I really hope so. Warhammer licensing model has thrown the franchise in so many hands, we were given games that became truly highly acclaimed and selling. The Dawn of War series, Vermintide, Blood Bowl, Total War: Warhammer, etc. They even give the license for old-school niche games like Apocalypse.
You seem to only focus on the many mobile CCG cash grabs but there have been incredible choice of good games using their rules.
This is definitely true, but there are two key difference with Warhammer, which don't translate directly to D&D.
1) Warhammer games are actual strategy/tactics games, and thus translating them into computer games is generally pretty straightforward. Sometimes a near-direct translation can even work out, as with Blood Bowl. Even less-direct ones benefit a great deal from a depth of source material that is highly suitable for the subject - the Dawn of War games, for example, are RTS (in three different forms) rather than the exact same kind of wargame as 40K, but they can draw on these vast numbers of units and factions and concepts that are already there to fuel building a good strategy game. Total War: Warhammer is similar in this. The lore inspires the game and approach and the fact that the lore was designed for a strategy game makes it work really well.
2) Most Warhammer games are based on dead or semi-dead GW properties. This means GW allows more freedom, and GW is also happy to allow this because it doesn't compete directly with them - we have yet to see any evidence WotC are likewise happy to allow this. If they are, that'd be helpful. But so far we've seen the opposite - a relentless focus on what is regarded as the "current" setting. Vermintide and Total War for example weren't given the go-ahead until GW decided to burn down Warhammer Fantasy, and 40K-related games seem to have a much harder time not being terrible.
The problem D&D has is that it isn't "a bunch of different but connected strategy/tactics games", but rather a single tabletop RPG, which has a bunch of settings, most of which are very long out-of-print. It's also been borrowed from even more heavily than Warhammer, over the years, so has a lot less to offer in terms of unique or just plain exciting ideas.
That means it is significantly harder to make good D&D games, especially if they aren't RPGs. And if they are RPGs, it's tough because WotC seems to always want them to be current-edition and current-settings.
As someone pointed out, too, most of the game companies who are actually good at making fantasy CRPGs, ARPGs, or fantasy action games have their own IPs they're already using, too, so there's little obvious benefit to them in using D&D.
I will say D&D is a much, much bigger brand, now, in 2019, than it was in say 2009, or even 1999, but the things associated with that brand don't necessarily translate easily to a wide variety of games. I think the "Warhammer approach", i.e. the shotgun approach, is a decent one, but they need to ensure some good companies take a shot. The DoW series was from Relic, who were already skilled RTS designers. The TW:W series is by Creative Assembly, who are brilliant strategy game designers. They have Larian, but they need to get other good CRPG designers on board, I would say.