WotC New WotC President Is World of Warcraft's John Hight

After WotC president Cynthia Williams resigned a couple of months ago, taking up the CEO role at Funko, we've been waiting to hear who her replacement will be.

WotC has now announced that John Hight--who previously managed the World of Warcraft franchise for Blizzard Entertainment--is taking over. Like Williams, Hight comes from a video gaming background.

Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks said "I admire John’s career focus on fostering community. He is a true embodiment of our mission to bring people together through play. John’s love of D&D and Magic: The Gathering, combined with his leadership in video games, will be crucial as we expand our digital offerings to deliver what our fans crave."

Hight worked at Blizzard for 12 years, on both World of Warcraft and Diablo. According to Business Wire, his role includes oversight of Hasbro's network of gaming studios and digital licensing agreements.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's a really good point. D&D marketing has always been an afterthought outside of English. I wonder if we're wrong to look at TTRPGs specifically though, given you're looking at places where videogames are available simultaneously, and where roleplaying might never coalesce into what we think of as traditional TTRPG forms. I'm immediately thinking of People Make Game's video the rise of jubensha.

For sure, though I would say something like Jubensha doesn't really preclude the existence or success of TTRPGs, given the fairly fundamental differences. Jubensha particularly seems much more commercial, and more like it has something in common with, say, paintball, in terms of audience, than TTRPGs.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Must it? Even the most optimistic take on D&D's popularity is that 50 million people play it worldwide. (And that number is highly suspect, to put it mildly.)

There are 8.1 billion people in the world. Surely a few more could be convinced to try tabletop games.

They might but that would need marketing to non-English speakers, which I do not believe WoTC has done much of. One issue that D&D (and ttrpgs in general) is that they are pretty time consuming in an age where social media is a huge time sink.

 

[mamba]

It was little-observed at the time, but weren't WotC getting like, 70% of the amount paid to Beyond per book before they owned Beyond?

would not be unreasonable, the platform provider getting around 30% seems to be the norm

When they took over they could have thus reduced prices and still be coming out ahead (hahaha as if), but in fact not only did they not do that, they soon thereafter raised digital prices.

yeah, no way they would have lowered them, that just means less profit / more time to recoup the investment

 

[Ruin Explorer]

would not be unreasonable, the platform provider getting around 30% seems to be the norm


yeah, no way they would have lowered them, that just means less profit / more time to recoup the investment

Sure, I'm just pointing out that people are increasingly used to just effectively giving more money to WotC for less (the price/what you get deal on the 4E DDI vs. 5E Beyond is hilarious for example - the latter is an insanely worse deal).

 

[Oofta]

I think two big differences are:

A) It's the 2020s, not 2008. People are hugely more used to subscriptions and microtransactions for online games and services, and I suspect generally feel more positive about them (albeit still not great). 2008 was only two years after the famous "Horse Armor" incident with TES Oblivion, and there was a perception among DMs (not entirely unwarranted*) that MMORPGs were stealing their players, so any connection to WoW was a brush you could tar people with, even the most tenuous.

B) WotC have actually been more upfront about their digital plans this time, even if they're very much not nailed down. Literally the first mentions of the 3D VTT (now apparently "Sigil") including mentions of a subscription and microtransactions (and seemingly quite a lot of microtransactions at that!). But they also very much seemed to suggest the 3D VTT was going to exist alongside D&D in general, rather than to replace it. Whether it'll actually play out like that, we shall see, but in the short term it probably will. With 4E whilst the actual plans, when they finally got revealed, were not dissimilar, it was long after the damage had been done by a lot of vague and concerning statements.

Also thanks to Beyond an awful lot of people are already used to paying WotC more money and not questioning it - both via subscriptions and double-purchasing the books (or just purchasing a digital book that has a very low overhead relative to getting a printed book made and shipped, and where basically 100% of the revenue goes to WotC). It was little-observed at the time, but weren't WotC getting like, 70% of the amount paid to Beyond per book before they owned Beyond? When they took over they could have thus reduced prices and still be coming out ahead (hahaha as if), but in fact not only did they not do that, they soon thereafter raised digital prices.

