D&D Reader App Coming This Fall? [UPDATED]

Many people have been asking for official D&D PDFs, and WotC has been addressing the need for electronic reference materials at the table in various ways. According to Mashable, WotC is releasing a D&D Reader App this fall. It's not a PDF, but it's basically a D&D-specific Kindle-esque app for iOS and Android. Mashable reports that "Each book is broken up into different sections. So with, say, the Player's Handbook, you can tap on little thumbnails in your library to check out the introduction, a step-by-step guide to character creation, a rundown of races, individual sections for each character class, equipment, and all the other pieces that, together, form the D&D Player's Handbook."

​

It's possible they are just referring to D&D Beyond (some of the details below correspond very closely with that), but it may be that a separate D&D Reader is in the pipeline.

UPDATE -- EN World member TDarien asked Adam Rosenburg (the author of the article) whether this was different to D&D Beyond, who replied "Yup. Beyond is more activity-oriented, so it can handle stuff like dice rolls. Reader is basically Kindle, with good, clear chapter divides."

UPDATE 2 -- EN World member kenmarable has spotted that Polygon also has an article about this. It is a separate app called D&D Reader - not D&D Beyond - being made by Dialect, the company which does Dragon+ for WotC. They tried a beta version, although it wasn't complete at the time.

Other items from the report include:

• You can favourite specific pages.
• Some of it is free, and the rparts of books are paywalled. "If, for example, you'll only ever care about rolling a bard, you can just buy that. Prices for individual sections are $3 or $5 (depending on what you buy) and the three full rulebooks — Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide — are $30 apiece for everything."
• If you buy parts of a book then buy the full thing, the cost is pro-rated.The free sections include "character creation, basic classes, gear, ability scores, combat, spellcasting, and all the other sort of ground-level features that everyone needs to understand in order to play."

[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I think we need to be very specific here, the first company failed, the next four are all low revenue companies most of which are all trying to sell products in the exact same market to the exact same 0 growth consumer pool. So I don't think "success" is the word I'd use to describe anything other than maybe DriveThruRPG since it's print on demand is driving down Ebay prices.

We don't know what these companies are making, but I find it not hard to believe that one or more goes belly up in the next few years, meaning that some of the rights purchased through those companies have a fairly high chance of being worthless. I know I would be... unamused if I bought content on one of these platforms and it closed up in early 2019. So much so that I'm sitting on my cash and won't by anything at all now due to too much perceived risk. How many people are like me? No clue.

I'm sure WotC did market research on it but this seems like a strategy which may well generate revenue in the short run but runs a big potential of angering customers and potential business partners who end up being left holding the bag. I wonder if the current brand management remembers just how hated TSR was at the end of its run for a number of really jerk moves they made?

As we saw with 4th edition, the usual rules of competition very much apply and if WOTC doesn't pull it together and actually start releasing a smattering of content that is basically the same products they released 40 years ago almost all set in a single setting that isn't universally liked, the Paizo is going to take their market away from them again. If they want to succeed, they need to actually try to make money.

I assume you meant "isn't basically the same products"? TSR and later WotC have been trying to recapture lightning in a bottle with the 40 year old classic content for years.

I agree, the rules of competition will, indeed, very much apply. In the 1990s, TSR saw the rules of competition very much applying in the form of White Wolf, just as they did with Paizo's release of Pathfinder. D&D has a certain inelasticity built in due to being the market leader in a market with many small options but only a few realistic big ones due to the social nature of gaming, but, still. Cubicle 7 has been selling a fair number of copies of Adventures in Middle Earth, Paizo just released Starfinder and sells Pathfinder....

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think we need to be very specific here, the first company failed, the next four are all low revenue companies most of which are all trying to sell products in the exact same market to the exact same 0 growth consumer pool. So I don't think "success" is the word I'd use to describe anything other than maybe DriveThruRPG since it's print on demand is driving down Ebay prices.

Meanwhile...WOTC refused to license Planescape to InXile to make a sequel to a highly respected video game, which would've actually made money unlike their current strategy. IIRC they also refused Margaret Weiss and Tracey Hickman's pitch for a new Dragonlance trilogy, which again would've actually made money.

Honestly, this is ridiculously bad marketing strategy. Who thought giving PDF/Digital licenses to three or four companies all on the same platforms, most of whom have 0 name recognition was a good idea?

As we saw with 4th edition, the usual rules of competition very much apply and if WOTC doesn't pull it together and actually start releasing a smattering of content that is basically the same products they released 40 years ago almost all set in a single setting that isn't universally liked, the Paizo is going to take their market away from them again. If they want to succeed, they need to actually try to make money.

