Hasbro Opens New Wizards of the Coast Video Game Studio in Montreal to Support D&D Franchise

Hasbro has announced a new video game studio in Montreal, with a new focus on supporting D&D video games. The new studio, called Wizards of the Coast Studios Inc. will focus on developing new content for the Dungeons & Dragons franchise and expanding Hasbro's lineup of digital games. The studio is expected to support 200 jobs. Dan Ayoub, the head of the D&D franchise, will also run the new studio. Ayoub, you may recall, has a long pedigree in video game development.

The new studio will not replace Invoke Studios, Hasbro's other studio located in Montreal. The new office for Wizards of the Coast Studios Inc. will be located next to Invoke Studios.

Hasbro has big aspirations for expanding the D&D franchise via video games. Several D&D video games are in development at third party studios and now we're seeing an in-house expansion of the D&D digital portfolio. One obvious speculation is that the new studio will work on a Baldur's Gate 4, which Hasbro has promised will eventually be released following the mammoth success of Baldur's Gate 3.

 

[bedir than]

the way WotC does it yes, it’s at least as much marketing as it is playtesting

Oh, I will not deny that there's a marketing aspect.
I merely deny that it is "performative playtesting" which would mean that the playtesting aspect is only a show -- we know it's real

 

[Reynard]

The argument is that non-WotC stuff doesn't count because people won't buy D&D stuff that isn't "WotC Approved". Thank you for supporting my argument.

Again, you brush it off as "performative". After years of being absolutely pilloried for not "listening to fans", they have made it extremely clear that they will engage with any and all fans that are willing to engage in order to guide how the game is made. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. They make something without extensive playtesting? They hate fans and don't know anything about D&D and what fans actually want. They playtest and tell fans exactly what they are doing at every step leading up to a release? They hate fans and don't know anything about D&D and what fans actually want.

They just can't win.

Putting out a new class and asking for responses a month later is objectively on its face performative.

It is the playtesting version of day 1 reviews of campaign level adventures.

It is nonsense. It is marketing. It is worse than useless because at best you get white room theory warriors talking about "balance" they couldn't possibly have tested in real life.

 

[Hussar]

I do think they could increase revenue by 25% to 50% by producing more of their traditional product, but they could do that by making better product and marketing better.

25 to 50%? That's not even remotely realistic. 2.5-5% increase would be considered a phenomenal success and probably unsustainable over the long run.

I literally don't believe that.

It is actually worse if WotC "listens" because only the most vocal and most always-online fans respond. That means D&D development is steered by the people you want steering it least.

I'm a game designer. I don't believe you should ne engineering your design based on the most vocal portion of the internet. That's crazy. Make the game you believe in.

This is doubly true for D&D.

They tried that. That's what 4e was. They got resolutely spanked. 4e is, objectively, a better designed game than 5e. It is. Mechanically anyway. It runs easier, it's easier to design for, it has far fewer problems. 4e is a much better mechanically designed game.

People hated it.

So, we get this. This is what people want from WotC. You can dislike it, disbelieve it all you like, but, this is the fact of the situation.

 

[Reynard]

I want to be clear: public playtesting in general is not merely performative marketing nonsense. Game companies that give people the time and materials to really test a thing are doing it right. That's not what WotC does.

 

[bedir than]

I want to be clear: public playtesting in general is not merely performative marketing nonsense. Game companies that give people the time and materials to really test a thing are doing it right. That's not what WotC does.

They do internal playtesting not-for-public as well. Not only within their employee group but through outsiders as well.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Putting out a new class and asking for responses a month later is objectively on its face performative.

It is the playtesting version of day 1 reviews of campaign level adventures.

It is nonsense. It is marketing. It is worse than useless because at best you get white room theory warriors talking about "balance" they couldn't possibly have tested in real life.

They showed the Psion a while back asked for feedback about a week later, then yesterday they released a version based on the feedback they got for the class. The same thing happened with a bunch of their playtest stuff.
Just because feedback can be given after a fairly short period doesn’t mean it’s fake. Heck they are currently giving more info about the process right now.

 

[Parmandur]

Putting out a new class and asking for responses a month later is objectively on its face performative.

It is the playtesting version of day 1 reviews of campaign level adventures.

It is nonsense. It is marketing. It is worse than useless because at best you get white room theory warriors talking about "balance" they couldn't possibly have tested in real life.

They aren't testing for balance, the UA articles literally say "please don't give us feedback about balance, we will work on that part during internal playtests". They are market desirability tests for concepts, which ia how they present them.

 

[mamba]

2.5-5% increase would be considered a phenomenal success and probably unsustainable over the long run.

what do you base that on? Having one extra book should pretty easily accomplish that

Also, it is below their growth rate the last 10 years even without extra books

 

[Hussar]

what do you base that on? Having one extra book should pretty easily accomplish that

Also, it is below their growth rate the last 10 years even without extra books

A 50% growth in revenue? Good luck with that.

 

[mamba]

A 50% growth in revenue? Good luck with that.

huh, you wrote 2.5 to 5%, not 50