Theory on Digital Gaming Initiative

[Sholari]

My theory/guesstimate is this. WOTC is trying to cut out the support infrastructure (Dungeon, Dragon, E-tools, etc.) out from under the current edition ahead of the announcement of their new edition. I think d20 and to the extent they can damage OGL, that too. Similar to Microsoft their old version is the biggest competitive for their new version. The hope is that people will be forced to migrate subscription-based 4e/Digital Gaming Initiative, which will essentially be gaming via mobile device/laptop with mechanics that are automated (and invisible to the average user thus making the game more accessible). The new module format was actually them testing the upcoming format for this Digital Gaming Initiative.

I think they saw the complexity of the game and the distribution model as the main impediments toward more people playing the game. Their other major issue was the copying and distribution of their materials illegally over the internet. With a digital-subscription model it is a lot easier to prevent these sorts of things.

Under the new model you have a D&D starter kit that can be distributed at toy stores, book stores, etc. essentially tap into more mainstream distribution networks. Basically, one stand alone starter kit can be distributed out through a much wider network without multiple SKU inventory issues bogging things down. That gets people into the "digital network." Then once people have the starter set everything else is promoted direct to consumer over the internet and you use relationship marketing to cross-sell/upsell/retention. You don't have lots of multi-SKU inventory clogging up the distribution network but you have a major wider distribution for initial customer acquisition.

All and all it wouldn't be a bad model, except that WOTC doesn't have a great history when it comes to the quality adventure department. I think they could redeem themselves if they reached out to Paizo in this area. My other major concern is that if this suceeds which is no guarantee what is this going to do to any form of competition... which creates much less incentive to create quality modules.

 

[Steel_Wind]

The hope is that people will be forced to migrate subscription-based 4e/Digital Gaming Initiative, which will essentially be gaming via mobile device/laptop with mechanics that are automated (and invisible to the average user thus making the game more accessible).

No. You're going too far. They have big plans, doubtless, but something more akin to Fantasy Grounds via the web with integrated rules support and built in E-tools style character generation would be closer.

An actual automated game client would be an interactive game. And WotC does not have the rights to create such a game - not for their own IP.

There's still a lot of room to move and be innovative with online based products and packaging - but there ARE limits on what they can do.

Those rights are exclusive to Atari. There's a price that was paid when Hasbro sold Hasbro Interactive to Infogrames.

And WotC will be paying that price for another eight years or so - unless they have modified and bought back some of those rights through a new agreement with Atari (which is possible).

 

[delericho]

My theory/guesstimate is this. WOTC is trying to cut out the support infrastructure (Dungeon, Dragon, E-tools, etc.) out from under the current edition ahead of the announcement of their new edition.

Not a chance. Dragon and Dungeon would have hyped 4e from the moment it was announced to the moment it was released, and would switch to the new edition on day 1. In fact, I had fully expected Dungeon to start a new Adventure Path with the very first issue of the new edition, just to get people really hyped.

They're also missing a trick here. The very best time to kick of a digital initiative is with the start of a new edition, when they don't need to support thousands upon thousands of pages of existing rules. Starting the DI now, in preparation for a new edition, is just madness - it represents a huge amount of extra work that will be obselete in a manner of months.

If anything, 4e is further off now than it was on Wednesday.

 

[Sholari]

No. You're going too far. They have big plans, doubtless, but something more akin to Fantasy Grounds via the web with integrated rules support and built in E-tools style character generation would be closer.

I mean it is just wild guess on my part, but who knows. They've got to be thinking to themselves that the real competition isn't all those d20 publishers, it is really the Everquest's and World of Warcraft's out there. At least that is where I have seen a lot of D&D or potential D&D players disappear over the years. If you are going to take on World of Warcraft the entire system needs to be tightened up and the fundamental flaws wringed out (narrow inventory-clogged distribution, copyright protection, complex mechanics) to make it go mainstream.

The more I think about it the more I can understand the Dungeon/Dragon decision even if it was pretty poorly executed. I think if they just had a better dialogue with their customer base people wouldn't be as upset. That is one of the big differences between the release of 3rd edition and now... when 3rd edition came out the loyal fans were treated as a partner in the process, whereas now I feel as though we are held at arms length.

 

[EricNoah]

They've got to be thinking to themselves that the real competition isn't all those d20 publishers, it is really the Everquest's and World of Warcraft's out there.

I'm not sure if competition is the right word, but I think maybe they're seeing a model of revenue where someone isn't just on board for PHB, DMG and MM and then every once in a while buys a supplement or an adventure. They're seeing that there are WoW players willing to stick money into their hobby every month, month after month. Or with Paizo, people who were willing to pay year after year for content. And maybe they're hoping they can do the same thing.

