# I am highly skeptical of the Unreal VTT



## Reynard

Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.

Thoughts?


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

I call it the Second Digitization of the hobby.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

I recall the vaporware 4e VTT.

I don't have a particularly powerful PC (I don't play video games that much and when I do it's on the PS4 or Switch) and I'm skeptical about how smoothly it would run an Unreal Engine VTT.


----------



## rooneg

Do not want. I mean if it floats your boat go for it, but it's just not what I want for my game.


----------



## Imaro

Eh, with the cost of getting a proper miniature collection going for the game... this may be a good alternative even for in-person games depending on the price.  I wouldn't be adverse to hooking it up to the mounted tv and using it for more complicated combats.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I guess I should be careful how much I spend on roll20 going forward


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



Straight-up agree 100%, specifically agree that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from TToM games.

However, the devil is in the details. If it's always trying to be super-fancy it'll be awful. But if it's something where you can kind of use it pretty simply if you want it might be fine.

Curious to choose UE5 given obviously no-one is particularly familiar with it. So it may be quite a while before we see the VTT as the devs "skill up" on it.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

I'm interested to see what direction they go in with this. It seems to me that WotC has been moving further and further away from heavily grid-based play as time has gone on.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I am too lazy to copy and paste images into Roll20. No way I'm going to be able to make enough use of this thing to be worth it.


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> Curious to choose UE5 given obviously no-one is particularly familiar with it. So it may be quite a while before we see the VTT as the devs "skill up" on it.




Anything but the most recent version of an engine would be a bad move, in terms of product maintenance.


----------



## Stalker0

The million dollar question is the UI. How well it integrates into their digital tools, how easy is it to use and setup.

Is it easy to switch into a map mode and show the map versus just having a blank area for some TOTM dice rolling.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Umbran said:


> Anything but the most recent version of an engine would be a bad move, in terms of product maintenance.



Yeah that's a fair point, but so many businesses don't do that, include really big corporate ones, because of the sheer burden of getting people up to speed on the newest engine. UE5 is a remarkable engine, and very flexible (in theory), so could be good, for sure.

I guess the advantage here is the product doesn't exist, so however long it takes, it takes that long. It's not like they're trying to keep something going.


----------



## schneeland

Reynard said:


> Thoughts?



I agree with you. My first impression is that this will be more or less the opposite of what I want in a VTT.
We'll have to see, though. Maybe they manage to build something that's like Fantasy Grounds, but nicer. (well, after watching the video, this is clearly not the case)


----------



## Plaguescarred

Really not thrilled about this D&D Experience thing. It reminds me of the 4E era digital VT that never came out.  But we'll see how it plays out ....


----------



## Oofta

Hopefully I will never need a VTT again, but having a tool dedicated to D&D with a new code base sounds like a good idea.  Far too often buying an existing system and trying to upgrade it _sounds_ like a good idea but ends up being a bit of a train wreck.  I've seen it too many times to count.

Hopefully they don't shut down the people that use tools to integrate the other VTTs with DDB.


----------



## J.Quondam

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



I tend to agree, _especially_ with respect to tech limitations on homebrew and improv. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though.


----------



## payn

I think this is very short sighted. VTT can take a lot of the load off combat, giving you more time and effort for other parts of the game. YMMV.


----------



## Retreater

Here's what I don't like about it.

Many players are already invested in a VTT. That investment will be made worthless in a couple years - or you can't play the current edition.
You're going to be paying to customize your token (a la HeroForge). We can currently just pull images from the Internet, make our own, or even use generic tokens. I'll bet that's not possible in this 3d environment.
My current setup has some lag when a teenager is playing online games, my wife is streaming HBO, and I'm running a game on voice chat and a VTT. This stuff isn't going to work, and I'll bet it's going to require a high end PC to do what you're seeing in the preview.
We've been burnt before (Gleemax?) I don't believe WotC can even pull this off.
Purchasing piecemeal monsters and other components from their adventures means DMs will have to "unlock" creatures to be able to use them in homebrew. (It's like Pokemon Go or something.) 
It's tied in with D&D Beyond. And I don't use D&D Beyond.
3PP will be screwed unless they can keep up with the programming and have access to use the proprietary system.
If this turns out to be a subscription-based suite of microtransactions like I'm reading, they can keep it.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> I think this is very short sighted. VTT can take a lot of the load off combat, giving you more time and effort for other parts of the game. YMMV.



In my experience, asset heavy VTTs make improv harder and make the game focus too much on combat and the grid. Just having a regular old VTT map up during exploration changes the nature of dungeon crawls, for example, so having a constant Dwarven Forge level setup is going to present problems too.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I'd prefer it if a VTT was augmented reality based. So you can mix physical things like a battle map (or none at all) and miniatures with the virtual. Like use your phone to do things like determine the area of effect of a spell over a point that you drag around in the camera view.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> In my experience, asset heavy VTTs make improv harder and make the game focus too much on combat and the grid. Just having a regular old VTT map up during exploration changes the nature of dungeon crawls, for example, so having a constant Dwarven Forge level setup is going to present problems too.



Hmm, sometimes I wonder if folks are using the same programs as I am? Not surprising that folks are cool to this idea tech has always been divisive to gamers.

I'm not too worried because if this thing is too ridged and microtransaction based in nature, all the other VTTs, which are not, will eat its lunch.


----------



## LordEntrails

Des someone have a link to the announcement or more info? I'm obviously missing a lot of info.


----------



## Reynard

LordEntrails said:


> Des someone have a link to the announcement or more info? I'm obviously missing a lot of info.


----------



## LordEntrails

The video seems to be full of self-contradictions.
"One D&D", yea I see all sorts of problems with that marketing tag.
Then CP: 'D&D doesn't have editions anymore' and the next person 'Fifth Edition...'

But yeah, not only am I skeptical of them being able to deliver on their vision, I don't think I want it to succeed either.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

I'm not a VTT player but if it turns out great I'll give it a spin. I think it's obvious that the VTT won't be robust in 2024, but maybe in 5 years it could be awesome.


----------



## Torquar

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I recall the vaporware 4e VTT.
> 
> I don't have a particularly powerful PC (I don't play video games that much and when I do it's on the PS4 or Switch) and I'm skeptical about how smoothly it would run an Unreal Engine VTT.



We don't know anything about it yet, but it might be hosted by D&D Beyond and streamed to your pc/phone/tablet/smart tv.


----------



## Quickleaf

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



I agree 110% and this "board game think" phenomenon matches my own experience running and playing D&D using Roll20, Astral Tabletop, and Foundry. (Edit: heck, I even noticed it using physical battle maps at the table) Specifically, the more detailed the digital map, the more players begin to forget "the map is not the terrain." And the less players can easily see each others' faces, the more roleplaying suffers (esp. inter-player RP).

That's all my personal experience, so YMMV, but I do think something important is lost in the transition to increasingly detailed VTTs. I think it will be cool as heck if they can pull this off in Unreal Engine with tilt shift camera, and I would definitely try it out, but I'd be hesitant to commit to "every session we're running in Unreal Engine" because I think that might do more harm than good in the long run.


----------



## Mort

Count me in with the highly skeptical crowd!

My group had enough problems adapting to roll20 during the pandemic - and only really "kind of" did. 

More than that, prepping adventures was a chore because I felt like I was being a set designer more than a DM some of the time!

And that was 2D with easy to port images, maps etc.

A 3D environment like the one they are showing? The prep time alone seems like it would be an insurmountable hurdle for me. 

I'd love it if it was a great enhancement to the game that was beneficial or even neutral to my prep time - but I'm HIGHLY skeptical of either.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



Absolutely agree.


----------



## R_J_K75

LordEntrails said:


> But yeah, not only am I skeptical of them being able to deliver on their vision, I don't think I want it to succeed either.



I think at this point I'd prefer WotC moved on from 5e and just did another major overhaul of the rules and called it 6E. Nothing they announced today really got me excited, maybe the Book of Many Things or the Phandelver CS. Doubt I'll buy the heist adventures book, or the Giants one. Im on the fence for Planescape after seeing the Spelljammer slipcase. Way too much art and the shorter page count doesnt leave me too hopeful. Seeing as the Rock of Bral only got 5 or 6 pages this doesnt bode well for Sigil. Their insistance to not support settings after the initial book release is just annoying because Ive gotten burned on DMs Guild purchases.


----------



## Jer

I know its not going to be right for me because when I game online I basically like to use a whiteboard and improvise.

But I also am not the target audience for their digital tools either since DDB is also in that category of "not right for me".


----------



## robus

Reynard said:


>



Happy to see they're reworking the DMG to make it more friendly to new DMs. It's ass-backwards at the mo


----------



## Stormonu

My bookshelves are already full, and there won't be selling PDFs, so I'm out already.


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah that's a fair point, but so many businesses don't do that, include really big corporate ones, because of the sheer burden of getting people up to speed on the newest engine.




And, if they were trying to ship six months from now, that would be important.  But, their "we are pre-alpha" statements says we are years from product.


----------



## Umbran

Stormonu said:


> My bookshelves are already full, and there won't be selling PDFs, so I'm out already.




The only constant is change.  Refusing to change does mean one will be out at one point or another.


----------



## Stormonu

Umbran said:


> The only constant is change.  Refusing to change does mean one will be out at one point or another.



Yep, and I'm sick of change, especially after 2019-2020.  I'll go play with what I already have, just like I did around 4E.  I can already see from the UA this edition will have nothing I want.


----------



## Umbran

Stormonu said:


> Yep, and I'm sick of change, especially after 2019-2020.




That's fair enough.  Good luck with it!


----------



## darjr

I actually prefer no
VTT and owlbear rodeo or just a shared doc.

But I think they are going all in and after the crowd who want all in. This ain’t roll 20 or a shared desktop. It’s really a video game sort of run by a GM. Kinda.


----------



## jgsugden

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



This can be a real issue - but it is avoidable.  Move the PCs to a blank screen when not engaged in combat and use theater of the mind.  The distraction goes away.  I do this on Roll20 these days - moving the PCs to a white background when the combat ends.


----------



## Reynard

jgsugden said:


> This can be a real issue - but it is avoidable.  Move the PCs to a blank screen when not engaged in combat and use theater of the mind.  The distraction goes away.  I do this on Roll20 these days - moving the PCs to a white background when the combat ends.



I need to start doing this for my Rappan Athuk game in particular and only drop a map when a fight starts.


----------



## Azzy

I've got Foundry VTT...


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Retreater said:


> Here's what I don't like about it.
> 
> Many players are already invested in a VTT. That investment will be made worthless in a couple years - or you can't play the current edition.
> You're going to be paying to customize your token (a la HeroForge). We can currently just pull images from the Internet, make our own, or even use generic tokens. I'll bet that's not possible in this 3d environment.
> My current setup has some lag when a teenager is playing online games, my wife is streaming HBO, and I'm running a game on voice chat and a VTT. This stuff isn't going to work, and I'll bet it's going to require a high end PC to do what you're seeing in the preview.
> We've been burnt before (Gleemax?) I don't believe WotC can even pull this off.
> Purchasing piecemeal monsters and other components from their adventures means DMs will have to "unlock" creatures to be able to use them in homebrew. (It's like Pokemon Go or something.)
> It's tied in with D&D Beyond. And I don't use D&D Beyond.
> 3PP will be screwed unless they can keep up with the programming and have access to use the proprietary system.
> If this turns out to be a subscription-based suite of microtransactions like I'm reading, they can keep it.



How do you know you have to pay to customize?


----------



## MonsterEnvy

LordEntrails said:


> But yeah, not only am I skeptical of them being able to deliver on their vision, I don't think I want it to succeed either.



This seems needlessly hostile. The table top in that video looked cool.


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> I guess I should be careful how much I spend on roll20 going forward



My first thought was this is going to end my D&D and Virtual Table too spending until after the play test.


----------



## Reynard

MonsterEnvy said:


> How do you know you have to pay to customize?



That's hilarious.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Like I am getting the impression here that we have a bunch of grumpy people who don't want new fangled things they are not used to like D&D Beyond and a 3d tabletop coming into what they are not used to. Like I am amazed how many people are so resistant to Beyond.


----------



## Reynard

MonsterEnvy said:


> Like I am getting the impression here that we have a bunch of grumpy people who don't want new fangled things they are not used to like D&D Beyond and a 3d tabletop coming into what they are not used to. Like I am amazed how many people are so resistant to Beyond.



I mean, you could read the actual concerns instead of inventing what you think people are concerned about.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Reynard said:


> That's hilarious.



It could easily just be a subscription. Like my bet on this thing is that any subscribers to Beyond will have access to it, with Adventure's they have purchased being unlocked in it. Maybe some premade sets for sale as well, but it's all customizable.


----------



## CleverNickName

Nice video, but this product isn't for me.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Reynard said:


> I mean, you could read the actual concerns instead of inventing what you think people are concerned about.



Those are exactly the concerns I have heard. We had someone outright say "I'm sick of change"


----------



## Reynard

MonsterEnvy said:


> It could easily just be a subscription. Like my bet on this thing is that any subscribers to Beyond will have access to it, with Adventure's they have purchased being unlocked in it. Maybe some premade sets for sale as well, but it's all customizable.



Subscription tiers are still just "paying to customize." My only statement was that it is silly to believe that WotC won't capitalize on customization in some form.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Azzy said:


> I've got Foundry VTT...
> 
> View attachment 258330



And that will probably be better for non D&D stuff.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Reynard said:


> Subscription tiers are still just "paying to customize." My only statement was that it is silly to believe that WotC won't capitalize on customization in some form.



Less paying to Customize and more paying to use.


----------



## Reynard

MonsterEnvy said:


> Those are exactly the concerns I have heard. We had someone outright say "I'm sick of change"



A minority you are choosing to focus on instead of the far more common refrain of, essentially,  "is this necessary to play D&D" and "this won't improve my game".


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Reynard said:


> A minority you are choosing to focus on instead of the far more common refrain of, essentially,  "is this necessary to play D&D" and "this won't improve my game".



A tabletop is never "necessary" and I am pretty sure it would improve many games.


----------



## Reynard

MonsterEnvy said:


> Less paying to Customize and more paying to use.



No. If their are tiers, you are paying to customize. We have seen it many times before.

But I just want to say: we have NO idea what a pricing structure is going to look like. I just think it is highly unlikely,  maybe even impossible,  that this thing won't be full of microtransactions and tiered content. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Reynard

MonsterEnvy said:


> A tabletop is never "necessary" and I am pretty sure it would improve many games.



Because you aren't listening to even the OP.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Reynard said:


> No. If their are tiers, you are paying to customize. We have seen it many times before.
> 
> But I just want to say: we have NO idea what a pricing structure is going to look like. I just think it is highly unlikely,  maybe even impossible,  that this thing won't be full of microtransactions and tiered content. But I could be wrong.



We don't know if there will be tiers even. I have no idea why you are assuming the worst of everything, when nothing has happened to make those assumptions.

And tons of people here seem to be hostile to the very idea of the VTT, and I have difficulty understanding why.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Reynard said:


> Because you aren't listening to even the OP.



I am listening, I just think your opinion make no sense to me. 

Like it also seems to me like "How dare things be nice looking"


----------



## Retreater

Ok. So _maybe _you won't have to pay to customize your character's appearances, but where are all the assets going to come from? Programmers will need to be paid to render 3D models and to provide options. Just like D&D Beyond has charged for collectible virtual dice skins. And that's fair if people want to pay for that - but it's just a microtransaction for a skin that doesn't really matter to the game. Just like getting a pink bunny suit in a shooting video game. 
What I'm more concerned about is if it ties in gameable content behind individual paywalls (which seemed to be hinted at with the physical collectible miniature being shown IRL and also on the game screen. I infer that to say: "Well, you buy a miniature for your in-person game, why not buy the physical token so you can use a black dragon in your VTT game?" 
I can easily see this being a new revenue stream.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Retreater said:


> Ok. So _maybe _you won't have to pay to customize your character's appearances, but where are all the assets going to come from? Programmers will need to be paid to render 3D models and to provide options. Just like D&D Beyond has charged for collectible virtual dice skins. And that's fair if people want to pay for that - but it's just a microtransaction for a skin that doesn't really matter to the game. Just like getting a pink bunny suit in a shooting video game.
> What I'm more concerned about is if it ties in gameable content behind individual paywalls (which seemed to be hinted at with the physical collectible miniature being shown IRL and also on the game screen. I infer that to say: "Well, you buy a miniature for your in-person game, why not buy the physical token so you can use a black dragon in your VTT game?"
> I can easily see this being a new revenue stream.



That's fair.
I imagine the system will be behind a Subscription, so that will pay the programmers.


----------



## Hussar

Retreater said:


> Here's what I don't like about it.
> 
> Many players are already invested in a VTT. That investment will be made worthless in a couple years - or you can't play the current edition.



You mean I get to stop using the piece of outdated crap that is Fantasy Grounds?  FANTASTIC.



Retreater said:


> You're going to be paying to customize your token (a la HeroForge). We can currently just pull images from the Internet, make our own, or even use generic tokens. I'll bet that's not possible in this 3d environment.



Yeah, this was the exact same thing that was said back when the 4e VTT was announced and it wasn't true then.  Do you really, honestly, truly, in your heart of hearts, think that WotC will be that monumentally stupid?


Retreater said:


> My current setup has some lag when a teenager is playing online games, my wife is streaming HBO, and I'm running a game on voice chat and a VTT. This stuff isn't going to work, and I'll bet it's going to require a high end PC to do what you're seeing in the preview.



Currently using Fantasy Grounds, I cannot use an image greater than 100k because it hangs for one or more of my players.  Chosen randomly, week by week.  Yeah, I'm going to think that that WotC can't do much worse than that.


Retreater said:


> We've been burnt before (Gleemax?) I don't believe WotC can even pull this off.



Why?  The 4e VTT was fantastic and far, far better than anything else on the market at the time.  It just came too late.


Retreater said:


> Purchasing piecemeal monsters and other components from their adventures means DMs will have to "unlock" creatures to be able to use them in homebrew. (It's like Pokemon Go or something.)



Again, why would you think that WotC is that monumentally bad at business?  When have they shown this sort of thing at all?


Retreater said:


> It's tied in with D&D Beyond. And I don't use D&D Beyond.
> 3PP will be screwed unless they can keep up with the programming and have access to use the proprietary system.
> If this turns out to be a subscription-based suite of microtransactions like I'm reading, they can keep it.



I think you're reading FAR more into what your reading than what they are saying.


----------



## wedgeski

That VTT looked gorgeous. I think a few things are easy/fun to predict:

The VTT will be intrinsically tied to DNDB and require a subscription.
The top-level DM tier subscription will permit you to share a VTT and its content with a group, much like you can now with DNDB content.
Wizards will tie VTT adventures into their published output. Less clear is whether all new adventures will have a fully modelled, fully art-appropriate VTT implementation. This seems like a massive extra investment on any new adventure material.
There will be a VTT asset store, you will be able to buy digital figurines of just about everything in the game.
You will be able to push those figurines to online printers like Hero Forge, this will become the new marketplace for D&D mini's: buy the digital asset, get it printed. I doubt you'll get an STL, but boy would that be nice.
You will be able to import digital models you've designed from online printers like HeroForge.
Hasbro may just outright buy HeroForge! Their tools are amazing and the results are...pretty good, and likely to get better with time.
You'll be free to build custom scenarios from any assets you've bought as part of the adventure bundles or from the store.
There will be a marketplace for user-generated VTT scenarios.
It's unclear to me whether Wizards will open the VTT to user-generated models, but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## deganawida

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



Right there with you. 20 years ago? I’d have thought it was the greatest thing since toilet paper. Now? I don’t know that it could ever possibly match my creativity or that of my players. Further, it feels like a major step in homogenization of play so that tournament play will become far more common, bringing in more monetization for WotC. 

