WotC D&D Historian Ben Riggs says the OGL fiasco was Chris Cocks idea.

[Chaosmancer]

You do realize that you just made my case, right? WotC is trying to become a video game company, in this case by contracting to outside studios or simply acquiring those studios outright. So WotC themselves aren't making video games.

See above. I already addressed the fact that WotC, after having failed to create their own digital studios in-house, has been either licensing their content or acquiring existing studios. I suppose you can dicker over what a "studio" is, but that strikes me as a semantic issue which detracts from the wider discussion, which is that WotC themselves still make cards and games, and clearly want to move that over to video games (i.e. games that they make themselves).

Again, what do you mean by "trying"? If you mean they aren't developing video games in house, under the WoTC name, but instead are working through studios... they have been doing that for years. Dungeons and Dragons: Dark Alliance in 2021 was published by Wizards of the Coast. They created Archetype in 2020. It feels like you are looking at a McDonald's ad and sagely advising people they are going to sell chicken. Yeah, it has been done.

There is no change here. WotC has been exploring the video game space for years, and TSR did it before them. Whether or not they have an in-house studio called Wizards of the Coast, or they own a studio that works directly under them in their portfolio... feels rather immaterial.

Again, see above.

No, it wasn't from TSR. It was from SSI. Your entire premise here seems to be that WotC is a video game company if they license out their IP to video game companies. That's not any kind of workable definition for what constitutes being a video game company, and certainly not in the context of this discussion.

Right, but this is like saying that ViacomCBS and AT&T don't make movies, because they only own Paramount and Warner Bros. If you own the company that makes the thing, there is little practical difference in whether or not you are making the thing. Especially since you seem to fear some sort of future plan involving them being in an industry that they are part of.

Histrionics aside, the game clearly isn't easily transitioned to an interactive digital environment, since D&D is more than just Champions of Krynn. Now, you might suggest that simple VTTs (which do little more than share a screen, connect players via voice/video chat, and allow for simple interactions such as drawing maps) are essentially the same as sitting around a tabletop, and that's not an unreasonable assertion. But that's very clearly not what WotC is trying to create, and so isn't really germane to what's being talked about in this thread.

Then what are you talking about? The game can be digitized, with a more limited scope. Exactly what you said they are trying to achieve. "for designing the game in a manner that it was easily transitioned to a(n interactive) digital environment (which is necessarily more limited in what it can do than what can be done in tabletop play)" That happened decades ago. The only thing not digitized is the humans at the table. Which even if Wizards and Hasbro sold everything they owned and threw it all into the development of Artificial Intelligence.... they wouldn't be able to take that last step.

So if you aren't concerned about WoTC making video games.... what are you concerned about?

The cake is a lie. The idea that TSR's having licensed a few video games meaning that D&D has already gone digital, and that WotC is already a video game company, is so over the top that it's impossible to take seriously.

They publish video games, I don't know what else you need to do to be considered a video game company than making and selling video games. Yes, they own the studio that does that, but that is a legal distinction, not a distinction of action. It is an argument much like saying that Shuntaro Furukawa doesn't make video games, because he is the PResident of Nintendo not a Senior Developer. You are technically correct, but if you are worried about what he would do if he was making Video Games... ship kind of sailed, since being the President likely would give him the chance to do whatever it is you fear.

 

[mamba]

There's a strong argument to be made video game company that's never released a video game is just a company.

a company working on something that is not released yet is still a company that is working in the field the product is intended to be released in eventually

Tesla didn’t suddenly become a car maker on the day they sold their first car and weren’t one the day before. That is a rather weird approach to categorizing companies

Would you object to calling WotC a software company rather than a computer game one? They already have DDB up and running

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn't make sense; hence the idea that a single video game release turning them into a video game company is something I look askance on, even though that's been a major point of yours.

No, not a single release, half a decade of most of their employees working on video games. Thst they are still geared to their first major release is besides the point.

So your determination of what kind of company something is hinges on the majority of where their money goes, in terms of what department requires the largest amount of salary paid out to personnel? That's rather idiosyncratic.

