Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 01, 2022, 10:50:55 AM

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.

I still hate Software as a Service because it's ultimately just a scheme to have people continuously pay for code that was already done decades ago under the notion that you need to pay for all those quality of life changes (like interface updates nobody wants and are really an excuse to sell you software) that you don't really need. It's an artificial way to keep the money flowing their way and prevent you from relying on decades old software that already does everything you truly need.

But when it comes to SAAS, at least you can write it off as a business expense, assuming that you still work in an industry that relies on that software and make enough to cover the costs. But with GAAS you don't even have that. It's just a luxury expense that's just another hole in your pocket, for something that you didn't even need to pay that much before. Professional software can go up to thousands of dollars for an entire suite when purchasing it as a one time fee product, making $10-$50+/mo a viable alternative. Game books don't even cost that much.

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 and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

Real Gaming as a Service has never been tried.

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.

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?

Someone, someday, somewhere, could, maybe, possibly...

Weasel words, can ANYONE point to a single implementation of GAAS that's not to turn the costumer into an eternal paypig with zero rights?

It should be easy, there's several in the Video Game industry. No?

Lets see if widening the scope helps, can ANYONE point at a XAAS that's not designed to extract the maximum ammount of cash from the consooooomer in exchange for the bare minimum? No?

But lets say that (right now) Hasbro isn't the greedy megacorporation that it is, they manage to create a GAAS implementation that doesn't have microtransactions, etc.

How long until to maximize the shareholders profits all of that starts creeping in?

Can ANYONE guarantee this won't happen? Nope

So, given that we KNOW that Hasbro is a shitty megacorp, that they print in Chyna! in tissue paper (I'm exagerating) the cards for MtG (Their biggest moneymaker) in order to extract the maximum possible from their consumer base.

The reader will excuse my Mount Olympus sized grain of salt when discussing them doing ANYTHING that's not anti-consumer.

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 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.

That's a lot of "ifs."

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
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?"

No. The core of my argument is that a) innovation does not always lead to a better product, b) there is no evidence that subscription models will lead to better TTRPGs, and c) we've seen many control-freak and predatory subscription models in adjacent industries such as video games.

Your argument is: Someone, somewhere, at some time, might get it right, so let's let WotC get it wrong.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 11:25:07 AM
I still hate Software as a Service because it's ultimately just a scheme to have people continuously pay for code that was already done decades ago under the notion that you need to pay for all those quality of life changes (like interface updates nobody wants and are really an excuse to sell you software) that you don't really need. It's an artificial way to keep the money flowing their way and prevent you from relying on decades old software that already does everything you truly need.

Well, yeah.  It would be difficult to imagine a more ideal fit for a customer than me right now. About the only thing would be someone panicked about updates to the point of having to have every update immediately.  And yet, I'm not a great fit, merely an adequate one.  Moreover, that is only me in the last few years.  For the majority of that 32 years, it would have been a notable, net loss for me.  In other words, the problem with those kind of services is that when everything works out close to perfect, they are not awful.  As their near perfect customer, I'm sitting right on the edge of going to Open Office.  All it would take is one bad step by them or one change in my situation to send me that way.

WotC doing D&D as a subscription is like fighting a red dragon by yourself as a level 1 monk.  Yes, there is a possible chain of events that might happen where that works, but no reasonable person expects it. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 11:29:11 AMWeasel words, can ANYONE point to a single implementation of GAAS that's not to turn the costumer into an eternal paypig with zero rights?

Yes, but it remains an indie game that doesn't make a ton of money (Fantasy Strike). Not a fighting game coniseur, so I can't comment on how good it is. But its owned by 1 dude that quit WOTC because he found MTG both exploitative and undermines that game design. He is kind of an arrogant douche (and SJW), but he did give up a steady revenue stream for a pro-consumer principle, so I have allot of respect for him.

But thats an exception, and its not made with the intent of making more money then normal. And by virtue of not trying to court addicts, it doesn't make a ton of cash.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 01, 2022, 12:04:13 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 11:29:11 AMWeasel words, can ANYONE point to a single implementation of GAAS that's not to turn the costumer into an eternal paypig with zero rights?

