Hasbro Confirms New Unannounced Dungeons & Dragons Video Game in Development

Hasbro is actively working on a new D&D video game.

dnd-asterik-1234066-4-1268920.webp

Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks has confirmed that an in-house studio is developing an unannounced Dungeons & Dragons video game. In a feature posted today on Bloomberg News, Cocks stated that Hasbro was actively developing a Dungeons & Dragons video game via one of its in-house studios. No further details were provided about the video game, nor was any timeline given about its release. Hasbro plans to release one to two video games a year by 2026, not including third party licensed games.

Hasbro is actively pivoting into a video game developer, having purchased or created several in-house studios in recent years. One of the most high-profile ventures is Exodus, a sci-fi RPG created by several BioWare veterans. A GI Joe video game focused on Snake-Eyes is also in development at a Hasbro-owned studio.

Hasbro is also actively working with several third party studios on new D&D video games. Gameloft, the maker of Disney Dreamlight Valley, is making a survival-life sim set in the Forgotten Realms, while Starbreeze Entertainment is also actively working on a D&D video game. Hasbro also cancelled several video game projects, including several Dungeons & Dragons-themed games back in 2023 as part of a strategic realignment.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

GreyLord

Legend
and frankly Rook is straight-up better-written than the Inquisitor in DAI, but it does limit your options, especially compared to the recent BG3.

Well, that should be good. I hated Inquisition...but that probably had more to do with the fact that I discovered I really don't like open world games (with some exceptions like Breath of the Wild) than the actual writing.

I've heard that DA4 is less open world and more direct on where to go and what to do, which (as I liked 1&2) has had me strongly considering the game.

If I buy it, I'm probably going to buy it on Xbox rather than PC. I don't do Steam. I do use Xbox though.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



Well, that should be good. I hated Inquisition...but that probably had more to do with the fact that I discovered I really don't like open world games (with some exceptions like Breath of the Wild) than the actual writing
I’ve just had a go at replaying inquisition to see if I want Veilyard, and my conclusion is that the story was great but the gameplay horrible, dull and counter-immersive.
 

Yeah this seems to be one of Larian's permanent flaws, and it 100% is to do with Swen, because they didn't even have the same lead writers this time as with previous games, they two entirely new people, and basically whenever the writing was discussed in sit-down video things Larian did, Swen would be swooning about some utterly psychotic blood-drenched murder-option and going on about how he loved this kind of thing, and to be fair, the leadiest lead writer, even though he's new, did seem to be into it also, though I'm not sure how much of that is "I'd like to keep my job".

DOS1 and DOS2 are absolutely full of insane murder-options and most of the playable origin characters in DOS2, as written, are pretty evil or at least creepy/dark. Specifically:

Sebille - Tortured and scarred slave who has lost her mind somewhat and intends to torture and murder her enemies, and has like special "extra-nasty" dialogue options.
Red Prince - Failed Emperor of the racial supremacist and evil Lizardperson empire - he got exiled for banging demons, and likes to tell people how superior he is.
Ifan Ben-Mezd - Mercenary murderer with a dark backstory - sometimes get specifically (and correctly) called out as a murderer by NPCs.
Lohse - Demon-possessed and has barely managed to avoid doing a bunch of murders - but I guess she's not personally evil at least?
Beast - Uhhhh I can't remember who this is lol. He's a dwarf apparently? I guess I missed him.
Fane - An undead guy who can cut off people's faces and wear them. He is the most sane and nice origin.

DOS2 in general is an incredible "crapsack world" trope setting, in that virtually everyone you meet is either outright evil or a victim, or sometimes both.

It's worth noting that when BG3 first launched into Early Access, it was pretty much the same way. All the companions/origins were significantly nastier than they later became (yes even Gale, who was also less joke-y - Karlach wasn't a companion then), and many of the situations in the launch Early Access were only given lose/lose ways to resolve them (or just like "you can be brutal, greedy, or mean-spirited, which do you prefer?").

