R.I.P., Astral Tabletop

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Oh, so it's likely a memory hole thing.

Fun.
Not sure. It's not like they got rid of already converted ones. They just aren't allowing certain new classic modules. I wonder if someone is negotiating a license and trying to have the rights to PDF/electronic distribution. Something people repeatedly complain is missing from the Goodman Games reprints
 
Not sure. It's not like they got rid of already converted ones. They just aren't allowing certain new classic modules. I wonder if someone is negotiating a license and trying to have the rights to PDF/electronic distribution. Something people repeatedly complain is missing from the Goodman Games reprints

Fingers crossed. That's a much better scenario than stuff disappearing.
 
Are people purchasing these classic modules? Or are they just community?
Purchasing. FG I believe has a setup where a person can do a conversion, get a portion of the revenue while FG and WotC get a portion as well. I don't know the ratios. As I understand it that a guy did the conversions for two modules on spec (or possibly FG request) only to get turned down on approval from WotC.

I'm getting this from the FG classic D&D discord channel.

Moon Wizard one of the FG owners says this all came as a surprise to them.
 
Purchasing. FG I believe has a setup where a person can do a conversion, get a portion of the revenue while FG and WotC get a portion as well. I don't know the ratios. As I understand it that a guy did the conversions for two modules on spec (or possibly FG request) only to get turned down on approval from WotC.

I'm getting this from the FG classic D&D discord channel.

Moon Wizard one of the FG owners says this all came as a surprise to them.


They had a set up...

WotC is tightening the screws IMHO. They should be bringing that sort of thing in-house.

This type thing only makes sense if it's part of DM's Guild for the OneVTT going forward.

2024 is not that far away. They need to start funneling things away from other VTT's now.

This kind of thing shouldn't be surprising to anyone after WotC's upcoming VTT announcement.
 
They had a set up...

WotC is tightening the screws IMHO. They should be bringing that sort of thing in-house.

This type thing only makes sense if it's part of DM's Guild for the OneVTT going forward.

2024 is not that far away. They need to start funneling things away from other VTT's now.

This kind of thing shouldn't be surprising to anyone after WotC's upcoming VTT announcement.
They have a setup. Still working for all publishers and all systems except d&d classic. Still works for 5e. No clue about 4e.

You're expressing one option as the only option. It's not. They can continue to support a diverse number of VTTs and make revenue from all of them knowing that they can't possibly convert all VTT users to their in house platform. That's a given. Everyone isn't going to switch just because WotC would like them to. Their largest financial growth in D&D has coincided with their largest willingness to outsource and license with review their products. So the idea that taking it all in house and shutting those non exclusive licensing deals doesn't necessarily guarenteed any more profit for WotC.

Doing this to legacy products is the wierd choice. That's the segment of users most disliked by WotC and who most dislike WotC. Why try to force them into the fold?
 
Re: conversion revenue - a small % of the first year’s sales. There are some conversions made long ago that operate on a different system, grandfathered

re: the two that were denied - they met the existing “rules” for approval, AFAIK. The U1 conversion already exists for sale. The main “rule” is no material set in a game world not explicitly released for 5E. So you could convert adventures released under the FR banner, but not those released under the GH banner. But you could convert U1, GDQ, etc., because those didn’t have the GH banner across the top (unlike the 2E-era castle greyhawk boxed set which couldn’t be converted).

So these two are pattern mismatches.

while not conclusive, it fits the pattern of WOTC towards licenses which have short remaining lifespans, or that WOTC doesn’t want to see thrive. Kenzer got nearly nothing approved for release in the last couple years of its AD&D license used for Hackmaster, for example.

Smiteworks has already said their agreement ensures people who’ve purchased licensed content get to keep it if the content is otherwise no longer licensed, so losing a license just prevents new sales. Similar to the early 2000s, where if you’d bought the TSR PDFs from the Paizo store before they lost their license to sell them, you still had access to them on your account page.
 
You're expressing one option as the only option. It's not. They can continue to support a diverse number of VTTs and make revenue from all of them knowing that they can't possibly convert all VTT users to their in house platform.

They don't need to convert all of them. Just a majority to make the OneVTT the dominant VTT for Playing current edition official D&D.