Yes, but it remains an indie game that doesn't make a ton of money (Fantasy Strike). Not a fighting game coniseur, so I can't comment on how good it is. But its owned by 1 dude that quit WOTC because he found MTG both exploitative and undermines that game design. He is kind of an arrogant douche (and SJW), but he did give up a steady revenue stream for a pro-consumer principle, so I have allot of respect for him.

But thats an exception, and its not made with the intent of making more money then normal. And by virtue of not trying to court addicts, it doesn't make a ton of cash.

I never did big national tournements but in my state i was one of the better players for a time. Fabtasy Strike is exactly what it set out to be, a Fighting game pretty much anyone could pick up. Bit its a bit ridgid to the point the standard format is a kind of 3v3 without tag mechanics like Marvel vs. Capcom as every character is stuck deeeeep into their niche. What im saying is, the game is good in its niche. One thing is it didnt come out as a free to play game that was a later update.

Part of the reason its got such a friendly business model is basically that despite being a but of an asshole, the developer really, REALLY loves fighting games and his intent was to have a simple game to bring newbies into the scene as a whole, unfortunately that didn't really work out.

Quote from: Slambo on September 01, 2022, 12:43:11 PMPart of the reason its got such a friendly business model is basically that despite being a but of an asshole, the developer really, REALLY loves fighting games and his intent was to have a simple game to bring newbies into the scene as a whole, unfortunately that didn't really work out.

Yup. 'If GAAS was just made purely as projects of love, then yes they will be consumer friendly'.

No ****. A totalitarian dictatorship may be the best place in the world to live if all of its governmental workers are humble and kind and smart and exclusively concerned for their citizens. But the structure doesn't lend itself to it naturally.

Companies always want to make money, but that isn't a terrible thing. They make money by creating stuff that people are willing to pay money for. If they don't provide good value, then people go elsewhere. I don't think that tabletop RPG consumers are addicts like gambling. I think the major jump to Pathfinder around the time of 4th edition D&D showed that players can and will switch games. It's pretty easy to jump from official D&D to Pathfinder or many other RPGs.


For subscription services in general, they make money by convenience. Thinking of music and movies, subscriptions generally provide more content per dollar spent, but with more restrictions on what you get and you need to keep paying. The prior model was individual title rentals and purchase - like Blockbuster rentals or simply collecting CDs/DVDs. Nowadays, though, most people prefer a streaming package like Netflix or Spotify. These services provide a lot more content per dollar spent compared to, say, the old days of Blockbuster stores when one would pay to rent individual movies. That benefits many customers. The company benefits by having a steadier source of income rather than boom-bust with the popularity of individual titles.


In terms of tabletop RPGs, the prior model was the supplement and edition treadmills. An RPG company will try to make a new "must buy" edition update to get its customers to pay more, which is either successful or not. If they don't change enough, then existing customers won't pay for minor improvements. What has pissed me off in the past is that often edition updates cater increasingly to the hard-core players (like GURPS and Hero System, in my opinion, but also other games), and make the game less friendly to beginners.

Personally, I did and still do often rent individual movie titles, but I've tried a number of subscription services like Netflix and Hulu. For me, the key is about price point. I'll start a subscription service when there's something I want to watch, and I'll cancel it when I don't have stuff I want to watch. If someone were to release a new subscription service tabletop RPG, I might be interested if: 

1) The entry point is cheaper than buying all the core books, which would let me try out the game for a few months with my group. If we don't like it, we can end the subscription and have paid less to give the full game a try.

2) If I really keep playing that game for many years, then it might end up costing more than the core books - but if I'm really playing it continuously, then I may be getting value out of my money. A possible benefit for me in that case is avoiding the edition treadmill. I was very annoyed at some edition updates, like Hero System 5th and 6th and GURPS 4th. The extensive changes meant it was harder for me to use the material I developed for previous editions. If the company were motivated to make rule updates as smooth and easy as possible, then that would be an improvement in my eyes.

These are big ifs, though, and I'd have to consider the real case seriously.

