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

Oofta

Legend
Supporter
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.

Do you have a reason to say that? Not saying you're wrong, I have no clue.

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.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with, if they can carry over any technology at all from Sigil for example. If it's not a CRPG (I give it 50/50), will it be something based on Unreal Engine?

Time will tell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Really because fans have done some amazing things already with the BG3 engine like Spelljammer mini campaign including a usable Spelljammer Galleon.
 

Do you have a reason to say that? Not saying you're wrong, I have no clue.
There are two ways you could go about a project like this. One, you could start off by building a powerful tool that is ideally suited for your project. Neverwinter Nights took this approach. Or two, you could start off with something that is vaguely similar, such as DOS2, and dive straight in, modifying the engine as you go along. Leading to a sort of kludgy Franken-tool.

Add to that, over the DOS series Larien developed a kind of illusionism that allowed them to make a small area appear much larger. This is Art rather than Science, and not something that can easily be imitated.
Really because fans have done some amazing things already with the BG3 engine like Spelljammer mini campaign including a usable Spelljammer Galleon.
Ships are relatively easy. You have a small self contained model that you keep reusing and can copy-paste into other areas. Pirates of the Sword Coast (NWN) is another example of this trick. But it's too limited to create anything of any length. Mass Effect and KotOR kind of use this trick, but they also have quite extensive non-ship parts, which would be the difficulty.
 

Really because fans have done some amazing things already with the BG3 engine like Spelljammer mini campaign including a usable Spelljammer Galleon.
Fans do "amazing things" with a lot of fairly clunky and hard-to-work-with engines. Bethesda's engine has been getting harder to mod or do anything much with every game with since Oblivion, but up to and including Skyrim Enhanced Edition it basically kept getting more and more mods, only beginning to fall off with FO4 (which still got some impressive projects, including FO: London), and then relatively going off a cliff with Starfield - why?

Because of the size and enthusiasm of the audience.

If you have mod tools, and a lot of players, and the players love the game, impressive things WILL be done with the game. If you miss one of those elements, it's a lot less likely.

BG3 has mod tools, has a huge audience, and has a ton of enthusiasm, so has a lot of mods despite not being particularly easy to mod. Starfield has mod tools, and a big audience, but relatively little enthusiasm, so has a tiny number of mods compared to previous Bethesda games (and those that exist tend to be small and shallow compared to previous games).
One, you could start off by building a powerful tool that is ideally suited for your project. Neverwinter Nights took this approach. Or two, you could start off with something that is vaguely similar, such as DOS2, and dive straight in, modifying the engine as you go along. Leading to a sort of kludgy Franken-tool.
Worth noting that most game studios do the latter, because when professionals are involved, and there's good management and documentation, it tends to be hugely more efficient than trying to develop a special perfect tool. You only make an "ideally suited" tool if you have absolutely nothing (rarely the case now), or more likely if you actively want the public to make stuff with your tool. Also we're increasingly seeing various tools more elegantly woven together rather than "kludged", but in many cases, those tools are either third-party, or proprietary and not the sort of thing you'd want to give away (dialogue tools and quest scripting particularly tend to be this way), so modders aren't going to get those, for the most part.
 

Fans do "amazing things" with a lot of fairly clunky and hard-to-work-with engines. Bethesda's engine has been getting harder to mod or do anything much with every game with since Oblivion, but up to and including Skyrim Enhanced Edition it basically kept getting more and more mods, only beginning to fall off with FO4 (which still got some impressive projects, including FO: London), and then relatively going off a cliff with Starfield - why?

Because of the size and enthusiasm of the audience.

If you have mod tools, and a lot of players, and the players love the game, impressive things WILL be done with the game. If you miss one of those elements, it's a lot less likely.

BG3 has mod tools, has a huge audience, and has a ton of enthusiasm, so has a lot of mods despite not being particularly easy to mod. Starfield has mod tools, and a big audience, but relatively little enthusiasm, so has a tiny number of mods compared to previous Bethesda games (and those that exist tend to be small and shallow compared to previous games).