Hardly: if McDonalds started spending all their money on manufacturing cars, and their employees were mostly focused on cars for half a decade...that's a car company.

There's a strong argument to be made video game company that's never released a video game is just a company.

Yet you will find people frequently refer to these developers as video game companies in the real world.

Trying to do something doesn't mean you can actually do it. By your definition, simply making the attempt puts you on equal footing with someone who's done something many times over. "Not how people use words" is, in that regard, an understatement.

Yes, yes it does. If a vompany is primarily developing software, it doesn't matter if theybare doing so at the volume and success of Microaoft...they are a software developer.

We weren't talking about "different," we were discussing the presumption that he would be better.

I mean, I don't know if he will live up to how much you have personally enjoyed the last couple Presidents of WotC, I can't speak for you...

 

[Parmandur]

Would you object to calling WotC a software company rather than a computer game one? They already have DDB up and running

I mean, they are and have always been a general game company: and I don't expect them to stop making tabletop games. But I do think it is fair to say that they are already a successful software company, aside from the video game initiatives: Arena works great as and literally prints money. So WotC already o escape the hurdle of software development years ago now.

 

[Alzrius]

Again, what do you mean by "trying"?

As in, "haven't succeeded yet."

If you mean they aren't developing video games in house, under the WoTC name, but instead are working through studios... they have been doing that for years. Dungeons and Dragons: Dark Alliance in 2021 was published by Wizards of the Coast.

And who developed the game? Because it wasn't WotC.

They created Archetype in 2020.

Which has yet to release a single game.

It feels like you are looking at a McDonald's ad and sagely advising people they are going to sell chicken. Yeah, it has been done.

No, it does not feel that way at all. More like you're looking at a McDonald's sign and noting how their meals come wrapped in containers, and so therefore they're a box company.

There is no change here. WotC has been exploring the video game space for years, and TSR did it before them.

And in that regard, they're alike in that they have yet to actually become a video game company.

Whether or not they have an in-house studio called Wizards of the Coast, or they own a studio that works directly under them in their portfolio... feels rather immaterial.

No it doesn't. It feels extremely material.

Right, but this is like saying that ViacomCBS and AT&T don't make movies, because they only own Paramount and Warner Bros. If you own the company that makes the thing, there is little practical difference in whether or not you are making the thing. Especially since you seem to fear some sort of future plan involving them being in an industry that they are part of.

So by your logic, Hasbro is an RPG company? That's an...interesting take on things. Not very accurate, but interesting.

All kidding aside though, the fact of the matter is that a company isn't what their subsidiary is; that's sort of the entire point of having a subsidiary, leaving aside the legal reasons. That is the practical difference, in other words. Particularly since you've repeatedly expressed an oddly sanguine attitude toward the future with regards to them trying to become an industry that they've never been part of, yet have a disastrous track record of trying to break into.

Then what are you talking about? The game can be digitized, with a more limited scope.

And here you've granted my central premise, which is that in the process of digitizing the game, its scope becomes limited.

Exactly what you said they are trying to achieve. "for designing the game in a manner that it was easily transitioned to a(n interactive) digital environment (which is necessarily more limited in what it can do than what can be done in tabletop play)"

Yes, and that's a bad thing, which you yourself have just admitted as per above.

That happened decades ago.

No, it didn't. It never has, not even once. You cannot reasonably compare Champions of Krynn with the course of play that you see in, say, Critical Role. The idea that D&D has already been digitized is self-evidently false, because as you yourself noted, that limits its scope.

The only thing not digitized is the humans at the table.

Completely false; most of the game hasn't been digitized, and can't be. No video game system can properly digitize a game whose central premise is "anything can be attempted."

Which even if Wizards and Hasbro sold everything they owned and threw it all into the development of Artificial Intelligence.... they wouldn't be able to take that last step.

Or any of the numerous other steps involved. An engine that's limited in scope cannot properly encapsulate the limitless potential of imaginative play.

So if you aren't concerned about WoTC making video games.... what are you concerned about?