I am looking at this whole announcement, and the VTT in particular, with a very jaded eye. I might be doing so unfairly, but it’s how I feel about it currently.


----------



## Art Waring

deganawida said:


> Now? I don’t know that it could ever possibly match my creativity or that of my players. Further, it feels like a major step in homogenization of play so that tournament play will become far more common, bringing in more monetization for WotC.
> 
> I am looking at this whole announcement, and the VTT in particular, with a very jaded eye. I might be doing so unfairly, but it’s how I feel about it currently.



I think people have a right to feel jaded, or at the least concerned, about these new developments. 

Looking at MtG, they have both a VTT version and a paper version, and they both kind of coexist without conflicting. I think that pen and paper games will go on an usual. For those that want to use DnD Beyond, its there for them. 

I personally don't use Beyond, and I don't particularly like the overtly corporate feel of this new VTT, but I am still free to pursue my own avenues of play.

My larger concern would be if the VTT pushes players towards it with things exclusive to the VTT, forcing DM's to move over to the platform out of player demand. 

Now hypothetical scenario: Years from now, theoretically they could publish an entirely digital version of the game, forcing you to subscribe to their service just to play. This could be a preliminary test run to see how well it works.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

wedgeski said:


> There will be a VTT asset store, you will be able to buy digital figurines of just about everything in the game.



Honestly if they try and double/triple-dip me by making me pay for the VTT _and_ pay for the figures of monsters I "own" by owning the books, WotC can absolutely go DIAF. That'd be the end of me giving them any money for _anything ever again_. I'd drop them like I dropped Games Workshop when they started overcharging and doing army list changes solely aimed at forcing people to rebuy large parts of their armies because the old ones were no longer legal. That's pure scummy MTX bollocks and if I wanted to be involved with that, I could play any number of horrible MTX-centric MMORPGs or whatever and be ripped off by them.

Also we can guarantee any such models wouldn't fit with the vision of an awful lot of groups, and indeed not being forced to have a specific corporate-approved vision of things is one of the great joys of TT RPGs, and what separates them from MMORPGs and the like.


wedgeski said:


> You will be able to import digital models you've designed from online printers like HeroForge.



That will definitely 100% not happen unless WotC owns them, or they're actively in some partnership with WotC (and I do not believe WotC would enter into such).

There is no possibility WotC will be letting you bring in stuff from third-parties and risking someone being surprised by your cleverly designed Penis-Hydra, or whatever. Which let's be clear people would be figure out how to make 0.5 seconds after any ability to import digital models was announced.


----------



## wedgeski

Ruin Explorer said:


> Honestly if they try and double/triple-dip me by making me pay for the VTT _and_ pay for the figures of monsters I "own" by owning the books, WotC can absolutely go DIAF. That'd be the end of me giving them any money for _anything ever again_. I'd drop them like I dropped Games Workshop when they started overcharging and doing army list changes solely aimed at forcing people to rebuy large parts of their armies because the old ones were no longer legal. That's pure scummy MTX bollocks and if I wanted to be involved with that, I could play any number of horrible MTX-centric MMORPGs or whatever and be ripped off by them.



You may as well pack your bags Ruin, because it _will_ happen. Unless Wizards dramatically change their stance on the value proposition between published and digital material, the VTT will be an entirely separate marketplace, much like DNDB is (for the most part) now.



Ruin Explorer said:


> That will definitely 100% not happen unless WotC owns them, or they're actively in some partnership with WotC (and I do not believe WotC would enter into such).



Hence my subsequent prediction that HeroForge will be acquired. I see no reason at all for Wizards to code their own character creator when HF have done such a good job.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

wedgeski said:


> You may as well pack your bags Ruin, because it _will_ happen. Unless Wizards dramatically change their stance on the value proposition between published and digital material, the VTT will be an entirely separate marketplace, much like DNDB is (for the most part) now.



Oh I'm absolutely ready to, and I will if they do. A lot of it will come down to the actual pricing model, but if they want to nickel-and-dime me on that basis, well, plenty of other RPGs out there, and you can sure as hell bet Paizo and others will be upping their digital game in response to this. I genuinely loathe companies who nickel-and-dime.

Re: Heroforge I personally disagree, and I think players will be pretty disappointed with how bad their digital PCs look next to even older MMORPG characters. I think it made sense when they were limited by "what can be 3D printed", but if the goal is for a digital VTT they could do so much better.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MonsterEnvy said:


> Those are exactly the concerns I have heard. We had someone outright say "I'm sick of change"



my concern is price and possibly vaporware that could push out existing vtt


----------



## Bill Zebub

I want my VTT to work like the holo-chess table on the Millennium Falcon.


----------



## MarkB

Retreater said:


> Here's what I don't like about it.
> 
> Many players are already invested in a VTT. That investment will be made worthless in a couple years - or you can't play the current edition.



Only if they don't allow other VTTs to license the current edition. That's possible, but far from certain.


Retreater said:


> You're going to be paying to customize your token (a la HeroForge). We can currently just pull images from the Internet, make our own, or even use generic tokens. I'll bet that's not possible in this 3d environment.



I'll bet it is. My best guess is that you'll be able to import images and turn them into virtual paper minis like these:







Retreater said:


> My current setup has some lag when a teenager is playing online games, my wife is streaming HBO, and I'm running a game on voice chat and a VTT. This stuff isn't going to work, and I'll bet it's going to require a high end PC to do what you're seeing in the preview.



Possibly, but how good do you need the performance to be? Lag is a potential issue, but this isn't a fast-paced action game - getting some dropped frames while you're spinning the camera isn't a serious problem, and most of the time your camera will be static.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



I agree wholeheartedly, and I’m also concerned about its potential for predatory monetization. If there is a physical option, I’ll be sticking with it. If there’s not a physical option, I probably won’t be supporting the game financially any more.


----------



## Hussar

Ok. Fantasy Grounds runs on Unity. Which is also a 3D engine. Yet everyone still plays on a tip down 2d map. 

The last WotC vtt allowed you to import your own tokens and maps and I doubt WotC is going to light the community’s goodwill on fire by doing anything different. 

I do foresee deluxe editions of modules for sale that use all the bells and whistles. 

But this idea of micro transactions where you are forced to buy basic items just to play is baseless. 

How many micro transactions are there in the MTG online game? Massively popular platform that’s been running for years. But for some reason people need to think that WotC is going to do a 180 on their behaviour? Why?


----------



## darjr

Did the minis articulate? Or the terrain? Or were they like posed and frozen minis?


----------



## ReshiIRE

I don't trust Wizards to be very consumer friendly with their VTT considering I think Paizo's complete openness of rules and options minus fluff is significantly more friendly to everyone. Mind, Paizo is the exception compared to every other company, but I hope that they would set a standard now. 

I wouuld also be somewhat weary in terms of the system requirements for their VTT considering the use of Unreal. It can scale down but I wonder if they will have any difficulty in reaching a market that other VTTs do not.

Finally, the fact the VTT is _specifically_ for D&D means it's going to not get the revenue streams of others or allow pivoting, which a sizable percentage of customers likely would want. And I know D&D is nearly the entire RPG market, but it's still a flaw.

This is semi-offtopic but I will note that Fantasy Grounds only changed to Unity in the past few years. No idea _why_ they changed too Unity in particular, but I'm guessing it was purely for easy of development and they did not invest a lot in performance.

Hussar, I am guessing you have tried other options than Fantasy Grounds? It seems like quite an expensive option commpared to current competitors, but I presume there's reasons you've had to stick by it.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> Did the minis articulate? Or the terrain? Or were they like posed and frozen minis?



They made a point of saying they wanted you to feel like you were at the table, not playing a video game, so I doubt there is articulation.


----------



## LordEntrails

MonsterEnvy said:


> This seems needlessly hostile. The table top in that video looked cool.



Then you misunderstand me.


Hussar said:


> Currently using Fantasy Grounds, I cannot use an image greater than 100k because it hangs for one or more of my players. Chosen randomly, week by week. Yeah, I'm going to think that that WotC can't do much worse than that.



I don't have that problem, I use images every week, often in the 100MB range. I wnder what it is about your environment FG doesn't like?

Speaking of FG, @smiteworks has made a statement on their forums; Fantasy Grounds and One D&D - predictions for the future
Including an very interesting video of a proof of concept they are working on;


----------



## Hussar

I stuck with Fantasy Grounds primary because of sunk costs but also because for a long time it was the only DnD supported VTt. Everyone else forces you to do all the work yourself. From a dms perspective of adventure creation FG is fantastic. You can fully stock an entire adventure, with pretty much everything prepped in a few hours. From that perspective it’s great. And at least as good as if not better than anything else on the market. 

But that’s a very low bar. 

I have very high hopes for WotC on this. Their last vtt attempt was fantastic. Easily head and shoulders better than anything else available at the time. Now? With the kind of money they’re going to sink into this? Backed by DnD Beyond? This is going to be great. 

See I only play DnD. I haven’t played another rpg in years. So a DnD specific tabletop is great for me. And it means that future development will focus on DnD. Why should I care about how many Pathfinder adventures Roll20 supports? I’m never going to play them. So it’s just wasted effort porting it I for me. 

I’ve been playing over vtt since 2002. I know what I want.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



They are going to sell so many electronic minis and maps...

My experience is a lot like yours. I use VTT's almost exclusively these days and I don't even like putting up a combat grid (theater of the mind baybee!). I'm thinking the potential market there is just too lucrative to let go entirely, though. If you get folks to pay $1 per mini or $5 for a dungeon room...


----------



## MarkB

Stray thought: What if WotC acquire HeroForge, and then allow minis produced and purchased there to be imported to their VTT.


----------



## Hussar

I'm A Banana said:


> They are going to sell so many electronic minis and maps...
> 
> My experience is a lot like yours. I use VTT's almost exclusively these days and I don't even like putting up a combat grid (theater of the mind baybee!). I'm thinking the potential market there is just too lucrative to let go entirely, though. If you get folks to pay $1 per mini or $5 for a dungeon room...




If this is such a great idea, why does no one do it?

There’s both Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. Between the two there’s more than a hundred thousand users. 

But zero micro transactions like this. 

Why is there this thought that WotC will suddenly do something that no one else does?


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> If this is such a great idea, why does no one do it?
> 
> There’s both Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. Between the two there’s more than a hundred thousand users.
> 
> But zero micro transactions like this.
> 
> Why is there this thought that WotC will suddenly do something that no one else does?



What do you mean? There are huge amounts of token and map packs for sale for those platforms. Why wouldn't WotC's VTT also sell tokens and maps?


----------



## King Babar

If Magic Arena is anything to go by, I wouldn't be surpised if this VTT has extensive cosmetic microtransactions.

"Give your character elven plate armor for only $1.99. Blue Trolls for $0.99. Orc cosmetic set for $4.99."

Some will be fine with this. Others will see it as nickel and diming in a normally low-cost hobby.


----------



## Reynard

King Babar said:


> If Magic Arena is anything to go by, I wouldn't be surpised if this VTT has extensive cosmetic microtransactions.
> 
> "Give your character elven plate armor for only $1.99. Blue Trolls for $0.99. Orc cosmetic set for $4.99."
> 
> Some will be fine with this. Others will see it as nickel and diming in a normally low-cost hobby.



This is another element of visually strong (2D or 3D) VTTs I have noticed some folks get frustrated with: the higher the visual fidelity, the harder it can be to make your character (or monster or adventure location or whatever) appear like the one in your head and the less you can rely on other players using their minds eye. This isn't really a new problem. People have been seeking just the right mini and struggling with building perfect terrain since the inception of the hobby, but I think graphic intensive VTTs exacerbate the problem.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

My thoughts on this have varied a lot since the announcement, but it does look lovely. 
However, 3d model/map creation is hard and not for the casual DM. I create maps for  FantasyGrounds using Dungeondraft and Wonderdraft and they are easy to use. I do not use the native FGU map creation tools because it has a massive learning curve and I have not found a series of bite sized tutorials (10 to 15 minutes or so) to take me through the process.

They (WoTC) appear to be taking about assets as tilesets. This would make easier but tilesets are always a compromise between the map in your head and what the tiles you own can manage.  Worse than that, the more tilesets you own then tileset management becomes an issue.
This will be worse with a 3rd dimension.

I think that they are going 3d because they have an eye on the AR/VR market down the line. I really like the prospect of AR in face to face play or over the wire in the future.

I could see them offering the VTT cheap or even free as a loss leader but I could easily see it as microtransaction central.

Questions I have;
Is it D&D only?
Is it tightly integrated with D&DBeyond or could you roll up with you books beside you, manually enter your character sheet and play as if at a real table?
Homebrewing and modding?
Is it scriptable?


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:


> What do you mean? There are huge amounts of token and map packs for sale for those platforms. Why wouldn't WotC's VTT also sell tokens and maps?




Those aren’t micro transactions though are they? Selling several hundred tokens or a bundle of maps, that you absolutely do not need in order to use the VTT isn’t a micro transaction. It’s just selling stuff. 

I’m sure that the WotC VTT will sell stuff too. But, again, I doubt you’ll be paying five bucks for a single mini skin or paying for access to a single spell.


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> This is another element of visually strong (2D or 3D) VTTs I have noticed some folks get frustrated with: the higher the visual fidelity, the harder it can be to make your character (or monster or adventure location or whatever) appear like the one in your head and the less you can rely on other players using their minds eye. This isn't really a new problem. People have been seeking just the right mini and struggling with building perfect terrain since the inception of the hobby, but I think graphic intensive VTTs exacerbate the problem.




I agree with you, and I feel they put the bar very high in the video, where one person say she liked to read fantasy but had trouble imagining a hero that would look like her. While I am quite puzzled by this need (when playing barbarians, I imagine them Musclor-looking even if I have more in common with Prince Adam...), it seems to be quite common. This means a lot of customization to reflect real-life people appearance in game. More than what Hereforge is making possible as far as I know.

Side note, and probably tongue-in-cheek (I hope). I can see them selling custom packs. Video games often sells "supporter edition" when you get a few extras like a skin for your character... why not in One? Where it is starting to be worrying is if they link it to actual in-game content. "You can buy magical items from the list in the PHB. If buy our "Elminster's Guide to Savvy Purchases" you'lle get 300 new magical items, slightly more powerful than those in the PHB. And then a list of 50 gold magical items and 10 platinum and... MICROTRANSACTIONS FTW!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



I think WotC's track record suggests that they don't spend the kind of money necessary to make this succeed. 

The fact that existing VTTs all have a pretty steep learning curve suggests this is hard to get right as a truly mass market product.

I think 2D tokens would be a lot easier to get off the ground as an initial product -- they could buy or recreate Owlbear Rodeo today and have the data save to a D&D Beyond account and be off and running almost immediately -- but by going with maximum bells and whistles, that's a lot more they have to get right, across a wide variety of devices.

The upside for getting this right is very, very high, but I think there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical that WotC can pull it off.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think WotC's track record suggests that they don't spend the kind of money necessary to make this succeed.
> 
> The fact that existing VTTs all have a pretty steep learning curve suggests this is hard to get right as a truly mass market product.
> 
> I think 2D tokens would be a lot easier to get off the ground as an initial product -- they could buy or recreate Owlbear Rodeo today and have the data save to a D&D Beyond account and be off and running almost immediately -- but by going with maximum bells and whistles, that's a lot more they have to get right, across a wide variety of devices.
> 
> The upside for getting this right is very, very high, but I think there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical that WotC can pull it off.



Hasbro own several game development studios. Some may even be subsidiaries of WoTC. This is pre-Alpha which means at least 3 years out.


----------



## payn

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think WotC's track record suggests that they don't spend the kind of money necessary to make this succeed.
> 
> The fact that existing VTTs all have a pretty steep learning curve suggests this is hard to get right as a truly mass market product.
> 
> I think 2D tokens would be a lot easier to get off the ground as an initial product -- they could buy or recreate Owlbear Rodeo today and have the data save to a D&D Beyond account and be off and running almost immediately -- but by going with maximum bells and whistles, that's a lot more they have to get right, across a wide variety of devices.
> 
> The upside for getting this right is very, very high, but I think there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical that WotC can pull it off.



Bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. I am glad they didn't just buy up a cheap option and are trying to aim for the next gen. I guess the question is if this is a different WOTC than the one last time. Though, the whole Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance didnt work out too good so...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

payn said:


> Bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.



Tell that to cliff divers


----------



## Galandris

Hussar said:


> I’m sure that the WotC VTT will sell stuff too. But, again, I doubt you’ll be paying five bucks for a single mini skin or paying for access to a single spell.




Meanwhile, in the real world of DnDBeyond, the spell Silvery Barb is on sale for 1.99 USD.

You can get the discount of your lifetime by getting all 5 Strixhaven spells bundled for a mere 4.99, a 49.9% discount. Buy now and get the best value!


----------



## MarkB

Reynard said:


> This is another element of visually strong (2D or 3D) VTTs I have noticed some folks get frustrated with: the higher the visual fidelity, the harder it can be to make your character (or monster or adventure location or whatever) appear like the one in your head and the less you can rely on other players using their minds eye. This isn't really a new problem. People have been seeking just the right mini and struggling with building perfect terrain since the inception of the hobby, but I think graphic intensive VTTs exacerbate the problem.



There are a number of services such as HeroForge which allow people to create highly detailed minis in-browser, and then purchase them either as 3D printer files or physical minis. Despite the expense, a lot of players seem to use them in order to get just the right look for their character.

As I speculated upthread, it would not at all surprise me if WotC either acquires such an app or builds their own, and adds the option to export your mini to their VTT.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

MarkB said:


> There are a number of services such as HeroForge which allow people to create highly detailed minis in-browser, and then purchase them either as 3D printer files or physical minis. Despite the expense, a lot of players seem to use them in order to get just the right look for their character.
> 
> As I speculated upthread, it would not at all surprise me if WotC either acquires such an app or builds their own, and adds the option to export your mini to their VTT.



Hasbro buying HeroForge is something they have the money to do and which would be a huge power move. 

It'd also enable them to make miniatures available for all of their monsters and NPCs the same day as their books go on sale, which would be a very big deal for folks who use them, and they could integrate that with their VTT and just export those modified STL files (I assume) directly to that instead.


----------



## Hussar

Galandris said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world of DnDBeyond, the spell Silvery Barb is on sale for 1.99 USD.
> 
> You can get the discount of your lifetime by getting all 5 Strixhaven spells bundled for a mere 4.99, a 49.9% discount. Buy now and get the best value!




Is that a micro transaction when you can buy the whole book?

