WotC Third party, DNDBeyond and potential bad side effects.

[ninjayeti]

Adding other 5e publishers' material to D&D Beyond increases WOTC's dominance in the overall TTRPG hobby and they've proven they cannot be trusted to act in the overall hobby's best interests.

I tend to agree with both parts of that statement. But what is the worst case scenario for the hobby. What is the equivalent of revoking the OGL that WotC could do with DDB? Sure, WotC can enshitify DDB over time and make it worse for for users and third party publishers once they are invested, but this would just drive both of those groups to Demiplane or w/e DDB competitors exist at that time. It would inconvenience people, but don't think it would deter gamers from playing or creators from publishing.

I think there are a couple of separate issues here:
1) is it bad for the hobby to have a single, dominant platform used for accessing content?
Yes and no. There are obvious conveniences for users to have everything in one place. Publishers with access to the platform likely sell more.
The downside is the potential for enshitification long term. Do I trust WotC to protect the integrity of the platform? Not really - but I don't trust ANY company to do the right thing for their customers if they think they can make more money hosing them. So I see this issue the same regardless of whether WotC controls the platform or not.

It would be great if you could transfer purchased content from one platform to another, but I think this is unlikely. Amazon Music is not going to let you play an album just because you bought it on iTunes, and Roll20 isn't going to give you access to a module because you paid for it on DDB. I think this is just the reality of the digital world, and while it is not ideal, I don't know that it hurts the hobby overall. I don't use DDB but have purchased hundreds of dollars worth of content on Fantasy Grounds. If FG went out of business and turned off its servers tomorrow that would suck for me, but I wouldn't stop gaming.

2) Is it bad for the hobby if the dominant platform is owned by a company that is a competitor in in its own marketplace?
While it is obviously bad for individual publishers who don't have access to the platform, I am not sure it really hurts the hobby as a whole. I guess you can see scenarios where WotC tries to block direct 5E competitors like ToV and A5E - but if you are buying those games (I am!) you are likely doing so as a hedge against WotC shenanigans anyway, not because you want to use those games on WotC's platform.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm confused. I'm referring to a 5e publisher abandoning an ongoing print/PDF project because they can't get the material on DDB.

They can't now.... And yet it's being written. Meant to type written.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We could agree all eggs shouldn't be put in only one basket.

My opinion is Hasbro is more interested into IPs as multimedia franchises than the market of TTRPGs. If they were interested, then they would acquired more IPs of other TTRPGs by other companies, or other titles besides D&D. Hasbro doesn't want to sell more RPGs but more D&D merchadising products (toys, novels, comics, videogames..)

3PPs suffer a serious handicap. Even when their titles are right, they may fall into the oblivion easily. Here there is the reason because D&D-Beyond should be good as showcase for the 3PPs.

D&D is the main superstar in the TTRPG industry, but it is not the only option, it is not the "only coke bottle in the dessert".

The true rival for D&D isn't the other publishers, but the videogame industry, and this market is the true goal for Hasbro. Here Paizo's Pathfinder can be a serious rival, but this should be good for players, a piece of competence because then they should worry to offer a better product. And now other videogame studios will try to create their own version of BG3. We can't blame them.

My suggestion for the VTT is to add AI to create portraits of the characters and the encounters (and an app style "create your own comic"), and tools easy to be used for streamers to create their own actual-play shows, and even animated machinima replays of their games (but then the figures would need lots of animations style Sims videogames).

 

[Clint_L]

Back on January 19, in the midst of the SRD debacle, I created a thread entitled "Hasbro Should Open DnDBeyond to 3PP." Here is what I wrote then:

If Hasbro wants a win-win situation moving out of this, I suggest they do the following:

1. Commit to maintaining the terms of the OGL 1.0a going forward, forever, including for OneD&D. Sure, add a clause about hate speech, as adjudicated by an arbitration panel with representatives from OGL stakeholders.

2. Open DnDBeyond to 3PP for a reasonable licensing rate/royalty.

It's clear that Hasbro sees DnDBeyond as the future - they just paid $146 million for it, and it already has millions of subscribers. Opening it up gives them a new revenue stream from 3PP, and gives those 3PP who want it access to a MUCH larger consumer base than they currently reach.

Speaking for myself, the reason I don't buy more 3PP products is because I find DnDBeyond so convenient. If 3PP were in the DDB shop and integrated into the interface (and those could be separate licensing arrangements), I would be far, far more likely to purchase the adventure or alternate Monster Manual or whatever.