This got a ton of negative feedback, though, from the EA players, and to their credit, once it had been put to them that they were just replicating DOS2, that all the origin characters were unlikeable, and that this was D&D, and the Forgotten Realms, not the ghastly Divinity setting, so heroism needed to be allowed, they started altering course pretty rapidly. There's still a rather excessive amount of grimdark-ery left in BG3, but at least you can actually play a heroic character, which you literally could not at EA launch.

This is one of the reasons why folks under estimate the importance of the setting to BG3s successes, it heavily counter balanced their grim dark tendencies because while FR has dark stuff and evil, it's D&D's most optimistic hopeful setting, as mordy put it is one of the only places we're good over all is actively winning. Plus the deep lore gave the writers the ultimate playground to play in.

Their next games will not have the massive advantages that FR has, it will have to create everything from scratch and figure out how it all fits together and there will be no Mike "The Secret Sauce" Mearls to help guide them. They will have to contend with all their worst tendencies with no counter balancing factors. It was a mistake to dump DLC and BG4, but no hard-core Larian fans want to hear it.
 

It was a mistake to dump DLC and BG4, but no hard-core Larian fans want to hear it.
I feel like right now it's more appropriate to say it's a "risk" to dump DLC/BG4, rather than a "mistake", because we don't know what they're going to do next, and it's guaranteed that whatever their next game is, if it's a CRPG or story RPG (which it probably will be), it's going to have a huge number of people buying because "Larian are the BG3 guys!".

I mean, it certainly is an interesting risk to take. Even if the way they'd designed BG3 made DLC for that impractical or even basically impossible, BG4, using the same engine, the same fundamental technologies, the same writing style, probably a largely new cast but with cameos (or having the companions as quest-givers etc.) from the previous game, would have been a pretty guaranteed success, and would also likely have been possible to develop in 3-4 years (given they'd already been in pre-production on it for at least 7 months, possibly a year or more), even if a similar scale to BG3. Would it have sold as many copies? Hard to say, RPG sequels usually sell more, but not always (see Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire, and its bizarre failure, despite being a better game than the original Pillars on literally every possible level, from gameplay to UI to writing to pacing). But I think it's fair to say they'd have made hundreds of millions again, and probably on a lower overhead.

One possible issue is that WotC might have been wanting a significantly larger revenue cut, but we have absolutely zero evidence to even hint at that, so that is 100% pure baseless speculation and not worth much consideration.

Anyway, whatever exactly happened at Larian, it was enough to turn down a guaranteed hundreds of millions in favour of betting on their own prowess and competence.

Whether that turns out to be a "mistake", we'll likely find out when their next game comes out (we might find out in Early Access - but they turned around BG3 from "DOS2 but technically set in Faerun" - even the gameplay was more DOS-like - to a real D&D game during EA so I suspect not).

They will have to contend with all their worst tendencies with no counter balancing factors.
This is true. I think how this actually works out for them will be interesting to see. The two possible ways they do well I think are:

1) They pick a setting where being grimdark AF actually totally works with the setting, and thus even though it's blood-soaked trust-no-one murderama, that's actually fine. For example, if they did a grimy, dystopian space-future type setting, I think they could go pretty much as hard as they went in DOS2 with everyone being awful or a victim, constant edgelord-adjacent "dark humour" and so on, and they'd probably still do extremely well. Same for a cyberpunk or dark steampunk setting, actually. If they go more classical fantasy, even if they try to go dark fantasy or even use the Divinity setting, I think they'll have more of a problem.

2) Someone manages to throw the brakes, whether it's Swen coming to his senses - unlikely - or being brought to his senses by his obviously talented and intelligent lead writers (Adam Smith and Chrystal Ding - both of whom this was the first game they'd ever written on*, and who did a far better job than most experienced leads!) - I think that's a little more likely - and they actually cut down the "blood blood blood" a bit, but still manage to do convincing evil options and so on. If they do that, I think they could succeed with almost any setting/genre of RPG.