Quote from: jhkim on September 01, 2022, 02:59:43 PM
Companies always want to make money, but that isn't a terrible thing. They make money by creating stuff that people are willing to pay money for. If they don't provide good value, then people go elsewhere. I don't think that tabletop RPG consumers are addicts like gambling. I think the major jump to Pathfinder around the time of 4th edition D&D showed that players can and will switch games. It's pretty easy to jump from official D&D to Pathfinder or many other RPGs.


For subscription services in general, they make money by convenience. Thinking of music and movies, subscriptions generally provide more content per dollar spent, but with more restrictions on what you get and you need to keep paying. The prior model was individual title rentals and purchase - like Blockbuster rentals or simply collecting CDs/DVDs. Nowadays, though, most people prefer a streaming package like Netflix or Spotify. These services provide a lot more content per dollar spent compared to, say, the old days of Blockbuster stores when one would pay to rent individual movies. That benefits many customers. The company benefits by having a steadier source of income rather than boom-bust with the popularity of individual titles.


In terms of tabletop RPGs, the prior model was the supplement and edition treadmills. An RPG company will try to make a new "must buy" edition update to get its customers to pay more, which is either successful or not. If they don't change enough, then existing customers won't pay for minor improvements. What has pissed me off in the past is that often edition updates cater increasingly to the hard-core players (like GURPS and Hero System, in my opinion, but also other games), and make the game less friendly to beginners.

Personally, I did and still do often rent individual movie titles, but I've tried a number of subscription services like Netflix and Hulu. For me, the key is about price point. I'll start a subscription service when there's something I want to watch, and I'll cancel it when I don't have stuff I want to watch. If someone were to release a new subscription service tabletop RPG, I might be interested if: 

1) The entry point is cheaper than buying all the core books, which would let me try out the game for a few months with my group. If we don't like it, we can end the subscription and have paid less to give the full game a try.

2) If I really keep playing that game for many years, then it might end up costing more than the core books - but if I'm really playing it continuously, then I may be getting value out of my money. A possible benefit for me in that case is avoiding the edition treadmill. I was very annoyed at some edition updates, like Hero System 5th and 6th and GURPS 4th. The extensive changes meant it was harder for me to use the material I developed for previous editions. If the company were motivated to make rule updates as smooth and easy as possible, then that would be an improvement in my eyes.

These are big ifs, though, and I'd have to consider the real case seriously.

Movie and show streaming services are a different deal because they can offer access to literally hundreds, if not thousands of titles of entertainment media most people are unlikely to watch more than once for a minuscule fraction of what it would cost to get all those titles individually in DVD/Blueray formats, making it a vastly more convenient and affordable alternative to simply paying the sub in most cases. The only comparable deal in the tabletop world would be to get access to vast libraries of RPG books from different game companies, not just D&D.

And tabletop games also follow a different dynamic in their use than movies or shows. Watching movies/shows is a passive, usually one time activity. You may occasionally want to re-watch a movie or show, but usually you'll just watch them once then move on to the next. With TTRPGs you'll be referencing the books over and over again. Even if you watch a movie/show more than once you will never (ever!) watch them as often as you'll have to reference the books for an ongoing game. With software it's a similar deal to TTRPG books—you'll be using them over and over again for extended periods of time, specially if they're work tools.

Movies/shows are just about the only thing I can think of where I can see the value of paying a subscription rather than blowing hundreds if not thousands of dollars on physical copies of entertainment you're (usually) only going to watch once. But stuff like software and TTRPG books are for ongoing projects. It's almost always more convenient to have permanent access to them than renting them out.

The only reason software subs succeed is because massive and well established megacorps with near monopolistic control of the entire market in their respective industries (like Microsoft and Adobe, where you will HAVE to deal with them if you want to operate within the professional world) have started to gate access to their software, forcing you to get a sub if you want to work. But I'm not sure WotC/D&D have that luxury, or that it would be good or "convenient" for us if they succeed. Hopefully it will just lead to a new 4e/Pathfinder situation if they try.

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 01, 2022, 11:25:38 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 and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

Real Gaming as a Service has never been tried.

It kind of has though... World of Warcraft being the gold standard. I realize that is a GAME as a service vs. gaming as a service which is somewhat splitting hairs but my point is that successful MMOs are a 'proof of concept' for this model and have nearly 20 years of proving that the model works.