Maybe I’m interpreting this wrong. That’s certainly possible. My understanding of micro transactions is that you paid a bit of money for content and that was the only way to get that content. So if you wanted a skin for your gun, you either played a bunch of hours hoping to earn it somehow, or you ponied up the money and bought it. 

Which also plays into the pay to win scheme where micro transactions resulted in true in game advantages for the player. 

Am I using the wrong definition?

Because from my point of view, making bits of a whole book available for individual purchase isn’t really a micro transaction. There’s no advantage to to buyer. And overall it’s more expensive to purchase this way. 

But if all I need from a book is one spell, well I pay my 2 bucks and I’ve got it. It saves me copying out the text and allows me to integrate it into my own account. 

Not really seeing the issue here.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

In fact, it's even better than that @Hussar. If you decide to buy just some pieces of the book, it discounts the remainder of the book. The most you will ever pay is full price, even if you just buy it piecemeal, as it will eventually scale the rest of the book down to next to nothing, at which point, it's cheapest to just buy the remainder as one package.


----------



## Reynard

MarkB said:


> There are a number of services such as HeroForge which allow people to create highly detailed minis in-browser, and then purchase them either as 3D printer files or physical minis. Despite the expense, a lot of players seem to use them in order to get just the right look for their character.
> 
> As I speculated upthread, it would not at all surprise me if WotC either acquires such an app or builds their own, and adds the option to export your mini to their VTT.



I'm not sure how that refutes my point. Yes, hero forge has a wide variety of options to fiddle with. It doesn't guarantee that someone is going to be able to represent their character -- a problem they don't have on a basic whiteboard with a token that just says "B" or whatever.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure how that refutes my point. Yes, hero forge has a wide variety of options to fiddle with. It doesn't guarantee that someone is going to be able to represent their character -- a problem they don't have on a basic whiteboard with a token that just says "B" or whatever.



I have been unable to make my main D&D character in HeroForge, although I have been able to make an acceptable gnome who is very much not him.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The fact that existing VTTs all have a pretty steep learning curve suggests this is hard to get right as a truly mass market product.



Well unlike the others they own the product it's being made for and it's only meant to work with that product.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

MonsterEnvy said:


> Well unlike the others they own the product it's being made for and it's only meant to work with that product.



I don't think that's the biggest part of the learning curve for VTTs, although it certainly will help.


----------



## Azzy

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Hasbro buying HeroForge is something they have the money to do and which would be a huge power move.



One which I hope doesn't happen. HeroForge aims to do more than just fantasy miniatures.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It'd also enable them to make miniatures available for all of their monsters and NPCs the same day as their books go on sale, which would be a very big deal for folks who use them, and they could integrate that with their VTT and just export those modified STL files (I assume) directly to that instead.



The STLs themselves wouldn't be useful (it doesn't retain color), but HF does offer a digital file that would probably be useful (it can be used in Tabletop Simulator) assuming the D&D VTT allow for importing that file type.


----------



## Hussar

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> In fact, it's even better than that @Hussar. If you decide to buy just some pieces of the book, it discounts the remainder of the book. The most you will ever pay is full price, even if you just buy it piecemeal, as it will eventually scale the rest of the book down to next to nothing, at which point, it's cheapest to just buy the remainder as one package.




Ahh, I didn't realize D&D Beyond does that.  Fantasty Grounds, to it's credit, uses the same policy.

So, again, since no one is doing micro transactions now, why do people think this is suddenly going to change?  WotC has spent the last ten years building up some amazing levels of customer satisfaction after having some abysmal years with 4e.  People generally trust WotC, I think.  I mean, I used to see "money grab" being aimed at WotC all the time before, but, haven't really seen that in years.  Even the current kerfuffle about Spelljammer is more about the new format resulting in less actual material, not so much a "Well, they're just screwing the customer" vibe.


----------



## payn

Hussar said:


> Ahh, I didn't realize D&D Beyond does that.  Fantasty Grounds, to it's credit, uses the same policy.
> 
> So, again, since no one is doing micro transactions now, why do people think this is suddenly going to change?  WotC has spent the last ten years building up some amazing levels of customer satisfaction after having some abysmal years with 4e.  People generally trust WotC, I think.  I mean, I used to see "money grab" being aimed at WotC all the time before, but, haven't really seen that in years.  Even the current kerfuffle about Spelljammer is more about the new format resulting in less actual material, not so much a "Well, they're just screwing the customer" vibe.



I’m curious too. The vtt would have to be amazeballs for me to pitch in. I can just put in the time on my cheap vtts


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure how that refutes my point. Yes, hero forge has a wide variety of options to fiddle with. It doesn't guarantee that someone is going to be able to represent their character -- a problem they don't have on a basic whiteboard with a token that just says "B" or whatever.




But, a "B" doesn't really represent their character either.  It's just a marker.  And, let's be honest here, do you really think that the WotC VTT won't support 2d, top down token views?  Of course they will.  The whole point of a VTT is to make it as simple as possible to get new users onto the system, and then offer options once people get comfortable doing things.

After all, you don't have to use Line of Sight - that's an optional add on in Roll 20, or just don't bother with it in Fantasy Grounds.  OTOH, if you want to use it, like I do, then it's there to be used.  The same is going to be true for 3d environments.  Yeah, I'm not going to futz about trying to build things in 3d if it takes hours of labour.  Just not going to happen.  But, if they sell the next adventure module in the VTT, with the option of buying the deluxe 3d version, with all the maps properly done by professional artists?  Oh yeah, I'd seriously consider forking over for that.

Then again, currently, WotC maps are very, very simple.  I love @Dyson Logos, I really do.  But, on a virtual tabletop, those line art maps don't look very good.  Which might not be a consideration for some people.  That's fine.  It is for me.  I make and use pretty maps in my game.  It's one of the main draws for using a VTT.  If you're all about theater of the mind, why wouldn't someone use Zoom and a dice bot?  You've got a built in whiteboard and every drawing tool you could need.  Can share files.  And very reliable.  

There are a ton of basic VTT's that do basically just a chat module paired with a whiteboard and a die roller.  WotC isn't really aiming for that market though I think.  They're aiming for people like me who want a full bells and whistles VTT that actually works all the time with D&D.  I'd be begging them to take my money at that point.


----------



## Charlaquin

Hussar said:


> How many micro transactions are there in the MTG online game? Massively popular platform that’s been running for years. But for some reason people need to think that WotC is going to do a 180 on their behaviour? Why?



In the ancient MTG online? Very few. But in the much more recent MTG Arena? It’s infamous for its predatory economy.


----------



## Hussar

payn said:


> I’m curious too. The vtt would have to be amazeballs for me to pitch in. I can just put in the time on my cheap vtts



Yeah.  I get that.  Hell, I certainly do it.  I'm currently doing up the Cloister of Saint Ramedar (now how's that for a Forgotten Realms call back?) for my Candlekeep game.  And, being 100% perfectly fair, to it's credit, Fantasy Grounds is FANTASTIC for this sort of thing.  On the DM's end, it couldn't possibly be any easier.  Stocking encounters, placing and planning, doing different versions of critters, pre-planning all sorts of stuff.  Fantasy Grounds does make it super, super easy to do.  To the point where I'm pretty sure I can create a dungeon faster in Fantasy Grounds than I could on paper.

My beefs with FG have nothing to do with the DM's side of things and everything to do on the user side during play.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> But, a "B" doesn't really represent their character either.  It's just a marker.



My point is that "just a marker" is better as it relates to envisioning the character because it isn't trying but failing to depict it. Similarly, some lines on a whiteboard grid are better than not quite right tiles for depicting the battlefield.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Reynard said:


> My point is that "just a marker" is better as it relates to envisioning the character because it isn't trying but failing to depict it. Similarly, some lines on a whiteboard grid are better than not quite right tiles for depicting the battlefield.



I think there's some middle ground here.  Personally "close enough" is better than "some lines on a whiteboard grid" to me; its less jarring (and honestly, as a GM I rarely have something super-specific that the map needs to do that I can't do with some decent tile sets.)


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:


> My point is that "just a marker" is better as it relates to envisioning the character because it isn't trying but failing to depict it. Similarly, some lines on a whiteboard grid are better than not quite right tiles for depicting the battlefield.



Better for you maybe.  I play in a game that does mostly theater of the mind and I run one that very much doesn't.  I know that I certainly much prefer a game where, if I'm going to be staring at a computer screen for three hours, I would much, much prefer something a little nicer to look at than some lines on a whiteboard and letter tokens.  

It's all down to preference.  I don't run theater of the mind and have pretty much not done so since 2e.  I have the computer right there.  It seems rather a waste to not take advantage of the things that having a computer allows.  

But, again, all this is very much in the air.  Do you honestly think that the WotC VTT won't support whiteboard and letter tokens?  

About the only thing I would find to be a non-starter would be if I was not allowed to use my own map images.  Other than that?  Yeah, they're going to do it right.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> .But, again, all this is very much in the air.  Do you honestly think that the WotC VTT won't support whiteboard and letter tokens?



In my experience the more graphically intensive the VTT, the less friendly it is to whiteboard and tokens. FG is okay for tokens, for example, but is just terrible at whiteboard.


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:


> In my experience the more graphically intensive the VTT, the less friendly it is to whiteboard and tokens. FG is okay for tokens, for example, but is just terrible at whiteboard.



Well, that's fair.  FG has always been a terrible program for doing things on the fly.  It's one of it's biggest weaknesses.  The drawing tools have improved considerably, but, they're still, frankly, crap.  OTOH, Roll20 works perfectly well with whiteboard and token and it's every bit as graphically intensive as FG.   I'm less familiar with other VTT's anymore.  I haven't really shopped around all that much.  But, I think this is more a Fantasy Grounds problem than a VTT one.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Just to pile on a bit more on the VTT.

I watched the video bit on the VTT.

Let's be clear, WotC, none of that is going to happen at launch. None of that. It's all bollocks, all of it. Much of it will never happen.

The graphics won't look that good on default settings, or any normal settings.
It won't run that well - or anywhere near it - what they were showing? That's the sort of thing that makes a 3080 stutter. And the average graphics card in a couple of years will still be a lot weaker than that, even on gaming rigs.
The models won't be as individualized - they'll look waaaaay more generic and bland.
The models won't have that neat "hand-painted" looking finish.
The monster models won't be as diverse in pose as shown - at least not without extreme effort.
The interface will not be smooth, and will in fact, be extremely annoying to use, particularly for the DM. Y'all have never designed a VTT before, and AFAICT, don't have a single experienced VTT designer or turn-based videogame designer on the staff. You will make_ every possible mistake_ when designing this.
No-one outside of some ultra-tech-y dude with a $5000 setup is going to be able to sync a real tabletop and a VTT, and even for him it won't be reliable. That's just silly.
You are not going to give us all the pieces you put into every adventure and then let us use them to build things, because it's going to be enormously more work to make a tile-based system like that function than you think.
I could go on, but this absolutely reeks of the pre-release marketing that 4E had. I am aware that they have more time. But they have at most two years. Building the engine (yeah, within UE5, which I hard-guarantee none of the developers have significant experience with, because that'd be impossible) and developing the insane number of ultra-high-res assets you'd need just to do a BASIC D&D setup, like a really basic full-length (but not campaign-length) adventure is on par with developing a fully-functional AAA videogame, just skipping most of the animation and rigging (which is not going to save you anywhere near enough time). And because it's D&D, it needs the DM to able to arbitrarily stop things, reverse things, add things, change things, and so on, which is going to be pretty challenging and something videogames can avoid. Oh and it also requires an incredibly full-featured character-designer, one that's got to account for a loads of different races/subraces even if just PHB (and they added a giant challenge with Aardlings lol!), far more than any videogame which has a similar-quality editor has ever had. People won't be okay without stuff like different sizes/weights, choosing clothes, detailed colour options, etc. Aaaand a fully-featured dungeon-designer and wilderness designer, which has been eternally challenging for all sorts of people.

I again, I could go on and on.

There is absolutely no possibility of this being ready for launch, in two years, in any form that actually resembles what they showed there, let alone, that matches the hype they were talking. No possible way.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Hussar said:


> Better for you maybe.  I play in a game that does mostly theater of the mind and I run one that very much doesn't.  I know that I certainly much prefer a game where, if I'm going to be staring at a computer screen for three hours, I would much, much prefer something a little nicer to look at than some lines on a whiteboard and letter tokens.




Well, to now turn this around, sometimes the purpose of the map is simply to be able to keep track of things.  I've mentioned that for a game to be functional for me without some kind of visual display, it has to not care about range, not care about movement, and not care about positioning.  Because if it cares about any of those, without some sort of display I can be sure that as a GM (and probably a player) I'll lose the thread of who is where.

So for some people that's pretty much the basic function and anything else is, at best, a nice add on, and at worst, an extra distraction.  I personally have come to prefer a certain aesthetic quality to the whole process so I do decent looking tokens and try to find decent maps or put them together with tiles, but I could do without and just the aforementioned lines and letter would still serve a purpose.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Hussar said:


> Well, that's fair.  FG has always been a terrible program for doing things on the fly.  It's one of it's biggest weaknesses.  The drawing tools have improved considerably, but, they're still, frankly, crap.  OTOH, Roll20 works perfectly well with whiteboard and token and it's every bit as graphically intensive as FG.   I'm less familiar with other VTT's anymore.  I haven't really shopped around all that much.  But, I think this is more a Fantasy Grounds problem than a VTT one.




Maptool has basic drawing tools, and they're okay for straight lines and angles, but they don't have any ability to do an arc worth a damn, so unless you can do a decent one with just the freedraw option, you're SOL there.  Back when I did more of my own maps, I'd do them in Fractal Mapper and import them because I couldn't get even a decent version of a basic map with just Maptool.  Its good in a lot of ways, but drawing on the fly is distinctly its weak spot.


----------



## Galandris

Ruin Explorer said:


> Just to pile on a bit more on the VTT.




OK, I bite.

My reservations against the VTT are threefold, they are fears of something that could happen, not something we're hinted will happen.

1. They are trying to integrate digital tool more than before with their "One" strategy (fact). Fear: I fear that the rules will evolve toward things that are easier to track in the VTT or remove things that were fun but would be a pain to integrate, while promoting a gameplay that allows for interesting tactical battle (forced movement, compounded attacks of opportunity...) or would be more complicated without digital tools (a revamped initiative system that is great if the computer is doing all the calculations, but a pain in the neck if you're doing that at a table).

2. If they are doing "just well", then it would be great for me, as they'd support both venues of moneymaking, but if they do "barely enough", that will be resources diverted from creating interesting things to me, toward creating digital assets and that would be a net loss for me. If they fail quickly, it has no impact (unless they fail so much that they go bankrupt, but I think they have more business acumen than that...) On the "resource" front, I also fear that it might delay interesting adventure as they are delayed because the tech side isn't ready.

3. If they move everything toward dndbeyond, and even one of my players won't follow suit in a purely-subscription based model, all my group won't follow suit. (This is the least likely, as I guess they are still making money from people without dndbeyond accounts, but I often feel I am in a dying minority here. [That wouldn't be bad: we have many game systems available, so I can live with the fears explained above].

On the other hand, I have fewer fears than you toward the technological side of the thing.




Ruin Explorer said:


> I watched the video bit on the VTT.
> 
> Let's be clear, WotC, none of that is going to happen at launch. None of that. It's all bollocks, all of it. Much of it will never happen.
> 
> The graphics won't look that good on default settings, or any normal settings.




The unreal engine is scheduled to power games released in 2022 (albeit sometimes very demanding games). If they are targetting late-2024, it will probably be able to run on "average" PCs by then.



Ruin Explorer said:


> It won't run that well - or anywhere near it - what they were showing? That's the sort of thing that makes a 3080 stutter. And the average graphics card in a couple of years will still be a lot weaker than that, even on gaming rigs.




I don't know what exactly is ressource-consuming, but the engine is suppose to run animated monsters. If they are going for a "mini" feel, it is just 3D models moving, unanimated, from token position #1 to token position #2 (with the ruler). I thought it would lessen the burden on the graphic card.



Ruin Explorer said:


> The models won't be as individualized - they'll look waaaaay more generic and bland.
> The models won't have that neat "hand-painted" looking finish.
> The monster models won't be as diverse in pose as shown - at least not without extreme effort.




Unless you pay for it. I guess that's how they'll make money out of it. Sure, anyone will be able to use the generic goblin token to represent the three Celestial Dragons, but there will be a substantial part of the market that will shell out the money for the official Celestial Dragons models, and maybe the exclusive Platinum set of Celestial Dragons. They'll be selling virtual minis, so we can expect them to provide a lot of diversity.

I am unsure about the players token, but twice in the video they mention "playing you in the game". They might make a big effort on providing a player-facing customizing tool.



Ruin Explorer said:


> The interface will not be smooth, and will in fact, be extremely annoying to use, particularly for the DM. Y'all have never designed a VTT before, and AFAICT, don't have a single experienced VTT designer or turn-based videogame designer on the staff. You will make_ every possible mistake_ when designing this.




Can't they buy a major VTT player outright?




Ruin Explorer said:


> No-one outside of some ultra-tech-y dude with a $5000 setup is going to be able to sync a real tabletop and a VTT, and even for him it won't be reliable. That's just silly.




I share your concern about the price tag.



Ruin Explorer said:


> You are not going to give us all the pieces you put into every adventure and then let us use them to build things, because it's going to be enormously more work to make a tile-based system like that function than you think.




I even fear that they won't allow custom monsters anymore. You want your zombie to be oozing a poisonous aura? Sure, let's create a custom monster for the low price of 0.99 USD+VAT. [maybe that would make people flee, so that would be too extreme.]



Ruin Explorer said:


> I could go on, but this absolutely reeks of the pre-release marketing that 4E had. I am aware that they have more time. But they have at most two years. Building the engine (yeah, within UE5, which I hard-guarantee none of the developers have significant experience with, because that'd be impossible) and developing the insane number of ultra-high-res assets you'd need just to do a BASIC D&D setup, like a really basic full-length (but not campaign-length) adventure is on par with developing a fully-functional AAA videogame



Really? (I am not in this field...) I'd think it would be less intensive...


----------



## wedgeski

Galandris said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world of DnDBeyond, the spell Silvery Barb is on sale for 1.99 USD.
> 
> You can get the discount of your lifetime by getting all 5 Strixhaven spells bundled for a mere 4.99, a 49.9% discount. Buy now and get the best value!



DNDB's model is more interesting because the money you spend on this, that, or the other from a sourcebook is then subtracted from the price of buying the whole book.  Plus, when the only part of a sourcebook I'm interested in is the monsters, I don't have to fork out for the whole thing. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with this system.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Galandris said:


> Fear: I fear that the rules will evolve toward things that are easier to track in the VTT or remove things that were fun but would be a pain to integrate, while promoting a gameplay that allows for interesting tactical battle (forced movement, compounded attacks of opportunity...) or would be more complicated without digital tools (a revamped initiative system that is great if the computer is doing all the calculations, but a pain in the neck if you're doing that at a table).



It's a reasonable fear but given 4E didn't go that way even as the digital tools gradually improved, I don't think it's very likely.

