WotC Hasbro gains big time from D&D, Magic, Monopoly, and Baldur's Gate 3

[Scribe]

Think Bioware where they did Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic then later did Mass Effect. Then Dragonage. Then screwed it up.

They didn't need the Star Wars brand at that point.

No, but I didnt follow Bioware into those other games, despite playing Bioware games. I dont know that outside of Blizzard, I've jumped into a PC game IP. I'll have to think about that actually.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, but I didnt follow Bioware into those other games, despite playing Bioware games. I dont know that outside of Blizzard, I've jumped into a PC game IP. I'll have to think about that actually.

I could be wrong but that's what I took away from Larian not needing Baldurs Gate.

Going back a bit further EA had that reputation they basically didn't make bad games hit after hit early 90s.

 

[mamba]

All those cancellations that amounted to not having any impact on WotC’s income? Those cancellations?

 

[Reynard]

It's gotten to the point where it's borderline thread crapping. It never has anything to do with the topic of the thread. Want to create a thread about how terrible it was? Knock yourself out. I'll ignore it.

Until then when people bring in this tangent up yet again, I will reserve the right to call it out. I guess you'll have to get used to it.

This thread is literally about WotC business practices. How is talking about their past business practices thread crapping?

Look, WotC is a subsidiary of a multi billion dollar corporation. They are inherently untrustworthy (as @Parmandur and others have pointed out). They don't have your, my or anyone else's best interests in mind. They only care about quarterly profits.

So, why shouldn't we, the customers, call them our and drag them to the carpet at every opportunity? We don't owe them anything, and they have proven themselves untrustworthy.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Some times I imagine a LEGO version of Spelljammer. It seems enoughly child-friendly, and enough exotic for the eyes of the little children, but not too bizare for the parents. Let's imagine minifigures of autognomes, giffs, plasmoids or three-kens.

The controversy of the OGL caused a lot of damage to the prestige of the brand, but it was their fault. Some times some CEOs are people without empathy and they can't understand the point of view by the clients.

* A videogame of Hero Quest is possible, but it would be more "serie B". A videogame of Dragonlance is also possible, but I imagine it with the option to change the characters, and if we want an AAA then we will have to await a lot of time.

A D&D no-CRPG videogame is possible, for example a RTS, a horror survival in Ravenloft, a city-buidling or a farm simulation. Jackandor could be a survival in the jungle.

* Larian can be very proud with their work, but I suspect they don't want to be too linked with D&D. I could bet their next project will be more independient, but maybe easy to be adapted to D&D if WotC wanted to publish the licence.

Maybe other studios would interested into a no-FR licence, like Greyhawk or Mystara. The goal would be earn prestige for the company.

* Hero Quest is too expensive, with a lot of miniatures, and it is not the right product to sell licenced versions.

* Paramount could be interested into Mystara's Hollow World as a variant version of Jurrasic World. The classic dinosaurs but with magic and other monsters.

 

[Hussar]

This isn’t what I did.

I commented on a post that essentially said no one heard of the OGL debacle, that in fact many people heard.

Define “many “?

So far we’ve seen zero impact of those many. So either those many aren’t really that many - thus my “both of them” comment - or the “many” haven’t had any impact on sales.

 

[Hussar]

View attachment 295151

Talk about revisionism.

 

[mamba]

Define “many “?

enough for WotC to do a 180.

For someone who wants to move on from this topic, you sure are the one who dragged it into this thread… and now you ensure that it sticks around

 

[mamba]

Talk about revisionism.

I am, I am pointing out your revisionism

 

[darjr]

Define “many “?

So far we’ve seen zero impact of those many. So either those many aren’t really that many - thus my “both of them” comment - or the “many” haven’t had any impact on sales.

The run on sales on "not D&D" isn't nothing.

The CEO of Hasbro, not leadership of wotc, having to mention the dndbeyond cancellations and the OGL fiasco to investors is not nothing.

This thread and those trying to redefine this debacle as nothing, is not nothing.

The tour of explanation and down right apologies to the community with youtubers and others was not nothing.

The SRD 5.1 in CC-by is not nothing.