Let me turn that around to show why this question is misstated: why exactly is it that you think that there's no difference between a course of D&D around the table and playing Champions of Krynn?

They publish video games, I don't know what else you need to do to be considered a video game company than making and selling video games.

I suppose if you discard central aspects of something, the peripheral aspects would seem more important.

Yes, they own the studio that does that, but that is a legal distinction, not a distinction of action.

It's very much a distinction of action, just in addition to the legal distinction.

It is an argument much like saying that Shuntaro Furukawa doesn't make video games, because he is the PResident of Nintendo not a Senior Developer.

No, it's nothing like that; your analogy here is in no way apt.

You are technically correct, but if you are worried about what he would do if he was making Video Games... ship kind of sailed, since being the President likely would give him the chance to do whatever it is you fear.

Leaving aside the mistaken characterization of fearfulness, you're continuing with an incorrect analogy, so it's no surprise that your conclusion is also incorrect.

a company working on something that is not released yet is still a company that is working in the field the product is intended to be released in eventually

And when it releases that, then it can characterize itself as that kind of company, though even then characterizing itself that way as opposed to what it's been releasing for decades strikes me as wrongheaded.

Tesla didn’t suddenly become a car maker on the day they sold their first car and weren’t one the day before. That is a rather weird approach to categorizing companies

On the contrary, what's weird is this insistance that because they're trying to make video games, that means that they have, and so can be correctly characterized that way.

Would you object to calling WotC a software company rather than a computer game one? They already have DDB up and running

So by that logic, any company with a webpage is a web design company?

No, not a single release, half a decade of most of their employees working on video games. Thst they are still geared to their first major release is besides the point.

It's the central point, in fact. That they've been trying to do something doesn't mean that they're able to do it.

Hardly: if McDonalds started spending all their money on manufacturing cars, and their employees were mostly focused on cars for half a decade...that's a car company.

So all of their manufacturing containers for their food means that they're actually a box company?

Yet you will find people frequently refer to these developers as video game companies in the real world.

Which developers are you referring to, insofar as they've never released a single video game? (Of course, that people butcher language, which then becomes standardized, is hardly anything new, or salient for that matter.)

Yes, yes it does.

No, it really doesn't.

If a vompany is primarily developing software, it doesn't matter if theybare doing so at the volume and success of Microaoft...they are a software developer.

Wait, so now it's about what a company is doing "primarily"? So by your logic, shouldn't WotC be "primarily" a paper company, since they've released more paper products than digital?

I mean, I don't know if he will live up to how much you have personally enjoyed the last couple Presidents of WotC, I can't speak for you...

That's a different issue from saying that his background means we can infer with reasonable accuracy that he'll be better than his predecessors.

 

[mamba]

I mean, they are and have always been a general game company: and I don't expect them to stop making tabletop games.

not anytime soon, but it is not the focus of their business. To me the focus is what you invest in most (whether that succeeds or not is a separate issue), and that clearly is not printed books / cards

 

[TiQuinn]

where is that from? It should be more than 100M, it should even be more profit than 40M

I got it from Alphastream’s blog - Estimating D&D’s Revenue | Alphastream

If there’s an annual or quarterly report from Hasbro that states it, that’d be better.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's a strong argument to be made video game company that's never released a video game is just a company.

Schroedinger's company? Until they have sold a product, no company can claim to be part of any industry? Must be hard to get investors for that.

 

[Alzrius]

Schroedinger's company? Until they have sold a product, no company can claim to be part of any industry? Must be hard to get investors for that.

Not really. One doesn't have to look very far to see plenty of people throwing money around based on someone else's promises about what they'll deliver in exchange.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As in, "haven't succeeded yet."

And who developed the game? Because it wasn't WotC.

Which has yet to release a single game.

And in that regard, they're alike in that they have yet to actually become a video game company.

No it doesn't. It feels extremely material.

Why does it matter if a single studio out of the four or five they have has or has not released a game? And, would you say that Random House is in the Book Industry? Because they didn't write "All the Colors of the Dark" but they did PUBLISH it, so they are a book publishing company. WotC publishes video games, and has for years. It is a distinction whose only purpose seems to be putting scare quotes around future potential actions from WoTC.