Everyone isn't going to switch just because WotC would like them to. Their largest financial growth in D&D has coincided with their largest willingness to outsource and license with review their products. So the idea that taking it all in house and shutting those non exclusive licensing deals doesn't necessarily guarenteed any more profit for WotC.

The caveat here is: Their willingness to 'outsource and license' stuff they were not doing themselves.

i.e. They were not propping up any of their competitors.
They were collecting easy money via license fees for things they did not have the time and/or inclination to do themselves.

Come 2024; they are doing a VTT. All other VTT's will now be directly competing with WotC's VTT for player network market share.

It makes no sense for WotC to continue to prop up any of their VTT competitors. 2024 is not that far away.
 
Doing this to legacy products is the wierd choice. That's the segment of users most disliked by WotC and who most dislike WotC. Why try to force them into the fold?

Take all of this with a large grain of salt, but I know a guy who knows a guy.

Word on the street is that WotC knows that most of their 5E adventures have been terrible. So they're shifting strategies. They've recently poached a lot of Paizo's Pathfinder writers by offering them triple the salary they had under Paizo. In addition, WotC plans to convert their old popular modules and adventures, and package them for One D&D. That way WotC will have a strong portfolio of ready to go One D&D modules come 2024 and 2025.

I fully expect WotC to pull the D&D license from Fantasy Grounds, Foundry, and Roll20 by the launch of One D&D. From what I've heard, One D&D will start off mostly compatible with D&D 5E, so legacy stuff and the SRD will work... but WotC will slowly update One D&D over time and drift it further and further away so you'll have to use their VTT in order to play One D&D online.
 
Take all of this with a large grain of salt, but I know a guy who knows a guy.

Word on the street is that WotC knows that most of their 5E adventures have been terrible. So they're shifting strategies. They've recently poached a lot of Paizo's Pathfinder writers by offering them triple the salary they had under Paizo. In addition, WotC plans to convert their old popular modules and adventures, and package them for One D&D. That way WotC will have a strong portfolio of ready to go One D&D modules come 2024 and 2025.

I fully expect WotC to pull the D&D license from Fantasy Grounds, Foundry, and Roll20 by the launch of One D&D. From what I've heard, One D&D will start off mostly compatible with D&D 5E, so legacy stuff and the SRD will work... but WotC will slowly update One D&D over time and drift it further and further away so you'll have to use their VTT in order to play One D&D online.
Interesting. But that strategy fails on one area. You can't copyright rules. Only the expression. So someone can keep incorporating the rules of One D&D into all the existing VTTs. That's what Fantasy Grounds has been doing for decades with 3.x,4.0 and prior to a licensing deal with WotC 5.0

I'll be interested to see if they lure people from existing platforms by transferring over purchases or will they try to get someone to buy the products a 2nd or in some cases 3rd time.
 
I think the consumers WOTC is looking to capture are the high-value hobbyists who almost almost exclusively run campaigns with purchased modules. So sure, Smiteworks can put up a basic ruleset limited to SRD-only monsters, spells, etc., and tell people they're each free to spend their personal time making their own conversions of PDFs they still probably buy from WOTC anyway. And WOTC will tell those same people that for an extra $5 they could spare themselves from personal conversion work by using the official VTT instead. "Why convert? Get it from us and be running it online on the day of release!"

That's pretty much exactly what WOTC would want. Let everyone else have those hobbyists who spend the least.
 
I think the consumers WOTC is looking to capture are the high-value hobbyists who almost almost exclusively run campaigns with purchased modules. So sure, Smiteworks can put up a basic ruleset limited to SRD-only monsters, spells, etc., and tell people they're each free to spend their personal time making their own conversions of PDFs they still probably buy from WOTC anyway. And WOTC will tell those same people that for an extra $5 they could spare themselves from personal conversion work by using the official VTT instead. "Why convert? Get it from us and be running it online on the day of release!"

That's pretty much exactly what WOTC would want. Let everyone else have those hobbyists who spend the least.
Ok but how does that justify the decision to shut down support for AD&D 1&2e products on FG? Is the thinking those buyer are going to come over? By the logic you presented those older modules would also require some conversion to use with 5e which seems to exclude them from being worth worrying about.
 