However I do expect an update at some point in a few years, and if the VTT somehow succeeds, I suspect we'll see some rules tweaks to make rules work more easily on the VTT rather than making the VTT work with the rules. We'll see.

Oh another thing to worry about - if they're really intending to give use the pieces of every map (or even some maps) from official adventures we buy (a specific claim in the video), they're going to end up designing maps to fit existing terrain pieces, not vice-versa, and limiting how maps are designed in general to make them easier to model in the VTT. They might even do stuff like delay publication of adventures or other books to let the VTT team keep up.


Galandris said:


> The unreal engine is scheduled to power games released in 2022 (albeit sometimes very demanding games). If they are targetting late-2024, it will probably be able to run on "average" PCs by then.



UE5 can already technically run on an "average" PC. Running isn't the issue. Running well is. Here's the graphics cards people on Steam have right now:



			Steam Hardware & Software Survey
		


In two years, now the crisis is clearing, will that change? Yes. But Nvidia have shown a very clear pattern, as have consumers, and the average card in normal gaming machine as of 2024 is going to probably be about as powerful as a 3060 (indeed in a lot of cases, it will be a 3060), if we're lucky, frankly. And a lot of people will be wanting to play this on laptops and iPads and the like.

So there will be no major gain there performance-wise, beyond what I said.


Galandris said:


> I don't know what exactly is ressource-consuming, but the engine is suppose to run animated monsters. If they are going for a "mini" feel, it is just 3D models moving, unanimated, from token position #1 to token position #2 (with the ruler). I thought it would lessen the burden on the graphic card.



Not that much, from what they're proposing, which is this fancy FX and post-processing-heavy, way of doing things, with what appears to be a free camera, people moving stuff around, likely physics-driven dice bouncing around and so on. That's also likely to be extremely inefficiently streamlined, because they're working with a new engine, and again AFAICT, none of them have done anything like this before.

And it's got to be networked - this is a multiplayer game with several players, all of whom can likely be doing stuff, including a DM who can interrupt at any time. That's another whole problem I didn't even account for. Do they even have people experienced with multiplayer networking for that kind of thing? What's very common in AA and indie projects is that they totally screw up the networking, and people are constantly getting disconnected or having other huge problems (on the flipside some do nail as a priority)

And none of the "wannabe AAA" teams WotC now owns is staffed up, so we're kind of looking at an AA team trying to do a project which basically is on the borderline of AAA in terms of graphics, UI needs, and so on, and in terms of multiplayer requirements is particularly heinous (you'd potentially be looking at tens of thousand to millions of people using this simultaneously).


Galandris said:


> I am unsure about the players token, but twice in the video they mention "playing you in the game". They might make a big effort on providing a player-facing customizing tool.



I'm sure they will, but it won't look anything at all like what they're showing, results-wise. Those are custom-designed models that moulded in a way that shows they absolutely could not be modular. And frankly, if they let you make a fat guy who smokes at release, I'll be very impressed. I bet that pipe gets nixed ("sending the wrong message to the kids" sez PR) and I bet they find out how hard it is to make characters who can be significantly fat/thin look good and not totally distorted. Anyway, point is, the actual thing will look vastly more generic. The Emperor's New Clothes/Low Standards crowd will cheer it even if it looks godawful, but what they're showing here is bullshots wall to wall.


Galandris said:


> Can't they buy a major VTT player outright?



They could but they haven't, and there is no possibility of turning any VTT, major or minor, into this within two years. That they're adopting an engine that's only recently become available is good future-proofing but also means they've not really even started to work on this. If it's out in anything but an ultra-simplistic form (tokens and barely-textured maps) by even 2027 I'd be surprised.


Galandris said:


> I even fear that they won't allow custom monsters anymore. You want your zombie to be oozing a poisonous aura? Sure, let's create a custom monster for the low price of 0.99 USD+VAT. [maybe that would make people flee, so that would be too extreme.]



I'm not too worried about that because people would reject it. On the other hand, the temptation to try and double-dip people by getting them to pay for expensive virtual minis is going to be severe, esp. as some whales would totally go for it. But that requires the product to be out and functioning well, so is kind of a later concern.


Galandris said:


> Really? (I am not in this field...) I'd think it would be less intensive...



Less intensive than what? The sort of art/design budget they'll need to make this look like they're claiming is huge, and again, whilst they can skip animating/rigging, they have virtually every other challenge a videogame has, and some more on the side.

Getting a really basic 5E VTT up and running would be very doable in that time frame, but getting it user-friendly enough for a mass market (which I'd suggest Roll20 etc. are nowhere near), and then making actually enforce 1D&D rules (which people will want it to do - and those rules will be in flux until 2024 note), but also allowing the DM to override stuff, and giving it this ultra-high-res look, and giving it a networking model and functionality that works well with tens of thousands of players or more? That's going to be very demanding. Easily at the level of lower-end AAA stuff now. Hell maybe even middle-end. With WotC's lack of experience in the field and the fact that they seem to be trying to do this in-house, rather than hiring a studio, costs and time could be much higher too.


----------



## Hussar

I have to admit, I'm a lot less skeptical than you @Ruin Explorer.  I mean, DM Alchemist, right now, will create 3d environments, pretty easily, that look pretty much like the video.  Now, I do think that the actual VTT won't be quite so high end as that video, but, hey, I could be wrong.  But, like I said, if some guy in his basement can bang out something like DM Alchemist, I'm not really sure how difficult it would be to wed that to a VTT.  Particularly when they've already got the database stuff already with D&D Beyond.  

Also, why are you saying they are doing this "in house"?  They bought a development studio recently.  So, I'm not sure the lack of talent is as much of an issue as you seem to think it will be.

We'll have to wait and see I guess.  I


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> Also, why are you saying they are doing this "in house"? They bought a development studio recently. So, I'm not sure the lack of talent is as much of an issue as you seem to think it will be.



Because they are doing it "in-house" as far as we know. Their development studio, Tuque, are making terrible video games, and Archetype entertainment is working on a sci-fi CRPG. Which studio do you think are doing it? Maybe they bought another one?


Hussar said:


> I mean, DM Alchemist, right now, will create 3d environments, pretty easily, that look pretty much like the video.



I mean, first off, they don't look like that, and they're totally static low-quality models designed to essentially produce screenshots for a map, and that's like saying "If anyone with a pentax can take some pictures, I'm sure some guys with a video camera can make a Hollywood movie!".


Hussar said:


> Particularly when they've already got the database stuff already with D&D Beyond.



ROFL oh jesus dude. They absolutely do NOT "have the database stuff already with Beyond". Beyond has had huge problems with adding new rules - they've not got to some rules from 2020, and they had to give up on UA stuff being implemented - and the only consistent claim from them has been that it's somehow the fault of the database and it's inability to adapt/be adapted (they also seem to have lost the people who originally created it). You think that a clunky-ass database like that is going to hook up smoothly to a VTT and work great? They'll probably have to re-write it, and they'll certainly have to massively debug it, as not everything on Beyond outputs the correct results (but it doesn't matter because there isn't a VTT so the DM/players can just ignore the wrong stuff).

So anyway, do you really honestly believe that in_ two years_, we will have VTT from WotC that resembles the hype CGI they put out?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

I will wait to judge till it's released.


----------



## payn

Henadic Theologian said:


> I will wait to judge till it's released.



Sounds reasonable.


----------



## Bill Zebub

My ideal VTT would have very abstract maps/terrain, but highly detailed & animated minis.  Some 3D, or pseudo-3D, in the maps would be fine, as long as the actual artwork was left abstract.  

For example, water can just be solid blue, or blue lines, without trying to look like actual water.

I expect most people disagree with me on this one, but I think it would feel more like playing a table, leaving more to the imagination, and less like a video game.


----------



## Hussar

Henadic Theologian said:


> I will wait to judge till it's released.



Yeah, that's largely my take on it.  I'm certainly not going to form any opinions from the what, 3 seconds of footage that's on the youtube video.


----------



## Hussar

Bill Zebub said:


> My ideal VTT would have very abstract maps/terrain, but highly detailed & animated minis.  Some 3D, or pseudo-3D, in the maps would be fine, as long as the actual artwork was left abstract.
> 
> For example, water can just be solid blue, or blue lines, without trying to look like actual water.
> 
> I expect most people disagree with me on this one, but I think it would feel more like playing a table, leaving more to the imagination, and less like a video game.



I imagine that both will be an option.  YOu'll be able to have a totally abstract map or a really high-res photo realistic one, depending on what you want.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> I imagine that both will be an option.  YOu'll be able to have a totally abstract map or a really high-res photo realistic one, depending on what you want.



Sure, but subscribing to a different VTT. Why would WotC put money into an option that already exists? Moreover,  they made a point to show this thing this early in all of its 3D glory including leaning on what is arguably the most well known and trusted 3D engines in the industry. I don't think there's much chance in WotC offering a Roll20 clone unless they literally also buy Roll20.


----------



## MarkB

Reynard said:


> Sure, but subscribing to a different VTT. Why would WotC put money into an option that already exists? Moreover,  they made a point to show this thing this early in all of its 3D glory including leaning on what is arguably the most well known and trusted 3D engines in the industry. I don't think there's much chance in WotC offering a Roll20 clone unless they literally also buy Roll20.



Why wouldn't they try to offer the broadest support they can, both in terms of device capabilities and player preferences? It's not exactly a hardship on their engine to allow lower-detailed maps and tokens, or a fixed top-down view.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, again, I'm not sure how much we can take away from the three seconds of preview in the video.  But, honestly, I would be very surprised if they didn't offer the broadest appeal possible.  It's not like online gaming over VTT is the majority of gamers anyway.  It's a small chunk of a much larger market.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Well, more features is always more hardship - in both development and maintenance. Granted, top-down cameras and lower-detailed maps and tokens probably would not be difficult to add and maintain (in fact I'm guessing their camera is going to be like Talespire and simply and easily under player control, so a 'top-down camera' feature would mostly require grid control and zooming between layers), but the nature of software and game development being what it is that sometimes simple things they can 'just add' could actually be a horrifying amount of work.

Maintaining that as well is a potential problem as well, because now that's more tests in the mix; more things that could go wrong; etc.

I would be more worried about the modularity of the VTT system for homebrew content than anything though. How much rule support they can have for that is going to be a key test.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

I think we will be able to judge it way before it's released. I imagine we will see the beta for this thing and more footage of it in action as time goes on.


----------



## Zaukrie

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



Likely disagree. People say the same thing about cool terrain. Plus, I have no idea why cool combat tools stop me from cool non combat.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> I imagine that both will be an option. YOu'll be able to have a totally abstract map or a really high-res photo realistic one, depending on what you want.



I think you're being very optimistic to think that. If they'd launched this a different way I might think that was likely, but they're pushing it as an ultra-glossy, ultra-flashy UE5 VTT, and pushing the monetized aspects (terrain is monetized - they say that in the video), so I don't think it's likely there will be a nice abstract map. If there is, great, but I'll be surprised unless development on the 3D aspect falters and they decide to make a 2D version first.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I'm concerned that WotC may have created a Cyberpunk 2077 situation here, based on reactions on non-TTRPG sites.

The issue is, they've gone for a fake/bullshot trailer, promised the earth, and yet are absolutely new to this, working with a new engine (not saying that's not the right choice, but if this was a KS, that'd be a major risk factor), and have presented absolutely no timeline, but sort of implied it might be kind of soon (I think accidentally).

Looking at people on TTRPG sites, a lot of them have played D&D, or do play it, and the problem is, they think this is going out soon, and that that stuff was in-engine (rather the CGI fake-o stuff it actually is). There are people talking about how this is going to solve their VTT problems, because it'll be so easy to use (!??!), people seem to think they'll have this sometime next year (?!?!?!?!) and people don't seem to get that, to look like that, it ain't going to run on your laptop or tablet or anything, you'll need a serious gaming PC. They also don't seem to think it'll be monetized. Intentionally or otherwise, WotC have created a ton of hype, and set a ton of expectations. That is not necessarily good.

So I think there's going to be an awful lot of disappointment over the next several years as this product both:

A) Fails to come out promptly.

and

B) Isn't the product people want it to be.

And that's before any monetization stuff hits, even.


----------



## Blackrat

This is a deja wu. Back in ’07/’08 WotC promised us a ”character visualizer” and a vtt, and a bunch of other digital goodies if I remember right. I’m still waiting on those…


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Blackrat said:


> This is a deja wu. Back in ’07/’08 WotC promised us a ”character visualizer” and a vtt, and a bunch of other digital goodies if I remember right. I’m still waiting on those…



Yes they promised pretty much exactly everything they're promising here.

By very near the end of 4E, they had a 3D VTT working, kinda-sorta (it wasn't great, by all reports, and was ugly as heck), but it never made it out of basically early alpha before they shut it all down.

Here I feel like they may have this working before 7E (I'm going with "D&D Refresh" as the codename there) in like 2030, but I'll be shocked if anything that resembles the trailer is out before 2027.


----------



## Hussar

Well we’ll just have to see. Bookmarking this thread though. We’ll come back to this in a couple of years and see who was closer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> Well we’ll just have to see. Bookmarking this thread though. We’ll come back to this in a couple of years and see who was closer.



I will be genuinely falling out of my chair in surprise if WotC have a 3D VTT that looks/functions anything like that CGI trailer in two years. I will definitely have to take back my "WotC are bad at IT stuff" accusations.

My guess is this is still vapourware in two years but it is possible they'll have a much simpler Beyond-integrated VTT (that isn't fancy as hell, and probably is 2D or very limited 3D) that does not work the way described, but is more like a D&D-specialized Beyond-integrated Roll 20. Which will still cause massive wailing and gnashing of teeth from the people who thought the CGI trailer was "factual".


----------



## Hussar

Ruin Explorer said:


> I will be genuinely falling out of my chair in surprise if WotC have a 3D VTT that looks/functions anything like that CGI trailer in two years. I will definitely have to take back my "WotC are bad at IT stuff" accusations.
> 
> My guess is this is still vapourware in two years but it is possible they'll have a much simpler Beyond-integrated VTT (that isn't fancy as hell, and probably is 2D or very limited 3D) that does not work the way described, but is more like a D&D-specialized Beyond-integrated Roll 20. Which will still cause massive wailing and gnashing of teeth from the people who thought the CGI trailer was "factual".



Meh.  If people get that bent out of shape over a 3 second preview from what will be two years previously, I really won't take them very seriously.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

I'm thinking about the monetization aspect. Having a higher subscription level for Beyond where the VTT is included would be fine. But micro transactions for terrain etc is very off-putting for me - I would never use a VTT where I have to pay 2 bucks to get access to a moss-covered dungeon wall. And as others have said, I'm very skeptical about development time and quality.

With that said, I'm not interested in UnrealVTT anyway. Today I run D&D in AboveVTT and everything else in Foundry, and it works great. The only digital play thingy I will get in the foreseeable future is Owlbear Rodeo 2.0, which have a very affordable subscription cost and lots of nice features, while still being super easy to use by the looks of it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> Meh.  If people get that bent out of shape over a 3 second preview from what will be two years previously, I really won't take them very seriously.



I mean, in the trailer I watched it was a hell of a lot longer than that, more like 2 minutes or so, yeah, sure. And the wording WotC is using is actually quite weasel-y, despite the enthusiastic/earnest presentation - for example, the guy talking about how they're going to make you buy adventures to get blocks to build maps with couches it was a "we might", but then goes on speaking like it's a done deal and is quite flowery about it.

But yeah lots of more casual-end people seem to think this is what we're getting, and we're getting it soon, and sure don't take them seriously, but they're going to be pretty loud and pretty mad.


HaroldTheHobbit said:


> But micro transactions for terrain etc is very off-putting for me - I would never use a VTT where I have to pay 2 bucks to get access to a moss-covered dungeon wall.



Yeah and from the trailer we have reason to be concerned, because they seem to be saying that rather than giving us all the stuff for our subscription, they're thinking of giving us dungeon blocks based on what we've purchased.

Again this is a good reason to be deeply skeptical of the development time, of course - they apparently haven't even decided on their business model. They're still waffling about it. If it was coming out in two years, you'd need to planning the "dungeon blocks" into the development and release of adventures to be released in 2024, and you'd have to start on that now.


----------



## Imaro

Ruin Explorer said:


> So anyway, do you really honestly believe that in_ two years_, we will have VTT from WotC that resembles the hype CGI they put out?




I think this is largely dependent on where, in development of this tool, they are at.  Given what happened with 4e I believe this has been in development for a while now.  I certainly don't believe they announced it and started development the next day.


----------



## Galandris

Ruin Explorer said:


> But yeah lots of more casual-end people seem to think this is what we're getting, and we're getting it soon, and sure don't take them seriously, but they're going to be pretty loud and pretty mad.




In the video, they explicitely mention a release date of 2024. If people think in earnest that 2024 is "January 1st" and not "December 31st", it's a release 16 months for now and they'd be right to expect a beta testing period starting in a few month... They may be mildly disappointed.




Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah and from the trailer we have reason to be concerned, because they seem to be saying that rather than giving us all the stuff for our subscription, they're thinking of giving us dungeon blocks based on what we've purchased.



That's what I understood.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> Given what happened with 4e I believe this has been in development for a while now. I certainly don't believe they announced it and started development the next day.



You're assuming it's even is in active development! Which is a hell of an assumption!

I don't think there's any reason to believe that. I strongly suspect, based on the information we have, it's actually in pre-production, the phase before active development. Software and games often spend months or even years in pre-production.

Unreal Engine 5 has only been available since April 5th. So, at most, assuming they hit the ground running, with experienced Unreal developers (which I haven't seen any evidence they have, though I obviously can't prove they don't), they've been developing since then, which is what, 3 months?

That would assume pre-production happened much earlier. But that's undermined, pretty harshly, by the messaging they've put out. Specifically, as of the CGI bullshot trailer they released a few days ago, they were still talking about the business model and how exactly the VTT will work speculatively, rather than factually.

That suggests the basic design is not finished. That suggests they're in pre-production. Which would make sense, because of the timing of everything involved. They only just bought Beyond on the 13th of April. So that actually pushes the timeline along - they couldn't realistically have started development before that, and more realistically, they'd take time to look at the Beyond database, to see what the Beyond people had achieved with their attempt at a VTT (which seems, like all Beyond projects, to have gone exactly nowhere, I admit), and so on. So probably we're into June before they've even finished looking at that and onboarding Beyond people and so on.

So I think it's most likely they haven't even started actual development. They're doing pre-production stuff and trying to work out their business model - that'll have a huuuuuuuuuuge impact on how they design the VTT.

Which makes the belief that they'll have this ready by 2024 even more wild.


Galandris said:


> In the video, they explicitely mention a release date of 2024. If people think in earnest that 2024 is "January 1st" and not "December 31st", it's a release 16 months for now and they'd be right to expect a beta testing period starting in a few month... They may be mildly disappointed.



People won't mind if it's December 31 2024, people are used to that. But the odds of it even being in a playable, non-alpha form by any point in 2024? Very low (unless they do a 2D and no-business-model version). It would be truly shocking if they managed that, given they're using the UE5 engine, and don't seem to have an experienced dev studio working on the product.