The first company failed to produce a product, yes.

The revenue of the companies is relative. They are a niche product in a niche market. To me the only question is whether they are profitable for themselves. It seems that way to me, although with small private companies we only have anecdotal evidence. Part of the evidence is that other companies are willing to jump in the ring. If there wasn’t money to be made, then that wouldn’t be the case.

Whether it’s a good marketing strategy really depends on what they are trying to accomplish. For example, the content being available within a virtual tabletop enables virtual play and can increase the player base and potentially your paying customers. Releasing PDFs doesn’t have the same potential, unless you really think there are a significant number of people that only play games available in pdf.

4th edition by the accounts I’ve seen was still a good seller. That it was potentially outsold by another company doesn’t mean that sales goals and such weren’t met. In many cases, especially in a niche market, a company selling another product expands the market as a whole, rather than takes sales away from another company. More importantly, though, that was a problem of their own making. For all practical purposes they were competing against a continuation of their own product line. One that appeared to be more popular than their then-current product.

While that is theoretically possible, I think the sales numbers and new marketing strategy shows that the game is growing and sales are better than they have been in 20 years. So no, I don’t see a repeat of that scenario. And part of that marketing strategy is their digital content approach.

Their approach is also very consistent with the current business trends - leverage your existing IP. Acererak, Strahd, Against the Giants, the Temple of Elemental Evil and the Forgotten Realms all have “star power” in the RPG world. There is a lot of nostalgia, but people also want new things. Making new things with existing IP is often easier than selling new things with new entirely new content. This has been shown consistently over things like comics and related movies. A new Superman comic sells far more than a new comic with new characters. The big characters sell more movie tickets than the niche characters (although starting the niche characters in a movie with the big characters is a good way to increase their own star power before releasing their own movies).

Again, from what we know about sales numbers, it seems to be a winning strategy right now. As far as I know, every AP is selling in quantities that are considerably higher than most adventures in the past 20 years.

RPG releases tend to have a shelf-life. Although I’m working off numbers in a similar hobby, in a niche like this, you tend to sell 80%+ of a title in the first year. Releasing things too quickly cannibalizes those sales, not giving the last release its full sales arc. Going back to what we know about sales numbers, again the strategy seems to be a solid one.

The digital market for TTRPG is an emerging market, not a well established one. As a part of the gaming market it’s a very small niche, but with lots of growth potential. Competition is a great way to fuel growth, and growth in a new market means more sales. WotC is not a digital product developer. Letting companies that specialize in the product and making the content available for them to purchase seems like a very strong long term strategy in this space. In fact TSR might be seen as a pioneer for this approach. D&D and AD&D products were some of the earliest licensed IP in the video game market, and like attaching Mike Tyson’s name to a video game, the D&D name can make a big difference in the sales of a new video game. It’s exactly what no-name developers can use to make a product viable.

 

[guachi]

So it's the 2e problem reimagined.

Rather than too many settings dividing up a limited pool of dollars it's too many websites offering the same products dividing up a limited pool of dollars.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

So it's the 2e problem reimagined.

Rather than too many settings dividing up a limited pool of dollars it's too many websites offering the same products dividing up a limited pool of dollars.

Yes, that's my feeling. 3.X had this too with the eventual D20 glut. I suspect that it's an inherent part of the business. The big difference here is that WotC has offshored the risk to other companies and the consumer, a trend that started in 3.X. From their perspective that's a win, at least for now. From the other companies and the consumer? Obviously some companies think there's enough money to be made that it's worth the risk.

 

[kenmarable]

So it's the 2e problem reimagined.

Rather than too many settings dividing up a limited pool of dollars it's too many websites offering the same products dividing up a limited pool of dollars.

One useful difference now, however, is that it's not product vs product, but distributor vs distributor. WotC is getting a percentage of PHB sales whether it is sold at a FLGS, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, D&D Beyond, this new Reader app, etc. So from WotC's perspective, there's no real cannibalization.

In fact, some people will likely buy some products more than once, and some who might not have bought it at all might make that purchase when it's in a format they like. So for WotC, it's actually better this way (with some complications about prit run sizes and digital sales impacting print sales, but so far print products still seem to be doing fine).

