Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9617853" data-attributes="member: 7035894">Because nobody outside of extreme D&D fandom knows anything about the Yawning Portal. What I wrote about Drizz't goes ten times over for the Yawning Portal. I agree that locations are much harder to monetize than characters, but D&D doesn't really have either, not at a scale that matters. And it's designed in such a way that it probably never will. Few people play D&D to play as Drizz't or visit the YP; even most D&D players have no idea what those are. D&D's brand recognition is weird: it's now pervasive enough that most folks know it's a game, they aren't freaking out about Satan anymore, and it's something that nerdy people do with dice. It's more a floating concept than a concrete thing or set of things that you can easily hang a film franchise on.As for there being big money in a VTT...doubtful. Where is it? Where are we seeing the burning interest? This forum is about as hardcore as it gets, when it comes to D&D and TTRPGS, and are we seeing a ton of folks clamouring for a 3dVTT? If you start a thread on tabletop options, you will get more folks swearing by theatre of the mind and Chessex mats. People like me who go in hard for physical terrain are a distinct minority.To me, a 3d VTT looks a lot like Dwarven Forge (and I'm a big fan and supporter of Dwarven Forge). You've got your hardcore enthusiasts, and that's enough to support a small business. But is this really a widespread desire? Evidently not: DF Kickstarters draw a few thousand supporters, which is enough to keep DF going and satisfy people like me. Similarly, Foundry has its enthusiasts, but folks are not exactly beating down their door, and WotC pretty clearly have tested the waters for a 3d VTT and seen the reaction is "meh...could take it or leave it." It's possible, of course, that that could change with just the right offering and WotC just failed in execution, but where's the evidence that even an ideal 3d VTT has huge uptake potential? So WotC are left with the option of continuing to invest a ton of money in a product that, even if perfected, probably doesn't have a huge market, or letting go of their sunk cost and moving on.Sigil failed because there isn't enough demand to justify continuing to sink money into it. Maps has succeeded because it  does the basics really well, takes minutes to learn, and is cheap. A 3d VTT is always going to be more complex, and a lot more expensive, and evidently most folks aren't too fussed about needing one.</blockquote>

Verification