D&D (2024) The Very Real Possibility and Impact of Microtransactions in One D&D

[delericho]

It's no secret that the future of Dungeons & Dragons is riddled with microtransactions and subscriptions.

What are your thoughts, everyone?

I had subscriptions to Dragon and Dungeon magazines for years, and if individual miniatures count there has been support for micro-transactions. Those things, in themselves, aren't bad. As with everything else, the key questions are whether they're offering something that people actually want, if the subscription/micro-transactions are 'necessary' (that is, I'm sure it will be possible to play without them, but will you want to?), and whether the offering represents good value for money.

I have my doubts about all three, but I'm also disinclined to prejudge without information. So for me it's a case of waiting to see.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

We frequently hear those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And given the history of monetization in the video game industry, which includes microtransactions, I think we're in for a negative consumer experience for D&D. Quite frankly, I'm more than a little flabbergasted that WotC's announcement to their shareholders about their plans to rectify the undermonetization was largely met with indifference here.

In the beginning, the monetization won't be egregious just like it wasn't for video games. Bethesda got the ball rolling with the horse armor DLC they offered back in 2006 for $2.50 and I think WotC will start out in a similar manner. It's just cosmetic, nothing you really need or helps you with the game after all. But WotC's business model is going to pivot to monetizing it's customer base. It doesn't matter if tons of people leave D&D in droves so longs as their new model brings in more money.


I think we need to stick to a useful definition of microtransaction beyond anything you buy for a game. If I buy the DLC for Resident Evil the Village for $20, it's not really a microtransaction, is it? A microtransaction is typically defined as a purchase made for a nominal fee. That $15 Complete Book of Elves comes out to the equivalent of $32 in today's money. Not a microtransaction.


Yes, but TSR failed because of the way they were structured, especially their finances, not because D&D wasn't selling well enough.

Unfortunately, I think you’re right. I think you are also right about how it will be insidious.

There will be pay for advantages at some point. And at some point, folks will feel pressure to keep up.

I don’t want to be right. But once people are locked into a shared 3D tabletop, it will be game on literally and figuratively, I fear.

Am I personally worried for my game? I play with friends and have lots of minis and terrain. I don’t see this messing with my group too much.

I just have some concerns for the direction of the game and its culture. I will be happy to be wrong. If all it was was a service (3D tabletop) you can choose or not, I would just shrug. We don’t use vtt much currently.

We shall see. But monetizing means…monetizing.

 

[Argyle King]

Loot Boxes which have a chance of being a mimic

 

[cranberry]

Just as long as they don't use micro transactions as a way to "pay to win", or as long as they don't tie the cosmetics purchases to the actual mechanics, I'm fine with it.

I'm personally not big on cosmetics, but if a lot of people like it and want to pay for it, then great.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Just as long as they don't use micro transactions as a way to "pay to win", or as long as they don't tie the cosmetics purchases to the actual mechanics, I'm fine with it.

I'm personally not big on cosmetics, but if a lot of people like it and want to pay for it, then great.

Exactly. (I do like cosmetics with minis and terrain but there is no advantage to be had there).

 

[Jer]

I agree with what you are saying, but I am not sure I see how loot boxes, gambling mechanics, or pay to win get implemented into a virtual tabletop for an RPG. It seems like folks are ignoring some very distinct mechanical differences between a video game and a VTT.

Pay to win is a nonstarter. In an RPG sense you'd first have to define what "winning" means. Absent Wizards trying to resurrect the old tournament model of play I don't see how it even works. If it's just about getting better bits and bobs for your character we already have "pay to win" in the sense that any player can buy an expansion book that has new bits and bobs and troll through them for the best ones. That's been a feature of D&D since supplements started getting published.

If you use a VTT, you still can't just sit down and play D&D for 15-20 minutes. It's still a roleplaying game that needs to be organized with other players. There's still a DM calling the shots.

For now. I expect WotC will attempt to standardized how D&D is played in their walled garden in order to create a more favorable market for their new business model.

The only way I could see them changing the dynamics that @Clint_L is laying out is if they decide either to have AI DMs (in which case it becomes a video game, also we're nowhere near being able to have AI DMs yet no matter how impressive ChatGPT looks) or if they have paid DMs and a player matching service.

That last one could be a bit of a game changer since it would remove the big barrier to player growth that the game has, which is having enough DMs to be able to teach the game and run games regularly for people. It would be like having a virtual con that runs constantly where players can get connected to DMs who can run their Adventurer's League events in 4 hour slots. It would also be hideously expensive to run I suspect.

I don't think it would change the dynamics of home games, but it would be something that Wizards could do to make their digital platform attractive to people to use.

 

[R_J_K75]

If microtransactions on DDB will also be available in print form at some point then I have no problem with them. If I'm forced to invest in them to get the new core books or parts of them, no thanks, I'm completely done with D&D/WotC. Extras are fine, I can choose to buy or ignore them. If its all in or nothing, then I am jumping ship.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Consider this section from the Mentzer basic set (p. 2). How much of this will still be relevant for Onednd?

Every word, because people will still be doing exactly what is described.

Like, it’s not just “folk D&D” and “official D&D”, in this context. People will be playing 1DnD in person, at a physical table.

 

[Clint_L]

I expect WotC will attempt to standardized how D&D is played in their walled garden in order to create a more favorable market for their new business model.

How are they going to do that? Genuinely curious, as it is unclear to me how they could.

 

[Jer]

Every word, because people will still be doing exactly what is described.

Like, it’s not just “folk D&D” and “official D&D”, in this context. People will be playing 1DnD in person, at a physical table.

I think people are expecting Wizards to completely abandon the tabletop and focus only on the virtual tabletop. To stop publishing books and only publish rules electronically. That there won't be any new hardcovers with "Dungeons and Dragons" blazoned on the cover but you can only get your D&D rules by subscribing to D&D Beyond.

I admit that I can see a future where that happens, but it isn't next year. It's sometime in the far future when paper books are like vinyl is for records now. As long as publishing books remains a profitable industry they're going to keep making books. Their digital strategy is where they see growth, but the books are where they get a constant stream of revenue currently. You don't destroy your revenue stream just to pursue another one unless you're really bad at business. Unless an alien paper-devouring microbe comes to Earth in the next year and destroys our ability to print books, we're going to get new books next year.

(And yes, I am on record as saying that the executives at Wizards are bad at business. But if they're THAT bad at business Wizards has bigger problems.)