WotC Hasbro Bets Big on D&D

During today's 'Hasbro Fireside Chat', Hasbro's Chris Cocks, chief executive officer, and Cynthia Williams, president of Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming mentioned D&D, and about betting big on its name. This was in addition to the Magic: The Gathering discussion they held on the same call.

The following are rough notes on what they said.

D&D Beyond

• Leaning heavily on D&D Beyond
• 13 million registered users
• Give them more ways to express their fandom
• Hired 350 people last year
• Low attrition

What’s next for D&D

• Never been more popular
• Brand under-monetized
• Excited about D&D Beyond possibilities
• Empower accessibility and development of the user base.
• Data driven insight
• Window into how players are playing
• Companion app on their phone
• Start future monetization starting with D&D Beyond
• DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases
• Digital game recurrent spending for post sale revenue.
• Speed of digital can expand, yearly book model to include current digital style models.
• Reach highly engaged multigenerational fans.
• Dungeons and Dragons has recognition, 10 out of 10
• Cultural phenomenon right now.
• DND strategy is a broad four quadrant strategy
• Like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or Marvel
• New books and accessories, licensed game stuff, and D&D Beyond
• Huge hopes for D&D

What is success for the D&D Movie

• First big light up oppourtunity for 4th quadrant
• Significant marketing
• They think it’ll have significant box office
• It has second most viewed trailer at Paramount, only eclipsed by Transformers
• Will be licensed video games, some on movies
• Then follow up other media, TV, other movies, etc.
• Bullish on D&D.

 

[tetrasodium]

Would this be much different than it's ever been? Since '74, D&D players have been given the option of buying the core rules and stopping there. OR, they could keep spending money on additional rulebooks, adventures, miniatures, dice, novels, et cetera ad infinitum. But nothing beyond the core rulebooks has ever been required. If they broaden that into a smorgasbord of (presumably) digital microtransactions, they're really just continuing a trend that's always been there.
It sounds to me like the only real differences are that (a) digital platforms allow for a much wider range of microtransactions, specifically making very small transactions feasible, and (b) they're recognizing that they want to generate more revenue from the non-DM 80% of the consumer base who isn't spending very much on the hobby.
So in the near future I can see players showing up to the table saying things like "hey, I splurged and spent 65 cents to give my character glowing red eyes", which is totally fine and in fact is great if it helps the hobby grow and thrive.

Video games have really shown how they distort publisher motivations over time. I happened to see an article about a multi-player fps selling all black "purely cosmetic" skins recently as an example

Call of Duty players flock to buy “all-black” DLC skin, hide in dark corners

LA Thieves skin pack becomes a bestseller by offering in-game camouflage effect.

arstechnica.com

How long before their vtt goes from selling cosmetic character stuff to weightrn dice wall hacks or vision enhancing brightness settings?

 

[darjr]

Video games have really shown how they distort publisher motivations over time. I happened to see an article about a multi-player fps selling all black "purely cosmetic" skins recently as an example

Call of Duty players flock to buy “all-black” DLC skin, hide in dark corners

LA Thieves skin pack becomes a bestseller by offering in-game camouflage effect.

arstechnica.com

How long before their vtt goes from selling cosmetic character stuff to weightrn dice wall hacks or vision enhancing brightness settings?

Well it's not like Call of Duty. DM could ban it, no?

I mean you could walk into a online game with a character with all kinds of wacky cheatery stuff. How do you handle that now?

 

[MGibster]

Well it's not like Call of Duty. DM could ban it, no?

I'm thinking no. If I'm buying a cosmetic appearance to use on my character while playing on D&D's official VTT, I doubt anyone would be permitted to ban it. If we move to WotC's VTT being the standard way of playing, we're going to stop creating our own worlds and play in whatever world they create for us. Standardization will make monetization much, much easier.

 

[darjr]

I'm thinking no. If I'm buying a cosmetic appearance to use on my character while playing on D&D's official VTT, I doubt anyone would be permitted to ban it. If we move to WotC's VTT being the standard way of playing, we're going to stop creating our own worlds and play in whatever world they create for us. Standardization will make monetization much, much easier.

What? I can ban stuff now form DnDBeyond. I don't think for a second this will be true.

If so you can come back here and say I told you so.

This to me is a bit over the top kind of worry. You can tell the player no and ultimately you can just reject the player.

What, is wotc going to force you to play with people? Show up to your house maybe?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Video games have really shown how they distort publisher motivations over time. I happened to see an article about a multi-player fps selling all black "purely cosmetic" skins recently as an example

Call of Duty players flock to buy “all-black” DLC skin, hide in dark corners

LA Thieves skin pack becomes a bestseller by offering in-game camouflage effect.

arstechnica.com

How long before their vtt goes from selling cosmetic character stuff to weightrn dice wall hacks or vision enhancing brightness settings?

That seems stupid. If they will charge stuff it will be for tile sets or models.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Don't forget the new Dragonlance trilogy by Weis and Hickman, which is also licensed out.

Is it? I have no idea of the contract terms WotC has with Random House. [ Edit: Ah. The license was granted to the authors. Got it. ]

Your post prompted me to look at the cover for Dragons of Deciet (I have it on audiobook; it's... okay I guess) and this logo is on the cover. I have never seen this logo before. This looks like there are setting up a difference, between "Classic DragonLance" and... non-classic? "New DragonLance"? Anyone know what's up with this?

Interesting.

 

[humble minion]

Your post prompted me to look at the cover for Dragons of Deciet (I have it on audiobook; it's... okay I guess) and this logo is on the cover. I have never seen this logo before. This looks like there are setting up a difference, between "Classic DragonLance" and... non-classic? "New DragonLance"? Anyone know what's up with this?

I think this was a result of the settlement of the lawsuit that W&H brought against WotC (under their previous controversial and now no-longer-employed head fiction guy). There's an enormous thread about it back in the archives somewhere, but I've forgotten most of the details.

I THINK basically W&H can write novels in the setting and continue to use their characters and continuity (presumably with a WotC veto on content in case they decide to go wildly offbase and start including graphic sex etc) but have to use the 'Dragonlance Classic' logo to distonguish it from Actual Canon Dragonlance which WotC reserves the right to define in their game products.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Going to be depressing watching DnD go the same route as one of my other favourite franchises.

Halo is now 90% glorified storefront, 10% barely functioning game with only a fraction of the content and quality it used to have, while players are charged for things which were free in previous games.

I can see DnD going the same way.

 

[Zardnaar]

Going to be depressing watching DnD go the same route as one of my other favourite franchises.

Halo is now 90% glorified storefront, 10% barely functioning game with only a fraction of the content and quality it used to have, while players are charged for things which were free in previous games.

I can see DnD going the same way.

Think I played latest Halo via gamepads.

Wasn't to bad but kinda rushed it didn't play again or in MP.

Think Master Chief Collection has more active players.

 

[Oofta]

I'm thinking no. If I'm buying a cosmetic appearance to use on my character while playing on D&D's official VTT, I doubt anyone would be permitted to ban it. If we move to WotC's VTT being the standard way of playing, we're going to stop creating our own worlds and play in whatever world they create for us. Standardization will make monetization much, much easier.

If you buy scintillating armor pack for your paladin in VTT buf it has zero mechanical impact, why would anyone care? Special animations, cool looking but mechanically neutral upgrades don't bother me. It would be like someone showing up with a nicely painted mini.

There's no indication that they're going to or even could sell upgrades that would have meaningful impact on a PC's performance in the game that a DM could not ban. This micro transaction concern is much ado about nothing.