Matt Colville weighs in.

[masdog]

I mean, that was my argument about all those mobile games full of micro-transactions and what not, and look how that turned out. The vast majority of people who play spend very little or nothing. The real money is made by the "whales" who spend alot. They make up a tiny minority of the player base but a disproportionately large amount of the revenue.

A lot of the mobile games are also ad-supported and have some sort of advertising everywhere, including ad-based micro transactions where you get something for watching an ad instead of handing over money.

IIRC, the $30 was from a faked document. Now, I haven't read all the threads, and I am certainly not going to watch all the stupid youtube videos, but I don't think that there has ever been an actual, non-fake source for that? (Correct me if I'm wrong).

I know the one slide people were throwing around was fake. But I think it also came up in the DNDShorts video where his "sources" say that number was thrown around. Or maybe I'm misremembering things.

In terms of subscriptions, I think of the Playstation.
PS Plus Essential is $60/year.
PS Plus Extra is $100/year.
PS Plus Premium is $120/year.

Given that the top level of PS Plus Premium is the top level tier, I find it ... difficult ... to understand how they would be charging a lot more than this.

OTOH, I also know that a lot of kids have versions of these various plans- just like, "How can they afford a cell phone," it's something that they ask for and receive, either by paying it for themselves or getting it as a gift.

I'm not familiar with the PS Plus plans, but I went and looked them up. Those subscriptions let you use it one one PS4 and one PS5 and do some degree of family sharing. With the discounts and monthly content, you basically get a bunch of benefits for the cost of two games per year.

I'm more familiar with the Switch, which has a family plan. That said, Nintendo doesn't do multi-device very well...but there is still a bunch of value there in the virtual console library, family controls, and online play.

The same goes for cell phones. There is a lot of base value in giving kids cellphones such as being able to communicate at any time. And the monthly financial cost isn't what it used to be. Family plans significantly reduce the cost of phone service, and some of the carriers are starting to offer free lines as part of family plans. I don't know if this is true for everyone, but my oldest is using a hand-me-down device.

But back to the point. If the $30 a month cost is true (and that is disputed), then there is a huge difference between PS Plus Premium at $120/year and whatever the online D&D service could cost at potentially 3x that price.

I don't doubt that they are planning on charging through the nose, but that doesn't seem accurate. I assume they'd have tiers with a much lower entry point and then the ability to purchase additional content (aka, microtransactions) somewhere in there.

I just wanted to push back a little on the repeated use of $30/month, because we don't have any reason to believe it's true.

That's fair.

And you're right. We don't know what the potential tiers might be, or what those tiers might include. Some of this might be doomcasting.

But even tiered subscriptions with unlockable content via micro transactions gives me pause as a parent. I'd have a hard time justifying that subscription for myself. There is no way I'd do it for my kids. I'd ask them if they really need a 3D VTT and if they've tried "cheaper" alternatives like Pathfinder or Level Up or collecting Pokemon cards.

Note: I say "cheaper alternatives" because they're not an on-going monthly or yearly subscription. The physical books may cost more than a month of a service, but they're on-time expenses. And if they're not used for a few months, I'm not out anything...

 

[tetrasodium]

Well that’s possible… or maybe they want to launch the VTT at the same time as One D&D and want all the noise about this out of the way well before then.

Maybe they’ve been working on the VTT for a year or two now and will release it when they think it’s ready.

Maybe they are playing the long game, and not being reactionary - fully expecting that their biggest 3rd party competition will fracture into a dozen separate game systems. That Twitter rage is impossible to sustain for a long period of time… and that the outrage is now turning into more of a process story than it is about the actual issue and that people lose interest in process stories.

That would be a disaster. The software would need to be absolutely flawless in featureset UX GM support & present in predicting user* needs/desire/preference. Since that's not going to happen it would bring its own hangups & rough edges on top of the hurdles involved with a group adapting to a new system leaving VTT users to continue running their campaigns with

Spoiler: what they already know

There is also the glaringly obvious problem that wotc's "VTT" does not seem to be designed with GM needs in mind or the reveal video would have talked specific goals & features GMs who use VTTs might be excited about.

* for every VTT that's basically the GM

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'll direct you here:


Note that, according to the color coding DnD Shorts gives at the beginning of the video (0:50), that leaks comes from a senior WotC employee. (I hope I'm getting that right, being that I'm colorblind and have some trouble telling the difference between the colors he's using.)

This came earlier from this account, though DnD_Shorts said their sources confirmed it.

 

[TheSword]

That would be a disaster. The software would need to be absolutely flawless in featureset UX GM support & present in predicting user* needs/desire/preference. Since that's not going to happen it would bring its own hangups & rough edges on top of the hurdles involved with a group adapting to a new system leaving VTT users to continue running their campaigns with

Spoiler: what they already know

There ids also the glaringly obvious problem that wotc's "VTT" does not seem to be designed with GM needs in mind or the reveal video would have talked specific goals & features GMs who use VTTs might be excited about.

* for every VTT that's basically the GM

Well launch during the build up to One D&D.

VTT launches at the point that One D&D actual stuff start happening - teasers released in that format. So you get a 6-12 month widow of testing and feedback.

 

[Haplo781]

I know right? This was something that I put in my survey response to them about their VTT policy. They severely underestimate the power of the D&D brand and the desire of people to want to use "officially" branded products. It's a thing that third party publishers and folks who want to use 3pp material scream about all of the time - that folks will ignore a better 3pp product in favor of one published by Wizards because the Wizards one is "official" and the 3pp is not.