If it's everything it is cracked up to be (the online content, and the character generator/tracker, and a campaign manager and all that), I have no doubt that it will find an audience. It probably won't be the same exact audience that subscribed to Dungeon or Dragon. Certainly could be some overlap.

I kind of wonder who their "ideal customer" is. Someone who's not mad that "Digital Initiative Killed My Magazines." Someone who has a credit card and is willing to be billed monthly on it. Someone who has regular internet access, maybe even during D&D games -- but isn't necessarily hooked in to a gaming community where a lot of this stuff could be fan-generated.

As I have said elsewhere, I would love to be proven wrong. I just spent painful years following the Master Tools debacle and think they could be biting off more than they can chew.

 

[Ourph]

The hope is that people will be forced to migrate subscription-based 4e/Digital Gaming Initiative, which will essentially be gaming via mobile device/laptop with mechanics that are automated (and invisible to the average user thus making the game more accessible). The new module format was actually them testing the upcoming format for this Digital Gaming Initiative.
<snip>
Under the new model you have a D&D starter kit that can be distributed at toy stores, book stores, etc. essentially tap into more mainstream distribution networks. Basically, one stand alone starter kit can be distributed out through a much wider network without multiple SKU inventory issues bogging things down. That gets people into the "digital network." Then once people have the starter set everything else is promoted direct to consumer over the internet and you use relationship marketing to cross-sell/upsell/retention. You don't have lots of multi-SKU inventory clogging up the distribution network but you have a major wider distribution for initial customer acquisition.

If expanding the popularity and accessibility of D&D is their goal, limiting play to people with computers, laptops, mobile devices and highspeed internet connections seems like a poor way to do it.

 

[helium3]

There's still a lot of room to move and be innovative with online based products and packaging - but there ARE limits on what they can do.

Those rights are exclusive to Atari. There's a price that was paid when Hasbro sold Hasbro Interactive to Infogrames.

Huh? Atari owns the rights to what?

 

[rom90125]

Huh? Atari owns the rights to what?

Atari owns the rights to the D&D IP for interactive gaming via PC...Neverwinter Nights, NWN2...

 

[Delta]

They've got to be thinking to themselves that the real competition isn't all those d20 publishers, it is really the Everquest's and World of Warcraft's out there. At least that is where I have seen a lot of D&D or potential D&D players disappear over the years.

I agree that Wizards has got a bad case of World of Warcraft envy. Ryan Dancey said as much (or rather, argued in favor of it).

But that is like a poison pill if Wizards tries to pursue it. First, they're simply not in that business. The D&D product is not an online game, and in addition Wizards/Hasbro doesn't have the institutional competency to make massive software projects. They've actually explicitly demonstrated several times in the past years that they can't do it (simpler projects, even).

Second, the MMORPG business is already a deathtrap for businesses, even for well-established software game makers with years of experience. I read a book a year or two book (forget the name) on the business side of producing of such games, and the majority of them lose money -- usually tens of millions of dollars, because it takes an extended design production cycle of many years and much larger staffs than other computer games. Everyone looks at Blizzard enviously, and in some sense, only Blizzard has been able to accomplish the feat that they have. Many, many experienced software game businesses have skewered themselves reaching for the same thing. Turbine's DDO game is the best shot they ever had at such a thing -- if that's not a raging financial success story, nothing that Hasbro internally puts out will conceivably come even close.

Third, if Wizards tries to make D&D sit in some middle-ground between tabletop and computer game (computer-supported tabletop game?), what precedent is there for such a beast? Will new players even be able to understand what such a thing is? ("You need a computer to set it up, but you play it with dice & paper at a table.") Will they bother when they could snip half the complexity out by just playing a raw computer game? I suppose we had the same thing at the advent of D&D ("a game with no board and no way to win?"), maybe there's a brand new world for D&D to morph into, but I highly doubt it, in the age of otherwise well-developed computer games.

If I had an ear to the business side of Wizards, I'd strongly recommend that they run from thinking about World of Warcraft as fast and hard as possible. Pursue the mass market with a simpler (I'm talking OD&D, Holmes book-simple) game pushed primarily in big-chain book stores. Make it a game like poker that anyone can pick up and understand.

My concern with their recent moves is they're doing the opposite of growing the gameing community -- wittingly or unwittingly they're actually set up to milk the old intense gamers for all they're worth (in greater complexity, subscriptions, more supplements, pricey miniatures) for some number of year while the hobby tapers off.

 

[jmucchiello]

Atari owns the rights to the D&D IP for interactive gaming via PC...Neverwinter Nights, NWN2...

Actaully, Atari owns the rights to all computer games based on Hasbro properties of which D&D is just one of a lot of properties. They don't own any D&D IP, they have an exclusive license to the D&D trademarks used in computer products.