D&D (2024) How will WOTC monetize One D&D?

[Clint_L]

When I think of the type of recurrent spending we see in digital games the words abusive and exploitative immediately pop into my head. When a CEO tells me they want to emulate an industry with exploitive and abusive practices it sets off alarm bells for me.

Good thing WotC expressly said that they don't want the VTT to become like a digital game. That's one of the first things they stated in the reveal, is that they need it to keep the focus on the live gameplay of D&D and not feel like a video game.

The VTT obviously is intended to make money by giving players something that they want. I don't see a problem with that. I like when companies make something that I want to buy. I have a ton of terrain from Dwarven Forge and miniatures from Wizkids, Reaper, and many others. Were they exploiting me? WotC wants to make a digital version of that stuff and if I am interested I will buy some of it (I might be; depends on cost, ease of use, and how much virtual play I see myself doing).

Maybe I am misreading it, but your post seems to suggest a sort of conspiratorial mind-set on the part of WotC. I haven't really encountered much from WotC over the years that has made me view them in that way. I equate them with great value for my entertainment dollar.

 

[FrogReaver]

Good thing WotC expressly said that they don't want the VTT to become like a digital game. That's one of the first things they stated in the reveal, is that they need it to keep the focus on the live gameplay of D&D and not feel like a video game.

The spin on this is mind blowing. Saying they don’t want the vtt to ‘play’ like a video game doesn’t mean they don’t want to monetize the vtt like video games with subs and micro transactions.

The VTT obviously is intended to make money by giving players something that they want. I don't see a problem with that. I like when companies make something that I want to buy. I have a ton of terrain from Dwarven Forge and miniatures from Wizkids, Reaper, and many others. Were they exploiting me? WotC wants to make a digital version of that stuff and if I am interested I will buy some of it (I might be; depends on cost, ease of use, and how much virtual play I see myself doing).

There’s two ways to monetize things - at your customers expense or by adding value to the customer. As long as it’s the later all is good. It’s just a lot of video game companies do the former and that isn’t good. So the concern makes sense even though I agree they won’t go heavily in that direction.

Maybe I am misreading it, but your post seems to suggest a sort of conspiratorial mind-set on the part of WotC. I haven't really encountered much from WotC over the years that has made me view them in that way. I equate them with great value for my entertainment dollar.

Like the Wotc Magic the gathering fiasco?

 

[Reynard]

Fiddle with ogl so it's via GMsguild only.

They.
Can't.

 

[John R Davis]

They.
Can't.

I bet they would like too
Time will tell.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I bet they would like too
Time will tell.

Not in that regard.

 

[Reynard]

I bet they would like too
Time will tell.

No, they literally can't.

 

[MGibster]

Good thing WotC expressly said that they don't want the VTT to become like a digital game. That's one of the first things they stated in the reveal, is that they need it to keep the focus on the live gameplay of D&D and not feel like a video game.

Not wanting it to become a digital game doesn't mean they don't want to monetize it in a similar fashion as seen in the video game industry.

Maybe I am misreading it, but your post seems to suggest a sort of conspiratorial mind-set on the part of WotC. I haven't really encountered much from WotC over the years that has made me view them in that way. I equate them with great value for my entertainment dollar.

I don't know what that means. All I know is that the practice of turning customers into recurrent spenders is rife with abuse. Anyone looking to them as an example of how to go about monetizing their product is, what's the word Gen Z uses? Ah yes, sus. It's very, very sus.

 

[John R Davis]

No, they literally can't.

well, they kinda sorta have, sort off

 

[Reynard]

well, they kinda sorta have, sort off

No. If the final version of OGL 1.1 looks like the describe, if they release the 1D&D SRD by way of it, that SRD is still valid with OGL 1.0 and 1.0a because of the structure of those licenses. The speculation happening now, and it feels solid enough but who knows, is that WotC will require compliance with OGL 1.1 in order to put stuff up on the Beyond markeplace and/or for the VTT. This will be the incentive to get people to agree to the unpalatable bits of 1.1 (reporting and paying royalties). Again, we don't have the full document yet and we only have the details they chose to share, but it seems like the vast majority of 3PP will be safe just continuing on.

 

[ART!]

Thus I imagine you get the basic game for free (i.e. 4 classes with 1 sub-class each), including VTT with very limited assets. "Free to play" as it is. But then you need to buy the books (and minis?) to get the rest. If you want to play the storm cleric, you need to buy the PHB. If you want Strahd stats block and maps, you need to but Strahd.

As for how that is shared amongst players, harder to say. But I expect an option where anyone in a campaign can share their assets with anyone else in the same campaign. Same as anyone can physically share books at the same table.

Though expect more options, sub classes, magic items, spread out in different books though.

This all sounds very likely. On DDB you can buy individual bits of any given book: subclasses, races, individual spells and magic items, etc. If the VTT is totally integrated with that, then they charge one fee for just digital access for those not using the VTT, and another for whatever the VTT aspects of that item are. They can price that difference just right, so investing in the VTT seems like a small price to pay.