I too am very curious as to what kind of microtransactions they come up with, and whether these will be game-breaking, or purely cosmetic.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 16, 2022, 09:56:17 AM

Quote from: Zaxxon on December 16, 2022, 08:15:05 AMI'm not really clear on what this micro-transactions would be. Purchase of individual customized "miniatures"?

Since they haven't announced anything concrete we can only speculate. But, as I pointed out earlier, many of the cosmetic items for gamers are already available. You can pay for character sketches (something I've seen since the 1980s) for your virtual character sheet. As for miniatures, take a look a HeroForge.com. This is a company that builds custom miniatures (for 3d printing) based on choosing from a variety of poses, clothing, and weapon options. If this was centralized within the VTT app, the software could create a new miniature design automatically based on the equipment that is on the character sheet. The way these typically work is that the base game includes a small selection of generic items but you can purchase more exotic or cool looking items for money.

In addition to cosmetic, there is always the option for Hasbro to charge a player a small fee for each character class or 'species" that the character wants to play. Either with cash or some sort of virtual currency. And if you want to go further, allowing the purchase of in-game items (potions for instance) is also an option. Remember that the VTT is controlling the amount of gold that a player can earn so this gold can be treated as a virtual currency within the app. Take a look at the documents for WotC Adventurer's League organized play to see what it might look like:

https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/ddal_fr_dmsguidev11_0.pdf

As Chris24601 pointed out though, this is entirely dependent on whether or not Hasbro is willing to invest in creating (or buying) the software needed for such integration.

My God, can you be a shill anymore for WoTC?
Only a fool would think they haven''t made their decision.
the problem you've failed to acknowledge is this: Hasbro/WoTC doesn't look at the players of D&D as PLAYERS. They see them as CONSUMERS. There is a huge difference. The ones who want to go into this direction have never even played the game. They're trying to turn D&D into a 100% VTT environment in which THEY control the content.
Control.
We've already seen what sort of "control" they want. Removing the term "race" from the rule books? Eliminate alignments?
From the DM perspective, what sort of material are they going to allow in a virtual environment they control? What if you have content they consider "problematic" or "not politically correct". What happened to freedom?
Some soulless corporation is not going to dictate to me what they think is acceptable or not. I saw where this was leading to back when 4e was released, and that was an epic failure.
And now they want to make it a lifestyle brand ( the movie coming out in March. I wonder how much cringe is in it.) What arrogance that they think they can make it work today vs. what TSR tried years ago, and that ended in failure too.
D&D is the McDonald's of RPGs: it's tasteless, generic, has serious quality control issues, and run by people who see YOU as not a gamer, but a CONSUMER.
Not me. Oh hell no!
but please, Tell us how we have nothing to worry about. It's all fine. Right?
Meanwhile the house is burning down around you.

Quote from: Krazz on December 18, 2022, 01:07:53 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on December 16, 2022, 10:47:16 AM

Quote from: Zaxxon on December 16, 2022, 08:15:05 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 15, 2022, 04:40:36 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on December 14, 2022, 08:14:30 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on December 14, 2022, 08:03:40 PM
Yes.  They think of D&D as a property, they can leverage for revenue.

That is not the worst thing in the world except that if not done carefully they end up alienating their core customers without picking up any of those shiny new customers they so desperately want. Should be interesting to see what happens.

Yes, it will be interesting. I wonder in particular if microtransactions will be popular or rejected by the VTT crowd.

I'm not really clear on what this micro-transactions would be. Purchase of individual customized "miniatures"?

I was thinking more like magic swords and spells, new/rare abilities/skills/feats, etc. Stuff that would make your character bullet proof.

I half want them to make D&D pay-to-win. I wonder how many parties will fall apart because the rich kid has an overpowered paladin, and everyone else waits in the background for him to win every encounter.

Of course, his longsword +5 at first level will only be overpowered for a year. Then he needs to "invest" in a mace +8.

Ah ha! This brings up another issue: DM Fiat.

Can I as a DM say yes or no to stuff players want to bring into my game?