----------



## Reynard

Galandris said:


> In the video, they explicitely mention a release date of 2024. If people think in earnest that 2024 is "January 1st" and not "December 31st", it's a release 16 months for now and they'd be right to expect a beta testing period starting in a few month... They may be mildly disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I understood



My guess is they would be aiming for a simultaneous release of at least "early access."


----------



## Imaro

Ruin Explorer said:


> You're assuming it's even is in active development! Which is a hell of an assumption!




Really?  Why?



Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think there's any reason to believe that. I strongly suspect, based on the information we have, it's actually in pre-production, the phase before active development. Software and games often spend months or even years in pre-production.




I don't, again given what happened with 4e's VTT offering and the fact that the plan for D&D One didn't formulate yesterday... it would make more sense that they have started working on this already.  I mean honestly from your posts I think your are vastly overestimating what is necessary for this.  It's static assets that have minimal interaction rules (So you don't have models on top of each other) at best... and buildable tile assets.   It's Neverwinter Nights with UE5 and minimal coding.  they create a range of models and re-skin the majority of them or slightly alter the pose.  It's not anywhere near as intensive as desigining a videogame


Ruin Explorer said:


> Unreal Engine 5 has only been available since April 5th. So, at most, assuming they hit the ground running, with experienced Unreal developers (which I haven't seen any evidence they have, though I obviously can't prove they don't), they've been developing since then, which is what, 3 months?




All they need is the budget to hire contractors. The things skilled developers have already showed off with UE5, as well as what I've read about it seems to indicate it's not that steep of a learning curve. Plenty of studios have released tech demos around UE5 and again... this isn't a videogame, the bulk of the work is creating models and skins for them.



Ruin Explorer said:


> That would assume pre-production happened much earlier. But that's undermined, pretty harshly, by the messaging they've put out. Specifically, as of the CGI bullshot trailer they released a few days ago, they were still talking about the business model and how exactly the VTT will work speculatively, rather than factually.




I'm not sure the vagaries of how they are going to sell something necessarily indicates they haven't started working on it yet.  Is a videogame's price set before development starts?



Ruin Explorer said:


> That suggests the basic design is not finished. That suggests they're in pre-production. Which would make sense, because of the timing of everything involved. They only just bought Beyond on the 13th of April. So that actually pushes the timeline along - they couldn't realistically have started development before that, and more realistically, they'd take time to look at the Beyond database, to see what the Beyond people had achieved with their attempt at a VTT (which seems, like all Beyond projects, to have gone exactly nowhere, I admit), and so on. So probably we're into June before they've even finished looking at that and onboarding Beyond people and so on.




No it doesn't.  It suggests they aren't certain of their business model yet...  And yes they could have started some development before the finalized purchase of Beyond since more than likely the decision and talks for that purchase began months ago.  You are assuming they want to use or even needed to assess Beyond's tech for a VTT when they could have easily gone the route of assessing how best to integrate different tech with Beyond and thus be working on the VTT separately.  My guess is that they didn't buy Beyond without having already chosen this course and assessed the feasibility of creating and integrating the VTT in the timeframe they gave.  



Ruin Explorer said:


> So I think it's most likely they haven't even started actual development. They're doing pre-production stuff and trying to work out their business model - that'll have a huuuuuuuuuuge impact on how they design the VTT.




Well I've already stated the reasons I think you're wrong... you're assuming things that just don't seem to make sense.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Which makes the belief that they'll have this ready by 2024 even more wild.



If all of you're assumptions are correct, sure... if they are correct...

1.  They publicly announced a released date while in pre-production.
2.  They don't have a VTT that they've been working on and plan to integrate with Beyond as opposed to building it onto Beyond.
3.  They have no modelers, designers, developers who know how to use UE5
4.  UE5 takes considerable knowledge and experience to use
5.  They're business model must be finalized before design & development start
6.  The business model will stall even starting design and development unless it's finalized

I just can't believe these assumptions are true and they still chose to announce this.  But maybe I'm worng.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> Is a videogame's price set before development starts?



Oh dear, really?

I said business model, and yes, the business model of a game is almost always determined in pre-production, and usually only changes if something goes very seriously wrong.


Imaro said:


> 1. They publicly announced a released date while in pre-production.
> 2. They don't have a VTT that they've been working on and plan to integrate with Beyond as opposed to building it onto Beyond.
> 3. They have no modelers, designers, developers who know how to use UE5
> 4. UE5 takes considerable knowledge and experience to use
> 5. They're business model must be finalized before design & development start
> 6. The business model will stall even starting design and development unless it's finalized



I didn't assume 3  and 5 & 6 are the same point twice expressed differently. The business model doesn't have to be finalized, it's true. It's just that virtually every project that doesn't finalize it in pre-production runs way over time and budget, because they have to make major feature changes later on to accommodate the new business model.


Imaro said:


> All they need is the budget to hire contractors.



LOL.

I mean, that is not even an argument. If you could just throw money at contractors to get things done, well what a wonderful world we'd live in, I'll just say that.


Imaro said:


> It's Neverwinter Nights with UE5 and minimal coding. they create a range of models and re-skin the majority of them or slightly alter the pose. It's not anywhere near as intensive as desigining a videogame



How long exactly do you think it takes to develop videogames with the sort of high-res art they're using here? Because it's typically 3-5 years, with huge teams (often many hundreds of people, sometimes over a thousand). Obviously it's going to be less demanding with little animation and so on, but it's still an extremely serious task which is going to require a lot of artists working full-time, for a very long time. You can afford to hire more 3D and texture artists and fewer riggers and animators, at least.

Here they appear to have a very small team, with a very ambitious project, a brand new engine, and an uncertain business model. You're welcome to assume that's going to be done in two years, no probs. But I think that's probably pretty optimistic lol.


----------



## Bill Zebub

My prediction: when the AI historians look back, the robot takeover will have all started with WotC's VTT.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> My prediction: when the AI historians look back, the robot takeover will have all started with WotC's VTT.



"Would you like to play a game?"


----------



## Imaro

Ruin Explorer said:


> How long exactly do you think it takes to develop videogames with the sort of high-res art they're using here? Because it's typically 3-5 years, with huge teams (often many hundreds of people, sometimes over a thousand).




This is the disconnect for me... it's not a videogame... it in no way requires the amount or complexity of coding a videogame would.  It is a collection of assets you can manually move... seriously most (all) basic VTT's let you snap grid pieces so that's not cutting edge design or development work and having manually moveable assets isn't cutting edge either (no animations, interactions, etc.)... modelling and skins is where the bulk of the work would be and they will be static.  The UE5 engine does the heavy lifting for the graphics and the reason so many live action videogames sell a multitude of skins and static models is because they are cheap and relatively easy to make.  



Ruin Explorer said:


> Here they appear to have a very small team, with a very ambitious project, a brand new engine, and an uncertain business model. You're welcome to assume that's going to be done in two years, no probs. But I think that's probably pretty optimistic lol.




Who is on their design/development team?  Again UE5 is not hard to use, tons of studios are easily putting out graphic demos with it and the VTT isn't a videogame.  The business model doesn't stop them from creating tiles, models or skins... regardless of how they eventually choose to package and sell them.  I think we will have the basic VTT in 2 years and I think the minis, tiles and functionality will continue to grow from there.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> it in no way requires the amount or complexity of coding a videogame would. It is a collection of assets you can manually move...



I agree that we disagree here.

This requires most of the same things a video game does, and you seem not to be aware of that. You seem to think it's trivial to make 3D VTT like this. It isn't. This is challenging. This is not some lightweight browser-window thing that can rely on synergising a bunch of existing off-the-shelf components or plug-ins, but you're treating it like it is.

The decision to use UE5 means they're not going to have access to a bunch of pre-developed stuff (not for a few years yet). They're going to have to develop virtually everything for themselves - networking, UI, however it accesses the rules (and that cannot just be the current Beyond, because it is nowhere near up to the task), all the management of turns and initiative, and so on. That's very similar to what you need to do for a turn-based game, except the networking here needs to be way better. They may well also be integrating voice/video and so on.


Imaro said:


> I think we will have the basic VTT in 2 years and I think the minis, tiles and functionality will continue to grow from there.



I think it's possible they'll have something basic by then, but I don't think it's going to resemble what they showed. It's even possible it'll be entirely separate VTT. One scenario I can see if that, if the Beyond VTT was far along, it might be worth developing that as a stopgap whilst they work on the 3D VTT.


----------



## Imaro

Ruin Explorer said:


> I agree that we disagree here.
> 
> *This requires most of the same things a video game does*, and you seem not to be aware of that. You seem to think it's trivial to make 3D VTT like this. It isn't. This is challenging. This is not some lightweight browser-window thing that can rely on synergising a bunch of existing off-the-shelf components or plug-ins, but you're treating it like it is.




Bolded for emphasis... it does not.  I'm not sure how to explain this any better than I have.  A VTT is not a videogame you keep speaking like this requires level design, coding for interactions, movement, animations, etc. and it simply doesn't.

No one claimed that it's a "lightweight browser-window thing" but it most definitely isn't a videogame and doesn't require anywhere near the coding complexity of a videogame or even the complexity of most basic business apps.  They haven't promised that it automates anything, nothing moves, no animations...  this is a fact not an opinion.  Is it more complex than Roll20...sure, as complex as Neverwinter Nights... not even close.


Ruin Explorer said:


> The decision to use UE5 means they're not going to have access to a bunch of pre-developed stuff (not for a few years yet). They're going to have to develop virtually everything for themselves - networking, UI, however it accesses the rules (and that cannot just be the current Beyond, because it is nowhere near up to the task), all the management of turns and initiative, and so on. That's very similar to what you need to do for a turn-based game, except the networking here needs to be way better. They may well also be integrating voice/video and so on.




I didn't mention anything being pre-developed.  But they only have to make 1-10 models for tiny, small, medium and large humanoids and then re-skin.  And they already have some of the models as evidenced by the in-game footage they showed.  You're assuming this VTT will be running the game for you and that's not the impression I got from what they showed.  It might eventually get there but integration with D&D Beyond to start could be as simple as allowing you to roll dice that add modifiers... beyond simple integration and we are getting into the realm of your expectations for what it will be as opposed to exactly what they said and yes, they may not meet those..  



Ruin Explorer said:


> I think it's possible they'll have something basic by then, but I don't think it's going to resemble what they showed. It's even possible it'll be entirely separate VTT. One scenario I can see if that, if the Beyond VTT was far along, it might be worth developing that as a stopgap whilst they work on the 3D VTT.



I think if you knew what people have done with UE5 in the short time it's been available (with videogames and cinema) you might not think that.  I don't believe it's been noted as hard to design or develop for and most UE4 developers say it's leaps and bounds beyond UE4 in capabilities and ease of use.  I think they already have a grasp on how to create the models and skins for it (again as shown by the pre-alpha in-game footage) and if that's pre-alpha they will probably polish it even more.  I don't think they need a stop gap, they just need to be careful about overshooting what they can accomplish from an automation and functionality side.  If they keep scope creep to a minimum and aim to bring the basics first on a strong foundation this will probably be ready in 2 years time.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.
> 
> Thoughts?



A long time ago  (20+ years) we used the early unreal / doom engine to create realtime 3D spaces for an architecture class. As a DM I could see its potential for D&D back then. I think this could be amazing, it all comes down to the execution and ease of use.


----------



## wedgeski

@Ruin Explorer is right to be skeptical but they have taken an extreme position that perhaps isn't justified given where we are today.

I'm in the business and while I can see the complexities of a VTT as they pertain to a AAA game, I think there's a good chance that in two years we'll see an alpha that looks pretty much like what was briefly shown in the preview. All my uncertainties lie in the area of content creation after the engine/rules integration are in place.



Ruin Explorer said:


> he decision to use UE5 means they're not going to have access to a bunch of pre-developed stuff (not for a few years yet). They're going to have to develop virtually everything for themselves - networking, UI, however it accesses the rules (and that cannot just be the current Beyond, because it is nowhere near up to the task), all the management of turns and initiative, and so on




? This is a strange position, isn't it? UE5 will give them the fundamental networking model and UI layer, access to a bunch of developers who have experience with it or its predessors, and I don't really know where your conviction about quality of the DNDB data model comes from. It seems sound to me after using it for a few years. A turn-based framework is tons easier than a real-time interface, I'll take that any day of the week.

IMO you can afford to be a little more optimistic.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> Is it more complex than Roll20...sure, as complex as Neverwinter Nights... not even close.



I honestly don't think you know anything about either product given this comparison, so I'm not sure how to engage with this.


Imaro said:


> But they only have to make 1-10 models for tiny, small, medium and large humanoids and then re-skin. And they already have some of the models as evidenced by the in-game footage they showed.



I mean, no? They're going to have to a lot more than "re-skin humanoids". And no, I don't believe any of those were models that can be used in-game.

They were also pretty clear they'd have a robust character builder, then showed three models no character builder in history could create.


Imaro said:


> You're assuming this VTT will be running the game for you and that's not the impression I got from what they showed. It might eventually get there but integration with D&D Beyond to start could be as simple as allowing you to roll dice that add modifiers... beyond simple integration and we are getting into the realm of your expectations for what it will be as opposed to exactly what they said and yes, they may not meet those..



No? I'm not assuming that.

I'm assuming it'll be more automated than Roll 20, because what they showed and talked about was more automated than Roll 20. You're describing a scenario less automated than Roll 20.


Imaro said:


> I think if you knew what people have done with UE5 in the short time it's been available (with videogames and cinema) you might not think that.



I do know. But the difference is that those are professional developers who are simply making cinematic experiences that don't do anything else, with mostly pre-built assets and playing around with the lighting and physics engines to make things look more cinematic or even photorealistic (there's a guy in Japan doing some amazing stuff with set building). If you think that making a functional, rules-integrated VTT that beats existing VTTs on usability is anywhere near comparable to that, well, it's not.


Imaro said:


> I think they already have a grasp on how to create the models and skins for it (again as shown by the pre-alpha in-game footage) and if that's pre-alpha they will probably polish it even more.



So I don't believe that, because as I said, they said they'd have a character builder, then showed us three models no character builder could ever build.


Imaro said:


> If they keep scope creep to a minimum and aim to bring the basics first on a strong foundation this will probably be ready in 2 years time.



Like I said, you're being extremely optimistic.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Your rhetoric on this is way over the top and doing your case no favours. I mean, sure if WoTC is approaching with all the incompetence you are suggesting then ok it will be a disaster but you have no more insider knowledge than the rest of us, do you?


Ruin Explorer said:


> You're assuming it's even is in active development! Which is a hell of an assumption!



Why?


Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think there's any reason to believe that. I strongly suspect, based on the information we have, it's actually in pre-production, the phase before active development. Software and games often spend months or even years in pre-production.



Again why? clearly they have been planning the rest of it for some years so why not the VTT.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Unreal Engine 5 has only been available since April 5th. So, at most, assuming they hit the ground running, with experienced Unreal developers (which I haven't seen any evidence they have, though I obviously can't prove they don't), they've been developing since then, which is what, 3 months?



So, this does not need Unreal engine, not right now. The graphic quality is not what will cause this application to live or die. If the models are pretty, for sufficient value of pretty and the terrain is not too shabby, it will do. You do not need, animation or dynamic lightning or shadowing (in the gaming sense, not VTT sense). The VTT will live or die on the efficiency of networking code and the ease of creation of maps. Which the main source of my scepticism.
In my opinion a VTT needs ease of setting up maps, some fog of war (optional) and ideally some good campaign management tools and most  of all. Seamless networking, glitching in the networking, desynchronization, failure to connect with the DM will all kill a VTT irrespective of all other bell and whistles.
If this project fails it will be because the 3 terrain management is too much work for the DMs. Pre-fabbed APs are all very well but you have to support the home brewer and the campaign that goes off piste.
However, that said I am pretty sure everything is deliverable expect, possibly the map making and tile management.


Ruin Explorer said:


> That would assume pre-production happened much earlier. But that's undermined, pretty harshly, by the messaging they've put out. Specifically, as of the CGI bullshot trailer they released a few days ago, they were still talking about the business model and how exactly the VTT will work speculatively, rather than factually.
> 
> That suggests the basic design is not finished. That suggests they're in pre-production. Which would make sense, because of the timing of everything involved. They only just bought Beyond on the 13th of April. So that actually pushes the timeline along - they couldn't realistically have started development before that, and more realistically, they'd take time to look at the Beyond database, to see what the Beyond people had achieved with their attempt at a VTT (which seems, like all Beyond projects, to have gone exactly nowhere, I admit), and so on. So probably we're into June before they've even finished looking at that and onboarding Beyond people and so on.
> 
> So I think it's most likely they haven't even started actual development. They're doing pre-production stuff and trying to work out their business model - that'll have a huuuuuuuuuuge impact on how they design the VTT.



That is pure speculation.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Which makes the belief that they'll have this ready by 2024 even more wild.



Not for final release, there I agree, at best we will see Early Access/Beta but that should be doable.


Ruin Explorer said:


> People won't mind if it's December 31 2024, people are used to that. But the odds of it even being in a playable, non-alpha form by any point in 2024? Very low (unless they do a 2D and no-business-model version). It would be truly shocking if they managed that, given they're using the UE5 engine, and don't seem to have an experienced dev studio working on the product.



Will there be a beta in 2024, I do not know but your speculation about the dev team is exactly that. Speculation, you do not know and neither do I. WoTC/Hasbro has the resources to hire such a team but even with the best will in the world software is a tricky business.
What I do expect is that WoTC will stick with it, irrespective of what happens in 2024. And it will never be a 2d VTT.

I think that once D&DBeyond became workable and 5e successful beyond expectations they have been eying the opportunity to resurrect Gleemax. I also think that they are looking at developments in VR/AR and thinking beyond 2024 when the tech will be cheap and good enough for retail consumers and betting that this is where online VTT play is going. Hence the 3d VTT.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

wedgeski said:


> I don't really know where your conviction about quality of the DNDB data model comes from.



From the DDB developers and their constant complaints about the data model and endlessly using as a reason why they couldn't do things. For example, they hold that the data model prevents them from doing Supernatural Gifts, Dark Gifts, Piety or other stuff. That's not me saying that, that's them. They've also used as an excuse for basically everything they don't have.



UngainlyTitan said:


> So, this does not need Unreal engine, not right now. The graphic quality is not what will cause this application to live or die. If the models are pretty, for sufficient value of pretty and the terrain is not too shabby, it will do. You do not need, animation or dynamic lightning or shadowing (in the gaming sense, not VTT sense). The VTT will live or die on the efficiency of networking code and the ease of creation of maps. Which the main source of my scepticism.
> In my opinion a VTT needs ease of setting up maps, some fog of war (optional) and ideally some good campaign management tools and most of all. Seamless networking, glitching in the networking, desynchronization, failure to connect with the DM will all kill a VTT irrespective of all other bell and whistles.
> If this project fails it will be because the 3 terrain management is too much work for the DMs. Pre-fabbed APs are all very well but you have to support the home brewer and the campaign that goes off piste.
> However, that said I am pretty sure everything is deliverable expect, possibly the map making and tile management.



The problem here is that WotC clearly doesn't agree with you based on their statements and what they've been showing.

