D&D General Interview with D&D VP Jess Lanzillo on Comicbook.com

[mamba]

I don't want to assume anything we don't already know. Particularly with no evidence other than feels.

no one is forcing you to If I had to bet, I would not bet against MTs however, would you?

 

[Mistwell]

so why are the different dice themes still around? Will the VTT not have any then?

Because they decreased them over time, but didn't eliminate them entirely. I suspect the cost benefit of the pressure on them over microtransactions made sense for the dice and didn't for the ala carte options.

I think WotC could not care less about a few complaints about MTs, whatever resulted in the removing the book pieces as individual purchases had nothing whatsoever to do with that, but sure, we can disagree on that.

The more interesting question for you is why they then are so inconsistent and keep other MTs and probably will have ones in the VTT as well - and if the VTT ends up having MTs, does that mean you were wrong?

I don't view decreasing the number of things you offer which appeared to get complaints as inconsistent. It's not an all or nothing world. After all, they still offer PDFs of some of their products, a topic which gets some level of complaints.

And maybe it would mean I am wrong, or maybe they view the VTT as different than DNDBeyond complaints themselves. Maybe they view the core audience for DNDBeyond and the complaints about microtransactions there as a separate issue from the VTT core audience liking microtransactions there. I don't know, nor do you, because it doesn't exist yet.

But so far all WOTC has done is decrease the number of microtransactions, coinciding with people complaining about microtransactions, without proof one way or the other if there is a causal relationship between the two.

 

[FrogReaver]

But so far all WOTC has done is decrease the number of microtransactions, coinciding with people complaining about microtransactions, without proof one way or the other if there is a causal relationship between the two.

I prefer to think of it as a casual relationship.

 

[mamba]

Maybe they view the core audience for DNDBeyond and the complaints about microtransactions there as a separate issue from the VTT core audience liking microtransactions there. I don't know,

convenient

nor do you, because it doesn't exist yet.

no, and I an willing to be corrected on this once it is released, I just do not find it likely that the VTT won’t have MTs. All their talk and hiring indicates that it will imo, we will find out soon enough

But so far all WOTC has done is decrease the number of microtransactions, coinciding with people complaining about microtransactions, without proof one way or the other if there is a causal relationship between the two.

agreed, I see no reason to suspect a causation, guess we simply have to disagree (at a minimum until the VTT is out of beta or so, unless it has MTs right away)

 

[Lanefan]

So don't buy the random sampler.

Why is it bad for me to buy it? Why is it bad that it exists? Why is it bad that different people like different things?

You claim something has to be physical to be real. Setting aside that data is physical, I think I understand what you are getting at. You seem to mean basically something that you can hold in your hand. Like a plastic miniature is real and a VTT miniature is not, in this instance.

Yes.

That's a pretty metaphysical argument, and I don't think debating the nature of reality gets us anywhere (I mean, both are icons meant to represent an imaginary character in a game, so the fact that one is made of plastic and the other is made of math seems like an arbitrary line to me). But what matters in this case is value. If I value a VTT as being worth X and am willing to pay that for it, then that is its value to me. Since we live in a market-based society, the ultimate value of a product, analogue or digital, comes down to what people will pay for it, regardless of individual opinions about what is real or what is not.

The relative value of a thing is subjective to the buyer and-or seller and-or owner. That thing's status of being real vs being virtual is objective fact.

A book - or a mini or a die or a DM screen - is a real physical thing. A pdf is virtual and thus not a real physical thing; and while the device it's stored in is a real thing the file itself is still virtual and thus still reliant on the continued functioning of that device and-or its battery.

I own many digital things. Thousands of photographs, for example. I also rent many digital things, an arrangement that I am very pleased with and think is better than needing to have physical copies in my hands in all kinds of ways. Pertinent to this discussion, I own most of 5e in digital form, and for $7 per month on DDB am currently sharing them with several dozen people.

Side question: I wonder how long it'll be before DDB goes the Netflix route and cracks down on sharing?

It would cost be a fortune to do that if I only had physical copies, not to mention the storage, wear and tear, and massive logistical inconvenience.

Where if you have one or two copies of a physical book at a table you can just pass them around. Nobody can ever stop you.

I also own tens of thousands of dollars of physical terrain and miniatures. That's a choice I've made, but I am aware that it is not a choice available to most players. Another VTT will give them new options, and why is that a bad thing?

So much of this argument just boils down to "I don't like this thing/it's not what I'm used to, and so it's bad." Or "junk," as another poster called it. But no one is presenting anything like a persuasive argument about why a VTT is bad on principle,

I say VTT play is bad in principle because it's a less-social experience than playing in person. At best, in comparison with in-person play VTT play is a very poor second choice. VTTs were undeniably useful during lockdown; but lockdown's over now, which means we can all get back to the table and drop the whole VTT thing.

The problem is (and I saw this coming) VTT play got normalized during that period. And that's just sad.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think there's a difference between actions that someone can take, and that includes not buying something, and basically telling people to shut up if they disagree. I don't trust WotC any more than any other company but if they provide a product I don't need, if they start charging more than what I think something is worth I won't buy it.

