Wizards of the Coast Is Sunsetting Sigil's Active Development

sigil zombies.jpg


EN World has received confirmation that Wizards of the Coast is planning to transition Sigil, its just-released VTT, to a D&D Beyond feature with no large future development planned. Earlier this week, Wizards of the Coast laid off approximately 30 staff members tied to the development of Sigil, a new D&D-focused VTT system. Ahead of the layoff, Dan Rawson, senior vice president of Dungeons & Dragons, sent out an internal email confirming that the project was essentially being shuttered. Rascal was the first to report the news and EN World was able to independently confirm the accuracy of their report.

The email can be read below:


Dear Team, I want to share an important update regarding Sigil. After several months of alpha testing, we’ve concluded that our aspirations for Sigil as a larger, standalone game with a distinct monetization path will not be realized. As such, we cannot maintain a large development effort and most of the Sigil team will be separated from the company this week. We are, however, proud of what the Sigil team has developed and want to make sure that fans and players on DDB can use it. To that end, we will transition Sigil to a DDB feature. We will maintain a small team to sustain Sigil and release products already developed at no additional cost to users. To those moving on as a result of this decision, we will provide robust support, including severance packages, 2024 bonus, career placement services, and internal opportunities where possible.

I want to take a moment to praise the entire Sigil team for their incredible work to deliver this product to our community. One of the things I’m most proud of here at D&D is our strong sense of purpose. We aim to honor our current players while ensuring D&D continues to build connections and bring joy to future generations. And that’s what the Sigil team was doing. Although we haven’t fully realized our vision for Sigil to scale, the team should be proud of their achievements.”


A full breakdown of Sigil's tumultous development can be found here. Rascal has several additional details about recent events that led to Sigil's early demise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

This being free in DDB will be handy sometimes. They're not the only 3d VTT though. But this will be the one I can use for free (because I already pay for DDB) to pull up when we could really use it.

For example, were in the final battle of Tomb of Annihilation. That involves:

1) a flight of stairs down (three PCs at top of image are on stairs),
2) an area of balconies around a huge put with lava in the bottom of it (2 PCs and 1 NPC ally on balcony south of stairs)
3) Struts extending into the room above the lava pit (one PC on strut)
4) The lava pit itself goes 30 feet down (Big Bad currently on southern balcony but had floated down below balcony level last turn above lava).

We're CONSTANTLY trying to figure out if someone has line of sight to cast a spell while on the stairs, or down into the pit. A 3d rendition would do that in a snap.

tomb.jpg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We're CONSTANTLY trying to figure out if someone has line of sight to cast a spell while on the stairs, or down into the pit. A 3d rendition would do that in a snap.
I agree! A 3D VTT would be really useful, and I think you could make one that runs in a browser and doesn't require a high end machine. You could even use tokens on stands instead of needing 3D model minis.

But there are still challenges there. A 3D map would take longer to set up for the DM, and making sure the program handles the 3D space correctly could prove tricky. Even in BG3 there are times when line of effect seems overly strict or overly generous.
 

I agree! A 3D VTT would be really useful, and I think you could make one that runs in a browser and doesn't require a high end machine. You could even use tokens on stands instead of needing 3D model minis.

But there are still challenges there. A 3D map would take longer to set up for the DM, and making sure the program handles the 3D space correctly could prove tricky. Even in BG3 there are times when line of effect seems overly strict or overly generous.
I've used Talespire, and it's pretty good
 


Ideally there would be some open source solutions and then premium forks. Corps are terrible stewards of technology, and indie groups can simply run out of funding.
 

They're not the only 3d VTT though. But this will be the one I can use for free (because I already pay for DDB) to pull up when we could really use it.
You make that sound like a spur of the moment thing. It's going to take you hours to prep just that encounter. At least as things stand today.
It sure will be cool, but it's not quick or easy.
 


To follow up on my point above: the main cost to playing D&D is time. It takes an incredible commitment from DMs, and a significant one from players. That's because it has always been designed as a kind of DIY game. Which makes it resistant to being easily monetized, IMO, for all sorts of reasons.

For example, IP. Okay, you've got the broad concept of D&D, but where are the marketable characters? Where is your Spiderman, Barbie, G.I. Joe, etc.? The main characters of D&D are unique to every campaign. Sure, you've got a few from the novels and sourcebooks that are known within serious D&D nerd circles, but ask 100 people on the street who "Drizz't" is, and you'll get 100 blank expressions. So making a D&D movie or TV show is hard, because what are you actually making? I thought Honour Among Thieves did a pretty great job of capturing the conceptual feel of a D&D game, and we saw how that struggled at the box office: despite great reviews and high fan appeal, it didn't break through to the muggles in a significant way.
The IP in D&D lies, I think, primarily in locations rather than characters. Things like the Yawning Portal and such. And that's much harder to monetize.
 