Worth noting that most game studios do the latter, because when professionals are involved, and there's good management and documentation, it tends to be hugely more efficient than trying to develop a special perfect tool. You only make an "ideally suited" tool if you have absolutely nothing (rarely the case now), or more likely if you actively want the public to make stuff with your tool. Also we're increasingly seeing various tools more elegantly woven together rather than "kludged", but in many cases, those tools are either third-party, or proprietary and not the sort of thing you'd want to give away (dialogue tools and quest scripting particularly tend to be this way), so modders aren't going to get those, for the most part.
Anecdote loosely related to this:

When I started as a postgrad research assistant back in the 90s, I inherited a piece of code for calculating chemical abundances in interstellar nebulae, written in FORTRAN, no less! I tinkered with it a bit and found some curious results, but because I didn’t know exactly how the code worked I wasn’t sure if it was real science or a computing error.
 

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.
Definitely not. The engine used for BG3 is proprietory to Larian and there's no-one trained and experienced with it outside of Larian. It would be truly insane to do that when engines like Unreal 4 and 5 exist, and have huge numbers of people experienced with them. Plus it would cost a huge amount to licence the engine and pay Larian to train your staff, and WotC are penny-pinchers.
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.
Larian have made nothing but RPGs for the entire time they've existed, apart from one RTS, which was a huge flop. And they've already hinted that both the upcoming projects are RPGs (and outright stated that neither is DOS3).

Whether it's a CRPG is harder to say - I'd take the bet and say it was except the definition can be somewhat nebulous (like, DAO is a CRPG, but what about DA2, DAI? DAV is definitely not a CRPG). They've also had insane serial success with CRPGs and seem to like them so I think it's very safe to say the next big game they make (they say the scope is less than BG3, but still large) will be either a CRPG or story RPG (i.e. BioWare-style). I think they may also be developing a tactical RPG, and that would be a lot quicker so might beat this to market, but my suspicion is that will get cancelled or already has been.

I don't think Larian have ever expressed dissatisfaction with their tools - have you seen them do so? So I am not seeing the reasoning behind assuming they are.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with, if they can carry over any technology at all from Sigil for example. If it's not a CRPG (I give it 50/50), will it be something based on Unreal Engine?

Time will tell.
I'm not sure if you're referring to WotC here, but just to clarify, Sigil is an entirely separate tool (not engine) unrelated to Larian's BG3 engine in any way, shape, or form. The engine that runs BG3 is Divinity Engine 4.0, which is the latest development of a fully in-house developed original engine Larian created for Divinity: Original Sin. Sigil is a tool (again, not engine) made in Unreal Engine 5, by WotC. They might look a little similar in the scenes they create due to the subject matter and perspective, but there's zero software or asset relationship. Apologies if this is totally unnecessary and I'm just failing to follow the convo properly!

I would personally be pretty surprised if Larian switched to Epic's Unreal engine for a number of reasons:

1) Whilst the initial cost of UE5 is low, and you have to pay Epic 5% of your gross revenue for any sales over $1m gross. Given BG3 has sold like, minimum 15m copies at this point (likely far more), at $60 each, that'd mean Larian would have to pay Epic $42m. Is it likely to cost them $42m to stick with their own engine/could they save $42m by switching? That seems very unlikely (I can expand on this if people really care but it's very boring!).

2) UE developers are plentiful, but Larian doesn't like to unnecessarily fire people, nor does it operate in the ultra-capitalist "please the stockholders!" way most companies do. So hiring a bunch of experienced UE guys whilst firing their own guys would likely not work for them. And sure they could retrain all their current guys to use UE5, but why? That just adds to the tens of millions it's already going to likely cost them from the sales of a future game if they used it.

3) Epic are the sort of company that Swen doesn't seem very keen on. So I'm not sure he'd want to go out of his way to give them tens of millions. Note that Baldur's Gate 3 is not available on the Epic store.

There is one potential countervailing factor however. Both Epic and Larian are part-owned by Tencent (40% and 30% respectively), so maybe Tencent could nudge Epic on this? Or nudge both? But I'd be surprised personally. It's not impossibly but I think the odds are on them sticking with upgrading Divinity Engine - it's clearly possible to upgrade pretty impressively, given the huge leap from DOS2 to BG3 (including bringing in tons of mocap'd cutscenes!).

