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

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.
Again... I didn't claim this. Can you actually engage with what I post?

You're the one who introduced that quote as support for your position; that makes it incumbent on you to source it.
Only if I feel the need to prove something to you. I gave you the episode but im not scouring through it to also deliver an exact time for you.

"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.
So we are at the point of a level of pedantry where we are distinguishing between low sales and not selling...whatever man.

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?
Because that specific a la carte purchase serves a secondary purpose of an intro ramp to the game. Thus probably loss leader to get people into the game and ecosystem.... but thats just my guess
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
Sure, maximizing the return on their investment is absolutely the central focus of Hasbro's efforts; I've spoken to people who worked there who've said exactly that. I just think that sentiment is not the same as "make the best product/service you can, and the money will follow," and that the latter is more conducive to serving both Hasbro's business interests and the interests of the gaming community simultaneously.
 

Again... I didn't claim this. Can you actually engage with what I post?
Aren't you the guy who wanted to know if I was a D&D Beyond subscriber myself?
Only if I feel is need to prove something to you. I gave you the episode but im not scouring through it to also deliver an exact time for you.
So you want to cite that quote as support for your position, but can't be bothered to actually provide it? Because that's not how "burden of proof" works.
So we are at the point of a level of pedantry where we are distinguishing between low sales and not selling...whatever man.
You're the one who confused one for the other. Given that they're very much not the same, I don't see the problem in pointing that out.
Because that specific a la carte purchase serves a secondary purpose of an intro ramp to the game. Thus probably loss leader to get people into the game and ecosystem.... but thats just my guess
The problem with guessing is that it invites inventing hypotheticals that support your position, which doesn't actually demonstrate anything.
 

Aren't you the guy who wanted to know if I was a D&D Beyond subscriber myself?
A simple enough question you never answered.

So you want to cite that quote as support for your position, but can't be bothered to actually provide it? Because that's not how "burden of proof" works.
I am not trying to prove anything to you. If you dont believe me look it up.... I've told you where to find it. If not oh well.
You're the one who confused one for the other. Given that they're very much not the same, I don't see the problem in pointing that out.
No I used natural language... apparently it wasnt technical enough for you...lesson learned.
The problem with guessing is that it invites inventing hypotheticals that support your position, which doesn't actually demonstrate anything.
Everyone is guessing... or are you claiming you have factual information from WotC? Gotta say its starting to feel like your not engaging honestly with this conversation... you know if you don't want to you dont have to, right?
 

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.

5e, unlike 4e, does not have strictly defined/ enforced roles. But there are roles the classes tend to fit into and a balanced party tends to fill each:

Tank: also called Defender. The role is to help protect the other classes, usually by taking hits instead of them. Barbarians and Paladins mage excellent tanks because be 1. They can take hits well. 2. They have options that entice baddies to target them vs. the allies around them.

Striker: focused on damage, usually single target damage. Role is simple, do enough damage to kill enemies quickly. At low levels, rangers are excellent at this role, Rogues can be good, if designed properly. Martials in general (fighters, Paladins, barbarians) should excel here. The 5.5 sorcerer has also really good here

Controller: shapes the battlefield to favor the group, debuffs enemies. Wizards, druids and sometimes clerics do this role well.

Support: provides healing and buffs to the group. Bards Excel here, as do clerics. Artificers can as well.

Utility: usually more of an out combat role. The skill monkey that provides things like picking locks etc.

Face: the social role of communicating with others. Bards are often best, but others can be made to fill the role.
 

A simple enough question you never answered.
And yet one that didn't engage with what I posted...only for you to then turn around and complain that I wasn't engaging with what you posted.
I am not trying to prove anything to you. If you dont believe me look it up.... I've told you where to find it. If not oh well.
If you're not trying to prove anything, then why cite an alleged quote by someone else? You can't have it both ways.
No I used natural language... apparently it wasnt technical enough for you...lesson learned.
No, you used imprecise language, since you equated two things which aren't the same.
Everyone is guessing... or are you claiming you have factual information from WotC?
See what I said about you being the person not engaging with what I posted?
Gotta say its starting to feel like your not engaging honestly with this conversation... you know if you don't want to you dont have to, right?
You're the one dropping quotes without sourcing them, complaining about your points not being engaged with while introducing tangents, and saying that imprecise language is "natural" language...and you think that I'm the one not being honest?
 

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
Well that is good information.
You should not be 'forced' by the other group members to play a class you do want want to
Wait, who is forcing you to play D&D?
If the above information is true, then you should have known the syneries before you begin playing. Just divide them up amongst the group in a way where everyone has something they like to use.
 
Last edited:

Wait, who is forcing you to play D&D?
Well, no-one is forcing any-one to play D&D (at least I hope not). I was talking about being free to play any specific class you choose to.

If the above information is true, then you should have known the syneries before you begin playing. Just divide them up amongst tge group in a way where everyone has something they like yo use.
But when you choose to play D&D, everyone should feel free to choose whatever class they desire in my opinion. If every single person in a group wanted to play a wizard, then there should be no 'restrictions' on what class anyone chooses to play based on so-called 'party balance'.
 

If the above information is true, then you should have known the syneries before you begin playing. Just divide them up amongst tge group in a way where everyone has something they like yo use.
One of the advancements of 5e is that synergy is not important. Playing the game will clearly demonstrate this. Every class can fill the role of healer or tank or whatever silly MMO term you want to use.

Classes are a narrative assembly of features that guide play.

Once again, most of this discussion becomes more interesting when its among people who play the game.
Right now there's a basketball fan insisting they know baseball better than baseball fans.
 

The May 14 Drop wasn't a rules supplement, but a prebuilt Zombie encounter that only exists within Maps. You will not see it at all in your DnD Beyond Library, which is silly.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top