What makes me think they probably aren't making an actual "mistake" though is that Larian has shown a lot of flexibility over writing before. Sure, prior to BG3, all their games were pretty grimdark (with a lot of often slightly forced or clumsy "humour" - indeed prior to DOS2 it was often tinged with thoughtless misogyny or cruelty), but with DOS2 they knew the writing wasn't good enough, despite basically no reviews saying that. They knew they needed to hire English-speaking writers to do better (and this really impressed me because one of my main critiques of a lot of the humour and some of the writing in DOS1 and 2 was that it felt like it had been poorly translated). They knew they had to replace their lead writer - and they did, the guy who had lead writer on all their games since 2009 stepped aside for Smith and Ding, and became just one of the team of "principal writers" - that's wild - there are a lot of studios which wouldn't even try that after a critical drubbing, let alone put out a successful game and then still see their own flaws and take decisive action on them! Further, sure when BG3 EA started, it was way too DOS-esque, including writing-wise, but when they got a ton of negative feedback, the writers and designers didn't really push back - they listened. Swen did make some excuses and apologia ("these are only the evil companions!**" and so on). So I think whilst Swen loves that grimdark and "dark humour", the writing on the next game will probably be pretty well-judged, if still a little on the darker side.


* = It's wild that Chrystal Ding even came to work there. She seemingly had a great time working on BG3, but is a pretty serious research-lead artist, a lot of her work focusing on the impact of trauma on identity - a huge theme in BG - most of the companions and major antagonists have a lot of that. She's also very interested in the impact of technology on identity, which might point to a major theme for a future game. Adam Smith used to be a games journalist at Rock Paper Shotgun, and was always talented there, and joined Larian when they were hiring a lot of writers after WotC told them they had the go-ahead to make BG3.

** = This seems like it was maybe true at the time, but only one "good" full/origin companion was actually added after that time - Karlach. Datamining suggests there were two others planned - Helia, a Halfling Bard with Lycanthropy, and Minsc was originally a full origin companion - i.e. who you could play from the start, romance people with, and so on - I strongly suspect WotC ended up nixing that one. There also seemed to be a Paladin origin character but they seem to have been cut pretty early in favour of Minthara being able to join. Conversely, Halsin wasn't originally intended to be a companion at all.
 

I've heard that DA4 is less open world and more direct on where to go and what to do, which (as I liked 1&2) has had me strongly considering the game.
Yeah it's the same structure as DA 1 & 2 and the ME1-3 games essentially - i.e. there's a hub area and a lot of areas you can visit repeatedly, but which aren't open-world, as well as some areas you only visit for specific missions.
 

I feel like right now it's more appropriate to say it's a "risk" to dump DLC/BG4, rather than a "mistake", because we don't know what they're going to do next, and it's guaranteed that whatever their next game is, if it's a CRPG or story RPG (which it probably will be), it's going to have a huge number of people buying because "Larian are the BG3 guys!".

I mean, it certainly is an interesting risk to take. Even if the way they'd designed BG3 made DLC for that impractical or even basically impossible, BG4, using the same engine, the same fundamental technologies, the same writing style, probably a largely new cast but with cameos (or having the companions as quest-givers etc.) from the previous game, would have been a pretty guaranteed success, and would also likely have been possible to develop in 3-4 years (given they'd already been in pre-production on it for at least 7 months, possibly a year or more), even if a similar scale to BG3. Would it have sold as many copies? Hard to say, RPG sequels usually sell more, but not always (see Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire, and its bizarre failure, despite being a better game than the original Pillars on literally every possible level, from gameplay to UI to writing to pacing). But I think it's fair to say they'd have made hundreds of millions again, and probably on a lower overhead.

One possible issue is that WotC might have been wanting a significantly larger revenue cut, but we have absolutely zero evidence to even hint at that, so that is 100% pure baseless speculation and not worth much consideration.

Anyway, whatever exactly happened at Larian, it was enough to turn down a guaranteed hundreds of millions in favour of betting on their own prowess and competence.

Whether that turns out to be a "mistake", we'll likely find out when their next game comes out (we might find out in Early Access - but they turned around BG3 from "DOS2 but technically set in Faerun" - even the gameplay was more DOS-like - to a real D&D game during EA so I suspect not).


