Chris Cocks says it makes sense to move D&D to a "live service" model, but Hasbro will always make physical books

Chris Cocks isn't shy about plans to move Dungeons & Dragons to a more live service model of gaming. In a recent interview with GamesRadar, Cocks explicitly said that "it makes sense" for players to shift their mindset towards a live service due to the high amount of players using digital services, but assured the interviewer that books will still be produced by Hasbro. When asked if Wizards was moving away from books in favor of a more piecemeal release schedule, following the announcement of D&D Beyond's new Drops service. "Books will always be an important part of D&D," Cocks said. "It will always be kind of like a special totem that you can collect. I have a big bookshelf of D&D books myself."

"But we see what's happening – almost everyone who plays D&D uses D&D Beyond, like a super high percentage uses it," Cocks continued. "A very high percentage use Foundry VTT or Roll20, and so it just makes sense that you should start to migrate your thinking about the way you play to more of a live service where you don't have to wait 18 months for us to build a book. We can start to release components or aspects of that book over time, and you don't have to buy everything all at once. You can buy chapters or segments of it over time. That makes a ton of sense to me. That said we will still have big moments. We will still have like, 'hey, ta da, here's a huge campaign.' You can expect there'll be more around that, both from us and from all the creators in the world that can leverage a platform like D&D Beyond to share their content as well."

Broadly speaking, Dungeons & Dragons has always been a "live service" game, as the game's core business model involves continuously releasing new content in the form of new rulebooks or campaigns. However, it seems that Cocks is principally interested in shifting this model around more frequent releases. We'll note that the business model suggested by Cocks was already rolled out in a manner of speaking. The Dhampir species rules were released as a "digital DLC" for D&D Beyond subscribers who digitally ordered a Forgotten Realms book bundle, but a physical version of the rules are being released via the upcoming Ravenloft: The Horrors Within book. However, a la carte purchases were removed from D&D Beyond several years ago in order to force users to purchase entire books instead.

 

[Dire Bare]

I did not say it was, I said that its failure is part of the reason why not much has changed in the past four years, which is quite different from pretending that nothing changed because WotC just kept doing the same-old


neither do I. That it appears in a list of failed attempts alongside the OGL is because it failed, not because it is comparable to the OGL

Okay, I suppose we agree . . . WotC doesn't succeed at everything it tries.

But I still feel confused. Why is this a problem?

 

[mamba]

Okay, I suppose we agree . . . WotC doesn't succeed at everything it tries.

But I still feel confused. Why is this a problem?

I have no problem with WotC failing at things. I do have a problem with WotC trying certain things (OGL)

 

[Dire Bare]

ok, so something anti-consumer is hurting people? That was the question I was asking, at what point is something that WotC does hurting people... Anything else is just you putting words in my mouth

I'm still confused. You want me to come up some hypothetical where WotC crosses the line?

When they send the Pinkertons to confiscate my books and then tell me to continue playing I have to subscribe to the new "live service" game, I suppose . . . .

Something being anti-consumer . . . it's a kind of "hurting", sure. It's creating a product or service that takes advantage of the consumer in some way, it's a form of en****ification.

When WotC tried to weaken the OGL 3-4 years ago . . . that was definitely an anti-consumer move. Folks got pissed, righteously so. WotC realized they stepped in it, and reversed course.

Why? Because WotC isn't a person, it's an organization made of a lot of people . . . people who come and go, including the decision-makers. There were (and probably are still) folks within WotC who are happy to make new anti-consumer choices in the quest for short-term profit. And at the same time, there are folks within WotC who realize that's short-sighted and unethical, and push back. On the balance, IMO, WotC has been a good steward of the game. Not a perfect one, and there have been some difficult moments, but overall, a good one.

Disagree? Okay. But enough with the "gotcha" requests. Sheesh.

 

[AlViking]

You made it sound like nothing has changed because WotC is happy with how things are and has no interest in changing things rather than that WotC keeps failing at changing things. To me that is a big difference.