Anecdote loosely related to this:

When I started as a postgrad research assistant back in the 90s, I inherited a piece of code for calculating chemical abundances in interstellar nebulae, written in FORTRAN, no less! I tinkered with it a bit and found some curious results, but because I didn’t know exactly how the code worked I wasn’t sure if it was real science or a computing error.
Ahhh yes FORTRAN used to hang around a lot in the '90s (still does a bit, mostly at older banks) - my wife's first real programming job, when she was still in uni, was to single-handedly move a hugely elaborate program written in FORTRAN 66 (not even 77 - which would still be before she was born!) to a new, modern, codebase. The program had been updated by its programmer from the 1960s to the early 1990s, but he'd retired a few years earlier, and the whole thing used variable names which were just six digits, no letters, no words. As a bonus there was no documentation of the code whatsoever, only of the user-side stuff. It had to work absolutely perfectly because it was for calculating the physical stresses on a certain kind of structure they produced, and could potentially cost the company millions if it failed. But she did it - some early code archaeology! They sensibly ran a huge number of tests too, but it worked and gave the right results! And once they had it in modern code (I forget what), she was able to add new functions, new structures, and so on, which was what they wanted, and made them god knows how much money because other similar companies didn't have flexible tools like that. Of course being a brilliant-but-naive teenager she was wildly underpaid for doing this, but she had no idea until later. Around the same time my really cool driving instructor (who taught me to do burn-outs etc.!) quit driving instructing because he knew FORTRAN (he must have been in his late 30s) and was offered an £80k job (not bad for late-90s London) updating stuff in the run-up to Y2K.
 

Oofta

Legend
Supporter
Definitely not. The engine used for BG3 is proprietory to Larian and there's no-one trained and experienced with it outside of Larian. It would be truly insane to do that when engines like Unreal 4 and 5 exist, and have huge numbers of people experienced with them. Plus it would cost a huge amount to licence the engine and pay Larian to train your staff, and WotC are penny-pinchers.

Larian have made nothing but RPGs for the entire time they've existed, apart from one RTS, which was a huge flop. And they've already hinted that both the upcoming projects are RPGs (and outright stated that neither is DOS3).

Whether it's a CRPG is harder to say - I'd take the bet and say it was except the definition can be somewhat nebulous (like, DAO is a CRPG, but what about DA2, DAI? DAV is definitely not a CRPG). They've also had insane serial success with CRPGs and seem to like them so I think it's very safe to say the next big game they make (they say the scope is less than BG3, but still large) will be either a CRPG or story RPG (i.e. BioWare-style). I think they may also be developing a tactical RPG, and that would be a lot quicker so might beat this to market, but my suspicion is that will get cancelled or already has been.

I don't think Larian have ever expressed dissatisfaction with their tools - have you seen them do so? So I am not seeing the reasoning behind assuming they are.

I'm not sure if you're referring to WotC here, but just to clarify, Sigil is an entirely separate tool (not engine) unrelated to Larian's BG3 engine in any way, shape, or form. The engine that runs BG3 is Divinity Engine 4.0, which is the latest development of a fully in-house developed original engine Larian created for Divinity: Original Sin. Sigil is a tool (again, not engine) made in Unreal Engine 5, by WotC. They might look a little similar in the scenes they create due to the subject matter and perspective, but there's zero software or asset relationship. Apologies if this is totally unnecessary and I'm just failing to follow the convo properly!

I would personally be pretty surprised if Larian switched to Epic's Unreal engine for a number of reasons:

1) Whilst the initial cost of UE5 is low, and you have to pay Epic 5% of your gross revenue for any sales over $1m gross. Given BG3 has sold like, minimum 15m copies at this point (likely far more), at $60 each, that'd mean Larian would have to pay Epic $42m. Is it likely to cost them $42m to stick with their own engine/could they save $42m by switching? That seems very unlikely (I can expand on this if people really care but it's very boring!).