I think the consumers WOTC is looking to capture are the high-value hobbyists who almost almost exclusively run campaigns with purchased modules. So sure, Smiteworks can put up a basic ruleset limited to SRD-only monsters, spells, etc., and tell people they're each free to spend their personal time making their own conversions of PDFs they still probably buy from WOTC anyway. And WOTC will tell those same people that for an extra $5 they could spare themselves from personal conversion work by using the official VTT instead. "Why convert? Get it from us and be running it online on the day of release!"

That's pretty much exactly what WOTC would want. Let everyone else have those hobbyists who spend the least.
The limit isn't SRD only but it does exclude WotC specific IP.

WotC will want the large spenders for sure.
FG will need to work on tools to more easily build user content to compete which they have but it will need to go further.
 
Interesting. But that strategy fails on one area. You can't copyright rules. Only the expression. So someone can keep incorporating the rules of One D&D into all the existing VTTs. That's what Fantasy Grounds has been doing for decades with 3.x,4.0 and prior to a licensing deal with WotC 5.0

I'll be interested to see if they lure people from existing platforms by transferring over purchases or will they try to get someone to buy the products a 2nd or in some cases 3rd time.

And Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 love the people who likes to do that work. They are the people who pay for the most expensive tiers of their products. But there aren't that many of those people, and in those decades before the license, you didn't really have anything turnkey for online D&D. They likely enjoy the act of writing the scripts to enable the rules, or fall into a same consumer category as pirates in that they were never going to buy WoTC digital products anyways. Also, Those people who are locked into those platforms may be swayed to the One D&D VTT by it's other features, namely the AAA looking 3d maps and minis. Assuming WoTC sticks the landing and it's able to run on lower powered machines, It will likely launch with parity and major differentiators in the map making and game running. WoTC also has an additional advantage, they don't need their system to be able to handle any and all mechanics, it just has to handle a single edition of D&D.

WoTC doesn't need to steal all the players. Just most of them. D&D is far and away the most commonly played game on VTT platforms. Losing the bulk of those players would cripple the other VTT's. WoTC may buy out some of them if there is a piece of tech worth incorporating into their in house system, but for the most part they can likely get away with just opening up some positions and poaching key employees.

The marketing for this new VTT will help with the conversion rate as well. They get Critical Roll and Dimension 20 to run some streams incorporating it and you just converted a major portion of the player base.
 
If they are really smart they will leverage the D&D beyond data, and give anyone who regularly bought 5e AP's for other VTT sweetheart loss-leader deals to move over to OneVTT.

I suspect they won't take this kind of targeted marketing approach, opens the possibility of lawsuits. I think it's more likely that they will just do a lot of discount codes and may take a page out of the Games-As-A-Service model and run some free weekends where certain bits of premium content are free. They may run a great early bird annual subscription discount for the first week. They probably won't have to spend too much on the marketing either. They pay Critical Role and Dimension 20 to run a mini campaign using the system. The other content creators are all going to cover it anyways. It's also totally possible that they launch and don't run any sales, to see how far the D&D name will carry them.

They are definitely going to have some sort of tutorial module(s) available for free that is going to teach players and GM's how everything works, and gives them a taste of the paid tiers.
 
People are really calling doom before it comes out, aren't they?
 
People are really calling doom before it comes out, aren't they?

What's that saying? America sneezes and the world catches a cold? In the TTRPG world, D&D is that only an order of magnitude higher.
 
Ok but how does that justify the decision to shut down support for AD&D 1&2e products on FG? Is the thinking those buyer are going to come over? By the logic you presented those older modules would also require some conversion to use with 5e which seems to exclude them from being worth worrying about.

All we can do is speculate, but if WOTC is planning to use the classic modules as the backbone of immediate content for play on release of One D&D, it's not a big stretch that they woudn't want there to be any way to easily play those modules in other systems (or easily compare the current version of those modules, presuming they're updated for an audience who is critical of TSR products for reasons strictly outside of their play).

But we're not the reason they would make any particular decision. Any strategies they implement for OneD&D are going to be considering people who start with OneD&D, not people transitioning to OneD&D. We are declining assets.

The limit isn't SRD only but it does exclude WotC specific IP.

Most companies won't see TSR vs Mayfair Games as a victory for Mayfair Games. Established VTTs have assets, they have vulnerabilities.
 