From Hasbro's perspective, this keeps D&D the epicentre of fantasy roleplaying and gives them a lot more control over content, since they would be working out licensing deals with each 3PP provider, and it adds another revenue stream. It sort of creates more competition...but they are getting a cut. And most of their product going forward won't be from publications, it'll be from the VTT, which this would make even more appealing.

From the 3PP provider's perspective, their product is now WAY more available and convenient, should they choose to go this direction. It gives them a potent new sales option, especially since most struggle to get into FLGS. On the other hand, they would be giving up some control to WotC, but just like any licensing agreement they would be able to negotiate terms that suit them, or walk away.

And gamers? And gamers get access to way more variety. Win-win-win.

Thoughts? I feel like I probably missed a bunch of obvious problems.

Obviously, this is pretty much what WoTC has subsequently done, so it is all my fault! But seriously, I stand by what I wrote then: this just makes so much more sense from WotC's perspective than trying to police all of 5e compatible material.

I get the concern that this platform has the potential to basically make DDB the Steam of the 5e space, but I'm not sure why that is a problem if it's what creators and consumers are choosing. I don't agree with the implication that WotC has some sort of ethical duty to give up control over who gets to publish on DDB. Basically, it seems to me that it is up to their competitors to outdo them, as Adam Bradford is attempting with Demiplane.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I tend to agree with both parts of that statement. But what is the worst case scenario for the hobby. What is the equivalent of revoking the OGL that WotC could do with DDB? Sure, WotC can enshitify DDB over time and make it worse for for users and third party publishers once they are invested, but this would just drive both of those groups to Demiplane or w/e DDB competitors exist at that time. It would inconvenience people, but don't think it would deter gamers from playing or creators from publishing.

I think there are a couple of separate issues here:
1) is it bad for the hobby to have a single, dominant platform used for accessing content?
Yes and no. There are obvious conveniences for users to have everything in one place. Publishers with access to the platform likely sell more.
The downside is the potential for enshitification long term. Do I trust WotC to protect the integrity of the platform? Not really - but I don't trust ANY company to do the right thing for their customers if they think they can make more money hosing them. So I see this issue the same regardless of whether WotC controls the platform or not.

It would be great if you could transfer purchased content from one platform to another, but I think this is unlikely. Amazon Music is not going to let you play an album just because you bought it on iTunes, and Roll20 isn't going to give you access to a module because you paid for it on DDB. I think this is just the reality of the digital world, and while it is not ideal, I don't know that it hurts the hobby overall. I don't use DDB but have purchased hundreds of dollars worth of content on Fantasy Grounds. If FG went out of business and turned off its servers tomorrow that would suck for me, but I wouldn't stop gaming.

2) Is it bad for the hobby if the dominant platform is owned by a company that is a competitor in in its own marketplace?
While it is obviously bad for individual publishers who don't have access to the platform, I am not sure it really hurts the hobby as a whole. I guess you can see scenarios where WotC tries to block direct 5E competitors like ToV and A5E - but if you are buying those games (I am!) you are likely doing so as a hedge against WotC shenanigans anyway, not because you want to use those games on WotC's platform.

Don’t get me wrong, nothing they can do now is as bad as trying to revoke the OGL – maybe trying to revoke the CC but that’s crazy talk.

Consolidating power in D&D Beyond isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as revoking the OGL.

But companies trying to earn back $150 million can try lots of things we don’t want to squeeze more money out of us. If the number of D&D and 5e players plateaus or dwindles, we might see all kinds of shenanigans to increase shareholder value.

What are the real practical risks? This is a fantastic question. Here are some thoughts.

• Our players only want to use stuff in Beyond and toss aside hundreds of awesome character options available elsewhere.
• Our players expect everything in Beyond is allowed at our games and anything not in Beyond doesn’t exist.
• Critical features never get implemented but we just live with it and the whole game suffers.
• Being on Beyond or not becomes a new way for WOTC to gatekeep the 5e community. Publishers and customers feel like only those blessed to be on Beyond are “real” publishers and thus demotivates other creators from making things.
• Players become so used to Beyond that they can’t imagine and don’t want to play 5e without it.
• WOTC treats Beyond as the official source for the rules even beyond the printed books. They change things all over, sometimes not even telling us where they’ve done so, so that we can’t trust our printed books to be the “official” rules. To quote Zuul from Ghostbusters, there is no D&D. Only Beyond.
• The whole 5e community ends up treating 5e like every other video game where a central publisher controls everything and we must hope they steer things the way we want instead of us realizing we can take this game anywhere we want without their permission.