@Clint_L Maybe because some sound like they do... ;)

But seriously. WotC isn't a bookseller, it's an IP holder. The licensing for BG3 seemed to fall under WotC earnings, so why not the rest? Revenue between licensing and 'bookselling', might not seem like a lot, but what are the profits of each? What are the risks of each? I'm looking at the growth of a similar niche company like Games Workshop, which is also an IP holder, but primarily sells miniatures. And what I'm seeing there is that after decades of essential mismanagement, they've been growing steadily, as is the licensing income.

In the case of GW (where the numbers are a lot more transparent) licensing is about 6% of revenue, but about 15% of profit. Their revenue has been growing by ~10%, while their licensing has been growing by ~20%. And before you say "But this isn't a comparable company!", they've faced similar issues. Did their RPGs and board games internally for a long time, but eventually licensed it out. Have had very long troubles with software development/maintenance internally for things like armylist building, and social/subscription efforts that tend to fail spectacularly. Luckily they realized early that they can't do computer games themselves, thus they have been licensing that out for forever, with mixed success. They are still growing.

WotC doesn't just do books, they also do cards, they've done boardgames, they've done miniatures. Those have all been spunoff and/or licensed out. Why? Not profitable enough? Can't imagine when their parent company has been in the toys and boardgames business for something like 80 years... Looking at the 3e digital tools, that failed spectacularly, that was only saved by an external party via licensing. Similar shenanigans happened over the last two decades. I can only conclude that their corporate culture is not capable of doing this and do not have much preserference, that is all management failure. Not surprising when you see how they treat their personell (the always looming threat of Christmas firings).

There seems to be a LOT of 'fake it until you make it' attitude with WotC/Hasbro. They do not start projects with realistic expectations, with realistic timelines, and realistic budgets. The ideas aren't bad, just the scope and the (created) expectations are bad. The attitude of we have the biggest IPs in our niche (D&D and MtG), so we need to be the biggest in everything! Especially after exploding growth during the pandemic, a situation where WotC/Hasbro were able to ride the wave the world gave them. Not well mind you, but there was so much money being thrown around that they thought it was all them...

Licensing from FVTT is absolutely peanuts for WotC/Hasbro, but when you have a 100+ of those tiny income streams, they suddenly are a non-insignificant part of your revenue stream and a significant part of your profit. With very little risk and virtually no costs. And when you can cultivate quality licensors small streams become bigger and sometimes will hit the jackpot (like with BG3)...

And why was licensing underperforming? Maybe because WotC wasn't actually licensing things out, like to VTTs. Are their D&D movie toys not selling well? Gee, how is that possible when the movies don't perform that well, which isn't surprising to most of us.

The IP in D&D lies, I think, primarily in locations rather than characters.
There have been very iconic characters in a couple of the D&D settings. Elminster, Drizzt, Volo, Vecna, Strahd, etc. Quite a few successful novel lines were sold based on those characters. But with FR WotC killed a lot of those off with 100+ year jumps in the timeline. With Dragonlance they virtually killed the setting for two decades or so and it's return to D&D RPG products wasn't exactly well received. Places like Waterdeep and Neverwinter are iconic, you can only sell those so much before they run dry. Characters can do anything and travel anywhere. You don't make a movie/series about The Yawning Portall inn, but you could make one about characters or events. Those might take place at iconic locations, but are people really reading a book because it takes place in The Yawning Portall inn or because of the story that onfolds there? I found The Yawning Portall inn RPG book heavily disappointing for example! It wasn't about the inn at all or what lies beneath it or even around it...

I think WotC has been killing and deluting their IP for the last 15-20 years. With the only reall brand recognition really remaining being D&D and to a far lesser extend Forgotten Realms. Everything else shows up occassionally. People recognize the name D&D as the RPG, getting introduced to it by others that have had a long nostalgia for it. A large part of their lifesupport has become third party publishers using D&D as the rulesset with their own expansions that WotC won't do. WotC recognized this, thus the OGL debacle and their wish to wring quite a bit of money from their third party publishers. Without realizing that they deluted their own brand so much that most of those third party publishers weren't as dependent on D&D as they initally thought.

A 3D VTT is a great idea, just not for a lot of us hanging around here. It has great growth and revenue potential. But it needed to stay way longer in the oven, it needed to release optimized, for more platforms with more content. This should not have been a couple of years 'get rich quick' scheme, it should have been a 10-20 year project. But having seen how WotC operates, this was never realistically going to happen...
 

@Clint_L Maybe because some sound like they do... ;)

But seriously. WotC isn't a bookseller, it's an IP holder. The licensing for BG3 seemed to fall under WotC earnings, so why not the rest? Revenue between licensing and 'bookselling', might not seem like a lot, but what are the profits of each? What are the risks of each? I'm looking at the growth of a similar niche company like Games Workshop, which is also an IP holder, but primarily sells miniatures. And what I'm seeing there is that after decades of essential mismanagement, they've been growing steadily, as is the licensing income.