All we can do is speculate, but if WOTC is planning to use the classic modules as the backbone of immediate content for play on release of One D&D, it's not a big stretch that they woudn't want there to be any way to easily play those modules in other systems (or easily compare the current version of those modules, presuming they're updated for an audience who is critical of TSR products for reasons strictly outside of their play).

It's weird. They allowed cooccuring modules for all of 5e. Tales of the Yawning Portal is just updated versions of earlier modules and that was a success. The idea of trying to blackhole information in the internet age is just a fail.
But we're not the reason they would make any particular decision. Any strategies they implement for OneD&D are going to be considering people who start with OneD&D, not people transitioning to OneD&D. We are declining assets.



Most companies won't see TSR vs Mayfair Games as a victory for Mayfair Games. Established VTTs have assets, they have vulnerabilities.
I wouldn't compare it to TSR vs Mayfair. I'd compare it to WotC vs OSR more.
 
wouldn't compare it to TSR vs Mayfair. I'd compare it to WotC vs OSR more.
The OSR is built on limiting your use to the SRD - a requirement to qualify for claiming the safe harbor of the OGL. To go outside of the SRD is to use the Mayfair model of depending upon a judge agreeing your use is fair use. People/companies with assets at risk don't put them at risk for the marginal return of using non-SRD content.
 
The OSR is built on limiting your use to the SRD - a requirement to qualify for claiming the safe harbor of the OGL. To go outside of the SRD is to use the Mayfair model of depending upon a judge agreeing your use is fair use. People/companies with assets at risk don't put them at risk for the marginal return of using non-SRD content.
I think I need to understand what you're talking about by "limited to the SRD" because from what I'm think people have been blowing past "just the SRD" for two decades now and WotC has no hope of stuffing that back into a bottle.
I agree I can't use Yuan-Ti but I can make a knock off of them with little WotC can do about it so long as I use new names, images and different description text.
 
The difference is you're saying "OK, I don't have the license to Coca-Cola anymore but they can't stop me from making Sam's Club Cola".

Yes, concur. They can't stop you from making Sam's Club Cola. Sam's Club Cola is not a threat. The impact it will have is primarily felt in the declining asset of people who've been playing D&D long enough to "know". Someone who's new to One D&D is not very likely to recognize, or switch to, your Sam's Cola Yuan-Ti. WOTC frankly doesn't care if you go elsewhere, and drink Sam's Club.

The OSR took off because it could once again *safely* unlock the use of D&D terminology, not because it modeled early 1980s Judges Guild "hits to kill" and other alternate terminology. Doing alternate terminology is just different enough to exist and not thrive.

You can't use D&D terminology *safely* outside of the SRD if you have assets. And if I have VTT technology I'm not going to want to put myself in the position of Mayfair, who technically won the case but lost the war. It's very common in tech to acquire a rival's technology by patent lawfaring them into oblivion, and then buying them out on the cheap as a settlement. This isn't a patent situation, but the dynamic could apply. If WOTC's building a VTT, buying a rival's tech on the cheap is an attractive proposition.
 
Last edited:
The difference is you're saying "OK, I don't have the license to Coca-Cola anymore but they can't stop me from making Sam's Club Cola".

Yes, concur. They can't stop you from making Sam's Club Cola. Sam's Club Cola is not a threat. The impact it will have is primarily felt in the declining asset of people who've been playing D&D long enough to "know". Someone who's new to One D&D is not very likely to recognize, or switch to, your Sam's Cola Yuan-Ti. WOTC frankly doesn't care if you go elsewhere, and drink Sam's Club.

The OSR took off because it could once again *safely* unlock the use of D&D terminology, not because it modeled early 1980s Judges Guild "hits to kill" and other alternate terminology. Doing alternate terminology is just different enough to exist and not thrive.
Ok so we're on the same page as far as what the OGL limits you to. I think you are looking way too far back in history to make a comparison. The most recent and relevant history to me is 3.X to 4E transition. Large number of people came in to D&D, invested large sums of money into the system and then unceremoniously said "We're invalidating you and there's nothing you can do. Join our onerous system or suck eggs!" (look at the original third party open license to 4e for that) The response was Paizo. That certainly thrived and still does. The lesson there might be for the various VTT's to create a knock off 5e and get Paizo to publish adventures for it. Solves a lot of 2nd stringers issues. I mean Frog God Games seems to be stepping up with 5e modules. Are we at another one of those odd points where a decision to try and grab it all creates a stronger competitor than just continuing to allow licensing. I dunno. I mean that takes a lot of effort by someone and I don't know if anyone is up for it but it would be interesting if Roll20, FG, Frog God Games and Paizo got in a room and said how can we take this and use it to our advantage.
 
