D&D Beyond Drops are antithetical to D&D Beyond's traditional subscription model

The new service diminishes the traditional value of a subscription, even while adding new content.
1778247644746.png


This week, Wizards of the Coast announced a new feature for D&D Beyond, exclusive to subscribers of the service. Drops are a new weekly feature of the site that will add a smattering of new content, such as spells, feats, or monsters to a new compendium accessible only to subscribers. Included in the initial drop were over 100 maps from previously released editions of the game as well as 250 "reveals", all of which are available through D&D Beyond's Maps VTT.

On the outset, the Drops compendium seems like an easy way to add value to D&D Beyond's subscription service. While Drops continues a trend of "digital exclusive" content to D&D Beyond, the content itself (at least initially) seems rather tame. So far, there's no indication that D&D Beyond will add new subclasses or species to the Drops compendium and the feats and spells they initially added hardly seem like "must-have" spells. However, the implementation of Drops marks a notable shift in how D&D Beyond's subscription service works, and it's for the worse.

Traditionally, the core reason to subscribe to D&D Beyond is to unlock content sharing between accounts. If one player subscribes to D&D Beyond and creates a campaign for players to use, other party members in that campaign can access any content the subscriber has purchased through D&D Beyond. However, content released through Drops are locked behind a subscription - it cannot be shared to other party members. What's more, Drops content is only available to those who have an active subscription. If a user lets their subscription lapse or cancels it, they lose access to the content.

It's unclear whether this was a deliberate move or a quirk of D&D Beyond's now decade-old service, but the rollout of Drops as it is now is a step back for D&D Beyond. Since their acquisition of D&D Beyond back in 2022, Wizards has looked to "extract" value from the service. At first, this came in the form of digital exclusive perks available to anyone with an active D&D Beyond account. Then came additional subscriber perks such as early access to new D&D book releases, or additional "DLC" content exclusive to D&D Beyond. Still, these were all "value adds" - ways to increase the value of a subscription or an active account. Although Drops is supposedly the same, excluding the content from the traditional subscription content sharing service is a major setback to what's supposed to be the core reason to have a subscription in the first place.

It's clear that D&D Beyond is attempting to entice the average player to purchase a D&D Beyond subscription. Previously, the business model encouraged a single player from a D&D game to purchase a Master tier subscription and content and share it with fellow players. However, D&D Beyond Drops explicitly encourages every player in a game to purchase a subscription to gain access to player-facing material that would otherwise be unavailable to them. And while I'm sure there's workarounds such as a DM directly adding the content to a player's character sheet or simply screengrabbing the content and passing it along to players, D&D Beyond Drops still represents a notable shift into how D&D Beyond uses its subscription model.

One of the big worries when Dan Ayoub and other gaming executives took over Wizards of the Coast is that they'd look to shift their core games to a live service model. I'd argue that Dungeons & Dragons has always been a live service game, one that's continuously updated via new content. D&D has even featured a subscription model of sorts in the past - many now core parts of Dungeons & Dragons were first released through Dragon Magazine, which of course was available via a subscription. Of course, when Dragon was released, it was easy enough to pass a copy of a magazine with a new class or new spell to another interested party member, and of course ending a Dragon subscription didn't mean losing access to past magazines. Still, D&D Beyond Drops marks a worrying shift as to how D&D's live service model is changing. Previously, a D&D game needed only to pay $54.99 a year to gain access to any content purchased by a subscriber. Now, every player has to pay a minimum of $25.99 a year if they want access to certain spells or feats. It's a clear way to drum up more revenue for the D&D Beyond service while diminishing the value of D&D Beyond's traditional subscription model.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

Under what circumstances would you use both at the same time
You have more than 1 player that wishes to play it?

It was more to the point about mixing versions. If you use Ranger A does it have synergy with Fight B and Warlock B? How about Ranger B with Paladin A and Barbarian A?

Do each version have the same classes?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You have more than 1 player that wishes to play it?

It was more to the point about mixing versions. If you use Ranger A does it have synergy with Fight B and Warlock B? How about Ranger B with Paladin A and Barbarian A?
I don’t know what you mean by synergy. You’ll have to explain that in game terms. Several people on this board have actually played multi edition tables now and reported little friction.

Do each version have the same classes?
What? Your video research didn’t cover this?
 

don’t know what you mean by synergy. You’ll have to explain that in game terms
Obviously I do not know all the game terms, put simply: does it fill the same void?

If a ranger is present it is because it performs some function the other player are lacking.

Like a restuarant.
Head chef
Sous chef
Maitre'D
Cashier?
Waiter
Busboy

You need each to fullfil thier role to function.
 

Is that the same thing as what was available previously?
I didnt say it was... I stated that there are current a la carte purchases available. I wonder how well they are selling...