I do agree with as to what's important, but WotC does not. Them selecting the UE5 engine, going for ultra-high-res models with fancy lighting/post-processing and so on tells us very clearly what their priorities are, and they're not "getting a basic VTT working with super-easy map creation and strong fog-of-war control" (which I agree is the right way to go).


UngainlyTitan said:


> Again why? clearly they have been planning the rest of it for some years so why not the VTT.



Because they can't have planned for "some years" an engine that came out on April 5th, and a acquisition they only made on April 13th. It's not complicated lol.


UngainlyTitan said:


> Why?



Because nothing they've shown or said suggests this is in active development, and multiple things suggest it isn't. Your question was answered by the post you're quoting from.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> From the DDB developers and their constant complaints about the data model and endlessly using as a reason why they couldn't do things. For example, they hold that the data model prevents them from doing Supernatural Gifts, Dark Gifts, Piety or other stuff. That's not me saying that, that's them. They've also used as an excuse for basically everything they don't have.



D&DBeyond dev's have always struck me as labouring wider 2 problems. They never knew what WoTC designers was going to throw at them, their architecture was not good at handling this without warning and they were under resourced to keep up. Many factors should change though if they still  cannot keep up in a years time or so...


Ruin Explorer said:


> The problem here is that WotC clearly doesn't agree with you based on their statements and what they've been showing.



What they say does not support your interpretation either.  They say actually very little, the bloke that introduces the Digital D&D claims that  "it is in early development" and that "they can move minis and roll dice in a digital play space" then a bloke talks about choosing the Unreal engine because it "makes the game look dope" and he talks about the lazy DM and tooling needed for DMs.  He then goes on about "tilt shift camera" and how it make it looks less like a game and more like a minis set. It segues into another bloke who also re-iterates the point about it being a minis set and not a video game and back to talk about DM tooling, being able to take apart prefabbed sets and reuse them.

I do notice (and did the first time also) no one says anything about when all of this is going to be released. The whole presentation is less than 2 minutes before it cuts to Chris Perkins telling us about the playtest.



Ruin Explorer said:


> I do agree with as to what's important, but WotC does not. Them selecting the UE5 engine, going for ultra-high-res models with fancy lighting/post-processing and so on tells us very clearly what their priorities are, and they're not "getting a basic VTT working with super-easy map creation and strong fog-of-war control" (which I agree is the right way to go).
> 
> Because they can't have planned for "some years" an engine that came out on April 5th, and a acquisition they only made on April 13th. It's not complicated lol.



So what is it about the Unreal 5 engine that is so different to the Unreal 4 engine that they could not have done some prototyping and architectural  studies on it? It is not like Epic just plopped Unreal 5 out there with no advance notice.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Because nothing they've shown or said suggests this is in active development, and multiple things suggest it isn't. Your question was answered by the post you're quoting from.



They did say very clearly that they can "move minis and roll dice"


Spoiler



Start at 4:10 I do not know how to set it up to auto start at the correct time.




Edited: For clarity and spelling. Though I will not offer any guarantees on spelling.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Some day somebody is going to necro this thread and say, “See? I told you.”


----------



## payn

Bill Zebub said:


> Some day somebody is going to necro this thread and say, “See? I told you.”



annnnnnd now I got Wilson Philips stuck in my head...


----------



## Micah Sweet

MonsterEnvy said:


> Like I am getting the impression here that we have a bunch of grumpy people who don't want new fangled things they are not used to like D&D Beyond and a 3d tabletop coming into what they are not used to. Like I am amazed how many people are so resistant to Beyond.



I like to own things I pay for.


----------



## Micah Sweet

MonsterEnvy said:


> Those are exactly the concerns I have heard. We had someone outright say "I'm sick of change"



Is there a rule that D&D fans are required to just go along with any change the IP holder decides to make?  There's nothing wrong with getting off the train when you're happy with the stop you're at.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I like to own things I pay for.



To be fair, one only rents beer.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Bill Zebub said:


> Some day somebody is going to necro this thread and say, “See? I told you.”



Your probably right, though we don’t know which side.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Micah Sweet said:


> I like to own things I pay for.



Given your various comments I can tell.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

Micah Sweet said:


> I like to own things I pay for.



The current evolution of capitalism is to not even let consumers own stuff. Instead we buy the right to, for a limited time, use something that we willingly fill with value that we can lose any minute. Good times.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

They could do what Le Petit Chef does…


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

HaroldTheHobbit said:


> The current evolution of capitalism is to not even let consumers own stuff. Instead we buy the right to, for a limited time, use something that we willingly fill with value that we can lose any minute. Good times.



Just saw an article a couple weeks ago that BMW is rolling out subscription-based plans for heated seats (and other features) in certain countries.









						BMW does have a heated seat subscription, but not in the US
					

Automaker BMW is launching a subscription service for heated seats and other physical features in some countries.




					www.verifythis.com


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bill Zebub said:


> Some day somebody is going to necro this thread and say, “See? I told you.”



Me and Hussar will I think, regardless of who ends up being right.

Of course just to screw us both WotC will probably release a VTT that's like 3D and superficially LOOKS like that VTT, but is awful and doesn't work right or do any of the things they said in 2024, so we can both be right/wrong and both disappointed.


UngainlyTitan said:


> They did say very clearly that they can "move minis and roll dice"



That doesn't mean that it's in active development, though, that's kind of my point - the prototyping you do in pre-production includes stuff like that. And "early development" can be either pre-production or early on in active development, I've heard game devs use it to mean either.

We don't know, of course. I certainly don't believe the mini-movement they show is from an actual VTT that functions lol.


UngainlyTitan said:


> So what is it about the Unreal 5 engine that is so different to the Unreal 4 engine that they could not have done some prototyping and architectural studies on it?



They could have, I just don't believe they did from the timing and the way they're talking about it. Usually if a company has done that, they're proud of their preparation and mention it, like "We've been working on this for over a year now and we're proud to show you..."-type stuff. I admit this is more instinct than fact, but we'll see.


UngainlyTitan said:


> D&DBeyond dev's have always struck me as labouring wider 2 problems. They never knew what WoTC designers was going to throw at them, their architecture was not good at handling this without warning and they were under resourced to keep up. Many factors should change though if they still cannot keep up in a years time or so...



I don't think they "always" had those problems. Earlier on, when Curse were running them, they seemed to have plenty of resources, developed rapidly, kept up a ton of information on what they were doing, were highly responsive to questions about what they were doing, and seemed to have relatively little problem implementing UAs. Then they got sold to Fandom and things slowed down a bit, but they kept monthly roadmap updates and kept explaining stuff. However, at this point they seemed to start losing people, as familiar names went away and new ones appeared, and in 2019 they seem to start really struggling with their own product. Stuff which they had thought they'd do easily was just not happening, and we were seeing much more focus on monetized stuff like the development of the digital dice and so on. Then in late 2020 and into 2021 it slowed down even more. The roadmap and all updates basically either ceased or became vague videos which were irregular rather than monthly. Loads of names disappeared and weren't replaced. The one person who was doing comms got sick (poor thing - edit: to be clear that's not sarcastic, when I say "poor thing" I genuinely feel bad for someone!). Indeed they openly stated they no longer had enough people to do some of the updates and so on that they used to. They couldn't handle UA anymore in mid-2021 (even simple stuff). Finally this year WotC bought them. So far there's been no improvement to Beyond (admittedly it's only been like what, three months?). They've not become more responsive, long-promised features still haven't been added (even stuff like Supernatural Gifts), and so on. They did get a changelog at some point though.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Me and Hussar will I think, regardless of who ends up being right.
> 
> Of course just to screw us both WotC will probably release a VTT that's like 3D and superficially LOOKS like that VTT, but is awful and doesn't work right or do any of the things they said in 2024, so we can both be right/wrong and both disappointed.



That is where I sit. I have no problem in believing that an beta product can appear in 2024 and that it will work well enough with prefabbed maps but am sceptical that it will have a low enough learning curve, particularly to DMs to become popular. When it comes to utility software like this I am a firm believer in KISS. It should also have 2d mapping capability for journey handling.



Ruin Explorer said:


> That doesn't mean that it's in active development, though, that's kind of my point - the prototyping you do in pre-production includes stuff like that. And "early development" can be either pre-production or early on in active development, I've heard game devs use it to mean either.
> 
> We don't know, of course. I certainly don't believe the mini-movement they show is from an actual VTT that functions lol.
> 
> They could have, I just don't believe they did from the timing and the way they're talking about it. Usually if a company has done that, they're proud of their preparation and mention it, like "We've been working on this for over a year now and we're proud to show you..."-type stuff. I admit this is more instinct than fact, but we'll see.



You think they are lying then.


Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think they "always" had those problems. Earlier on, when Curse were running them, they seemed to have plenty of resources, developed rapidly, kept up a ton of information on what they were doing, were highly responsive to questions about what they were doing, and seemed to have relatively little problem implementing UAs. Then they got sold to Fandom and things slowed down a bit, but they kept monthly roadmap updates and kept explaining stuff. However, at this point they seemed to start losing people, as familiar names went away and new ones appeared, and in 2019 they seem to start really struggling with their own product. Stuff which they had thought they'd do easily was just not happening, and we were seeing much more focus on monetized stuff like the development of the digital dice and so on. Then in late 2020 and into 2021 it slowed down even more. The roadmap and all updates basically either ceased or became vague videos which were irregular rather than monthly. Loads of names disappeared and weren't replaced. The one person who was doing comms got sick (poor thing - edit: to be clear that's not sarcastic, when I say "poor thing" I genuinely feel bad for someone!). Indeed they openly stated they no longer had enough people to do some of the updates and so on that they used to. They couldn't handle UA anymore in mid-2021 (even simple stuff). Finally this year WotC bought them. So far there's been no improvement to Beyond (admittedly it's only been like what, three months?). They've not become more responsive, long-promised features still haven't been added (even stuff like Supernatural Gifts), and so on. They did get a changelog at some point though.



Ok, I have not been following all that closely. I created an account to test the character builder when it went live and basically ignored them ever since because I went with FantasyGrounds as my on line VTT. I did read, about the not supporting UAs thing, and from what I read that looked like a resource issue and I also read about staff quitting around about the time Todd Kenrick quit. 
I would not expect anything from the Wizards acquisition until at least next year. Big investment and development programmes usually kick off in a new financial year.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

UngainlyTitan said:


> You think they are lying then.



So like in the industry I work in, IT products are become a bigger and bigger part, and firms like the one I work at are becoming more and more involved in putting them out, and what I'm seeing a lot of, in my sector is not what I'd call lying, per se, but like, "bad information".

Particularly often you see a company say they're going to do a thing - often having just acquired some brand-new product which they're going to use to make a legal product with, and it'll be super-cool, and they have some glossy mock-ups and so on, maybe even a prototype (made in an entirely different product). Then like, a year later, they release the thing, and it does like, 20% of what they were saying it would, isn't slick or that easy to use, and so on. It might still be worthwhile, because it might do something nothing else does, or it might be useless and quickly forgotten.

Re: the movement, I don't think there was any "This is real footage of a product that really exists" claims". Instead there was a lot of footage and lot of vague, unspecific or even speculative claims ("we might..." re: the dungeon blocks). So I wouldn't call that "lying", I'd call it a "bullshot", i.e. a mock-up or prototype designed to represent how they think it's going to look/work that's not explicitly called out as such (very common in videogames a 5-10 years ago - it's become less common as gamers have become more savvy about them).



UngainlyTitan said:


> That is where I sit. I have no problem in believing that an beta product can appear in 2024 and that it will work well enough with prefabbed maps but am sceptical that it will have a low enough learning curve, particularly to DMs to become popular. When it comes to utility software like this I am a firm believer in KISS. It should also have 2d mapping capability for journey handling.



Yeah exactly (though to be clear I do not believe it will run well in a framerate/reliable connectivity sense).

What surprised me about this announcement was that I kind of expected, after they screwed up so bad with the 4E VTT, that they wouldn't just jump to the same exact wild goals, but would say they were doing a sort of staged, iterated product, where first they'd have X, then X and Y, then X would become 3D, and so on, and so forth. When I look at the really successful products in my own industry (legal) that's exactly what I see. Not people trying to suddenly land in the market with something fully-featured and ultra-impressive, but doing something right - either something not done previously, or doing a better job than other products. Then they build on top of that foundation (often quite rapidly). I was expecting they'd just be aiming at a fully-Beyond-integrated VTT and talking about how they'd get that right and being humble (because of the huge failures due to previous hubris lol). But I guess they learned absolutely nothing? Or it's different people and the feel no need to worry because of previous WotC screw-ups? Because we got maximum-hype show-off stuff with a spicy hint of monetization instead.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> To be fair, one only rents beer.



Sometimes you pay for things, but other times you buy _experiences_!


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> What surprised me about this announcement was that I kind of expected, after they screwed up so bad with the 4E VTT, that they wouldn't just jump to the same exact wild goals, but would say they were doing a sort of staged, iterated product, where first they'd have X, then X and Y, then X would become 3D, and so on, and so forth. When I look at the really successful products in my own industry (legal) that's exactly what I see. Not people trying to suddenly land in the market with something fully-featured and ultra-impressive, but doing something right - either something not done previously, or doing a better job than other products. Then they build on top of that foundation (often quite rapidly). I was expecting they'd just be aiming at a fully-Beyond-integrated VTT and talking about how they'd get that right and being humble (because of the huge failures due to previous hubris lol). But I guess they learned absolutely nothing? Or it's different people and the feel no need to worry because of previous WotC screw-ups? Because we got maximum-hype show-off stuff with a spicy hint of monetization instead.



I think that the long term play is the same but I also suspect that they are thinking in terms of iterating this until they get it right and that there will be a market for AR/VR in the medium term. 

If it was up to me I would also have gone for a 2d mapping  solution but port it to everything. Tablets, pcs, consoles the lot.


----------



## nevin

VTT technology keeps getting better but I think it's a long way off from replacing normal games. One it's just not there yet.  Two As great as it sounds it'll be more prep for the DM unless he buy's prepackaged adventures.    Can you imagine wearing one of those helmets for an 3 hour game session?   No thanks.


----------



## Hussar

It's rather unfair to compare this to the 4e roll out.  There are just so many differences.

1.  I doubt that this project will be derailed in the middle by the murder/suicide of the lead developers.  It might happen, I suppose, but, I'm going to guess that it's unlikely.

2.  That was fifteen years ago.  Good grief, things have changed so much since then.  I mean, is anyone still on the payroll that was involved back then?  Not too many faces.

I'm sure there's other stuff, but, those two kinda mean that there really isn't any comparison.


----------



## Hussar

nevin said:


> VTT technology keeps getting better but I think it's a long way off from replacing normal games. One it's just not there yet.  Two As great as it sounds it'll be more prep for the DM unless he buy's prepackaged adventures.    Can you imagine wearing one of those helmets for an 3 hour game session?   No thanks.



Now this I totally agree with.  There's no chance, at least in the near future of VTT's replacing anything.  

VTT play is a pretty small niche of the larger hobby.  There's what, 50, 60 million players currently?  VTT play might be a couple of million players, maybe?  I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 5% of tables used VTT's at all.  

Granted, 5% of players is still lots of people, but, considering how much WotC has bent over backwards to support in person gaming and FLGS play, there is ZERO chance that this is going to be a replacement for anything.  What it might do, at a few tables, is a sort of hybrid set up (which you do see from time to time) and a core of online gamers like me.  

But no, this will not be a replacement of anything for a very, very long time.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> But no, this will not be a replacement of anything for a very, very long time.



I don't think that's really WotC's goal, though, to be fair.

I think their actual goal here is the same goal they had with the 4E VTT (given literally everything they're saying is similar to the 4E rhetoric), which is not to target existing groups as much as people who aren't able to play and/or aren't able to play regularly. They're not dumb enough to come out and outright say that this time (when they did with 4E, it was misinterpreted as "4E wants to be WoW" in a literal, gameplay sense), but my expectation is that they also push matchmaking and so on, and try and get people playing D&D specifically through their VTT who wouldn't otherwise be playing D&D. Those people are going to be much more loyal to them, and much more invested in the VTT ecosystem. People who just use it could always just stop using it, or even swap to another VTT and keep using their physical books and so on. But if you have someone who doesn't even have physical books, who maybe hasn't even played D&D outside of a VTT, then you've got someone who is going to be much happier to pay for virtual minis, virtual dice, for whom the idea of only being able to build a dungeon using pre-existing blocks isn't "heresy", but just "how it's done" and so on.

Sure it'll also get some people who use VTTs sometimes using it, but I doubt we're the main audience, longer-term, given the strategy they're employing.


----------



## wedgeski

Hussar said:


> VTT play is a pretty small niche of the larger hobby. There's what, 50, 60 million players currently? VTT play might be a couple of million players, maybe? I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 5% of tables used VTT's at all.




Hmm, my feeling is you'd be surprised how much takes place online, especially since COVID and the potential inertia of getting groups back around the table who have discovered that (IMO) the game works perfectly well with a VTT or on the end of a Skype call. I'd guess more than that.


----------



## Galandris

I wonder what shares of the market is running homebrew adventures. Maybe people just running the published adventures are a large enough group for WotC to target them exclusively. 

After all, very few people seem to play at high level, but at the same time, there is no high level content being officially published. Maybe it's because people mostly play published material (that, and the fact that the game break at high level).


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> Now this I totally agree with.  There's no chance, at least in the near future of VTT's replacing anything.
> 
> VTT play is a pretty small niche of the larger hobby.  There's what, 50, 60 million players currently?  VTT play might be a couple of million players, maybe?  I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 5% of tables used VTT's at all.
> 
> Granted, 5% of players is still lots of people, but, considering how much WotC has bent over backwards to support in person gaming and FLGS play, there is ZERO chance that this is going to be a replacement for anything.  What it might do, at a few tables, is a sort of hybrid set up (which you do see from time to time) and a core of online gamers like me.
> 
> But no, this will not be a replacement of anything for a very, very long time.



Do we have any way of knowing? Obviously a number of companies, big and small, are developing VTT tools which means they at least think it is here to stay and going to grow. But to what extent independently of in person play? I would be curious to know if as the pandemic ends (sort of) if public play -- pubs, community centers, libraries -- rebounds. And, crucially, are the new people playing since 5E arrived playing differently -- by that I mean locations, session lengths, regularity, etc... -- that those that have been around a while.

I am not sure how you would find out other than watching trends and subscriberships.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Galandris said:


> I wonder what shares of the market is running homebrew adventures. Maybe people just running the published adventures are a large enough group for WotC to target them exclusively.



I think WotC at one point said most people are running adventures they write themselves, but also indicated the percentage using official adventures some/all of the time was pretty high.

Also, I think there's a crossover between the kind of people who don't get to play IRL, and who would run/play official adventures, particularly due to time/organisation issues.


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> Do we have any way of knowing? Obviously a number of companies, big and small, are developing VTT tools which means they at least think it is here to stay and going to grow. But to what extent independently of in person play? I would be curious to know if as the pandemic ends (sort of) if public play -- pubs, community centers, libraries -- rebounds. And, crucially, are the new people playing since 5E arrived playing differently -- by that I mean locations, session lengths, regularity, etc... -- that those that have been around a while.
> 
> I am not sure how you would find out other than watching trends and subscriberships.