The most recent and relevant history to me is 3.X to 4E transition. Large number of people came in to D&D, invested large sums of money into the system and then unceremoniously said "We're invalidating you and there's nothing you can do. Join our onerous system or suck eggs!" (look at the original third party open license to 4e for that) The response was Paizo. That certainly thrived and still does.
I think WOTC learned their lesson here, because they aren't duplicating the 3E/4E transition. One D&D isn't supposed to be a departure from a mechanical system many people like, but instead entirely backwards compatible with it. Instead of pushing a fan base off a cliff, they're slowly transitioning the ruleset over time in increments. There won't be any large fan base lacking access to the basic system they desire to run games in, for someone to waltz in and unlock for them.

So IMO the more recent example is already irrelevant. The set-up here is entirely different. What would Pathfinder look like if it had tried to launch in an era where 4E looked almost exactly like what Pathfinder was, except first to market? That's your SWOT case.

Or perhaps even more closely, "if someone had tried to make a 3.0 clone after 3.5 launched in 2003, would it have supported a medium sized company's expenses with the revenue it generated?"
 
I think WOTC learned their lesson here, because they aren't duplicating the 3E/4E transition. One D&D isn't supposed to be a departure from a mechanical system many people like, but instead entirely backwards compatible with it. Instead of pushing a fan base off a cliff, they're slowly transitioning the ruleset over time in increments. There won't be any large fan base lacking access to the basic system they desire to run games in, for someone to waltz in and unlock for them.

So IMO the more recent example is already irrelevant. The set-up here is entirely different. What would Pathfinder look like if it had tried to launch in an era where 4E looked almost exactly like what Pathfinder was, except first to market? That's your SWOT case.

Or perhaps even more closely, "if someone had tried to make a 3.0 clone after 3.5 launched in 2003, would it have supported a medium sized company's expenses with the revenue it generated?"
I mostly agree with you except the schism wasnt totally the rules changes in the 3.x-4x transition. It was also investment and control changes. The 3.x tossed away the investment players had made in books in the 2000 era. I wouldnt be totally surprised to see in the last two years much of the investment was made in digital purchases. A large percent will have been in D&D Beyond. That's a group that's largely going to be indifferent to a VTT change if all their assets move over which I think they will. I'm a FG guy. Others are Roll20 & Foundry. All those people are getting the same experience as the transition from 3.x to 4. All my money spent becomes less useful if I can't find players and quality premade adventures on my preferred VTT. I'm certainly biased since I've been using FG since 2008. I want to play more than just D&D5e so I'll stick with it. I own most of this in both Hardcopy and on FG. I'm not buying it a 3rd time. It seems weird to alienate me as a fairly loyal and spending customer but it's a business decision.

A game is about GMs, players and content. GM's are for the most part the whales. Most of us are the ones buying the VTT assets. I have to think there is a niche for servicing the GM's who don't want to switch VTT's and repurchase but we'll see.
 
A game is about GMs, players and content. GM's are for the most part the whales. Most of us are the ones buying the VTT assets. I have to think there is a niche for servicing the GM's who don't want to switch VTT's and repurchase but we'll see.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said above, but this is one area where we diverge. I don't think the GMs are the whales. I think the players are. I know a lot of GMs who glumly use Roll20 even though they hate it, because there's more players willing to use it than FG or Foundry. So if I were designing a VTT, my priority #1 would be to make it so the players didn't want to play anywhere else. And I would be very confident the GMs would eventually follow.

Even if they had to pay out again. This is a hobby where people buy the same basic rule system over and over for the art/layout. It's not a hobby where "buying it once" is a thing.
 
Last edited:
Ok but how does that justify the decision to shut down support for AD&D 1&2e products on FG? Is the thinking those buyer are going to come over? By the logic you presented those older modules would also require some conversion to use with 5e which seems to exclude them from being worth worrying about.