Can you cite to which episode of that podcast, at what time?
Latest episode (#241) i believe, dont have a time but its not long sure you could find it if you want.
It's hard for people to support a business model when it's no longer offered. Curiously, there's no mention of how much time/effort/money WotC has to expend to make that option available to anyone; if it's not hard for them to offer an alternative, then you have to ask what their motivation is for not offering it.
The motivation per Todd Kenreck were extremely low sale numbers... Whether it was hard or not if its not selling why spend the time and resources on it? Thats business 101.
 
Last edited:

Obviously I do not know all the game terms, put simply: does it fill the same void?

If a ranger is present it is because it performs some function the other player are lacking.

Like a restuarant.
Head chef
Sous chef
Maitre'D
Cashier?
Waiter
Busboy

You need each to fullfil thier role to function.
Maybe I'm wrong here (or misunderstanding), but: aren't you in the exact same situation when you 'only' use classes from the same edition ? (either all from 5e 2014, or all from 5.5e 2024).

For example, does the 2014 Sorcerer complement the 2014 Warlock ? What if you have two players who both want to play the 2014 Ranger, do those two complement each other or not ?

--- edit ---

Just for the record, I personally do not think that 'party roles' (complementing each other or having good 'synergy') is all that important. Just play the class you want to play in the group, and don't worry that much if your party does not have a 'healer' (for example).
 
Last edited:

I didnt say it was... I stated that there are current a la carte purchases available. I wonder how well they are selling...
So someone who wants to purchase just, say, the monsters from a 5.5 sourcebook has an option for doing so? Because it doesn't look like it.
Latest episode i believe, dont have a time but its not long sure you could find it if you want.
You're the one who introduced that quote as support for your position; that makes it incumbent on you to source it.
The motivation per Todd Kenreck were extremely low sale numbers... Whether it was hard or not if its not selling why spend the time and resources on it? Thats business 101.
"Extremely low" is not the same as "not selling." Likewise, what you stated is not, in fact, business 101. Business 101 is asking whether or not you're making more than you're spending, and the alleged quote (see above) doesn't actually speak to that.

That's without getting into the fact that you seem to be trying to slice it both ways. If a la carte purchases weren't worth it for WotC, why are they introducing "starter packs" now?
 

Maybe I'm wrong here (or misunderstanding), but: aren't you in the exact same situation when you 'only' use classes from the same edition ? (either all from 5e 2014, or all from 5.5e 2024).
You should not be if the game was properly designed. But I do not yet understand all the synergies, which class performs which role, how many roles are needed, what are the core needs? (Tank, Healer, DPS, Blocker?)
Just for the record, I personally do not think that 'party roles' (complementing each other or having good 'synergy') is all that important. Just play the class you want to play in the group, and don't worry that much if your party does not have a 'healer' (for example).
The why have classes at all? Divide the functions up another way.
 

You should not be if the game was properly designed. But I do not yet understand all the synergies, which class performs which role, how many roles are needed, what are the core needs? (Tank, Healer, DPS, Blocker?)
I get the impression that at this point, you seem to have viewed far more YouTube on this topic than is healthy. However, if you feel you must have a 'balanced party', there is this guiding section on the topic in the 5.5e 2024 Player's Handbook (page 36):

Balanced Party
The classic D&D party comprises a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. Those four classes have the longest history in the game, but more importantly, they bring a balanced mix of capabilities to adventures. You’re welcome to use that party setup or modify it using these guidelines:

Cleric. Replace with Bard or Druid
Fighter. Replace with Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, or Ranger
Rogue. Replace with Bard or Ranger
Wizard. Replace with Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock


But again, I personally feel that it just doesn't matter all that much. You should not be 'forced' by the other group members to play a class you do want want to (for example a cleric) simply because the party does not have a 'healer' yet.

The why have classes at all?
Perhaps simply because it brings you more joy to play a spellcasting wizard than an axe wielding barbarian ?
 


"Extremely low" is not the same as "not selling." Likewise, what you stated is not, in fact, business 101. Business 101 is asking whether or not you're making more than you're spending, and the alleged quote (see above) doesn't actually speak to that.
and business 201 is asking whether you could make more money with the same resources by doing something else with them. Not that the quote speaks to that either, but maybe WotC’s actions do.

One could also argue that the price was too high, if eg buying a handful of monsters or magic items cost me half of what the full book costs, there is very little incentive / very few cases to not go for the full book.

That's without getting into the fact that you seem to be trying to slice it both ways. If a la carte purchases weren't worth it for WotC, why are they introducing "starter packs" now?
we can only speculate, my guess is lower barrier to entry for new players compared to buying the whole PHB upfront. Whether it works out remains to be seen.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top