Servers are not free. Updating and maintaining new materials is not free. If I did not think DDB was not worth my money I wouldn't pay it. But I share my books with a dozen people. If I cared, I could ask them to chip in a couple bucks here and there and I wouldn't have to pay a thing. Nothing in life is free.

So no, I really don't see the evil corporation ripping me off, I see a system that is worth the money because it makes it easier to create characters and significantly easier to DM. To me it's just another excuse to call them greedy bastards. They're no worse than any other corporation in my judgement and far better than others. Want to talk price gouging? Take a look at EssilorLuxotticaa the eyeglass manufacturer. Because they've bought out all the competition and the distributors (they own LensCrafters, Pearl Vision, Sunglass Hut, etc.) you pay hundreds of dollars for glasses that cost them $20 to manufacture.

Compared to them? WotC is practically a charity. I also see no future where they force us all online, and they are still supporting competing VTTs such as FantasyGrounds and Roll20. I just don't see what the issue is. If I want to use an online product, I will, and I don't expect to get it for free.

P.S. Yes, I just listened to a podcast on the eyeglass thing. As one of the millions of people that needs glasses it pisses me off. Good news is they're finally getting competition - Warby Parker. Sadly they wanted to sell eyeglasses for $45 and were told it was too good a deal because other eyeglasses cost so much, so they charge $95. Check them out online, or if they have a store in your area. But I digress.

 

[Aldarc]

Must it? Even the most optimistic take on D&D's popularity is that 50 million people play it worldwide. (And that number is highly suspect, to put it mildly.)

There are 8.1 billion people in the world. Surely a few more could be convinced to try tabletop games.

Tabletop games? Yes. Tabletop roleplaying games? Who knows?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The books will have to be sold, at least for collectors. If I wanted I could get a lot of sourcebooks from internet, but I would rather to buy the physical books.

But maybe my opinion is worthless because I am not really a player but a collector.

Other point is thanks internet you can sell in places without specialized stores, for example smaller towns and cities. Here there is only comic shops in the big cities, and the TTRPGs are sold in the capital cities (those enough big to have got its own university).

I don't know the links between Hasbro and Microsoft.

 

[Marmot]

I worked in HR in a Fortune 100 company, and I'm a lawyer. I worked out in the business divisions, and I worked directly with top HR executives at the corporate headquarters.

My experience is that HR has only the power that top management gives it. HR is generally not a highly respected profession--usually it's seen as necessary to help keep companies out of trouble, but it's rarely respected. HR is never has any power independent of what is delegated by top management.

Sometimes top management wants HR to actively help force/prevent change in corporate culture--management will often use HR as "the bad guy" to achieve their goals. "Don't blame us. HR is making us do this." In this situation HR will appear to be powerful.

Sometimes top management wants HR to STFU and not make waves. In this situation, HR will appear to be powerless.

Legal is another issue altogether. It's really important to remember that Legal and HR are two entirely different organizations in every large company that I've ever heard of. Lawyers specializing in labor and employment law can absolutely influence top management decisions--very few top managers want to take the risk of overriding their lawyers in this area and probably defer to Legal too often. HR's role is almost always limited to executing the decisions by top management and their lawyers.

 

[FrogReaver]

I worked in HR in a Fortune 100 company, and I'm a lawyer. I worked out in the business divisions, and I worked directly with top HR executives at the corporate headquarters.

My experience is that HR has only the power that top management gives it. HR is generally not a highly respected profession--usually it's seen as necessary to help keep companies out of trouble, but it's rarely respected. HR is never has any power independent of what is delegated by top management.

Sometimes top management wants HR to actively help force/prevent change in corporate culture--management will often use HR as "the bad guy" to achieve their goals. "Don't blame us. HR is making us do this." In this situation HR will appear to be powerful.

Sometimes top management wants HR to STFU and not make waves. In this situation, HR will appear to be powerless.

Legal is another issue altogether. It's really important to remember that Legal and HR are two entirely different organizations in every large company that I've ever heard of. Lawyers specializing in labor and employment law can absolutely influence top management decisions--very few top managers want to take the risk of overriding their lawyers in this area and probably defer to Legal too often. HR's role is almost always limited to executing the decisions by top management and their lawyers.

When you say top level management, do you mean ceo level and direct reports? Or how far down does top level management go?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I want some official statements from this guy ad to what his vision for WotC is.