Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 31, 2022, 11:07:14 PM
The real agenda of D&D One online is the following:

I disagree. The real agenda is to placate executives at Hasbro (not at WotC, but higher up) who do not understand why such a well-known brand as D&D which even has a Netflix tie-in isn't bringing in a constant revenue stream like other well-known Hasbro brands like Magic: the Gathering, Monopoly, etc.

I half expected D&D 4 to be what they tried with the corresponding edition of Gamma World: character abilities as M:tG collectible cards. That would provide the revenue stream Hasbro execs expect for such a well-known brand.

M:tG is explainable as "geek baseball cards" and has the revenue to match. Wizards needs to find a way to make D&D just as easily to explain and create a similar revenue stream.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 31, 2022, 11:14:02 PM
It's a shame they won't just ask customers what they want.  That's how a smart company does business.  It's much easier to sell someone what they already want.

This isn't about customers. It's about numbers for executives in Providence. They want WoW or M:tG numbers for a famous brand.

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 01, 2022, 12:31:16 AM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 31, 2022, 11:07:14 PM
The real agenda of D&D One online is the following:

I disagree. The real agenda is to placate executives at Hasbro (not at WotC, but higher up) who do not understand why such a well-known brand as D&D which even has a Netflix tie-in isn't bringing in a constant revenue stream like other well-known Hasbro brands like Magic: the Gathering, Monopoly, etc.

I half expected D&D 4 to be what they tried with the corresponding edition of Gamma World: character abilities as M:tG collectible cards. That would provide the revenue stream Hasbro execs expect for such a well-known brand.

M:tG is explainable as "geek baseball cards" and has the revenue to match. Wizards needs to find a way to make D&D just as easily to explain and create a similar revenue stream.

Exactly, and to do so they need to turn the players/GMs into eternal paypigs with their Games as a Service OneD&D.

It's not about providing value to their consumers, it's not for the poor creators, it's to line the pockets of the shareholders.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 01:29:22 AM
Exactly, and to do so they need to turn the players/GMs into eternal paypigs with their Games as a Service OneD&D.

It's not about providing value to their consumers, it's not for the poor creators, it's to line the pockets of the shareholders.

Agreed.

The West Coast has always hated the D&D brand, because it originated in the Midwest.

Owning it is revenge.
Milking it dry is a bonus.
Locking it up under IP law so no one can revive it is Final Victory.

And advancing the progressive agenda through brand content is pure gravy.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
...

I absolutely agree that Wizards has been an absolutely shitty company and betrayed a lot of trust. But that's been true for a very long time. (I'd say starting about the time just after AD&D was released, but I'm a cynic.)

I'm not sure why people can't just handle the idea of Games as a Service and different ways it might be done well from weather Wizards is going to do it well.

There's no question that Wizards is going to do a shit job of it. I'm not sure there's more than two posters who have posted to this forum in the last five years who aren't in agreement that is 87% likely, if not more.
...

Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 01, 2022, 08:43:01 AM

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
...

I absolutely agree that Wizards has been an absolutely shitty company and betrayed a lot of trust. But that's been true for a very long time. (I'd say starting about the time just after AD&D was released, but I'm a cynic.)

I'm not sure why people can't just handle the idea of Games as a Service and different ways it might be done well from weather Wizards is going to do it well.

There's no question that Wizards is going to do a shit job of it. I'm not sure there's more than two posters who have posted to this forum in the last five years who aren't in agreement that is 87% likely, if not more.
...

Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

That's one of the problems with this hypothetical pie in the sky "good" implementation of a GAAS model; it's not based on anything real that's actually going on (or likely to be the way it's actually implemented), but some idealized notion of what GAAS could potentially (mayyybe) be. And that idealized GAAS model still ignores ALL the other pitfalls of such a system: perpetually paying for access to content you'll never own vs actually owning the books, being locked out of the game when the servers go down, being limited to options that have been programmed into the system vs being able to homebrew/improvise stuff, etc. Pitfalls that will happen, regardless of how that GAAS is implemented.

And it all hinges on the "service" being able to provide some hypothetical "value" we have no guarantee it will consistently provide. And the moment it stops providing it (assuming that it ever did), you can of course always cancel your subscription—and have NOTHING to show for it once it lapses.

Right now I can get a core books and whatever supplements I actually want (no, a supplement treadmill I can simply ignore is not in anyway comparable to a sub) and if I stop shelling dollars I still get to keep what I already got. With GAAS all that stuff goes away.

People that fall for "Games as service" BS are the sorts that say doing coke is a hobby.

These weak willed addicts are ruining videogames, and Im not suprised they justify it in other hobbies.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 01, 2022, 08:43:01 AM
Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

If that encourages some other players in the space to get involved and do things differently, even if slightly differently, and those differences are better – we get better things. If it encourages other players in the space to get involved and do things extremely differently because it's not always great to sell something that is exactly like something else in the market, even better for us.

