OGL Roll for Combat reveals the terms of the "sweetheart deal" offered to 3pp

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Note that Steam charges 30 percent to sell stuff on there. However, the products are directly uploaded on Steam's servers, people buy it on Steam, and then Steam sends the other 70 percent back to the devopler.

WOTC wanted 15 percent in exchange for some advertising. If a person saw a 3PP product on D&D Beyond, they would have to then buy it somewhere else. That would be a step too far for many. Assuming of course the people on D&D Beyond arn't those "3PP is gross" types.
Yeah, based on a bunch of other stuff, one rather suspects that Beyond is going to be turned into a marketplace soon. That is an unstated piece of information that makes sense of a lot of this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Argyle King

Legend
It's marginal like taxes. So if you make $750,001, WizBro gets 25¢.

Out of curiosity, what stops a TTRPG Company from doing what some corporations do to avoid taxes: creating puppet/dummy companies under which they do some of their work so they can under-report their revenue?
 

Haplo781

Legend
Out of curiosity, what stops a TTRPG Company from doing what some corporations do to avoid taxes: creating puppet/dummy companies under which they do some of their work so they can under-report their revenue?
You really think a company that could be strong armed into this contract could afford to do that?
 


Haplo781

Legend
Yeah, that's a lot of corporate shenanigans for what is likely a couple running a company off of their dinner table to be engaged in. The only reason big corporations get away with what is, at best, legalized tax fraud is because they can afford an army of lawyers and accountants. Who is a mom and pop company going to hire? Their labradoodle?
That's Chadley P. Labradoodle III, Esquire to you.
 

Argyle King

Legend
Yeah, that's a lot of corporate shenanigans for what is likely a couple running a company off of their dinner table to be engaged in. The only reason big corporations get away with what is, at best, legalized tax fraud is because they can afford an army of lawyers and accountants. Who is a mom and pop company going to hire? Their labradoodle?

It's a tough economy for small publishers.

By day, Jack and Jill work for Buttered Rules when they're writing modules at the dinner table; at night, they work for Little Timmy's Refrigerator Drawings LLC as liaisons to small publishers looking for artwork.

The laberdoodle is only part-time, as head of security.
 



MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
The third party publishers are acting like retention specialists for the brand.
This. I still buy a lot of D&D stuff, but I have only run one official 5e adventure. I'm running third-party or homemade stuff. But I'm comfortable with and like the 5e rules and mine adventures and other content for ideas. I subscribe to DDB because it is convenient and because I can import monsters, character sheets, spells, items, etc. into Foundry saving me a GREAT deal of time on manually entering in the information. But if it were not for the great ecosystem of third-party content creators for 5e, I'm not sure I would have stayed with 5e.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
What 15 million subscribers? As far as I can tell, subscriber numbers have never been released for D&D Beyond. 10 million accounts was the thing in April of last year. But say it's 15 million accounts. How many of those are active, so not dormant accounts just sitting there? Is it 20%? 30%? More? Less? I don't know, but I doubt it's even a majority. Then, how many of those accounts are subscribed? you only need one subscription per group really, and the people I've played with have always unsubscribed whenever they weren't in an active campaign, and only one account was ever subscribed per group, because more would be pointless. So one out of every five active accounts maybe? Let's be generous and say 25%. So 15 million accounts, 30% active, 25% of those subscribed. That's 1.125 million subscribers. Substantially fewer than the total number of accounts. And if the number of subscribers was actually a significant proportion of the number of accounts, we would have heard such a number proclaimed at some point. We haven't, so it's likely to be a small fraction of total accounts.
Plus there's the people who don't read those articles, watch the videos, or click on the ads, and who send promotional emails directly to spam.
 

Don’t know you were born, is an expression for not knowing how lucky you are. I didn’t say anyone was stupid.

If you are substantially over the $750k mark then it may not be worthwhile. If you are under then the advertising opportunity is golden.

Also people are fundamentally misunderstanding/misrepresenting the maths…

$750,000 revenue annually = $0 commission 0%
$800,000 revenue = $7,500 commission 0.9%
$1,000,000 revenue = $37,500 commission 3.75%
$1,500,000 revenue = $112,500 commission 7.5%

The suggestion that these figures can’t be profitable at over $750,000 is ridiculous.

I don’t think 3pp were born yesterday. They want to keep more of their own money. I don’t think that’s stupid. Neither do I think it’s something that’s intrinsically good for the hobby or somehow better than WotC having some of it. They’re all capability entrepreneurs.

I don’t buy the idea that these figures are crippling. If overheads are that tight, you just put the price up by 3-7% which is what? $1.50 - $3.50 on a large hardback. Which is a stretch anyway because while the first book you print/publish/put online costs you $150,000 to make, the second one costs you a couple of dollars / nothing.

Also, the cost of distributing pdfs is not that high compared to actual books. Or better said: the costs to creat are the same. And after having sold a certain amount, all you get is income. So 15% above 750k might mean, that you still keep 80% of that for yourself.

That does not mean it was a great deal for all and I think that the royality clause was not worth the trouble for wotc. But it was not the pure rip off people made it out to be.
Depending on the view, it is wotc who is currently ripped off, because they get nothing (in cash).
 

Also, the cost of distributing pdfs is not that high compared to actual books. Or better said: the costs to creat are the same. And after having sold a certain amount, all you get is income. So 15% above 750k might mean, that you still keep 80% of that for yourself.

That does not mean it was a great deal for all and I think that the royality clause was not worth the trouble for wotc. But it was not the pure rip off people made it out to be.
Depending on the view, it is wotc who is currently ripped off, because they get nothing (in cash).
"Not a great deal" is a very mild way of putting "demanding money for something you guaranteed was perpetually free." That kind of characterization, as if WotC were negotiating a new situation instead of clawing back something they'd already given away is particularly frustrating.

WotC cannot be "ripped off" here, no more than I can be ripped off if you sell a book I gave you as a Christmas present and don't give me any of the proceeds. It only helps WotC's position to cede that framing to them.
 

"Not a great deal" is a very mild way of putting "demanding money for something you guaranteed was perpetually free." That kind of characterization, as if WotC were negotiating a new situation instead of clawing back something they'd already given away is particularly frustrating.

WotC cannot be "ripped off" here, no more than I can be ripped off if you sell a book I gave you as a Christmas present and don't give me any of the proceeds. It only helps WotC's position to cede that framing to them.

You can take a gift back after what is called "grober Undank". I don't say it applies here. Only to reply to your example.

I also did not say, WotC was ripped of, neither did I wanted to imply that. I said, it is how deciders at WotC may have looked upon it.

My stance is:

the free givaway was also free advertising and spreading and thus a win-win situation. This is why I added "in cash" after that statement.

And now we are steering into a lose-lose situation.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top