This is true. I think how this actually works out for them will be interesting to see. The two possible ways they do well I think are:

1) They pick a setting where being grimdark AF actually totally works with the setting, and thus even though it's blood-soaked trust-no-one murderama, that's actually fine. For example, if they did a grimy, dystopian space-future type setting, I think they could go pretty much as hard as they went in DOS2 with everyone being awful or a victim, constant edgelord-adjacent "dark humour" and so on, and they'd probably still do extremely well. Same for a cyberpunk or dark steampunk setting, actually. If they go more classical fantasy, even if they try to go dark fantasy or even use the Divinity setting, I think they'll have more of a problem.

2) Someone manages to throw the brakes, whether it's Swen coming to his senses - unlikely - or being brought to his senses by his obviously talented and intelligent lead writers (Adam Smith and Chrystal Ding - both of whom this was the first game they'd ever written on*, and who did a far better job than most experienced leads!) - I think that's a little more likely - and they actually cut down the "blood blood blood" a bit, but still manage to do convincing evil options and so on. If they do that, I think they could succeed with almost any setting/genre of RPG.

What makes me think they probably aren't making an actual "mistake" though is that Larian has shown a lot of flexibility over writing before. Sure, prior to BG3, all their games were pretty grimdark (with a lot of often slightly forced or clumsy "humour" - indeed prior to DOS2 it was often tinged with thoughtless misogyny or cruelty), but with DOS2 they knew the writing wasn't good enough, despite basically no reviews saying that. They knew they needed to hire English-speaking writers to do better (and this really impressed me because one of my main critiques of a lot of the humour and some of the writing in DOS1 and 2 was that it felt like it had been poorly translated). They knew they had to replace their lead writer - and they did, the guy who had lead writer on all their games since 2009 stepped aside for Smith and Ding, and became just one of the team of "principal writers" - that's wild - there are a lot of studios which wouldn't even try that after a critical drubbing, let alone put out a successful game and then still see their own flaws and take decisive action on them! Further, sure when BG3 EA started, it was way too DOS-esque, including writing-wise, but when they got a ton of negative feedback, the writers and designers didn't really push back - they listened. Swen did make some excuses and apologia ("these are only the evil companions!**" and so on). So I think whilst Swen loves that grimdark and "dark humour", the writing on the next game will probably be pretty well-judged, if still a little on the darker side.


* = It's wild that Chrystal Ding even came to work there. She seemingly had a great time working on BG3, but is a pretty serious research-lead artist, a lot of her work focusing on the impact of trauma on identity - a huge theme in BG - most of the companions and major antagonists have a lot of that. She's also very interested in the impact of technology on identity, which might point to a major theme for a future game. Adam Smith used to be a games journalist at Rock Paper Shotgun, and was always talented there, and joined Larian when they were hiring a lot of writers after WotC told them they had the go-ahead to make BG3.

** = This seems like it was maybe true at the time, but only one "good" full/origin companion was actually added after that time - Karlach. Datamining suggests there were two others planned - Helia, a Halfling Bard with Lycanthropy, and Minsc was originally a full origin companion - i.e. who you could play from the start, romance people with, and so on - I strongly suspect WotC ended up nixing that one. There also seemed to be a Paladin origin character but they seem to have been cut pretty early in favour of Minthara being able to join. Conversely, Halsin wasn't originally intended to be a companion at all.

Given Minsc is in the game as a none Origin companion, I thought having Delina as an Origin Companion was a missed opportunity honestly.

Plus I love her mtg card.
 


My speculation: It's Icewind Dale 3, built on the BG3 engine licenced by WotC. If Icewind Dale 3 is successfull, the team will move on to make BG4 with the experience they have gained.
By the time they have figured out how to use the BG3 engine, they have already done the hard bit, there isn’t much benefit from doing something less ambitious with it. It’s a horrible tool.

I suspect the other reason that Larian didn’t want to make any more BG was because the “tool” wasn’t really useful for making anything other than what they made.

I very much bet this game is not a crpg at all.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top