I guarantee their VTT would be the same. Even with competition from others who might be technically better, the draw of using the "official" product carries so much weight.

4e and Pathfinder are typing

 

[Jaeger]

Matt Colville has been a champion of new GMs and a very positive influence on the hobby. To see this reaction is ... heartbreaking.
I know I've had my struggles with this, but I hate to see it from him.

Well, there are valid reasons to believe that WotC will not back down from "deauthorizing" the 1.0 OGL.

Currently D&D makes about $150 million a year they want to turn it into a $1 billion dollar brand like MtG. They aren't going to do that selling books, and it seems if they have to kill what D&D currently is to make it a billion dollar digital brand, they are happy to do that.

^This^

Wotc is what poker players call Pot-Invested on this. They have sunk so much money on the OneVTT initiative that they have to se it through in order to get a return on their investment.

D&D makes about 150 million a year. Which is incredible. But that is gross income, not net...

WotC has also just spent about 150 million for D&D beyond. And for the past few years they have sunk tens of millions in development costs for the OneVTT.

I don't think that it would be a stretch to say that in the past few years WotC has spent more money in preparation for the One VTT than D&D currently makes in a few years.

We are in a situation where WotC has simply spent too much money to ever back down from their plan at this point.

All this 1.2 OGL survey stuff is just a form of damage control PR to redirect the conversation about the upcoming "deauthorization" of the 1.0 OGL.

If the children of the future engage with D&D online through a VTT, and then decide to spend money in whatever modes are available to them to do things like make their avatars look like the characters they have in their heads, make their spellcasting have cool animations and such, or DMs decide they want to buy terrain packs to make their VTT experience even more in-depth... NO ONE gets to say those kids have lost anything when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons.

Yes we do.

Because they will have lost fundamental elements of human interaction that enhance the RPG experience that you only get by playing with each other in person.

I have done VTT's, I have done in-person; there is a marked difference. Given the option; In-person is always better.

They don't have to believe us. That will be their prerogative.

But to say that we don't get to voice things that we know to be true?

I completely reject that notion.

Wait - that's crazy?! Someone went through his trash looking for .... I guess a discarded notebook?

Literally.

The more people that you get in the hobby; the more weirdo's, and mentally ill will attach themselves to the hobby.

The sheer numbers of incoming people have made that something to look out for now...

 

[masdog]

We are in a situation where WotC has simply spent too much money to ever back down from their plan at this point.

Sunk cost fallacy is a great way to destroy a brand or business.

Edit: Not saying it will do either. It’s just that this kind of decision-making doesn’t turn out well for the business that refuses to cut its losses on a bad decision

 

[tetrasodium]

Well launch during the build up to One D&D.

VTT launches at the point that One D&D actual stuff start happening - teasers released in that format. So you get a 6-12 month widow of testing and feedback.

The trouble is that the VTT appears to be designed to create a gacha game not to function as a useful GM tool It doesn't matter when they launch it or how much testing & feedback they get because Zynga's farmville will never be sim earth & their cityville will never be sim city. Simply calling it a VTT won't make it useful in that role if it lacks a competitive featureset.

 

[Jaeger]

I know right? This was something that I put in my survey response to them about their VTT policy. They severely underestimate the power of the D&D brand and the desire of people to want to use "officially" branded products. It's a thing that third party publishers and folks who want to use 3pp material scream about all of the time - that folks will ignore a better 3pp product in favor of one published by Wizards because the Wizards one is "official" and the 3pp is not.

I guarantee their VTT would be the same. Even with competition from others who might be technically better, the draw of using the "official" product carries so much weight.

WotC is absolutely counting on this effect.

Note that, according to the color coding DnD Shorts gives at the beginning of the video (0:50), that leaks comes from a senior WotC employee. (I hope I'm getting that right, being that I'm colorblind and have some trouble telling the difference between the colors he's using.)

Later in the video he does mention that people are likely conflating two different things.

The $30.0 charge is for the top-tier access on the OneVTT. The $30.0 for D&D beyond has been debunked.

Note that OneVTT, and D&D beyond are not the same thing...

In my opinion; It is entirely in WotC's best interest right now to have these two thing conflated. Their statement saying that they will not charge $30.0 for D&D beyond was a masterful PR move.

Sunk cost fallacy is a great way to destroy a brand or business.

Edit: Not saying it will do either. It’s just that this kind of decision-making doesn’t turn out well for the business that refuses to cut its losses on a bad decision.

As the amount to be written off is currently in excess of years worth of gross income, I don't see any way someone gets WotC to change course.

Things will get very interesting in RPG land for a while...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'll direct you here:

....

Note that, according to the color coding DnD Shorts gives at the beginning of the video (0:50), that leaks comes from a senior WotC employee. (I hope I'm getting that right, being that I'm colorblind and have some trouble telling the difference between the colors he's using.)

That's why I made the off-hand comment about youtubers. Ahem.

I don't want to go down that road, but let's say that ... to put it one way ... he is not a journalist, and one of his claims that was bandied about as gospel was immediately and correctly shot down (and was, for that matter, laughably incorrect to start with).

Again, there was a demonstrably false document a while ago ... something someone admitted that they made up. I find it remarkable that someone would have a "senior source" confirm a fact that was in a forged document. Especially when those same "senior source(s)" have previously provided false information.

Seems remarkably convenient. Again, this is strictly about the continued repetition of $30/month. It's a number that seems to have taken hold despite it originating in a fake document.