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.

 

[Clint_L]

Which is unfortunate and just wrong on few levels. I usually go by Hanlon's razor, but in this case, i just can't believe that execs at that level don't know difference in business model those two brands operate. It's like saying that Skyrim is under monetized by comparing it with World of Warcraft. D&D, on it's own, in ttrpg space, by ttrpg metrics, is highly sucessfull and has great revenue and probaly solid profit (again, for ttrpg).

TCG/CCG are literal money printers.

I think you’re making their point: TTRPGs are a niche market that D&D’s brand recognition far exceeds, which is why they want to diversify it.

 

[GrimCo]

I think you’re making their point: TTRPGs are a niche market that D&D’s brand recognition far exceeds, which is why they want to diversify it.

Sure. No argument there. That's why i made distinction between D&D as a brand and D&D as a ttrpg product in one of the earlier posts. As a brand, which gained tremendous amount of popularity and visibility in mainstream in last decade, it's definitely under monetized. But, as i said also before, WotC didn't really bendover backwards in their attempts to monetize brand. You can't even buy official D&D t shirt on wotc website and there are no direct links to H&V on wotc site or DDB. For company that cries about brand being under monetized, they left big chunk of monetizing opportunities to grey market. I'm harping on lack of merch cause merch is something that you buy multiple times with different designs, you buy as a gift to a friends, to your play group. As metalhead ( and there is large intersection between metalheads and d&d players), merch is first thing that comes to mind as a way to monetize your brand. While i'm pretty sure there is some official licensed merch out there, it's hard to find it.

As a ttrpg product, well, only way to increase monetization and revenue is by what they are doing now with DDB. But when they compare 2 products, not brands, MtG and D&D, it's wrong comparison, and D&D looks like chump change compared to MtG money raking behemoth.

 

[AlViking]

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


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?

Discussing something and realizing it's stupid is not the same as an attempt.

In addition I don't expect perfection from a company or anyone I know. You, apparently do. I care about end results and apparently keeping arguments going on the same loop forever. Because I'm also imperfect.

 

[AlViking]

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?

As @Dire Bare pointed out, it's a big company. Someone in management had a boneheaded idea and likely didn't listen to people who knew better. In the end they listened to feedback.

I'm not going to argue about hypothetical because every company could cross a line. WOTC may have thought about it but did not cross it.if they ever do I'll reevaluate.

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.

Sure. There are plenty of things I've said or discussed that I regret as well. People make mistakes.

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.

But the OGL issue just clouds the picture at this point. If everything they do inevitably becomes this long argument, real issues, real discussions get buried under the same crusty old issue.

It's like having an argument with your spouse and every single time instead of dealing with the real issue they throw that one time you were flirting with someone else and almost kissed them. Yes you almost did something you would have regretted but didn’t and instead doubled down on what was truly important so can you talk about what the real issues are? Things that can actually change?

 

[mamba]

Discussing something and realizing it's stupid is not the same as an attempt.

that is also not how I would describe what happened with the OGL.

They sent it out and tried to pressure 3pps into signing. Only once that leaked and their customers revolted did they eventually change direction

In addition I don't expect perfection from a company or anyone I know. You, apparently do.

no I don’t, but I expect decency, and that includes not breaking contracts when you think you can bully your way out of them.

I do not like the WotC apologists who cannot even acknowledge that more happened than WotC internally discussing things and when someone within WotC did have objections to the idea, they instead released the SRD under the CC.

That is not what happened, and I will keep pointing that out when you keep misrepresenting WotC’s actions

 

[AlViking]

that is also not how I would describe what happened with the OGL.

They sent it out and tried to pressure 3pps into signing. Only once that leaked and their customers revolted did they eventually change direction


no I don’t, but I expect decency, and that includes not breaking contracts when you think you can bully your way out of them.

I do not like the WotC apologists who cannot even acknowledge that more happened than WotC internally discussing things and when someone within WotC did have objections to the idea, they instead released the SRD under the CC.

That is not what happened, and I will keep pointing that out when you keep misrepresenting WotC’s actions

Bring out the dead. Wait put them back!

 

[mamba]

Bring out the dead. Wait put them back!

so predictable… denial is not a river in Egypt

 

[AlViking]

so predictable… denial is not a river in Egypt

There's nothing new to say and hasn't been for years.

 

[Alzrius]

Someone in management had a boneheaded idea and likely didn't listen to people who knew better.

That would be Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks, according to Ben Riggs.

In the end they listened to feedback.

Because fans started cancelling their D&D Beyond subscriptions, according to Linda Codega.

 

[AlViking]

That would be Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks, according to Ben Riggs.

I never said the guy wasn't ignorant, just that he's not the only one working at the division.

Because fans started cancelling their D&D Beyond subscriptions, according to Linda Codega.

Which was an effective form of feedback.