This is a way of finding. WotC claims there are 60 millions of active D&D players.


Roll20 claims to have 10 millions accounts, and in their report posted here, a little over half plays 5e. That's 5 millions for roll20. But that's accounts ever created, not players, so that's the high-end estimate (some people might have tried once, then never again).

Fantasy grounds published in their report that they had 95,000 sessions in January 2021 (a little old, I know), a record then. In the "best case" they were all active users who play once a month, so there is no duplicate. That's, assuming 6 players per session, a little under one million. Let's say a million to account for the increase in the market share.

I don't know the relative market share of VTT but those heavyweights are still dwarfed by the general 5e market (foundry vtt is often mentionned as well but I didn't find any numbers from them with a quick search).



Ruin Explorer said:


> Also, I think there's a crossover between the kind of people who don't get to play IRL, and who would run/play official adventures, particularly due to time/organisation issues.




I concur.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Galandris said:


> This is a way of finding. WotC claims there are 60 millions of D&D players.
> 
> 
> Roll20 claims to have 10 millions accounts, and in their report posted here, a little over half plays 5e. That's 5 millions for roll20. But that's accounts ever created, not players, so that's the high-end estimate.
> 
> Fantasy grounds published in their report that they had 95,000 sessions in January 2021 (a little old, I know). In the "best case" they were all active users who play once a month, so there is no duplicate. That's, assuming 6 players per session, a little under one million.
> 
> I don't know the relative market share of VTT but those heavyweight are still dwarfed by the general 5e market.
> 
> 
> 
> I concur.



WotC also said D&D Beyond had 10 million registered users at the time they bought it.

Those are relatively high-value as well because you can only register with Twitch, Google, or Apple accounts (and Twitch is now deprecated I believe).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

nevin said:


> VTT technology keeps getting better but I think it's a long way off from replacing normal games. One it's just not there yet.  Two As great as it sounds it'll be more prep for the DM unless he buy's prepackaged adventures.    Can you imagine wearing one of those helmets for an 3 hour game session?   No thanks.



Oh! I agree I am thinking 2030 and beyond.


----------



## Reynard

Galandris said:


> This is a way of finding. WotC claims there are *60 millions of active D&D players*.
> 
> 
> Roll20 claims to have 10 millions accounts, and in their report posted here, a little over half plays 5e. That's 5 millions for roll20. But that's accounts ever created, not players, so that's the high-end estimate (some people might have tried once, then never again).
> 
> Fantasy grounds published in their report that they had 95,000 sessions in January 2021 (a little old, I know), a record then. In the "best case" they were all active users who play once a month, so there is no duplicate. That's, assuming 6 players per session, a little under one million. Let's say a million to account for the increase in the market share.
> 
> I don't know the relative market share of VTT but those heavyweights are still dwarfed by the general 5e market (foundry vtt is often mentionned as well but I didn't find any numbers from them with a quick search).
> 
> 
> 
> I concur.



Emphasis mine.
One quibble: that is not what WotC claims. it claims some number (50 or 60 million) HAVE played D&D. I don't know that I have heard them suggest how many active players there are (because how could they possibly know?).


----------



## Nikosandros

wedgeski said:


> Hmm, my feeling is you'd be surprised how much takes place online, especially since COVID and the potential inertia of getting groups back around the table who have discovered that (IMO) the game works perfectly well with a VTT or on the end of a Skype call. I'd guess more than that.



My experience exactly. Before Covid, I was quite skeptical of online gaming. I had some not so great experienced in the past. However, when Italy went into a strict lock-down, I had no choice but to try again. This time, since my ADSL connection was having problems, I finally switched to optical fiber and the overall experience was a revelation. Now, I've yet to play again in person. There is just an enormous convenience in gaming online. I'm sure I'll play again in person during a weekend or at a con, but I think that my days of driving somewhere during the week-evenings to game are more or less over.


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> One quibble: that is not what WotC claims. it claims some number (50 or 60 million) HAVE played D&D. I don't know that I have heard them suggest how many active players there are (because how could they possibly know?).




Honestly, I don't know. However, I seem to remember a Bloomberg article before the pandemics when they claimed to have 40 millions people playing annually. I agree that "annually" doesn't sound very active, but it doesn't seem to be a "once in a lifetime try" either. I'll try to find the source again.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think that's really WotC's goal, though, to be fair.
> 
> I think their actual goal here is the same goal they had with the 4E VTT (given literally everything they're saying is similar to the 4E rhetoric), which is not to target existing groups as much as people who aren't able to play and/or aren't able to play regularly. They're not dumb enough to come out and outright say that this time (when they did with 4E, it was misinterpreted as "4E wants to be WoW" in a literal, gameplay sense), but my expectation is that they also push matchmaking and so on, and *try and get people playing D&D specifically through their VTT who wouldn't otherwise be playing D&D. *Those people are going to be much more loyal to them, and much more invested in the VTT ecosystem. People who just use it could always just stop using it, or even swap to another VTT and keep using their physical books and so on. But if you have someone who doesn't even have physical books, who maybe hasn't even played D&D outside of a VTT, then you've got someone who is going to be much happier to pay for virtual minis, virtual dice, for whom the idea of only being able to build a dungeon using pre-existing blocks isn't "heresy", but just "how it's done" and so on.
> 
> Sure it'll also get some people who use VTTs sometimes using it, but I doubt we're the main audience, longer-term, given the strategy they're employing.



How are they going to give these people a game? Hire professional DMs? Beautiful terrain and minis aside, unless this is easy for a DM to set up it is going nowhere. FantasyGrounds is suffering from its clucky UI and it is very powerful and capable otherwise and likely to be much easier to get started than a 3d VTT. 
The other thing that is different to when 4e launched is that Youtube is full of videos telling how to get started in D&D with nothing more than Zoom/Discord and some dice roller apps.
They have to be aware of that. 

I am interested in what they are doing but somewhat sceptical about the utility of it. I am also curious as to the hardware requirements of this.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> Me and Hussar will I think, regardless of who ends up being right.




The thing is, the truth could so easily be either side.  Yes, it's a complex software project, somewhere in between Wordle and Grand Theft Auto XIII.  And certainly many organizations, many times, have failed to deliver software on time, or at all.  But on the flip side, many organizations have delivered amazing software more quickly than expected.

We don't know how many resources have been committed to this project, or how good they are, or how long they've been working on it in secret.

Just basing my guess off of what tends to happen when non-software companies decide to start writing software...whether they build their own organization or outsource it, each of which carries different risks...I would predict they don't deliver everything they are saying in the time frame offered.  But maybe they got lucky and hired just the right development firm, or hired just the right engineering manager.  And maybe they got that part totally wrong and this project will crash and burn.  Could go either way, but I'll stick with my prediction of "late, but they'll get there".


----------



## Ruin Explorer

UngainlyTitan said:


> unless this is easy for a DM to set up it is going nowhere



My presumption is that if this really is the longer-term goal, they'll be releasing adventures well-integrated into the VTT to make it much easier to DM than Roll 20 or the like. That'll probably cost some flexibility, of course.


UngainlyTitan said:


> I am also curious as to the hardware requirements of this.



Indeed. UE5 can theoretically give you a package that can run on anything from an slightly ageing Android phone to a cutting-edge gaming PC, but a lot of the stuff they seemed keen on in the trailer screamed "Gaming PC with a proper graphics card" to me (especially the ultra-high-res models and post-processing and so on).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> One quibble: that is not what WotC claims. it claims some number (50 or 60 million) HAVE played D&D. I don't know that I have heard them suggest how many active players there are (because how could they possibly know?).



They did actually make a claim re: active players, not that long ago - they said 30m IIRC, and it was noted because it was lower than the 50 million "have played" figure previously. I haven't been able to source it, but perhaps someone else can. I imagine it's guesswork anyway, as yeah, how could you know?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> My presumption is that if this really is the longer-term goal, they'll be releasing adventures well-integrated into the VTT to make it much easier to DM than Roll 20 or the like. That'll probably cost some flexibility, of course.



Agreed


Ruin Explorer said:


> Indeed. UE5 can theoretically give you a package that can run on anything from an slightly ageing Android phone to a cutting-edge gaming PC, but a lot of the stuff they seemed keen on in the trailer screamed "Gaming PC with a proper graphics card" to me (especially the ultra-high-res models and post-processing and so on).



That I did not know. If I were them I would release a player side client for the console market. The images shows do not look easily manipulated on a tablet (except large ones at the high end) or a phone but it would look gorgeous on a large TV.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

UngainlyTitan said:


> That I did not know. If I were them I would release a player side client for the console market. The images shows do not look easily manipulated on a tablet (except large ones at the high end) or a phone but it would look gorgeous on a large TV.



Yeah, let me clear that I don't know how easy that is. I haven't read anything saying it's drastically easier than UE4 to do multi-platform development, so I'd guess it was probably at least slightly easier (one would hope!), but still pretty difficult if you go outside like, "current gen consoles + PC".

But yes I absolutely expect that if WotC have any sense they're hoping to bring this to PS5 and Xbox either at the same time as PC or soon thereafter (certainly once out of beta - there are certain advantage to focusing on PC for that).


----------



## ReshiIRE

I expect they will try to bring it to consoles, but it sounds nightmarish in terms of controls for some actions. Not impossible, but not straightforward either.

Ironically the Switch could handle controls very easily via the IR sensor IF it had the horsepower to power the actual game.


----------



## Reynard

ReshiIRE said:


> I expect they will try to bring it to consoles, but it sounds nightmarish in terms of controls for some actions. Not impossible, but not straightforward either.



Why? Just use radial menus. If a console can handle BG3, it can handle D&D.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just saw an article a couple weeks ago that BMW is rolling out subscription-based plans for heated seats (and other features) in certain countries.



Yeah, I've seen it. I try to view it as laughable and absurd, even though my brain at sleep time grind it as another major step toward a dystopian nightmare where we lease the right to breath air.

But no politics, so let's go back to our grognardian skepticism about One D&D and the VTT


----------



## UngainlyTitan

ReshiIRE said:


> I expect they will try to bring it to consoles, but it sounds nightmarish in terms of controls for some actions. Not impossible, but not straightforward either.
> 
> Ironically the Switch could handle controls very easily via the IR sensor IF it had the horsepower to power the actual game.



the xbox can accept a keyboard and mouse.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Reynard said:


> Why? Just use radial menus. If a console can handle BG3, it can handle D&D.



I had forgotten BG3 had controller support.

I guess that could work. It just seems unnatural, and potentially slower? Especially for DMs.

But it would probably be alright for players.


----------



## Reynard

ReshiIRE said:


> I had forgotten BG3 had controller support.
> 
> I guess that could work. It just seems unnatural, and potentially slower? Especially for DMs.
> 
> But it would probably be alright for players.



Granted I don't think.i would want to run a D&D game for a bunch of XBlive random, given my experiences with other games, but it still seems like console support could be big.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> Granted I don't think.i would want to run a D&D game for a bunch of XBlive random, given my experiences with other games, but it still seems like console support could be big.



I would not want to run for xbox  live randoms either but I do know people with consoles that do not have decent PCs that I could run a game for.


----------



## drl2

Galandris said:


> I don't know the relative market share of VTT but those heavyweights are still dwarfed by the general 5e market (foundry vtt is often mentionned as well but I didn't find any numbers from them with a quick search).



Foundry is self-hosted (or hosted through a 3rd party like The Forge) and doesn't collect info on how it's being used, so there's no repository of usage information for it.  I suppose the folks at The Forge could extract some usage data and make it public but I don't think they've done so, and it would only represent a subset of the community.


----------



## King Babar

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think that the long term play is the same but I also suspect that they are thinking in terms of iterating this until they get it right and that there will be a market for AR/VR in the medium term.
> 
> If it was up to me I would also have gone for a 2d mapping  solution but port it to everything. Tablets, pcs, consoles the lot.



Will there be a VR market for this? Maybe I've been living under a rock, but to me VR remains a very niche product, both because of a lack of killer apps and the sheer expense of good set ups. VR would probably be a very small percent of the overall user base.

Also, is a D&D vtt a good use for VR in the first place? I don't see the advantage.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

King Babar said:


> Will there be a VR market for this? Maybe I've been living under a rock, but to me VR remains a very niche product, both because of a lack of killer apps and the sheer expense of good set ups. VR would probably be a very small percent of the overall user base.
> 
> Also, is a D&D vtt a good use for VR in the first place? I don't see the advantage.



To be honest not at this point in time but there have been a few apps in Kickstarter or elsewhere targeting the AR market and I do think there is a potential AR market and if you can do AR you can do VR and Sony have appears to have sold quite a few VR sets. I would be tempted to buy VR for this purpose, though I would prefer headset base AR (I like to see my environment).


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> To be honest not at this point in time but there have been a few apps in Kickstarter or elsewhere targeting the AR market and I do think there is a potential AR market and if you can do AR you can do VR and Sony have appears to have sold quite a few VR sets. I would be tempted to buy VR for this purpose, though I would prefer headset base AR (I like to see my environment).



Not just in gaming but broadly, I MUCH prefer AR and am looking forward to a heads up display and holomeetings. I won't wear a VR headset, though.


----------



## Hussar

wedgeski said:


> Hmm, my feeling is you'd be surprised how much takes place online, especially since COVID and the potential inertia of getting groups back around the table who have discovered that (IMO) the game works perfectly well with a VTT or on the end of a Skype call. I'd guess more than that.



Oh, I'm sure.  But, even if we go with 20%, it's still a minority of gaming.

Do you think it would be anywhere near 50%?   That's 30 million online gamers.  That would mean that 90% of online games aren't using Fantasy Grounds or Roll20, based on their sub numbers.  It's possible.  True, but, I rather doubt it.  We have some idea of the number of gamers playing on Fantasy Grounds - the last stat I found showed about 100 000 games.  That's far, far less than a million players.  So, yeah, unless there's this enormous group of online players that are not using either Fantasy Grounds or Roll20, I really do think that probably about 5-10% is a fairly accurate guess.


----------



## Hussar

Ruin Explorer said:


> WotC also said D&D Beyond had 10 million registered users at the time they bought it.
> 
> Those are relatively high-value as well because you can only register with Twitch, Google, or Apple accounts (and Twitch is now deprecated I believe).



I think that's largely where I'm coming from too.

If 10 million registered users are on D&D Beyond, that's still only a fairly small slice of the gaming population.  Not even a majority based on the numbers.  Although, the numbers are frankly very, very voodoo and tea leaves based.  50 million seems to be the number bandied about, although many of those are "casual" whatever that means.  

My point being, that if 10 million are on DDB, how likely would it be that the total number of VTT players would be greater than that number?  Again, it's possible, but, I really doubt it.  

One thing I do totally agree with @Ruin Explorer about is that a WotC VTT is meant to expand the market, not replace.  It's very much like the MtG Arena - they aren't slowing down card sales are they?  They're simply making it easier for people to get together with other people to play the game - which opens up new market avenues, not replaces them.  There's just zero chance, when they are hitting record physical book sales with every release, that they are going to do anything whatsoever to even suggest moving away from that avenue.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> Do you think it would be anywhere near 50%?   That's 30 million online gamers.



Why do people keep repeating this "60 millions active gamers" nonsense? No one ever said that. That number is an estimate of all the people that have EVER played D&D. By WotC.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I recall the vaporware 4e VTT.



Well, it wasnt really vaporware, it worked really well. It just never got finished and released for some reason. 

More importantly, the internal structure of the company is quite different, and they have a ton of solid video game developers in the company now. 


Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I don't have a particularly powerful PC (I don't play video games that much and when I do it's on the PS4 or Switch) and I'm skeptical about how smoothly it would run an Unreal Engine VTT.



This is my only concern.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Retreater said:


> Here's what I don't like about it.
> 
> Many players are already invested in a VTT. That investment will be made worthless in a couple years - or you can't play the current edition.



Source?


Retreater said:


> You're going to be paying to customize your token (a la HeroForge). We can currently just pull images from the Internet, make our own, or even use generic tokens. I'll bet that's not possible in this 3d environment.



Source?


Retreater said:


> My current setup has some lag when a teenager is playing online games, my wife is streaming HBO, and I'm running a game on voice chat and a VTT. This stuff isn't going to work, and I'll bet it's going to require a high end PC to do what you're seeing in the preview.



Definitely not high end. Just, fairly up to date gaming rig. Something that can run Dragon Age Inquisition with good graphics quality. 


Retreater said:


> We've been burnt before (Gleemax?) I don't believe WotC can even pull this off.



As far as digital content, it’s _barely_ the same company. They’ve bought and formed video game studios, and can give them a real budget. 


Retreater said:


> Purchasing piecemeal monsters and other components from their adventures means DMs will have to "unlock" creatures to be able to use them in homebrew. (It's like Pokemon Go or something.)



That’s a bit of a jump. I’d bet $30 right now that there is at least one free full adventure on the service, and the ability to make your own stuff. 


Retreater said:


> It's tied in with D&D Beyond. And I don't use D&D Beyond.



This is the only doom-calling I’ve seen about the vtt that I agree is remotely likely. I’m not super sympathetic, since DDB is free, but sure. Probably. 


Retreater said:


> 3PP will be screwed unless they can keep up with the programming and have access to use the proprietary system.



I *extremely doubt this*. Like the unreal engine isn’t even owned by wotc, first of all. Secondly, wotc has not behaved like you’re suggesting anytime in the last 8 years. 

For an example of how things may change, look at the history of the MorePurpleMoreBetter character sheet. When DDB came out, they told him he could only have SRD content in the sheet, without having paid for a license. 

What they didn’t do, is tell VTTs they had to either use DDB or suck it, they just enforced basic IP protection via licensing, which they already do with any VTT you pay for. 


Retreater said:


> If this turns out to be a subscription-based suite of microtransactions like I'm reading, they can keep it.



Again, look into how DDB actually works, as opposed to how people incorrectly claim it works. 

What it’ll look like is a space where you can get basic stuff for free (or a simple software purchase), with supplemental content requiring secondary purchase (just like anywhere else. You don’t get expansions for free when you buy a AAA video game, either) and the ability to make your own stuff, as well as buy paid content whole or piecemeal.


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:


> Why do people keep repeating this "60 millions active gamers" nonsense? No one ever said that. That number is an estimate of all the people that have EVER played D&D. By WotC.



Alright then, let's say you're right.  Say 10 million (the number of DDB users) is the current number.  Granted, that's not all that solid either since someone could have made an account and then stopped playing, but, sure, let's use 10 million.

Now, again, FG is running about 100 000 tables.  Roll 20 about the same number.  So, at best, you're looking at 1 million gamers.  Let's double that for everyone else.  That still puts current VTT gamers at about 20%.  Again, unless you think 90% of online gaming is being done by other programs and there's this massive group of silent people who game online but are impossible to count, my point still stands.

Note, also, that that 200 000 tables is of all games, not just D&D. The actual number of D&D tables is about 2/3rds of that (give or take).  

Does it really matter if it's 5, 15 or 25%?  FFS, the POINT is that online gaming is a fairly small niche of the total gaming community.  WotC having a VTT is not really going to change that.  It's simply a new market avenue, not a replacement for face to face gamers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Galandris said:


> Can't they buy a major VTT player outright?