I mean, you have literally expressed concerns over WoTC "getting into" video games and "becoming" a video game company, and the only reason to argue with us that it isn't already a company is that if it is, then there is no need for your concerns.

So by your logic, Hasbro is an RPG company? That's an...interesting take on things. Not very accurate, but interesting.

All kidding aside though, the fact of the matter is that a company isn't what their subsidiary is; that's sort of the entire point of having a subsidiary, leaving aside the legal reasons. That is the practical difference, in other words. Particularly since you've repeatedly expressed an oddly sanguine attitude toward the future with regards to them trying to become an industry that they've never been part of, yet have a disastrous track record of trying to break into.

What do you mean kidding? Hasbro is the publisher that owns DnD, yes, that makes them an RPG company, because they produce RPG's. Again, from a practical standpoint, not a legal one, what is the difference?

And, I don't know why you want to say that they have a "disastrous" record when they worked closely with Larian Studios to make Baldur's Gate 3, which was an insanely massive hit. Planescape: Torment, also a video game, also a massive success.

And here you've granted my central premise, which is that in the process of digitizing the game, its scope becomes limited.

... Yes, and if you make a train it needs to roll over rails. That's not granting you anything, that is stating a fact. A DnD video game is inherently more limited than a DnD pen-and-paper game. We've known this for three decades.

Yes, and that's a bad thing, which you yourself have just admitted as per above.

It would be a bad thing that a video game is a video game? Why? Do we also state that it is a bad thing that comics use images AND text? Kind of inherent in the medium.

No, it didn't. It never has, not even once. You cannot reasonably compare Champions of Krynn with the course of play that you see in, say, Critical Role. The idea that D&D has already been digitized is self-evidently false, because as you yourself noted, that limits its scope.

If you are saying that DnD is going to get digitized to the extent that a game of Critical Role can happen if run by a computer... then you are talking about True Artificial General Intelligence. You are talking the Matrix and everything like it. WoTC dipping their toes into video games is not going to create that. So... what is it you are worried about? WoTC making video games has happened, even if you insist that a DnD video game made by a studio owned by WoTC doesn't count for reasons, DnD video games have been created. So... what's the next step here? DnD Video Game --> The Matrix --> Profit?

Let me turn that around to show why this question is misstated: why exactly is it that you think that there's no difference between a course of D&D around the table and playing Champions of Krynn?

I never said that. Why do you think that WoTC making a video game would lobotomize all DMs and Players?

I suppose if you discard central aspects of something, the peripheral aspects would seem more important.

Making and selling video games is peripheral to being a video game company? What is central to it then?

It's very much a distinction of action, just in addition to the legal distinction.

No, it's nothing like that; your analogy here is in no way apt.

Leaving aside the mistaken characterization of fearfulness, you're continuing with an incorrect analogy, so it's no surprise that your conclusion is also incorrect.

And when it releases that, then it can characterize itself as that kind of company, though even then characterizing itself that way as opposed to what it's been releasing for decades strikes me as wrongheaded.

On the contrary, what's weird is this insistance that because they're trying to make video games, that means that they have, and so can be correctly characterized that way.

So by that logic, any company with a webpage is a web design company?

It's the central point, in fact. That they've been trying to do something doesn't mean that they're able to do it.

So all of their manufacturing containers for their food means that they're actually a box company?

Which developers are you referring to, insofar as they've never released a single video game? (Of course, that people butcher language, which then becomes standardized, is hardly anything new, or salient for that matter.)

No, it really doesn't.

Wait, so now it's about what a company is doing "primarily"? So by your logic, shouldn't WotC be "primarily" a paper company, since they've released more paper products than digital?

That's a different issue from saying that his background means we can infer with reasonable accuracy that he'll be better than his predecessors.

None of the rest of this replies to me. I get you supposedly need to break every post into a sentence by sentence line to respond to every sentence individually, but if you are going to do that AND respond to three people at once, at least be polite enough to provide obvious breaks in who you are talking to.