The core of your argument is just as easily read "if Wizards publishes what we think of as a bad D&D that becomes popular, how is that good for us? Isn't it better they just published no D&D at all?"

Which I'm sure there are some supporters of in this forum, but I think that is ultimately unhealthy on multiple levels. And, pointedly, I don't even like D&D or the community that's grown up around it in these latter days, but I consider it good for the hobby and good for the industry, such as it is, that they have a successful game out there.

If only so that if someone asks "what's that thing you're doing?", I can reply "it's kind of like D&D except way better!" and they have a chance of understanding what I'm talking about.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 09:46:50 AM
perpetually paying for access to content you'll never own vs actually owning the books

It's more than pay-to-access: you'll be able to purchase power-ups for your character, so it's also pay-to-win. Similar to Magic, but without the option to roll your own around your own private gaming table.

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better

That argument can be made for ANYTHING. "Yes the mongols are poor caretakers but maybe one of them will be good one day". More realistically it opens up the possibility of even more exploitation in the future.

Star Trek was better off dead then revived as the clusterfuck it is now. "Making bad content is better then no content" is a lie.

Do you have a monetary stake in this or something?

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 01, 2022, 08:43:01 AM
Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they never are.

In theory, a games as service could work.  In practice, the hurdles are insurmountable. 

Let's take something like the Microsoft Office subscription service.  In contrast to WotC, whatever else you want to say about Microsoft, they do have some experience doing things as services (including a lot of experience doing it the wrong way, but that's not necessarily a net negative in the long run if that is your thing).  I'm in my 50's, I've used Office professionally and personally since 1990, continuously.  I can afford the sub.  It's only real perk is that it comes with multiple licenses--exactly the number of licenses I need.  So I can afford it, I need to keep it semi-upgraded, and it's a mild price smoothing and benefit for my situation.  For me, as the ideal customer for their service--it's more or less a wash on meeting my needs, compared to the way I used to buy a license.  Sometimes they force an upgrade when I'd rather not, but after 32 years, I'm wise to how to navigate that.  As it happens, the latest change to the UI on styles is highly annoying for how I like to work--and it will be another major change before they fix the problem, at least.  So I'd skip the current version if I could.

Now let's extrapolate this out to a WotC D&D game as service.  How many people are going to fit the ideal of how they intend it to work?  How close are they going to come to the ideal in implementation?  When it doesn't work, what options will be available to work around it?  And the biggest question of all--if it is going to be so great and wonderful, why is it that they have it as the only option to force everyone into it?  Companies that manage to turn a good product into a halfway decent service learn pretty darn quick that the first thing you do is make the subscription an option for early adopters, so that you can work out some of the kinks.

SquidLord is being blinded by the elevator pitch.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 01, 2022, 10:38:28 AM

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better

That argument can be made for ANYTHING. "Yes the mongols are poor caretakers but maybe one of them will be good one day". More realistically it opens up the possibility of even more exploitation in the future.

Yup it's basically more arguments on the basis of empty hypotheticals that aren't really that way, we have no reason to believe they will be, but theoretically they COULD be (possibly, mayyybe).

Quote
Star Trek was better off dead then revived as the clusterfuck it is now. "Making bad content is better then no content" is a lie.

Do you have a monetary stake in this or something?

I have to wonder.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 01, 2022, 10:50:55 AMSquidLord is being blinded by the elevator pitch.

Or a self-conscious content addict.

"Its not an addiction, you guys are just passing up a potentially great experience!"

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 08:53:55 PM
...
GAAS could just as easily be focused on the support architecture for a game experience. Sell an irrevocable app or book and then sell support software, digital environments, the whole 9 yards with the expectation that updates would come regularly and as part of whatever mechanism that services paid for.

One could make the strong argument that we have several examples of GAAS that go back to the beginning of what could be thought of as the tabletop gaming industry. Miniature wargaming very much functions on that kind of a model, with the service being the production and maintenance of miniatures and officially recognized mechanical updates on a regular basis.
...

True, true.  Games Works has that grind/exploit nailed down tight.  When my son and his friends wanted to get into WH40K, I specifically told them, "You're only renting the game.  In a few years, the rules will change again."  GW is genius (in a most vile way) to build a culture where only the very latest rules and minis were considered acceptable to tournament (and often daily) play.  Of course, that really does work out as an Anti-GAAS message to me.  But hey, if you're a soul-less crack house, you still have to pay the bills.

I have only ever seen one of those microtransactions models done in a pro-consumer way once.

The base game was free. Play was on a daily timer limit, but you could spend cash to permanently unlimit it. And there was a 60$ spending csp so it didn't keep you on a money hook.

It was exclusively pro-consumer. But nobody has adapted that model since. Because it was pro-consumer.