If there isn't, then yep, it'll turn into a "pay to win" with guys with +5 long swords of flame, full plate +4, and a golden Horns of Vahalla.

But if the DM has final say so, then there is some level of control of the DM's game world.

With that being said, if DM fiat is all but eliminated, is it even D&D anymore?

Quote from: Krazz on December 18, 2022, 01:07:53 PM
I half want them to make D&D pay-to-win. I wonder how many parties will fall apart because the rich kid has an overpowered paladin, and everyone else waits in the background for him to win every encounter.

Of course, his longsword +5 at first level will only be overpowered for a year. Then he needs to "invest" in a mace +8.

I really don't think that they will do pay to win straight out of the gate.

WotC is already starting to get a lot of flack as it is becoming more and more obvious that they will not update the OGL, and will likely go to a more restrictive 4e GSL style structure for 'official' 3pp vs what they have been doing with the 5e SRD.

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 20, 2022, 12:04:23 PM
I too am very curious as to what kind of microtransactions they come up with, and whether these will be game-breaking, or purely cosmetic.

Purely cosmetic is all they really need to rake in big money.

Epic is paying out on a huge lawsuit over Fortnights micortransactions:
https://www.polygon.com/23516827/fortnite-epic-games-ftc-settlement-privacy-refunds-in-game-purchases

Just do a search for: microtransactions and gambling psychology

You don't need loot boxes and pay to win to bite into that. 'Exclusive' and limited edition skins, and other items to decorate your PC will be enough to trigger FOMO buying from people heavily invested in the OneVTT.

Outside of that is the wider effect a large OneVTT ecosystem will have on WotC D&D as a game.

I believe that how things work in the OneVTT will be used as 'official' rulings for live play. I really think that the OneVTT ecosystem will have a wide and unpredictable spillover effect on how people play WotC D&D live.

Certainly no rules or adventures will be released in print that are unable to be used in a 1:1 fashion on the OneVTT.

Quote from: blackstone on December 20, 2022, 01:23:04 PMthe problem you've failed to acknowledge is this: Hasbro/WoTC doesn't look at the players of D&D as PLAYERS. They see them as CONSUMERS. There is a huge difference. The ones who want to go into this direction have never even played the game. They're trying to turn D&D into a 100% VTT environment in which THEY control the content.

Of course that's what they want to do; to move all the spending in the "D&D Hobby" into their own ecosystem. Want a rulebook? Buy it in the app. Want a miniature? Buy it in the app. An adventure? Buy that in the app as well. Even third party content will be sold in the app so WotC will get their cut. And I wouldn't be surprised if third party content has to follow WotC's Diversity guidelines and has to be approved by an official Cultural Sensitivity Commissar.

Quotebut please, Tell us how we have nothing to worry about. It's all fine. Right?
Meanwhile the house is burning down around you.

I play a game i wrote myself in a setting I created. One D&D affects me as much as if the WNBA raised their ticket prices.

Quote from: blackstone on December 20, 2022, 01:30:51 PMCan I as a DM say yes or no to stuff players want to bring into my game?

If there isn't, then yep, it'll turn into a "pay to win" with guys with +5 long swords of flame, full plate +4, and a golden Horns of Vahalla.

But if the DM has final say so, then there is some level of control of the DM's game world.

This is why I suspect that they will move to import the Adventurer's League rules into the VTT. By having paid DMs run official adventures, WotC can control exactly how much gold and XP are awarded to players and what that gold can be spent on. [Meaning they have the door open to players spending real money on in-game gold pieces]

If you are playing with your own group, then that DM might have a bit more control* over what is included, but those characters won't be "official" Adventurer's League characters and, thus, are not eligible to join an organized play adventure.

*Keep in mind that it might be against the user's agreement for DMs to reject certain "marginalized" character types so I don't think DM's will have complete control of their game.

