Take 2

1. I think it is important we understand we want a win for everyone (think the scene in A Beautiful Mind)

DOUGLAS REYNOLDS

Neither you nor me knows what the future holds. But I think it's fair for people to be concerned about this drive to increased monetization and recurring revenue coupled with the release of a new edition. Let's hope your optimism is rewarded.

I doubt putting content we already own behind a required paid subscription would be legal, furthermore in the case of D&D it would be counterproductive because we could just go back to playing with the books and that would make the purchase of D&DB a colossal failure. They already have a paid subscription service (which I currently am subbed to at the highest level) and I could certainly see them expanding that (there is definitely opportunity there), but the challenge with paid subscriptions is they have to provide additional options/content that the consumer wants and priced so that we're willing to pay. I don't really have speculation at this time what those will be, but what was told to investors is that they would be "options" not requirements.

Treantmonk's Temple

I think the part that people are worried about is the "recurring revenue" part. It's one thing to "monetize" great new content. I'll happily pay for that and say thank you. It's another to lock your players behind a subscription to be able to enjoy content they own. We know that they are considering changes to the OGL, they could easily stop supporting alternate VTT once their own platform is out. What happens when they push everyone out of the market and start charging 15$ a month for their VTT, plus loot boxes for minis and "exclusive" content? It might not happen, but I think people are right to be worried about the situation. Vertical integration and lack of competition is bad for the customer.