They also have DLCs, microtransactions, some are pay to win, others are not, there is a whole plethora of models that have been tried, tested, succeeded, and failed over the past 2 decades. This idea that is totally uncharted water is not entirely accurate.

The primary difference here is that this is not a CRPG, this is a gaming system and so there are several layers of complexity beyond your typical MMO setup. Conversely, there are far fewer players in any given game world. And once again, there is precedent here. NWN basically already did this 20 years ago quite well. It leaned in more on the CRPG side than the TT side, but that is easily remedied by going back to turn-based. So there is not a real technology challenge here either.

I've decided to draw my line on Squid's side since it seems people are piling onto him perhaps w/o understanding his point which is that technology moves on and generations raised on it come to expect it. You will convince few Zoomers that owning a physical copy of a hardback book is somehow better than downloading an app with the same content.

This is where the far left routinely just loses the plot. Just because you want things to be a certain way, this doesn't not mean reality will suddenly bend and twist itself to comport with your wants or views. No amount of repeating the same falsehood will alter this. So what I'm saying is that they are not doing this in a vacuum. The Critical Role Crowd (for lack of a better word) will be all in on this business model and they are legion compared to the 'old schoolers' who want things to remain static.

I am in no way defending Gaming as a Service even if it sounds like I am, it is merely that I accept that time and technology continues to flow forward and digging in my heels to scream about it will not prevent it. I know this because I now have a copy of MS-Office on a subscription basis (as an example) that I simply did not need. My perfectly good old copy of Office which was a single purchase worked fine, but the business model moved on. Ditto for Anti-virus, cloud-based systems in business, etc. etc.

We are all welcome to vent about it of course, but at the end of the day like any for profit business they are going to maximize revenue. Simple as. To me, a better use of time, would be to try and mold the product into something that at least brings some value and doesn't just turn into a woke nightmare. That is my far bigger concern than just simply the mechanical bits & bobs of a VTT. The content ownership walled garden thing, you are not going to escape it sadly. This is not specific to WOTC or even TT RPGs, all industries are tilting towards this as I offered a few examples above.

Quote from: Darkwind on September 01, 2022, 04:12:01 PMI've decided to draw my line on Squid's side since it seems people are piling onto him perhaps w/o understanding his point which is that technology moves on and generations raised on it come to expect it.

Thats not necacarily a good thing. Maybe in the future we will have electro prods installed in our necks to zap us when our overlords get anoyed and gen LGBT will say thats a good thing.
The new generation is now 'used too' abusive micro-transactions. So what? 'Roll over to abuse because its new' is not a good argument. Talking about the sorry nature of humanity in relation to convenience culture or consumerism is not in it of itself a positive argument.

This entire forum is founded on rejecting anything past OD&D (well not me, but in general). Why is it that when it comes with a computer its now a good thing?

MMOs are also still a good example and others have already pointed out their pitfalls even in a 'optimal' scenario:

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 09:46:50 AMAnd 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.

Still good on you for playing devils advocate.

Quote from: Darkwind on September 01, 2022, 04:12:01 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 01, 2022, 11:25:38 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 and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

Real Gaming as a Service has never been tried.

It kind of has though...

It was meant as a snarky comment on the "just because all the things you can point to were failures doesn't mean anything" riffing on similar comments about why the USSR/PRC/whatever weren't really communist.

I did get the first word wrong, though...it should have been True GaaS.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 03:57:22 PM
Movies/shows are just about the only thing I can think of where I can see the value of paying a subscription rather than blowing hundreds if not thousands of dollars on physical copies of entertainment you're (usually) only going to watch once. But stuff like software and TTRPG books are for ongoing projects. It's almost always more convenient to have permanent access to them than renting them out.

The only reason software subs succeed is because massive and well established megacorps with near monopolistic control of the entire market in their respective industries (like Microsoft and Adobe, where you will HAVE to deal with them if you want to operate within the professional world) have started to gate access to their software, forcing you to get a sub if you want to work.

There are tons of non-megacorps that also have subscription models for their software, including tiny startup companies. Going further, there are a lot of people who lease their cars rather than buying (in the U.S., apparently 27% of new cars are leased rather than bought). Many people buy season passes to their favorite sports teams rather than tickets for individual games. So I don't think successful subscription model is unique to music and movies.

