WotC Third party, DNDBeyond and potential bad side effects.

[Incenjucar]

To minimize a resource monopoly you need an open source file type or format that then gains enough traction that everyone uses it and putting it together from the source is easy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a pretty significant difference, and the precise reason is really the basis of the discussion, at least as I understand it

It's one of the bad side effects that could effect the hobby. Now people have different opinions on whether Hasbro should care or not, but if people will only play a version of 5E on DnD beyond it creates a walled garden, which I generally think is bad. I'm not a supporter of larger companies buying assets and freezing out other smaller companies, but I know not everyone shares that opinion.

It's one of the many reasons I moved away from DnD beyond and back to physical character sheets for my home games and either physical character sheets or Roll20 character sheets for my virtual games.

So, some people are fans of larger companies buying assets and freezing out smaller companies?

 

[Blue]

oh, I am not saying that everyone will live happily ever after unless WotC uses strongarm tactics, just that I cannot really blame them for winning by being better while competing fairly

Are all 3pp publishers, from big down to a single person, going to have access to the DnDBeyond marketplace? Right now anyone can put up on DMsGuild if they are willing to agree to the T&C and how much of the profit goes to WotC. You used the word "fair" - If WotC only lets select 3pp in, is that a fair marketplace? Is that fair to those who don't have that extended reach?

I'm not criticizing WotC - they purchased DnDBeyond should use it competitively. But please don't in the slightest confuse that with "fair". A business should be attempting to make reasonably profitable choices over short/medium/long term and to grow, which often means displacing competition. That's what as an entity it's supposed to do. But when the by-far market leader, with big deep pocket thanks to it's parent company, does so by making "the" premium marketplace one that they control who is in it, don't use words like "fair". It's not. It shouldn't be, not describing it as fair is not doing them a diservice nor putting them down. They are making a tactical move to increase monitization on their product. And are doing it in a way that we have seen with other premier online marketplaces like Amazon or Ali Baba. It is not "competing fairly".

 

[mamba]

Are all 3pp publishers, from big down to a single person, going to have access to the DnDBeyond marketplace?

no

Right now anyone can put up on DMsGuild if they are willing to agree to the T&C and how much of the profit goes to WotC. You used the word "fair" - If WotC only lets select 3pp in, is that a fair marketplace? Is that fair to those who don't have that extended reach?

my reference here was other VTTs, not what gets published on DDB. As long as WotC keeps offering D&D material for Roll 20, FG and so forth and keeps the conditions the same, their VTT is competing fairly. If they make conditions worse or stop offering it altogether, it is not.

They can decide what they offer on DDB, just like any other VTT can decide that. I doubt they will want to turn it into DMsGuild any time soon, but getting the bigger players on board is probably a good idea and what they do now is test the waters. Opening it up even wider and possibly even to other TTRPGs is probably far down the line, if ever, even though I consider it a smart move.

Even so, what I would really like is an open format that allows the 3PPs to create one digital version of their product which can then be used on any VTT, and allows users to migrate between VTTs based on features, instead of being locked into whichever one they bought 50 books on already

I'm not criticizing WotC - they purchased DnDBeyond should use it competitively. But please don't in the slightest confuse that with "fair". A business should be attempting to make reasonably profitable choices over short/medium/long term and to grow, which often means displacing competition. That's what as an entity it's supposed to do. But when the by-far market leader, with big deep pocket thanks to it's parent company, does so by making "the" premium marketplace one that they control who is in it, don't use words like "fair". It's not. It shouldn't be, not describing it as fair is not doing them a diservice nor putting them down. They are making a tactical move to increase monitization on their product. And are doing it in a way that we have seen with other premier online marketplaces like Amazon or Ali Baba. It is not "competing fairly".

having more money and a more widely known product gives you inherent advantages, that does not mean you are not competing fairly. Call it not behaving anti-competitively if you want, it just is more letters, not a different concept.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Are we forming an anti Beyond coalition?

Wouldn't mind knocking WOTC down a peg or two. I'm in! What's the name of our resistance group? Do we have a theme song? Will someone bring punch and pie??

 

[Clint_L]

Yes, but the majority of what SlyFlourish is talking about is 5e D&D, not things disconnected from the modern game.

Or do you think WotC aren't promoting other 5e compatible things despite the fact that they sell them now

So, I don't think this is exactly true. My reading of this thread is that SlyFlourish is talking about 5e. Period. D&D is a specific brand, the one that is owned by Hasbro and administered via their Wizards of the Coast subsidiary.

I think that there is a lot of conflating of 5e and D&D that is leading to confusion. My original point, that I made in the thread last January, was that WotC were shooting themselves in the foot by fighting over control of 5e when it made a lot more sense to just worry about the D&D brand, which they indisputably own and can control via DnDBeyond.

When WotC puts something on DnDBeyond, they are effectively saying not just that this is 5e compatible, but that it is specifically compatible with D&D.

 

[Parmandur]

So, I don't think this is exactly true. My reading of this thread is that SlyFlourish is talking about 5e. Period. D&D is a specific brand, the one that is owned by Hasbro and administered via their Wizards of the Coast subsidiary.

I think that there is a lot of conflating of 5e and D&D that is leading to confusion. My original point, that I made in the thread last January, was that WotC were shooting themselves in the foot by fighting over control of 5e when it made a lot more sense to just worry about the D&D brand, which they indisputably own and can control via DnDBeyond.

When WotC puts something on DnDBeyond, they are effectively saying not just that this is 5e compatible, but that it is specifically compatible with D&D.

I think that was a big part of the reason the Creative Commons approach works: anybody making a Creative Commons product is doing something yhe general public will understand is unrelated to WotC.

 

[Remathilis]

Are we forming an anti Beyond coalition?

Wouldn't mind knocking WOTC down a peg or two. I'm in! What's the name of our resistance group? Do we have a theme song? Will someone bring punch and pie??

Ironic that for 20 years I heard people complain about Master Tools, D&D Insider, and Project Morningstar becoming bad/vaporware. Now that WotC finally gets semi competent digital tools, people whine about using them.

 

[Morrus]

Ironic that for 20 years I heard people complain about Master Tools, D&D Insider, and Project Morningstar becoming bad/vaporware. Now that WotC finally gets semi competent digital tools, people whine about using them.

Nobody is complaining about the tools. C'mon. You know that. It's the marketplace we're talking about.

 

[Blue]

having more money and a more widely known product gives you inherent advantages, that does not mean you are not competing fairly. Call it not behaving anti-competitively if you want, it just is more letters, not a different concept.

I've already established how there is a competative edge to having that increased reach, and how WotC controls who gets it and who doesn't. That's a textbook definition of anti-competative. I don't know how to respond when you say black is white.

Again, what Amazon did, which pushed a lot of small and large booksellers out of business because they couldn't compete. A friend of mine had to close his FLGS because he couldn't compete on selling RPGs against Amazon because on the prices they could afford. Saying that isn't "anti-competative" is laughable.