D&D (2024) I am highly skeptical of the Unreal VTT

[UngainlyTitan]

What surprised me about this announcement was that I kind of expected, after they screwed up so bad with the 4E VTT, that they wouldn't just jump to the same exact wild goals, but would say they were doing a sort of staged, iterated product, where first they'd have X, then X and Y, then X would become 3D, and so on, and so forth. When I look at the really successful products in my own industry (legal) that's exactly what I see. Not people trying to suddenly land in the market with something fully-featured and ultra-impressive, but doing something right - either something not done previously, or doing a better job than other products. Then they build on top of that foundation (often quite rapidly). I was expecting they'd just be aiming at a fully-Beyond-integrated VTT and talking about how they'd get that right and being humble (because of the huge failures due to previous hubris lol). But I guess they learned absolutely nothing? Or it's different people and the feel no need to worry because of previous WotC screw-ups? Because we got maximum-hype show-off stuff with a spicy hint of monetization instead.

I think that the long term play is the same but I also suspect that they are thinking in terms of iterating this until they get it right and that there will be a market for AR/VR in the medium term.

If it was up to me I would also have gone for a 2d mapping solution but port it to everything. Tablets, pcs, consoles the lot.

 

[nevin]

VTT technology keeps getting better but I think it's a long way off from replacing normal games. One it's just not there yet. Two As great as it sounds it'll be more prep for the DM unless he buy's prepackaged adventures. Can you imagine wearing one of those helmets for an 3 hour game session? No thanks.

 

[Hussar]

It's rather unfair to compare this to the 4e roll out. There are just so many differences.

1. I doubt that this project will be derailed in the middle by the murder/suicide of the lead developers. It might happen, I suppose, but, I'm going to guess that it's unlikely.

2. That was fifteen years ago. Good grief, things have changed so much since then. I mean, is anyone still on the payroll that was involved back then? Not too many faces.

I'm sure there's other stuff, but, those two kinda mean that there really isn't any comparison.

 

[Hussar]

VTT technology keeps getting better but I think it's a long way off from replacing normal games. One it's just not there yet. Two As great as it sounds it'll be more prep for the DM unless he buy's prepackaged adventures. Can you imagine wearing one of those helmets for an 3 hour game session? No thanks.

Now this I totally agree with. There's no chance, at least in the near future of VTT's replacing anything.

VTT play is a pretty small niche of the larger hobby. There's what, 50, 60 million players currently? VTT play might be a couple of million players, maybe? I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 5% of tables used VTT's at all.

Granted, 5% of players is still lots of people, but, considering how much WotC has bent over backwards to support in person gaming and FLGS play, there is ZERO chance that this is going to be a replacement for anything. What it might do, at a few tables, is a sort of hybrid set up (which you do see from time to time) and a core of online gamers like me.

But no, this will not be a replacement of anything for a very, very long time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But no, this will not be a replacement of anything for a very, very long time.

I don't think that's really WotC's goal, though, to be fair.

I think their actual goal here is the same goal they had with the 4E VTT (given literally everything they're saying is similar to the 4E rhetoric), which is not to target existing groups as much as people who aren't able to play and/or aren't able to play regularly. They're not dumb enough to come out and outright say that this time (when they did with 4E, it was misinterpreted as "4E wants to be WoW" in a literal, gameplay sense), but my expectation is that they also push matchmaking and so on, and try and get people playing D&D specifically through their VTT who wouldn't otherwise be playing D&D. Those people are going to be much more loyal to them, and much more invested in the VTT ecosystem. People who just use it could always just stop using it, or even swap to another VTT and keep using their physical books and so on. But if you have someone who doesn't even have physical books, who maybe hasn't even played D&D outside of a VTT, then you've got someone who is going to be much happier to pay for virtual minis, virtual dice, for whom the idea of only being able to build a dungeon using pre-existing blocks isn't "heresy", but just "how it's done" and so on.

Sure it'll also get some people who use VTTs sometimes using it, but I doubt we're the main audience, longer-term, given the strategy they're employing.

 

[wedgeski]

VTT play is a pretty small niche of the larger hobby. There's what, 50, 60 million players currently? VTT play might be a couple of million players, maybe? I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 5% of tables used VTT's at all.

Hmm, my feeling is you'd be surprised how much takes place online, especially since COVID and the potential inertia of getting groups back around the table who have discovered that (IMO) the game works perfectly well with a VTT or on the end of a Skype call. I'd guess more than that.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I wonder what shares of the market is running homebrew adventures. Maybe people just running the published adventures are a large enough group for WotC to target them exclusively.

After all, very few people seem to play at high level, but at the same time, there is no high level content being officially published. Maybe it's because people mostly play published material (that, and the fact that the game break at high level).

 

[Reynard]

Now this I totally agree with. There's no chance, at least in the near future of VTT's replacing anything.

VTT play is a pretty small niche of the larger hobby. There's what, 50, 60 million players currently? VTT play might be a couple of million players, maybe? I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 5% of tables used VTT's at all.

Granted, 5% of players is still lots of people, but, considering how much WotC has bent over backwards to support in person gaming and FLGS play, there is ZERO chance that this is going to be a replacement for anything. What it might do, at a few tables, is a sort of hybrid set up (which you do see from time to time) and a core of online gamers like me.

But no, this will not be a replacement of anything for a very, very long time.

Do we have any way of knowing? Obviously a number of companies, big and small, are developing VTT tools which means they at least think it is here to stay and going to grow. But to what extent independently of in person play? I would be curious to know if as the pandemic ends (sort of) if public play -- pubs, community centers, libraries -- rebounds. And, crucially, are the new people playing since 5E arrived playing differently -- by that I mean locations, session lengths, regularity, etc... -- that those that have been around a while.

I am not sure how you would find out other than watching trends and subscriberships.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wonder what shares of the market is running homebrew adventures. Maybe people just running the published adventures are a large enough group for WotC to target them exclusively.

I think WotC at one point said most people are running adventures they write themselves, but also indicated the percentage using official adventures some/all of the time was pretty high.

Also, I think there's a crossover between the kind of people who don't get to play IRL, and who would run/play official adventures, particularly due to time/organisation issues.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Do we have any way of knowing? Obviously a number of companies, big and small, are developing VTT tools which means they at least think it is here to stay and going to grow. But to what extent independently of in person play? I would be curious to know if as the pandemic ends (sort of) if public play -- pubs, community centers, libraries -- rebounds. And, crucially, are the new people playing since 5E arrived playing differently -- by that I mean locations, session lengths, regularity, etc... -- that those that have been around a while.

I am not sure how you would find out other than watching trends and subscriberships.

This is a way of finding. WotC claims there are 60 millions of active D&D players.


Roll20 claims to have 10 millions accounts, and in their report posted here, a little over half plays 5e. That's 5 millions for roll20. But that's accounts ever created, not players, so that's the high-end estimate (some people might have tried once, then never again).

Fantasy grounds published in their report that they had 95,000 sessions in January 2021 (a little old, I know), a record then. In the "best case" they were all active users who play once a month, so there is no duplicate. That's, assuming 6 players per session, a little under one million. Let's say a million to account for the increase in the market share.

I don't know the relative market share of VTT but those heavyweights are still dwarfed by the general 5e market (foundry vtt is often mentionned as well but I didn't find any numbers from them with a quick search).

Also, I think there's a crossover between the kind of people who don't get to play IRL, and who would run/play official adventures, particularly due to time/organisation issues.

I concur.