The real issue is between Roll20, FG, DDB, etc. They are in a situation like 2e with competing product lines. But also, they are likely smaller operations (or like Amazon - far larger), so they can make the numbers work. But the biggest risk is at their level, not WotC. WotC gets your dollars either way.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

One useful difference now, however, is that it's not product vs product, but distributor vs distributor. WotC is getting a percentage of PHB sales whether it is sold at a FLGS, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, D&D Beyond, this new Reader app, etc. So from WotC's perspective, there's no real cannibalization.

There might be if a bunch of consumers lose access when one of those outlets goes bust without a method for transferring rights. "Lifetime access" sounds impressive but what it really refers to is "lifetime of the company" not "lifetime of the consumer" or even "lifetime of the game."

The real issue is between Roll20, FG, DDB, etc. They are in a situation like 2e with competing product lines. But also, they are likely smaller operations (or like Amazon - far larger), so they can make the numbers work. But the biggest risk is at their level, not WotC. WotC gets your dollars either way.

They're not getting much of my money anymore. That level of cynical exploitation just doesn't sit well with me. They're behaving like a monopoly. Combine with the fact that most of what they release is "get on the bandwagon" APs, their books are larded with content I don't use, and that their print quality is dubious (I'm not hard on books and have had to replace my PHB after 2 years, with the new one falling apart already). Xanthar's might well be the last product I buy from them, depending on what's in it. I guess the business has just changed out from under me.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

That level of cynical exploitation just doesn't sit well with me.

Providing loads of options that suit different uses and people is cynical exploitation?

People really do love to complain about nothing.

 

[fantasmamore]

So it's the 2e problem reimagined.

Rather than too many settings dividing up a limited pool of dollars it's too many websites offering the same products dividing up a limited pool of dollars.

I thought of that too, but it's not the case. Everybody now has the same rules and the same content. The DM chooses the vtt / service that fits his needs and the players follow. I have bought the Starter Set from Roll20 so we played using my subscription in Roll20 and I am currently using Fantasy Grounds so my players are going to play in FG using, again, my subscription. It's not that one of my players is using Roll20, another one DDB etc. It's not the same as "we are playing Dark Sun so you can't be a cleric" or "we are playing Advanced so you can't use your Basic books" type of thing.
The content is always the same for everyone.

 

[kenmarable]

There might be if a bunch of consumers lose access when one of those outlets goes bust without a method for transferring rights. "Lifetime access" sounds impressive but what it really refers to is "lifetime of the company" not "lifetime of the consumer" or even "lifetime of the game."

Exactly, and that's something buyers definitely need to be aware of. Caveat emptor and all that.

They're not getting much of my money anymore. That level of cynical exploitation just doesn't sit well with me. They're behaving like a monopoly. Combine with the fact that most of what they release is "get on the bandwagon" APs, their books are larded with content I don't use, and that their print quality is dubious (I'm not hard on books and have had to replace my PHB after 2 years, with the new one falling apart already). Xanthar's might well be the last product I buy from them, depending on what's in it. I guess the business has just changed out from under me.

To each their own. I'm sorry their current business methods aren't to your liking. On the flip side, I'm buying more WotC products since 3.x. Stuck with Pathfinder rather than 4e, and even early 5e just got the core books and Out of the Abyss cuz it sounded cool and might have stuff to re-use but still mostly played PF.

However, with the greater options to purchase products, I've fully bought into DDB with their Legendary Bundle so that I can help my son's group have access to any of the content they want (and I have easier access to everything than my physical copies), and with some former co-workers who moved away, we are starting a Roll20 VTT game and I will likely buy one of the adventures there as well because of the massive time saving and utility of being able to play it online with them with less prep time for me. For me, it's not "cynical exploitation", it's giving me more useful tools.

So WotC's business methods have moved me from buying zero WotC products since... I dunno, Book of 9 Swords or maybe Spell Compendium to now buying the core rulebooks twice, all of the adventures and other sourcebooks, and quite likely buying an adventure a second time (or third time if Roll20 ever releases OotA!). So I'm a very happy customer with the direction they are going in. With Xanathar's I'm debating whether to get it on DDB only, or since it's a Player-focused sourcebook and my wife like physical books for character building but I prefer DDB, possibly getting it twice.

Some business methods will work for some customers and not for others. I'm happy it's aligning well with my needs and interests. I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. But it's also bonus if they are focusing more on long-term viability as they appear to be rather than getting as much product out there every month to spike short term revenue like in 3.x days, that's even better.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Providing loads of options that suit different uses and people is cynical exploitation?

People really do love to complain about nothing.

Options don't bother me one bit. What I'm highly dubious about is the pricing model that offshores all risk onto partners and the consumer and are strongly premised on multiple purchases of the same content.