Yes. They ought to! But they would just buy it, in that case, not show us their vaporware dreams.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> It's very much like the MtG Arena - they aren't slowing down card sales are they?



Yeah exactly.

I know a few people who play it. All of them are people who don't play MtG IRL or collect cards for it IRL - a lot of them used to when they were much younger and had more time and so on, but some have never played it IRL.

I suspect WotC would very much like it if they could do similar with D&D. DMs are the sticking point, but I would be unsurprised if WotC worked hard to find workarounds for that (specially-designed DM-less adventures, AI DMs, etc.) - but probably not for a few years, I think matchmaking will be the tactic initially.


----------



## Reynard

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is my only concern.



Cloud gaming is becoming ubiquitous so that may be their solution to run the thing on ipads and whatnot. You will probably still be out of luck without decent internet service, though.


Hussar said:


> Alright then, let's say you're right.  Say 10 million (the number of DDB users) is the current number.  Granted, that's not all that solid either since someone could have made an account and then stopped playing, but, sure, let's use 10 million.
> 
> Now, again, FG is running about 100 000 tables.  Roll 20 about the same number.  So, at best, you're looking at 1 million gamers.  Let's double that for everyone else.  That still puts current VTT gamers at about 20%.  Again, unless you think 90% of online gaming is being done by other programs and there's this massive group of silent people who game online but are impossible to count, my point still stands.
> 
> Note, also, that that 200 000 tables is of all games, not just D&D. The actual number of D&D tables is about 2/3rds of that (give or take).
> 
> Does it really matter if it's 5, 15 or 25%?  FFS, the POINT is that online gaming is a fairly small niche of the total gaming community.  WotC having a VTT is not really going to change that.  It's simply a new market avenue, not a replacement for face to face gamers.



You know I'm not the one you were arguing with on that point, right? I'm honestly curious how prevalent VTT use is, given that WotC is obviously going all in. No one that I am aware of in this thread said face to face gaming is going extinct, so I'm not sure why you are so incensed. But folks should not mindlessly repeat misinformation.


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:


> Cloud gaming is becoming ubiquitous so that may be their solution to run the thing on ipads and whatnot. You will probably still be out of luck without decent internet service, though.
> 
> You know I'm not the one you were arguing with on that point, right? I'm honestly curious how prevalent VTT use is, given that WotC is obviously going all in. No one that I am aware of in this thread said face to face gaming is going extinct, so I'm not sure why you are so incensed. But folks should not mindlessly repeat misinformation.



More just somewhat grumpy that the point was getting missed with all the back and forth over the exact numbers.  It really doesn't change the point if you change the numbers.  



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I suspect WotC would very much like it if they could do similar with D&D. DMs are the sticking point, but I would be unsurprised if WotC worked hard to find workarounds for that (specially-designed DM-less adventures, AI DMs, etc.) - but probably not for a few years, I think matchmaking will be the tactic initially.




Well, judging from my experience with VTT's, it gets to a certain critical mass and from that point, it's more about just finding the right group for your play style.  It doesn't actually take that many either.  If you've got a thousand DM's, that means there's a game starting like every ten minutes of every day of the week.  ((No, I didn't actually check that math - feel free to correct me if you fell like)) 

Frankly, I'm utterly shocked that it's taken this long.  It just seems like such a no brainer to me.  What a fantastic resource for any gaming company - a complete record of thousands of games in real time.  Just the market research alone would make a VTT worth it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> Cloud gaming is becoming ubiquitous so that may be their solution to run the thing on ipads and whatnot. You will probably still be out of luck without decent internet service, though.



I mean, sorta?

The trouble is there's no "neutral" cloud service for WotC to use. In order to deliver graphics like the demo, they'd need something which had fairly serious amounts of power at the other end. What's interesting is, no-one yet has managed to make a cloud gaming thing which is truly virtual (correct me if I'm wrong but please only if you actually have a source that disagrees), as in, like, it can flex up and down on what hardware it's using and so on, in a truly flexible way. Primarily because that would require stuff to be programmed differently. Stadia, for example, is just a bunch of racked consoles (each a bit more powerful than a PS4 Pro, less powerful than a PS5), connected to networked storage. You are actually playing on an actual console, it's not a virtual console. GeForce Now, as I understand it, does similar with racked PCs and graphics cards. I dunno exactly how the PS and Xbox ones work, but I suspect for anything current-gen, if they do, it's similar (racked PS5 and Xbox One hardware connected to networked storage). Older gen might be able to be emulated virtually.

You just want cloud processing of information, or cloud storage, there are a million billion solutions, including some just-great ones. But none are suitable for this kind of game-like app.

They might be able to partner with Google (now Stadia has failed, they're looking for new uses, I hear) or MS to do it, but I'd be surprised if that made sense financially.

That said, if this is successful, odds on Microsoft acquiring Hasbro/WotC within a decade? Pretty good, I'd say.


----------



## Ystraeth

In can't imagine ever needing anything remotely like this.  It feels like an awful way to take part in an entertainment medium that is at its best face to face (with no intervening screens) anyway.  I get online gaming works or is the only option for many, but for me this takes a poor experience makes it terrible.    The again, I prefer no gaming to online gaming generally (i've done both - the latter just isn't gaming for me).

Heh, I'm quite definitely *not* the target market for this stuff


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

Hussar said:


> Does it really matter if it's 5, 15 or 25%?  FFS, the POINT is that online gaming is a fairly small niche of the total gaming community.  WotC having a VTT is not really going to change that.  It's simply a new market avenue, not a replacement for face to face gamers.



On the other hand, I guess a pretty substantial part of the online gamers are like me and my table - old friends that has discovered during the pandemic that VTT gaming save lots of time and car miles, so we can cram out more gaming time each week. 

And many of us older VTT gamers have jobs and ok disposable income, which should make us an attractive consumer group even if we are a smallish part of the total gaming community.


----------



## Zaukrie

The level of cynicism in this thread is amazing, even for the internet. I'm hopeful. I guess I'm getting soft in my old age.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

Zaukrie said:


> The level of cynicism in this thread is amazing, even for the internet. I'm hopeful. I guess I'm getting soft in my old age.



Softness is a curse, it stands in the way for true grognard grumpiness evolution! ;-)


----------



## Reynard

HaroldTheHobbit said:


> On the other hand, I guess a pretty substantial part of the online gamers are like me and my table - old friends that has discovered during the pandemic that VTT gaming save lots of time and car miles, so we can cram out more gaming time each week.
> 
> And many of us older VTT gamers have jobs and ok disposable income, which should make us an attractive consumer group even if we are a smallish part of the total gaming community.



I play with friends ranging from 20 to 500 miles away, in addition to a local group that switched to VTT during the pandemic and has realized we actually get more gaming in by cutting out the commute.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Zaukrie said:


> The level of cynicism in this thread is amazing, even for the internet. I'm hopeful. I guess I'm getting soft in my old age.



Never forget Gleemax!


----------



## Zaukrie

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Never forget Gleemax!



Great example. But sure, people will die, and things will fall apart.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Reynard said:


> I play with friends ranging from 20 to 500 miles away, in addition to a local group that switched to VTT during the pandemic and has realized we actually get more gaming in by cutting out the commute.




It's a benefit easy to underestimate.  The hard line of separation is people who just can't deal with the lack of direct interaction, or for whom the usual remote-communication follies are a bridge too far.  I'm a bit conflicted, but on the whole I think its been beneficial for the people I play with.


----------



## Bill Zebub

VTT’s allowed me to reunite with some of the friends I played with in Jr High in 1980.


----------



## ReshiIRE

I am mainly being sceptical (and, perhaps, somewhat cynical) due to the fact that AAA video gaming is in a complex, somewhat negative state. There are a lot of excellent AAA games out there and still being released, but a _lot_ of the industry in that space is downright releasing some pretty poor products and filling them with some predatory microtransactions

I would consider WoTC now involved in that side of the industry, especially as the VTT approach they are taking uses a game engine and more than likely primarily involve those experienced in making video games, not necessarily tools.

So I'm worried they might decide to follow the leaders a bit.


----------



## Grendel_Khan

Bill Zebub said:


> VTT’s allowed me to reunite with some of the friends I played with in Jr High in 1980.




This is an underrated and I suspect underreported benefit of VTTs. The chances that we all live within a reasonable distance of the folks we started gaming with in school are awfully slim. But the chance that some number of that group have internet connections and time for a few hours of gaming every week or so? That's why I love VTTs, and get real salty when people dump on them as some lesser, pandemic-only gaming option.


----------



## Reynard

Grendel_Khan said:


> This is an underrated and I suspect underreported benefit of VTTs. The chances that we all live within a reasonable distance of the folks we started gaming with in school is awfully slim. But the chance that some number of that group have internet connections and time for a few hours of gaming every week or so? That's why I love VTTs, and get real salty when people dump on it as some lesser, pandemic-only gaming option.



I was very skeptical for a long time and I regret the decade I lost when online play was viable but I decided "it wasn't for me" without even trying it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Yeah, I've continued on with Discord games as a supplement to other D&D play to allow me to play with my dad and brother, both of whom live long airplane flights away, as well as friends from high school and elsewhere.


----------



## Umbran

Thomas Shey said:


> The hard line of separation is people who just can't deal with the lack of direct interaction...




I think "just can't deal with" is kind of an overstatement.  How about we include the folks who _can_ deal with it, but don't want to.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> I was very skeptical for a long time and I regret the decade I lost when online play was viable but I decided "it wasn't for me" without even trying it.



/raises hand.


----------



## Hussar

ReshiIRE said:


> I am mainly being sceptical (and, perhaps, somewhat cynical) due to the fact that AAA video gaming is in a complex, somewhat negative state. There are a lot of excellent AAA games out there and still being released, but a _lot_ of the industry in that space is downright releasing some pretty poor products and filling them with some predatory microtransactions
> 
> I would consider WoTC now involved in that side of the industry, especially as the VTT approach they are taking uses a game engine and more than likely primarily involve those experienced in making video games, not necessarily tools.
> 
> So I'm worried they might decide to follow the leaders a bit.



I'm not sure why you are insisting that this is a "AAA" video game release.

I mean, there's zero cut scenes.  No voice acting.  No story at all.  There's no computer AI running opponents for the players.  There's no physics engine.  This is just a 3D modeling suite with a few extra bells and whistles.  You have things like this being done by kickstarters.  As I mentioned before DM Alchemist is pretty much exactly this - although this might have better graphics.

But, there's no way that this is even remotely as complex as a AAA video game release.


----------



## Hussar

Grendel_Khan said:


> This is an underrated and I suspect underreported benefit of VTTs. The chances that we all live within a reasonable distance of the folks we started gaming with in school are awfully slim. But the chance that some number of that group have internet connections and time for a few hours of gaming every week or so? That's why I love VTTs, and get real salty when people dump on them as some lesser, pandemic-only gaming option.



Heh.  It's far, far more VTT friendly now that it used to be.  Before the pandemic, telling other gamers you played over VTT was tantamount to admitting you had an embarrassing social disease.  "It's not real gaming" has been a pretty common refrain for a VERY long time.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Umbran said:


> I think "just can't deal with" is kind of an overstatement.  How about we include the folks who _can_ deal with it, but don't want to.




I'm expressing it with about the force I've typically seen people who reject it use.  Find it overstated?  Take it up with them.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure why you are insisting that this is a "AAA" video game release.
> 
> I mean, there's zero cut scenes.  No voice acting.  No story at all.  There's no computer AI running opponents for the players.  There's no physics engine.  This is just a 3D modeling suite with a few extra bells and whistles.  You have things like this being done by kickstarters.  As I mentioned before DM Alchemist is pretty much exactly this - although this might have better graphics.
> 
> But, there's no way that this is even remotely as complex as a AAA video game release.




It's still complex software!It won't be as complex as an AAA video game release in a lot of ways as mentioned, but it's going to be complex in _different ways_ to a lot of triple A games - notably, support for user generated content, which has become _rarer_ over time. 

How much rules and dice automation is there going to be? Foundry level, something more basic? How configurable is this going to be?

How complex will the editor be and what styles will it support? What type of map size, will customised sets be supported or only Wizards approved ones? How commplex are the pieces going to be? Is there going to be multiple floor support, stacking atop layers, or something more like Talespire that allows you to zoom the camera to different spots to see different layers?

What about rules to support homebrew - there's going to be big demand for that. Will _that_ have any automation?

What toggles will be there to support variant rules? 

How will it link in with D&D Beyond? 

What will the performance impact be on DMs compared to players? How much data and processing will be on the server side? How is that going to scale?

Will they need to make any changes to the graphical pipeline to support what they need to do? 

How are they going to handle the various different 3d models they want to support - they presumably will need some sophsiticated system to swap in and out different parts.

Will they ahve any matchmaking? Will that all be handled inside the app - or will some of it be possible to be managed from D&D Beyond?
What other technical challenges are there going to be that's unexpected? Those always arise.

I wonder what unique challenges UE5 will present to them - it is great software and a great engine, no doubt, but there will likely be unexpected sore points. How will they deal with the kinks?

My overall point is that I think I have reason to be sceptical. As much as I enjoy what I have used of Talespire - a 3d VTT funded by Kickstarter - it is very much just a map, some models, and moving them about. There are no tools to the level of Foundry, but that's to be expected of a smaller team working on something much more graphically complex and somewhat more complex in terms of moving characters about and handling map creation, etc. 

_Is that enough for what people will expect of WotC?_ What _will_ people expect, especially with the promises WoTC are making? And will it match the price that they charge?


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Never forget Gleemax!



Yeah that was like 12 years ago I don’t care


----------



## MonsterEnvy

I imagine there will be automation in the game, and I imagine it will be easier implemented cause it’s only being designed to work with one system.


----------



## Zaukrie

ReshiIRE said:


> It's still complex software!It won't be as complex as an AAA video game release in a lot of ways as mentioned, but it's going to be complex in _different ways_ to a lot of triple A games - notably, support for user generated content, which has become _rarer_ over time.
> 
> How much rules and dice automation is there going to be? Foundry level, something more basic? How configurable is this going to be?
> 
> How complex will the editor be and what styles will it support? What type of map size, will customised sets be supported or only Wizards approved ones? How commplex are the pieces going to be? Is there going to be multiple floor support, stacking atop layers, or something more like Talespire that allows you to zoom the camera to different spots to see different layers?
> 
> What about rules to support homebrew - there's going to be big demand for that. Will _that_ have any automation?
> 
> What toggles will be there to support variant rules?
> 
> How will it link in with D&D Beyond?
> 
> What will the performance impact be on DMs compared to players? How much data and processing will be on the server side? How is that going to scale?
> 
> Will they need to make any changes to the graphical pipeline to support what they need to do?
> 
> How are they going to handle the various different 3d models they want to support - they presumably will need some sophsiticated system to swap in and out different parts.
> 
> Will they ahve any matchmaking? Will that all be handled inside the app - or will some of it be possible to be managed from D&D Beyond?
> What other technical challenges are there going to be that's unexpected? Those always arise.
> 
> I wonder what unique challenges UE5 will present to them - it is great software and a great engine, no doubt, but there will likely be unexpected sore points. How will they deal with the kinks?
> 
> My overall point is that I think I have reason to be sceptical. As much as I enjoy what I have used of Talespire - a 3d VTT funded by Kickstarter - it is very much just a map, some models, and moving them about. There are no tools to the level of Foundry, but that's to be expected of a smaller team working on something much more graphically complex and somewhat more complex in terms of moving characters about and handling map creation, etc.
> 
> _Is that enough for what people will expect of WotC?_ What _will_ people expect, especially with the promises WoTC are making? And will it match the price that they charge?



DNDbeyond has almost all the rules, a combat tracker, etc. That part isn't in beta.... It's done.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I think I'd prefer to be excited and hopeful even if I end up disappointed, rather than be skeptical/cynical and be pleasantly surprised.  I just think it's a nicer way to go through life.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, I'm really not seeing any real issues here @ReshiIRE .  For one, we already have numerous VTT's that do every single thing you've listed, and do it pretty well.  Meaning that none of the things they're proposing are particularly cutting edge.  Automation of mechanics isn't exactly a hugely complex thing.  And I find the notion that D&D is massively more complex for a computer program than, say, Call of Duty, to be difficult to believe.  

But, sure, we're going to have to wait and see.


----------



## ReshiIRE

I mean, that's fair. It's valid to be excited and hopeful. I just wanted too give reasons why I am not.

I will admit I am biased against Wizards mainly because they have disappointed me in the past (though mainly in the treatment of their workers). I'm not typically sceptical and cyncial about things either. Though honestly I prefer being pleasantly surprised.


----------



## MarkB

MarkB said:


> There are a number of services such as HeroForge which allow people to create highly detailed minis in-browser, and then purchase them either as 3D printer files or physical minis. Despite the expense, a lot of players seem to use them in order to get just the right look for their character.
> 
> As I speculated upthread, it would not at all surprise me if WotC either acquires such an app or builds their own, and adds the option to export your mini to their VTT.



So, interesting nugget - I posted the above purely as speculation, but it turns out that Heroforge have already partnered with another 3D-minis-based VTT to allow importing of their minis into that program.



			https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bouncyrock/talespire/posts/3290221


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I saw that in an ad on YouTube yesterday. If I were WotC, I'd just buy Talespire and Heroforge and be done with it. Integrate it with D&D Beyond, and they're _years_ ahead of the game, instead of needing to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Haplo781

May as well grab TitanForge whole they're at it for monster minis.


----------



## Hussar

I guess this is why I'm not highly skeptical.

Heroforge is hardly a new, cutting edge program.  It's been around for a lot of years.  Things like Talespire are hardly being developed by massive studios with million dollar budgets.  Not that WotC is a massive studio or anything like that, that's not what I mean, but, it is proof that you can have a pretty gorgeous VTT without needing anything near a AAA budget production.  

Nothing about a VTT requires anything cutting edge.  It's all tried and proven stuff that you can find all over the place.  DM Alchemist, Talespire and a shopping list of other examples.  

So, no, I'm not really skeptical that it can be done.  Now, will it be done really well?  I dunno.  I do know it can be though.


----------



## Clint_L

As someone who has a lot of money and time invested in my hand-painted miniatures and terrain, I don't see myself going over to a virtual tabletop as my first choice. But sometimes I do play online, and then it would be great. Plus, there are lots of folks, especially younger folks, who don't have a garage full of decades worth of gaming stuff, so this could be brilliant for them. I won't be first in line to use it, but I am excited to see what it becomes.


----------



## Marandahir

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah that's a fair point, but so many businesses don't do that, include really big corporate ones, because of the sheer burden of getting people up to speed on the newest engine. UE5 is a remarkable engine, and very flexible (in theory), so could be good, for sure.
> 
> I guess the advantage here is the product doesn't exist, so however long it takes, it takes that long. It's not like they're trying to keep something going.



This. Withered tech has great value in that you know the kinks, it's relatively cheap to develop for, and you're relatively certain that the specs won't be too powerful for the majority of your audience. It also saves on processing power and load times!


----------