Because they are probably going to do 5e conversions in-house for OneVTT.

OneVTT needs lots of content right out of the gate to get people to jump in and give it a try.

WotC does not care about AD&D grognards that will not come over.

All Official D&D material will be in one place. Period.

That is the only way OneVTT can work. They will not prop up their competitors in any way.


Assuming WoTC sticks the landing and it's able to run on lower powered machines, It will likely launch with parity and major differentiators in the map making and game running. WoTC also has an additional advantage, they don't need their system to be able to handle any and all mechanics, it just has to handle a single edition of D&D.

WoTC doesn't need to steal all the players. Just most of them. D&D is far and away the most commonly played game on VTT platforms. Losing the bulk of those players would cripple the other VTT's. WoTC may buy out some of them if there is a piece of tech worth incorporating into their in house system, but for the most part they can likely get away with just opening up some positions and poaching key employees.

^^THIS^^

WotC D&D has the network effect going for them hugely right now. They just need to channel enough of them over to the One VTT to make it viable.

People love their "official" D&D. And One VTT will be very "Official" D&D...


I suspect they won't take this kind of targeted marketing approach, opens the possibility of lawsuits. I think it's more likely that they will just do a lot of discount codes and may take a page out of the Games-As-A-Service model and run some free weekends where certain bits of premium content are free. They may run a great early bird annual subscription discount for the first week.

Many companies do, and have done loss-leader releases with no legal challenges. Video game console makers have done so many times.

What will their competitors sue them over?

None of the other VTT companies will want to self-immolate themselves with the legal fees taking on WotC's deep pockets would entail.


People are really calling doom before it comes out, aren't they?

Who?

I see a few people being very cynical about WotC's ability to have the One VTT not be crap. But other than that it seems most see the One VTT doing very well at launch if they are even halfway competent...


Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said above, but this is one area where we diverge. I don't think the GMs are the whales. I think the players are. I know a lot of GMs who glumly use Roll20 even though they hate it, because there's more players willing to use it than FG or Foundry.

I quibble.

GM's are the whales, but it takes much less effort to attract players when you are playing the game / on the platform with the dominant player network.

OneVTT wants to be that network for D&D. And if they stick the landing I see no reason why they won't.
 
Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said above, but this is one area where we diverge. I don't think the GMs are the whales. I think the players are. I know a lot of GMs who glumly use Roll20 even though they hate it, because there's more players willing to use it than FG or Foundry. So if I were designing a VTT, my priority #1 would be to make it so the players didn't want to play anywhere else. And I would be very confident the GMs would eventually follow.

Even if they had to pay out again. This is a hobby where people buy the same basic rule system over and over for the art/layout. It's not a hobby where "buying it once" is a thing.
So depends on how you define whales I suppose. Players outnumber by a good amount so sales of player facing items will sell more dollars but dollars per person I suspect a GM is by far the whale. I can see your strategy of making it very player focused but if you forget the GM focus you end up at a frat party with no booze. I'm guessing the ones using Roll20 are trying to play something other than 5e because I'd be a bit surprised if you couldn't find enough 5e players on any of the major VTTs. Ultimately you have to have enough of each. All I need in 2-6 players. That doesn't seem too hard to find for any VTT.
 
I don't look at these things from my own vantage point, because I write for OSRIC so there's already zero chance I'm going to switch.

But in terms of the frat party analogy, I'd use it differently. The GMs might be the booze, but the players are the girls. Which one wins the rush?

in any event, it's all just predicting and guessing, so it doesn't matter at this point. I'm making predictions not because I'm certain I'm right, but because I'm curious to see if they come true. If they come true then I can be more confident in making other predictions/choices that are more personal/relevant. This one we're discussing isn't really either of those.

So, TL;DR - I certainly hope you are right and the other VTT landscapes thrive regardless. We will see.
 
Who?

I see a few people being very cynical about WotC's ability to have the One VTT not be crap. But other than that it seems most see the One VTT doing very well at launch if they are even halfway competent...
Doom in terms of other VTTs and their ability to exist.
 
Many companies do, and have done loss-leader releases with no legal challenges. Video game console makers have done so many times.

What will their competitors sue them over?