I can't help how what read into my statement that wasn't there.

All I did is point out that things staying the same is not because that is what WotC wanted

See #2 in the loop. They backed off because of feedback. A lot of companies would have stayed the course and fought anyone who objected in court.

 

[Dire Bare]

I have no problem with WotC failing at things. I do have a problem with WotC trying certain things (OGL)

Okay, then why equate the two?

 

[mamba]

I'm still confused. You want me to come up some hypothetical where WotC crosses the line?

you can keep it vague, I was just wondering if there was anything you felt crosses that line to hurting people or whether everything falls into 'you can choose not to buy it' territory

Disagree? Okay. But enough with the "gotcha" requests. Sheesh.

not a gotcha, genuine curiosity

 

[mamba]

I can't help how what read into my statement that wasn't there.

I read it correctly, you just confirmed that a few posts up

See #2 in the loop. They backed off because of feedback. A lot of companies would have stayed the course and fought anyone who objected in court.

yeah, as I said earlier, since you only care about the outcome, me trying to shoot you and missing is perfectly fine and would not upset you in the slightest...

The OGL also was one example of WotC trying something and failing, Sigil was the other. So your 'nothing to see here folks, the last 4 years were all smooth sailing' rings pretty hollow

Not sure why you want to make this about the OGL when it was just one example of WotC wanting to make changes but failing. Maybe because it is more comfortable ground for you that you are used to dismissing, rather than actually engaging with the argument?

 

[mamba]

Okay, then why equate the two?

not sure where you think I did that

 

[gban007]

I can't help how what read into my statement that wasn't there.



See #2 in the loop. They backed off because of feedback. A lot of companies would have stayed the course and fought anyone who objected in court.

You know, I like DDB, mostly agree with your view on things, though would be happier if they provided PDFs (and would likely spend more money), not worried that they don't as such, but a lot of your messages in this thread seem to amount to:
'They tried to do the OGL, but backed off because of feedback, and so people shouldn't give feedback on anything WoTC says anymore'.
But without feedback, why would WoTC change course if tried something bad next tkme?

And like I think you said elsewhere, ideally they wouldn't have tried to remove the OGL to begin with. If there was a lot of sentiment on forums such as this where WoTC employees frequent ahead of the OGL fiasco of people saying if the OGL was revoked there wojld be large blowback, maybe WoTC wouldn't have invested time and effort to begin with.

So I think it is good if people are clear on what they do / dont want, WoTC can then work out relative numbers etc as to whether they would try or not try things, but without people expressing their wants, we are then expected to let WoTC invest time and money to implement something that blowback would then lead to reversing again if lucky, rather than possibly preventing it happening in first place.

 

[Dire Bare]

you can keep it vague, I was just wondering if there was anything you felt crosses that line to hurting people or whether everything falls into 'you can choose not to buy it' territory


not a gotcha, genuine curiosity

Not a gotcha? Sure. Definitely comes with "I'm just asking questions" vibes.

Ultimately, if WotC truly turned corporate evil . . . yeah, just don't buy their products. I mean, it's a game.

A game a lot of us love and build our identities around, but still just a game. A game released into the Creative Commons with several variants released already by 3rd party companies. Don't care for how WotC does business but still love playing D&D 5E? Play Tales of the Valiant, or Level Up, or Nimble . . . not to mention the absolute tons of other RPGs out there to play . . .

When WotC tried to weaken or revoke the OGL . . . that had a potential impact on several companies bottom lines, it could have resulted in some game designers losing their jobs. Or at least, I think that could have been worst case. But on the other hand, as Paizo learned and adapted from, basing your companies bottom line on somebody else's product has a shelf life . . .

I can think of plenty of Dark Timeline events that would convince me to stop giving WotC any of my money. I can't really think of any that would cause me to think, "My god, the humanity of it all, they are actually hurting people now . . ."