I could probably keep going. It’s a good thought provoking question, that’s for sure.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Don’t get me wrong, nothing they can do now is as bad as trying to revoke the OGL – maybe trying to revoke the CC but that’s crazy talk.

Consolidating power in D&D Beyond isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as revoking the OGL.

But companies trying to earn back $150 million can try lots of things we don’t want to squeeze more money out of us. If the number of D&D and 5e players plateaus or dwindles, we might see all kinds of shenanigans to increase shareholder value.

What are the real practical risks? This is a fantastic question. Here are some thoughts.

• Our players only want to use stuff in Beyond and toss aside hundreds of awesome character options available elsewhere.
• Our players expect everything in Beyond is allowed at our games and anything not in Beyond doesn’t exist.
• Critical features never get implemented but we just live with it and the whole game suffers.
• Being on Beyond or not becomes a new way for WOTC to gatekeep the 5e community. Publishers and customers feel like only those blessed to be on Beyond are “real” publishers and thus demotivates other creators from making things.
• Players become so used to Beyond that they can’t imagine and don’t want to play 5e without it.
• WOTC treats Beyond as the official source for the rules even beyond the printed books. They change things all over, sometimes not even telling us where they’ve done so, so that we can’t trust our printed books to be the “official” rules. To quote Zuul from Ghostbusters, there is no D&D. Only Beyond.
• The whole 5e community ends up treating 5e like every other video game where a central publisher controls everything and we must hope they steer things the way we want instead of us realizing we can take this game anywhere we want without their permission.

I could probably keep going. It’s a good thought provoking question, that’s for sure.

One thing, I do not believe that WoTC can make D&D a 100M+ brand from the tabletop rpg. Not even D&DBeyond, not even with microtransactions.
Microtransactions in a video game are seamless, you buy the thing, and the stuff is applied to your toon in the game engine, in the background and off you go. In D&D you need DM buy in at the least and many things one could imagine would slow down the game.
I think if D&D is the reach the kink of revenues being spoken of, they have to use the ttrpg as an IP engine to fuel a videogame/TV/movie franchise or clothing brands. That would mean managing the base core fandom so as to have the minimum kicking and screaming.

 

[Morrus]

I do agree that the combination of being market leader, IP owner, and the primary market place owner, along with a walled garden, does sit a little uneasy with me, as that creates a degree of control over the whole hobby. Especially if access to that marketplace is invitation only. Not that DDB is the primary market place (at least not yet) and Kickstarter isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, but conceptually speaking.

Of course this only applies to D&D stuff. It’s not like Chaosium and Free League and Monte Cook Games and a ton of other publishers aren’t doing great with games completely unrelated to D&D.

WotC didn’t end open gaming by cancelling the OGL in the end. But making a walled garden the only viable way to sell third party stuff would effectively have the same effect.

But Kickstarter is still out there.

 

[jgsugden]

In the end: I can run great D&D games for the rest of my life without ever spending another dollar. Each dollar I spend these days is more about novelty and whim than it is about necessity. To that end: If they get too greedy (like they did in miniatures), my spending massively drops when they try to extract too much from me.

All in all, in the end, I can't be too worried about any of this when my baseline is continue to enjoy my favorite hobby without ever spending another dime.

 

[eayres33]

One thing, I do not believe that WoTC can make D&D a 100M+ brand from the tabletop rpg. Not even D&DBeyond, not even with microtransactions.
Microtransactions in a video game are seamless, you buy the thing, and the stuff is applied to your toon in the game engine, in the background and off you go. In D&D you need DM buy in at the least and many things one could imagine would slow down the game.
I think if D&D is the reach the kink of revenues being spoken of, they have to use the ttrpg as an IP engine to fuel a videogame/TV/movie franchise or clothing brands. That would mean managing the base core fandom so as to have the minimum kicking and screaming.

The issue with DnD beyond is it doesn't let a DM filter options so if you buy the thing through a micro transaction it's on your sheet. It's not something the DM gets to approve or veto, it's on your sheet.
Of course can say no you can't use that during the game, "but we are using DnD beyond and it was available, I already spent the money," is going to be a friction point for a lot of DMs.
I'm assuming that WOTC is assuming most DMs will cave.
Could be wrong but I cancelled my DnD beyond subscription at the start of the OGL saga anyway. Hasbro doesn't need my money and there are so many better 5e resources from 3PP, and other systems to play.

 

[Remathilis]

In my opinion, they tried a stick approach with the OGL 2.0 and a carrot approach with DnDB. The stick failed, but the carrot may yet succeed.