I think WotC's holy grail here is a multiplayer video game that doesn't actually include a game. It has art, animation, character sheets, dice, and rules text, and maybe some programmed rules (like auto calculating hits and damage) but no pesky programming that would tie it all together. The DM becomes a sort of real-time programmer who translates a written scenario into stuff on the screen.

I don't use the more elaborate VTTs but I sort of saw this happening to me when running games online, so I backed off and now just use a whiteboard and video chat when running online.

The benefits are obvious. You don't need to script modules, you can leave that to the DM. So one major issue with actual video games is nullified. Scripting isn't sexy and you can't sell it with a micro transaction. It also takes time and needs patching when inevitable bugs arise. DMs will do that for free and may even pay for the privilege! Art, animation, character sheets, dice, and text can all be sold with micro transactions. Artist and writers are cheaper than programmers and are used to working on contact, so they can be commissioned or not depending on how much $ they bring in thru micro transactions.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 20, 2022, 04:07:49 PM

Quote from: blackstone on December 20, 2022, 01:23:04 PMthe problem you've failed to acknowledge is this: Hasbro/WoTC doesn't look at the players of D&D as PLAYERS. They see them as CONSUMERS. There is a huge difference. The ones who want to go into this direction have never even played the game. They're trying to turn D&D into a 100% VTT environment in which THEY control the content.

Of course that's what they want to do; to move all the spending in the "D&D Hobby" into their own ecosystem. Want a rulebook? Buy it in the app. Want a miniature? Buy it in the app. An adventure? Buy that in the app as well. Even third party content will be sold in the app so WotC will get their cut. And I wouldn't be surprised if third party content has to follow WotC's Diversity guidelines and has to be approved by an official Cultural Sensitivity Commissar.

Quotebut please, Tell us how we have nothing to worry about. It's all fine. Right?
Meanwhile the house is burning down around you.

I play a game i wrote myself in a setting I created. One D&D affects me as much as if the WNBA raised their ticket prices.

that's cool you made your own game. One way to get away from Mc D&D. I went the OSR route YEARS ago. I'm upset by the situation because of what the game has become. It bears NO resemblance to the game Gygax and Arneson created. None. Their names are tied to D&D and this is their legacy. Sad...

Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 20, 2022, 04:14:00 PM

Quote from: blackstone on December 20, 2022, 01:30:51 PMCan I as a DM say yes or no to stuff players want to bring into my game?

If there isn't, then yep, it'll turn into a "pay to win" with guys with +5 long swords of flame, full plate +4, and a golden Horns of Vahalla.

But if the DM has final say so, then there is some level of control of the DM's game world.

This is why I suspect that they will move to import the Adventurer's League rules into the VTT. By having paid DMs run official adventures, WotC can control exactly how much gold and XP are awarded to players and what that gold can be spent on. [Meaning they have the door open to players spending real money on in-game gold pieces]

I see what you're saying, and if this is to occur, then DMs will leave in droves.

If you are playing with your own group, then that DM might have a bit more control* over what is included, but those characters won't be "official" Adventurer's League characters and, thus, are not eligible to join an organized play adventure.

*Keep in mind that it might be against the user's agreement for DMs to reject certain "marginalized" character types so I don't think DM's will have complete control of their game.

I see two possible ways they could monetize 1D&D:
1.) Microtransactional in-game usable items like potions, weapons, armor,etc., that would totally bork the game for everyone who can't or won't spend money on power-ups. (I honestly do not see this happening, at least not at first)
Or
2.) purely cosmetic options for the  VTT, like limiting the amount of virtual minis you can have at any given time ("What's that? You want to make a new mini for your campaign but you used up your three available mini slots? Well, you could delete one of your existing ones, or you could pay $19.99 to open a new slot."), or cosmetic parts for the UI ("I see you're playing Curse of Strahd. Could I interest you in a "Barovia black and gold" set of virtual dice, only $3.99?).