In general, the balance of subscription versus buying depends a ton on the price point. How long will you be using the stuff, and how cheap is the subscription package compared to individual purchases.

Personally, I have a huge bookshelf covered in RPG books - but I'm not sure that's the preferred model for a lot of people. Most of those I never touch for years. Also, I tend not to play the same RPG continuously for years. I've often switched out what RPG I play. So we had a year-long Call of Cthulhu campaign, for example, before switching over to D&D, and then Mutant Year Zero. At other times I've played many other games.

As a specific example, I've played three short campaigns using GURPS 4th edition - but I've never bought any of the 4th ed books. If there were a subscription model (especially if it went by month), I might well have signed up for it during the time I played in those campaigns. If I could have paid a small amount for access, that would have been better for me than paying a bunch for all the core books used in the games.

Quote from: jhkim on September 01, 2022, 06:04:05 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 03:57:22 PM
Movies/shows are just about the only thing I can think of where I can see the value of paying a subscription rather than blowing hundreds if not thousands of dollars on physical copies of entertainment you're (usually) only going to watch once. But stuff like software and TTRPG books are for ongoing projects. It's almost always more convenient to have permanent access to them than renting them out.

The only reason software subs succeed is because massive and well established megacorps with near monopolistic control of the entire market in their respective industries (like Microsoft and Adobe, where you will HAVE to deal with them if you want to operate within the professional world) have started to gate access to their software, forcing you to get a sub if you want to work.

There are tons of non-megacorps that also have subscription models for their software, including tiny startup companies. Going further, there are a lot of people who lease their cars rather than buying (in the U.S., apparently 27% of new cars are leased rather than bought). Many people buy season passes to their favorite sports teams rather than tickets for individual games. So I don't think successful subscription model is unique to music and movies.

In general, the balance of subscription versus buying depends a ton on the price point. How long will you be using the stuff, and how cheap is the subscription package compared to individual purchases.

Personally, I have a huge bookshelf covered in RPG books - but I'm not sure that's the preferred model for a lot of people. Most of those I never touch for years. Also, I tend not to play the same RPG continuously for years. I've often switched out what RPG I play. So we had a year-long Call of Cthulhu campaign, for example, before switching over to D&D, and then Mutant Year Zero. At other times I've played many other games.

As a specific example, I've played three short campaigns using GURPS 4th edition - but I've never bought any of the 4th ed books. If there were a subscription model (especially if it went by month), I might well have signed up for it during the time I played in those campaigns. If I could have paid a small amount for access, that would have been better for me than paying a bunch for all the core books used in the games.

Not all of those things are the same tho:

Leasing a car, most of the time at least part of what you pay for the lease (assuming you're not bein a disingenuopus twat and including car rental when you go on a trip) gets taken into account if you want to buy the car. Furthermore the car gets devalued overtime, something a PDF doesn't.

Season passes: isn't that buying tho? I buy the pass and because I give them more money IN ADVANCE I get to see the games cheaper than if I bought individual tickets for each game, assuming I go to enough games of course. I might be mistaken but this doesn't sound like renting a PDF either.

Finally, no, the main point of contention isn't the price point, it's the huge ammount of pitfalls the GaaS model has, and that ALL of those are anti-consumer.

Not all VTTs suffer from the same pitfalls and, so far as I know, none suffers from the GaaS pitfalls, except maybe if you think that paying for a service is exactly the same as GaaS, in such case every service is equally bad. But since only a moron would propose such a thing and you're not a moron I'm not gonna go that route.

Furthermore, I could play D&D on several different VTTs, some of which aren't subscriptions but buy once, others are totally free but with a steep learning curve and if I owned the books in whatever format I could also play in person.

So, I buy the books ONCE and can play forever. Which is exactly what's bothering Hasbro, they want to turn you into a paypig.

From what you write you might be happy being a consoooooomer. I'm not, and I will kieep advocating against this model wherever it crops out because it's anti-consumer.

Which is funny... I'm the openmarkets capitalist pig and you're the leftist "liberal" and yet you're here shilling for megacorporations...