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

The move will allow for better cross-platform integration.
1757095485171.png


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer


log in or register to remove this ad

Huh? Why would WotC NOT pursue video games based on D&D?

Especially since Baldur's Gate 3 was so very recently incredibly successful?

There have been two D&D MMOs so far, "D&D Online" and "Neverwinter" . . . both successful enough they are still running today. But they are both older games based on older versions of D&D and have rather dated graphics and gameplay. A new MMO . . . if done well, of course . . . would be a welcome addition, IMO.
Baldur's Gate 3 was made by Larian Studios. The other games you mentioned were mediocre at best. And there are far more WotC produced games for D&D that bombed than were successful.
 


I personally like playing in person better, but I think online play really works a lot better for many introverted players.

There are a lot of players that enjoy the anonymity that you can get in online play, a lot of them won't even turn on their camera when playing.

I think some of this also has to do with age and culture. Gen Z for example grew up with social media and they regularly engage in other social activities without personal face-to-face interaction, so it makes sense for D&D too.
 


We have no idea what kind of cost structure they had in mind. From the looks of it, neither did they.
not knowing the cost structure is not the same as not knowing whether there will be microtransactions. I am not even sure they did not have one in mind, Sigil just never got to the point where this would have become relevant.

Sigil did not fail because of the cost structure but because they 1) underestimated the effort (they had one guy working on spell effects for two years and he got about 50 done, so 20% or so…) 2) failed to identify what it actually solves for players
 

not knowing the cost structure is not the same as not knowing whether there will be microtransactions. I am not even sure they did not have one in mind, Sigil just never got to the point where this would have become relevant.

Sigil did not fail because of the cost structure but because they 1) underestimated the effort (they had one guy working on spell effects for two years and he got about 50 done, so 20% or so…) 2) failed to identify what it actually solves for players

I'm failing to see what your point is, if any. I think it was unfortunately an ill-thought out project. Many software projects fail, even if I don't really buy the 70% estimate because many of those failures are "failed to deliver everything initially promised" or "were in the earliest of planning stages". But especially when it comes to mass market video games and related, it's still quite high.

I just think the "Everything D&D will come down to microtransactions and destroy the game" meme that was going around was highly overblown. Same with the "Everybody playing D&D will be forced online" or "Everything will be AI generated" or any of the other bogeymen that have never come to pass.
 

Counter point: John hight is a rech bro wannabe who can't cut it in the tech industry, so he is trying, oh so desperately to bring the tech world to DnD and failed . Now it is trying to bring the marvel model to DnD. It continues to not understand the customer base of DnD.
Dial down the hyperbole and insults, please. If you can't make a point without resorting to namecalling, you don't have a point.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top