Quote from: Tasty_Wind on December 22, 2022, 10:39:38 AM
I see two possible ways they could monetize 1D&D:
1.) Microtransactional in-game usable items like potions, weapons, armor,etc., that would totally bork the game for everyone who can't or won't spend money on power-ups. (I honestly do not see this happening, at least not at first)
Or
2.) purely cosmetic options for the  VTT, like limiting the amount of virtual minis you can have at any given time ("What's that? You want to make a new mini for your campaign but you used up your three available mini slots? Well, you could delete one of your existing ones, or you could pay $19.99 to open a new slot."), or cosmetic parts for the UI ("I see you're playing Curse of Strahd. Could I interest you in a "Barovia black and gold" set of virtual dice, only $3.99?).

#2 seems the less harmful if just as intrusive. Its the difference between forcing people to pay if they want to play, and using the forum which they own as an opportunity to advertise their products with direct sales. Who knows, maybe they will start advertising for 3rd parties... Do you need a little pep in your step with the ladies? Order now and get your blue pill 25% off!

Quote from: Tasty_Wind on December 22, 2022, 10:39:38 AM
I see two possible ways they could monetize 1D&D:
1.) Microtransactional in-game usable items like potions, weapons, armor,etc., that would totally bork the game for everyone who can't or won't spend money on power-ups. (I honestly do not see this happening, at least not at first)

D&D is a cooperative game, so much of the pay to win problems wouldn't apply. Is anyone really going to be upset if one of the players in the group shows up to a game with four additional healing potions?

A +5 sword at first level would be annoying but I don't see this as "pay to win" == ruined game. It really depends on how it is implemented. There is a similar problem in any TTRPG if you allow players to give treasure or magic items to each other.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 23, 2022, 11:03:02 AM

Quote from: Tasty_Wind on December 22, 2022, 10:39:38 AM
I see two possible ways they could monetize 1D&D:
1.) Microtransactional in-game usable items like potions, weapons, armor,etc., that would totally bork the game for everyone who can't or won't spend money on power-ups. (I honestly do not see this happening, at least not at first)

D&D is a cooperative game, so much of the pay to win problems wouldn't apply. Is anyone really going to be upset if one of the players in the group shows up to a game with four additional healing potions?

A +5 sword at first level would be annoying but I don't see this as "pay to win" == ruined game. It really depends on how it is implemented. There is a similar problem in any TTRPG if you allow players to give treasure or magic items to each other.

I disagree. If was playing in a game where only one or two players who were willing to pay for the goodies and all the rest just sat around and watched, I would lose interest very quickly.

Quote from: squirewaldo on December 23, 2022, 01:43:37 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 23, 2022, 11:03:02 AM
D&D is a cooperative game, so much of the pay to win problems wouldn't apply. Is anyone really going to be upset if one of the players in the group shows up to a game with four additional healing potions?

A +5 sword at first level would be annoying but I don't see this as "pay to win" == ruined game. It really depends on how it is implemented. There is a similar problem in any TTRPG if you allow players to give treasure or magic items to each other.

I disagree. If was playing in a game where only one or two players who were willing to pay for the goodies and all the rest just sat around and watched, I would lose interest very quickly.

I think the model for player-boost content would be the Complete Handbooks of the 2E era, which thus far WotC hasn't put out the equivalent of - though it has put out some partly player-focused supplements like Xanathar's Guide and Tasha's Cauldron. The problem with the Complete Handbooks is that they only had a narrow market. Only a subset of players whose character was that given class would buy the handbook. And there was a bunch of cost for printing and distribution. Likewise, in the WotC era, few players would shell out money to buy their own copy of Xanathar's Guide.

With digital content, the printing and distribution is negligible. Players might not pay big bucks for a 192-page hardbound book like Xanathar's, but they're much more likely to spend $1 or $2 for a new sub-race or sub-class they are interested in.

There's a core critical flaw in the argument here.

If I buy Xanathar's Guide to Everything, I can share it at the table. Everyone can pull stuff from it.

But the microtransaction model we're expecting is stuff where you can't share. If Alice pays the $2 to play a half-dragon, Bob can't play it even if the DM allowed it. If Bob spends $2 on a +5 sword, Alice can't wield it during an adventure.