None of the other VTT companies will want to self-immolate themselves with the legal fees taking on WotC's deep pockets would entail.

The idea I was responding to was to use the data obtained from current VTT sales to do targeted discounting to those VTT's customer base. Depending on the contracts they have, it could be a breach of contract to use that data to directly compete. It would be easier and cleaner to just do public FOMO discounts at launch to get people to sign up for that annual subscription and lock everyone in. If we're assuming that all other VTT's will be in danger collapsing quickly, it could make since to attempt to at least get a settlement from WoTC before closing up shop.

The big problem with the VTT's I've tried (Fantasy Grounds, Roll20) is that they have super clunky interfaces that are not intuitive to use. If WoTC is able to create that streamlined experience, they will likely attract customers who wrote off VTT's as difficult to use.

So depends on how you define whales I suppose. Players outnumber by a good amount so sales of player facing items will sell more dollars but dollars per person I suspect a GM is by far the whale. I can see your strategy of making it very player focused but if you forget the GM focus you end up at a frat party with no booze. I'm guessing the ones using Roll20 are trying to play something other than 5e because I'd be a bit surprised if you couldn't find enough 5e players on any of the major VTTs. Ultimately you have to have enough of each. All I need in 2-6 players. That doesn't seem too hard to find for any VTT.

GM's are definitely the Whales in the current VTT market. But in the FTP Mobile market, you still need a large population of minnows to keep things fun for the whales. Where's the fun in paying to win if there is no one to flex over. GM's are buying the modules, pdf's, and subscription tiers. Players, as a hyper generalization, are very adverse to change and learning more than they have to, so once you get your player population in, they will try to stay so they don't need to learn new systems. So a GM may prefer to move to a different platform, but if their friends don't want to learn a new system, there's not a lot the GM can do beside not play with them. It's a very similar problem to the GM who wants to run Blades in the Dark but the group refuses to play anything but 5e. However, WoTC has an extra layer of legitimacy behind it. Roll20 being browser based was a huge advantage early on and helped them build a mass of users that are difficult to shift, but when you choices are move or lose out on official content, most will move.

The other thing that could turn a lot of this around will be the 3d model market. While the DM is likely to be happy with getting the occasional bundle of enemy options and clicking randomize, Players will be much more likely to spend hours creating the perfect character model and the best animation packages for them. Then you get to nickel and dime them for the premium options. I could also see WoTC possibly splitting out class and subclass content into an additional Microtransation for players. Instead of spending $30 for the latest module, the player can buy the one subclass that sounds really cool for $3. DM's will likely be the large spikes in cash flow as they buy the latest module for all it's tiles, prebuilt encounters, and monster models, the players are going to be a constant stream of smaller but more consistent transactions.
I would also imagine that Adventurer's League will turn into something like Battlepasses for online shooters. Your subscription gets you access to the general AL pool to play in (with preferred matchmaking with your friends list) and you get small tile packs, character options, and monster models to add to your collection. Run through the mini module written for the month/quarter. GMing AL would likely be a free activity which provides benefits to the GM's who run for randos, Wonder if GM's would be able to earn major subscription discounts or free months for running x AL games?
 
People are really calling doom before it comes out, aren't they?
Also all of this assumes that the OneVTT technical team is actually competent. The explicit support of a rule set and adventures are nice but it is Dwarven Forge nice. It not necessary to the basic functionally of a VTT just as DF is not necessary for a face to face session to work. The result is that if OneVTT sucks people are not going to make the shift or return to the VTTs that do not suck.
 
Also all of this assumes that the OneVTT technical team is actually competent. The explicit support of a rule set and adventures are nice but it is Dwarven Forge nice. It not necessary to the basic functionally of a VTT just as DF is not necessary for a face to face session to work. The result is that if OneVTT sucks people are not going to make the shift or return to the VTTs that do not suck.
Absolutely this. However, considering there is an actual development team behind it and WoTC has been bringing in former Microsoft and Xbox people into key leadership roles, It's likely a safe assumption that it's going to work at launch. If the need to go live without full functionality, I feel like they could get away with not coding in abilities for 11th-20th level in the beginning, but they would need to get that out the door fast.
 
