lifestyle brand, which WotC have been pretty clear that they want D&D to be. Even if their sales steadily decline, WotC will probably just keep making them more expensive and more "luxury" to ensure they remain profitable.

The bigger short-to-mid-term concerns re: digital, are well stated in @Shardstone's post. Enshittification is not certain but it is, historically, quite close to certain.


There's definitely some truth to this, but it very much depends on how WotC does it.

If WotC say, released a big product with a heavy mechanical element, like strong/interesting/cool new subclasses, races, spells etc. and made it digital only, I do think the community backlash would be immediate and severe, and potentially force them to backpedal and not do it again anytime soon.

However, if WotC start releasing the odd mechanical bit here and there, like a subclass here, a race there, digital only, particularly if they don't charge for the first ones, I think they may well be able to get a "boiled frog" scenario going. Enough people will tolerate and defend it that it won't get the brakes thrown. D&D Influences will probably critique it and warn people that this could be a dangerous trend, but they'll likely get ignored or shouted down.

And if WotC then just collect a year or two of previously digital-only mechanical content in a Tasha's-style book which they do print, people will say "See, what were you worried about?".

Then WotC can go increasingly heavy on this, because they've basically normalized it, and are shifting customers to digital subscriptions because really, an awful lot of groups don't want to wait 1-2 years to use new races/subclasses/spells, etc. Maybe errata will start becoming more regular and being applied to the digital game directly and immediately, and I'm sure they'll also list the errata on a website anyone can browse, but by moving to more frequent ones, they're again making it more convenient to go digital.

There's a lot more that could happen too, but I'll leave it at that for now. I think that given recent shocks, the community is pretty well-protected against major, sudden, obvious bad decisions from WotC, but more subtle acclimatization and slow change over a few years? I think that's a lot less likely to be opposed, and much more likely to be defended.

This would probably be the “smart” approach but given that it’s Hasbro/WotC management and that, in the year 2024 CE, they still haven’t figured out how social media influencers work, there’s reason to believe they never get to where they want to go with DDB and the VTT.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Maybe because people kept accusing them, in a negative tone, of pushing microtransactions. Like, for example, you. Then they took away microtransactions, and people said they're taking something away that many people liked. Like for example, you.

These appear to be mutually exclusive positions you've staked out on this topic.

Yeah, I'm sure it was because of my blog article, which, by the way, I wrote after they took away their individual purchases. They do have those Doctor Who Magic cards. Maybe they used one of them to go back in time, read my blog, and remove microtransactions...(SARCASM ALERT!)

I did talk about the removal of individual mechanic purchases on my talk show. If you want to quote me on this topic specifically, however, I talked about it on my talk show shortly after it happened.

And, let's be real for a minute. You and I both know they did this because of money one way or the other. Maybe they didn't like the percentage of credit card fees they had to pay per item. Maybe it wasn't popular enough to keep maintaining. Maybe they thought they'd get more money from people buying whole books even if it was fewer people overall since the full books cost so much more.

My point is, Hasbro can change the monetization scheme for D&D Beyond however they want and, if D&D Beyond is your central hub for D&D, you're going along for the ride. If your good with that, go with the gods!