Yes, part of my opinion is that no one has explained how microtransactions are harmful. There's no evidence they will release loot boxes and I don't see much of an issue if they did as long as they're completely cosmetic.

I'm not pro-WotC and I get tired of that accusation, it's an unwarranted accusation of explicit bias. I just don't look for monsters under the proverbial bed when there aren't any and I accept that we live in a capitalistic society and that companies need to make money in order to stay in business.

The problem is people worry that other people are powerless to say “no.”

Is that true?

It is hard to feel left behind. Companies spend a lot of money to convince you that you need “it.”

And yet…some of us think it’s on us to say no. Even some of us that sometimes fall prey to the game.

I am in love with D&D and it’s been my main hobby for decades. But I am not buying a digital skin for a VTT. I am just not doing it. I am not buying any of that.

Some people think others doing it means those that don’t will miss out.

I don’t hear that with minis. Or other game aids. I have a big collection. Lots invested. My friends? One other pal has a similar habit. The others have no interest and choose not to engage with that marketing or those purchases.

I don’t like micro transactions. I don’t want a VTT. And I don’t engage. The end.

If I DM I pull out the foam mountains and plastic skeletons and my other pal uses theater of the mind/paper and pencil.

You just have to be able to follow your own path.

What I don’t look forward to is most sponsored events that feature this digital stuff. So you guessed it: I won’t participate. But my game with my kids and pals will rock on.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I say VTT play is bad in principle because it's a less-social experience than playing in person. At best, in comparison with in-person play VTT play is a very poor second choice. VTTs were undeniably useful during lockdown; but lockdown's over now, which means we can all get back to the table and drop the whole VTT thing.

The problem is (and I saw this coming) VTT play got normalized during that period. And that's just sad.

While I am enjoying my in person game now, I used VTT's for over a decade before the Pandemic. They are a legit way to play. They just became more popular following it, and are in no way lesser. VTT's can also be very helpful with in person games. They are purely a positive thing that has helped the hobby grow.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Side question: I wonder how long it'll be before DDB goes the Netflix route and cracks down on sharing?

Probably never, cause sharing is one of the explicit benefits they offer for paying.

 

[Clint_L]

The relative value of a thing is subjective to the buyer and-or seller and-or owner. That thing's status of being real vs being virtual is objective fact.

Virtual things are real. This current discussion, for example.

A book - or a mini or a die or a DM screen - is a real physical thing. A pdf is virtual and thus not a real physical thing; and while the device it's stored in is a real thing the file itself is still virtual and thus still reliant on the continued functioning of that device and-or its battery.

You are equating being real with being physical. Virtual things are made of the same stuff as all other things in the universe: particles arranged in particular ways (very loosely speaking - point is, they're not supernatural). They are not physical in the sense that you can hold them in your hand, but they are definitely real.

Side question: I wonder how long it'll be before DDB goes the Netflix route and cracks down on sharing?

Then I would have to reconsider the change in the value proposition and might come to a different conclusion. I used to buy a lot of blind boxes, but then they got more expensive while offering few if any huge-sized miniatures, so now I don't buy them.

Where if you have one or two copies of a physical book at a table you can just pass them around. Nobody can ever stop you.

I have one copy of a digital PHB that has, since I bought it for $25 5-6 years ago, been used probably over a hundred people, often in their own games where I am not present. Try doing that with a physical copy.

I've also got it downloaded, so if I just want to pass it around the table I could, and no one could ever stop me. Come to think of it, I could put it on a couple old phones too, if I wanted. That $25 has gone a LONG way!

I say VTT play is bad in principle because it's a less-social experience than playing in person. At best, in comparison with in-person play VTT play is a very poor second choice. VTTs were undeniably useful during lockdown; but lockdown's over now, which means we can all get back to the table and drop the whole VTT thing.

That's just, like, your opinion, man. One I happen to agree with if by VTT you mean playing online, though if I use the VTT it will mostly be for in person games, just like putting down a battle map or physical set that I have built. That's how I already use the 2d VTT on DDB when I don't want to lug all my stuff to school. Dwarven Forge is heavy!

But even if we are actually talking about online play, how does that make it bad in principle? There are lots of people on this forum who have expressed a preference for online play for a variety of reasons. Are you saying that are objectively wrong to like what they like? I don't get it.

The problem is (and I saw this coming) VTT play got normalized during that period. And that's just sad.

Why is it sad, though? Again, you are talking about online play, not using a VTT, which are very different things (for example, when we played online during lockdown I still built physical sets and put a camera over them). But regardless, it's only sad to you. Because it's not what you're used to or what you like. When I was a kid my dad probably thought it was sad that I wasn't into his country music, and he definitely thought it was sad when I got into the Sex Pistols (which my kid thinks are lame Dad rock, so he thinks it's sad that I like them, too. He and grandpa agree about the Sex Pistols!).

But Dad was wrong. It wasn't sad, it was just different. That's what most of this thread boils down to: assuming that change is bad.

 

[FrogReaver]

Probably never, cause sharing is one of the explicit benefits they offer for paying.

Didn't netflix once advertise that sharing your account is caring.