Wizards of the Coast Head Explains Benefits to D&D Franchise Model

The head of Wizards of the Coast believes that moving to a franchise model will allow for more alignment between D&D multimedia and the core D&D tabletop game. Recently, Wizards of the Coast president John Hight spoke with GameIndustry.biz in a wide-ranging interview about the gaming company. Much of the interview was spent on Wizards' digital gaming ambitions, but Hight did speak about the realignment of the company to a franchise model.

Under the franchise model, all D&D-related operations now run through Dan Ayoub as opposed to having different arms for entertainment, video games, and tabletop. In the interview, Hight stated that the franchise model would allow for better coordination - specifically between different aspects of the franchise. One example was the D&D movie, which had relatively limited crossover with the D&D tabletop game. "We'd love to have had a D&D book or campaign a part and parcel with the movie," he says.

He also noted that Stranger Things - which is receiving a new tie-in project next month - could be integrated more with the game. "It'd be nice to have that all lined up, so when this thing rolls out, we've got a campaign for you to enjoy that's something you saw on the show, or the characters in the show."

Additionally, Hight noted that another side to the franchise model is to fully align the digital and physical sides of play, which he hopes will lead to in-person play. "Unfortunately, because of COVID, there's a whole generation of gamers that has spent a good deal of their time playing only online," he said. "And they're re-discovering the joy of being able to play together. What I want us to be able to do is have players move fairly seamlessly between in person play and online play."

Elsewhere in the interview, Hight hinted at a new D&D MMORPG, stating that he has encouraged development of a new MMO but stopped shy of saying a project was officially in the works.

 

[Reynard]

If a company sells a product that is worth my money I have no issue with them making a profit on it as long as they aren't involved in shady business like anticompetitive practices. While there are exceptions to every rule, companies exist to make a profit.

The problem isn't companies making a profit, it is companies serving shareholders instead of customers.

 

[The Soloist]

Satisfying the shareholders and making good RPG books is not mutually exclusive. TSR was privately owned and produce a ton of bad half-baked splat books.

It's called capitalism. If they can milk the cow, why would they not - rhetorical question. Illegal businesses are already selling D&D t-shirts, mugs, posters, baseball caps, etc.

These days, privately owned would maybe mean going on kickstarter. I don't like that model because it puts unpredictable shipping costs on the customers shoulders. D&D would most likely be caught in the Diamond Distribution bankruptcy.

 

[Azzy]

The problem isn't companies making a profit, it is companies serving shareholders instead of customers.

Unless we end end capitalism, that's not going to change.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Right. i think it would be keen if D&D got in the hands of a privately held company again. it won't ever happen, but it would be keen.

The Powerball is up to $1.7 billion, folks ...

 

[AlViking]

The problem isn't companies making a profit, it is companies serving shareholders instead of customers.

Companies need to make a profit in order to stay in business. I do not care where the money goes, all I care about is that they produce something I want at a competitive price. I don't consider investors making money on the stock they own as nefarious, I have a great deal of savings invested in stock. Anybody who has any savings at all should want companies to be profitable, it's how our savings grow over time.

I have issue with how capital gains are taxed in the US, but that's not a topic of conversation for this forum.

 

[mamba]

Because the thought process wasn't "How can we make more and better product, thus serving our customer base?" It was, "How can we get even more money from our customers, thus serving our shareholders?"

and you do not think that the way to make more money is to release more good products that people buy?

 

[AlViking]

Right. i think it would be keen if D&D got in the hands of a privately held company again. it won't ever happen, but it would be keen.

I don't see why a privately held company would serve my interests as a consumer better than a publicly traded company.

 

[mamba]

The problem isn't companies making a profit, it is companies serving shareholders instead of customers.

selling more products to more customers is serving the shareholders. Getting people to buy more of your products should mean that you are creating more products they are interested in.

 

[mamba]

I don't see why a privately held company would serve my interests as a consumer better than a publicly traded company.

if anything I would the expect the opposite to be true. A private company still serves the shareholders, that does not change, the only thing changing is that they have considerably less oversight and public reporting requirements, and probably serve their shareholders’ interests more than public companies do

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who gets to decide enough is enough? Why the artificial limit? Why not employ more people, pay more people to produce something people want to buy? Why should I miss out on a product I might enjoy because you personally think they "make enough money"? What does it matter to you?

Why and how a publically-owned company chooses to increase their profits matters to me. I don't trust the motives of companies controlled by shareholders. I don't know what to tell you.