Absolutely this. However, considering there is an actual development team behind it and WoTC has been bringing in former Microsoft and Xbox people into key leadership roles, It's likely a safe assumption that it's going to work at launch. If the need to go live without full functionality, I feel like they could get away with not coding in abilities for 11th-20th level in the beginning, but they would need to get that out the door fast.
How is this any different than development teams Wizards or Hasbro used in the past? It not like this team ever produced anything in the past. It is in the same boat as any other startup.
 
How is this any different than development teams Wizards or Hasbro used in the past? It not like this team ever produced anything in the past. It is in the same boat as any other startup.
I believe this development team is part of the D&D Beyond team, who have delivered successful products. The other major difference is that in the previous attempts, WoTC and Hasbro were game and toy companies who would license out their IP and not have a lot of in house development. They have been running software development teams since they took over MGT Online. Also, Game engines, especially Unity, have come a long way in usability and 3rd party components. WoTC has been working to grow there talent on that side of the business and I personally believe they bought D&D Beyond because they've already proven to WoTC that they could build the VTT in addition to the proven value of the platform to in person play. So the biggest difference from previous attempts is that it's not a product being done through a 3rd party and WoTC now has the leadership and experience to properly run a software company combined with improvements in game engines that makes it even easier to build them.
 
The idea I was responding to was to use the data obtained from current VTT sales to do targeted discounting to those VTT's customer base. Depending on the contracts they have, it could be a breach of contract to use that data to directly compete. It would be easier and cleaner to just do public FOMO discounts at launch to get people to sign up for that annual subscription and lock everyone in. If we're assuming that all other VTT's will be in danger collapsing quickly, it could make since to attempt to at least get a settlement from WoTC before closing up shop. ...

Well, WotC owns D&D beyond - it's their data.

I wouldn't think that they would allow a contract that will not allow them to use their own sales data.

They are the ones doing the non WotC VTT's a favor by allowing the use of official D&D product with their VTT. IMO it's more likely that the don't have such restrictions than that they do.

They would be silly not to go loss-leader with proven AP and adventure module buyers..


I believe this development team is part of the D&D Beyond team, who have delivered successful products. The other major difference is that in the previous attempts, WoTC and Hasbro were game and toy companies who would license out their IP and not have a lot of in house development. They have been running software development teams since they took over MGT Online. Also, Game engines, especially Unity, have come a long way in usability and 3rd party components. WoTC has been working to grow there talent on that side of the business and I personally believe they bought D&D Beyond because they've already proven to WoTC that they could build the VTT in addition to the proven value of the platform to in person play. So the biggest difference from previous attempts is that it's not a product being done through a 3rd party and WoTC now has the leadership and experience to properly run a software company combined with improvements in game engines that makes it even easier to build them.

The other notable point here is that VTT's are already a proven technology.

WotC is not inventing something new - just releasing their refinement of what has already been proven to work.

There are more circumstances in their favor than against for them on this.
 
The other notable point here is that VTT's are already a proven technology.

WotC is not inventing something new - just releasing their refinement of what has already been proven to work.
That sounds a lot like what senior management would say. VTTs are not a technology- they're a use of technologies to make a product. Without the benefit of OSS, they have a lot to pick from in terms of requirements and UX, but not the underlying code and performance tweaks on said code. It's all green field development work, and they'd be best served by taking their time and treating it as such.
 
I love FG but expecting WotC VTT to fail seems like a bad idea. Here's some things that have changed since 4e. Hasbro is now headed by an ex WotC Head vs a toy/games head. That's a pro towards getting the mothership on board with WotC plans vs in the past. WotC is now headed by someone coming from an enterprise software company (Microsoft). I think they can release a decent VTT. I think where it gets risky is they aren't trying to release a decent VTT. They're trying to release a cutting edge VTT. They don't have to my knowledge a fully proven functional dev team beyond D&D Beyond. I have no clue how competent they are in the areas they'll need for a 3d VTT.
 
That sounds a lot like what senior management would say. VTTs are not a technology- they're a use of technologies to make a product. Without the benefit of OSS, they have a lot to pick from in terms of requirements and UX, but not the underlying code and performance tweaks on said code. It's all green field development work, and they'd be best served by taking their time and treating it as such.

True. But they aren't exactly having to re-invent the wheel here either.

And WotC has hired people with a track record of producing results.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top