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.

 

[Alzrius]

wotc is too far behind with vtt development & offerings to wield that kind of dominance without killing their own vtt.

I don't disagree, and apparently WotC doesn't either, which is likely why they've hired three hundred fifty people to work on D&D Beyond.

 

[Alzrius]

Dude, I found my own art for Roll20 tokens. I have uploaded maps and other images. The system is not closed.

Um, no one suggested that Foundry is closed. I'm honestly baffled as to what makes you think anyone said otherwise; we're talking about WotC's plans for D&D Beyond, remember?

That is a separate argument. I'm not going to enter a second stream of logic with you before we resolve the first. I mean, if you were so wrong about the current functionality, why should we think your ideas on the future are based in understanding?

Here's the thing, though; that is the first stream of logic. You brought up a different platform with a different situation (Foundry doesn't own the IP of the games people play on it). Given that you're apparently trying to pivot to "that's always what we were talking about," I'm honestly not sure what you think you're bringing to the discussion beyond a (curiously aggressive) digression.

 

[mamba]

Except for the fact that it's not a transaction at all if they previously bought the mini years ago for a completely different game, and are repurposing it now.

but then it was a transaction then, timing makes no difference

Hence, they performed one previous transaction that (insofar as that particular mini is concerned) doesn't need to be repeated. It undercuts the whole "recurrent spending environment" that was mentioned in the fireside chat, in other words.

I doubt you have to have to subscribe for one mini in the VTT. There might be some kind of subscription to have access to modules or whatever, but I would expect buying a 'skin' to be a one time transaction.

 

[Alzrius]

but then it was a transaction then, timing makes no difference

It makes a difference because (in digital terms) the current platform gets nothing, since no transaction need take place to use it in a different game.

I doubt you have to have to subscribe for one mini in the VTT. There might be some kind of subscription to have access to modules or whatever, but I would expect buying a 'skin' to be a one time transaction.

A single skin? Probably. The recurrent spending part of the equation is likely to operate under the assumption that you'll want more than that, the same way most people who buy minis tend to buy more than one.

 

[mamba]

wotc is too far behind with vtt development & offerings to wield that kind of dominance without killing their own vtt.

not sure I understand this. If they were to kill their own VTT, how would that accomplish dominance ?

As to catching up, hiring 350 people tends to have some kind of effect. Quite frankly I am surprised they cannot get this done with maybe 50 and still catch up.

 

[mamba]

It makes a difference because (in digital terms) the current platform gets nothing, since no transaction need take place to use it in a different game.

you are missing the point, in either case it is a one time transaction. Of course you buying a mini 5 years ago does not help you at all in whatever VTT you use now.

A single skin? Probably. The recurrent spending part of the equation is likely to operate under the assumption that you'll want more than that, the same way most people who buy minis tend to buy more than one.

yes, which means more one time transactions then. Where does your subscription model enter the picture ? I don't see it with this, more with rulebooks and such.

 

[Alzrius]

you are missing the point, in either case it is a one time transaction. Of course you buying a mini 5 years ago does not help you at all in whatever VTT you use now.

yes, which means more one time transactions then. Where does your subscription model enter the picture ? I don't see it with this, more with rulebooks and such.

It's not that I'm missing the point, it's that I'm pointing out that the one-time transaction of a physical mini never needs to be repeated. The mini is good for all "platforms" (i.e. tabletop games) from then on. A closed VTT environment won't allow that for an asset purchased elsewhere.

Obviously, the ideal is that WotC won't close the VTT that they're developing. But recent statements on their part, and actions with regard to M:tG, have left a lot of people skeptical in that regard, is all.

 

[mamba]

It's not that I'm missing the point, it's that I'm pointing out that the one-time transaction of a physical mini never needs to be repeated. The mini is good for all "platforms" (i.e. tabletop games) from then on. A closed VTT environment won't allow that for an asset purchased elsewhere.

VTTs allow the import of assets... how this will work with 3d models will have to be seen (given that it uses Unreal Engine it at least in theory also supports all kinds of assets that Unreal can use), but in the 2d ones you certainly can

Obviously, the ideal is that WotC won't close the VTT that they're developing. But recent statements on their part, and actions with regard to M:tG, have left a lot of people skeptical in that regard, is all.

I do not see any relation between what is going on on the MtG side vs the D&D side. They also are not hiring 350 people on DDB only to not develop their VTT.

 

[tetrasodium]

Um, no one suggested that Foundry is closed. I'm honestly baffled as to what makes you think anyone said otherwise; we're talking about WotC's plans for D&D Beyond, remember?

Here's the thing, though; that is the first stream of logic. You brought up a different platform with a different situation (Foundry doesn't own the IP of the games people play on it), and are now saying that's what was always being discussed. Given that you're apparently trying to pivot to "that's always what we were talking about," I'm honestly not sure what you think you're bringing to the discussion beyond a (curiously aggressive) digression.

People keep trying to tell you that wotc would strangle their own VTT if they ever "closed" it like you are suggesting. In the VTT space wotc is the new kid who doesn't have a feature list let alone early demo. My god the last video showing it talked about how the gm tool will be"really robust"while showing player facing renders my players might see on the tabletop tvbox rather than what I might be seeing in the DM interface or so much as a powerpoint slide listing features

DMs already buy stuff for d&d VTTs & so on, selling minis without video game style microtransaction abuses to players is a thing nobody is concerned about.

not sure I understand this. If they were to kill their own VTT, how would that accomplish dominance ?

As to catching up, hiring 350 people tends to have some kind of effect. Quite frankly I am surprised they cannot get this done with maybe 50 and still catch up.

It's why they would not do a thing that would only work if there were no competing VTTs, they simply can't exert the level of control the "closed" vtt in the way described would require while still maintaining a successful product.

It's not that I'm missing the point, it's that I'm pointing out that the one-time transaction of a physical mini never needs to be repeated. The mini is good for all "platforms" (i.e. tabletop games) from then on. A closed VTT environment won't allow that for an asset purchased elsewhere.

Obviously, the ideal is that WotC won't close the VTT that they're developing. But recent statements on their part, and actions with regard to M:tG, have left a lot of people skeptical in that regard, is all.

No it doesn't, they just need to sell new things. Checking my transaction history with arkenforge I have 176.50$ in purchases since 2019 just through ark without including any of the free patreon supported or 3rd party store stuff I imported manually

 

[Alzrius]

VTTs allow the import of assets... how this will work with 3d models will have to be seen, but in the 2d ones you certainly can

And we're discussing the possibility that WotC's won't allow that, as part of their attempts to encourage recurrent spending.

I do not see any relation between what is going on on the MtG side vs the D&D side. They also are not hiring 350 people on DDB only to not develop their VTT.

Well, I and others do see a relation between what is going on with the M:tG side and the D&D side. I'm sure they're going to develop their VTT, and am concerned that it will be a more closed environment than other such platforms.