2) UE developers are plentiful, but Larian doesn't like to unnecessarily fire people, nor does it operate in the ultra-capitalist "please the stockholders!" way most companies do. So hiring a bunch of experienced UE guys whilst firing their own guys would likely not work for them. And sure they could retrain all their current guys to use UE5, but why? That just adds to the tens of millions it's already going to likely cost them from the sales of a future game if they used it.

3) Epic are the sort of company that Swen doesn't seem very keen on. So I'm not sure he'd want to go out of his way to give them tens of millions. Note that Baldur's Gate 3 is not available on the Epic store.

There is one potential countervailing factor however. Both Epic and Larian are part-owned by Tencent (40% and 30% respectively), so maybe Tencent could nudge Epic on this? Or nudge both? But I'd be surprised personally. It's not impossibly but I think the odds are on them sticking with upgrading Divinity Engine - it's clearly possible to upgrade pretty impressively, given the huge leap from DOS2 to BG3 (including bringing in tons of mocap'd cutscenes!).


Ahhh yes FORTRAN used to hang around a lot in the '90s (still does a bit, mostly at older banks) - my wife's first real programming job, when she was still in uni, was to single-handedly move a hugely elaborate program written in FORTRAN 66 (not even 77 - which would still be before she was born!) to a new, modern, codebase. The program had been updated by its programmer from the 1960s to the early 1990s, but he'd retired a few years earlier, and the whole thing used variable names which were just six digits, no letters, no words. As a bonus there was no documentation of the code whatsoever, only of the user-side stuff. It had to work absolutely perfectly because it was for calculating the physical stresses on a certain kind of structure they produced, and could potentially cost the company millions if it failed. But she did it - some early code archaeology! They sensibly ran a huge number of tests too, but it worked and gave the right results! And once they had it in modern code (I forget what), she was able to add new functions, new structures, and so on, which was what they wanted, and made them god knows how much money because other similar companies didn't have flexible tools like that. Of course being a brilliant-but-naive teenager she was wildly underpaid for doing this, but she had no idea until later. Around the same time my really cool driving instructor (who taught me to do burn-outs etc.!) quit driving instructing because he knew FORTRAN (he must have been in his late 30s) and was offered an £80k job (not bad for late-90s London) updating stuff in the run-up to Y2K.
Just a note, I wasn't saying Larian would license anything. They could in theory license the BG 3 engine to WotC but I wouldn't expect them to. Any use of Unreal engine would be fo WotC.

As far as Sigil, that would be WotC. I don't know if any core libraries could be shared with a CRPG or not. I'm coming at this from a business application development perspective where sometimes you can share some development costs if you start out with it in mind. Or not, I make no claim one way or another.
 

As far as Sigil, that would be WotC. I don't know if any core libraries could be shared with a CRPG or not. I'm coming at this from a business application development perspective where sometimes you can share some development costs if you start out with it in mind. Or not, I make no claim one way or another.
A WotC-developed game could almost certainly re-use some assets from Sigil. Especially if they also used UE5 (which is very popular and frankly, whilst I am not a developer, does seem like a cool engine with great features built in). Code, probably they wouldn't want to try to re-use, but assets for sure. I mean, technically you can often migrate assets across entirely different engines, though it might be a real pain, but UE5 to UE5 is likely to be very easy. And assets can be one of the heaviest elements of development budgets (hence them often being re-used, either partially or entirely, across games, especially at the lower and middle parts of AAA and below). By assets to be clear I mean 3D models, textures, animations, sounds, etc.

(One interesting example of asset re-uses vs. not re-using is Dragon Age Inquisition vs Mass Effect Andromeda. Both were in EA's Frostbite engine, but DAI re-used animations, particularly, from DA, DA2 and even the ME games, tweaking them and improving them, and they felt like this was hugely helpful (there's an article about it somewhere). A few critics did mildly criticise the animations for being stiff but for the most part they were well-accepted. MEA, on the other hand, decided that wasn't good enough and developed animations entirely from scratch, which turned out to be a significant burden, and when they launched, a lot of animations were still were not quite working right. They also ended up trying to outsource/offshore some of the work because there was so much, which didn't go very well. Lesson is - sometimes cheaping out is just a win!)
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top