In the case of GW (where the numbers are a lot more transparent) licensing is about 6% of revenue, but about 15% of profit. Their revenue has been growing by ~10%, while their licensing has been growing by ~20%. And before you say "But this isn't a comparable company!", they've faced similar issues. Did their RPGs and board games internally for a long time, but eventually licensed it out. Have had very long troubles with software development/maintenance internally for things like armylist building, and social/subscription efforts that tend to fail spectacularly. Luckily they realized early that they can't do computer games themselves, thus they have been licensing that out for forever, with mixed success. They are still growing.

WotC doesn't just do books, they also do cards, they've done boardgames, they've done miniatures. Those have all been spunoff and/or licensed out. Why? Not profitable enough? Can't imagine when their parent company has been in the toys and boardgames business for something like 80 years... Looking at the 3e digital tools, that failed spectacularly, that was only saved by an external party via licensing. Similar shenanigans happened over the last two decades. I can only conclude that their corporate culture is not capable of doing this and do not have much preserference, that is all management failure. Not surprising when you see how they treat their personell (the always looming threat of Christmas firings).

There seems to be a LOT of 'fake it until you make it' attitude with WotC/Hasbro. They do not start projects with realistic expectations, with realistic timelines, and realistic budgets. The ideas aren't bad, just the scope and the (created) expectations are bad. The attitude of we have the biggest IPs in our niche (D&D and MtG), so we need to be the biggest in everything! Especially after exploding growth during the pandemic, a situation where WotC/Hasbro were able to ride the wave the world gave them. Not well mind you, but there was so much money being thrown around that they thought it was all them...

Licensing from FVTT is absolutely peanuts for WotC/Hasbro, but when you have a 100+ of those tiny income streams, they suddenly are a non-insignificant part of your revenue stream and a significant part of your profit. With very little risk and virtually no costs. And when you can cultivate quality licensors small streams become bigger and sometimes will hit the jackpot (like with BG3)...

And why was licensing underperforming? Maybe because WotC wasn't actually licensing things out, like to VTTs. Are their D&D movie toys not selling well? Gee, how is that possible when the movies don't perform that well, which isn't surprising to most of us.


There have been very iconic characters in a couple of the D&D settings. Elminster, Drizzt, Volo, Vecna, Strahd, etc. Quite a few successful novel lines were sold based on those characters. But with FR WotC killed a lot of those off with 100+ year jumps in the timeline. With Dragonlance they virtually killed the setting for two decades or so and it's return to D&D RPG products wasn't exactly well received. Places like Waterdeep and Neverwinter are iconic, you can only sell those so much before they run dry. Characters can do anything and travel anywhere. You don't make a movie/series about The Yawning Portall inn, but you could make one about characters or events. Those might take place at iconic locations, but are people really reading a book because it takes place in The Yawning Portall inn or because of the story that onfolds there? I found The Yawning Portall inn RPG book heavily disappointing for example! It wasn't about the inn at all or what lies beneath it or even around it...

I think WotC has been killing and deluting their IP for the last 15-20 years. With the only reall brand recognition really remaining being D&D and to a far lesser extend Forgotten Realms. Everything else shows up occassionally. People recognize the name D&D as the RPG, getting introduced to it by others that have had a long nostalgia for it. A large part of their lifesupport has become third party publishers using D&D as the rulesset with their own expansions that WotC won't do. WotC recognized this, thus the OGL debacle and their wish to wring quite a bit of money from their third party publishers. Without realizing that they deluted their own brand so much that most of those third party publishers weren't as dependent on D&D as they initally thought.

A 3D VTT is a great idea, just not for a lot of us hanging around here. It has great growth and revenue potential. But it needed to stay way longer in the oven, it needed to release optimized, for more platforms with more content. This should not have been a couple of years 'get rich quick' scheme, it should have been a 10-20 year project. But having seen how WotC operates, this was never realistically going to happen...
I think that the shift your post goes through from the bit about games workshop licencing through wotc's settings and such nicely shows why there's such a stark difference between the two. Im not sure if GW has multiple settings beyond wh40k & wh40k fantasy, but they have a clear and obvious theme that runs through it deeply enough to seamlessly feel in play. Wotc HAD settings with clear themes (ravenloft dark sun eberron & maybe dragonlance if you get into it enough), except they have spent most of the last few decades trying to shove them under the rug or water down what made them distinctive with little more than FR loredump compatibility∆ that clashed with the settings themselves. Then 5e came along and designed against anything but kitchen sink generic fantasy with an unhealthy level of FR's lore welded to every nook and cranny.

The '24 ruleset & mm does a better job of not overloading with FR but too many of the mechanics clash with the themes and tones of wotc's distinctive settings and almost require a setting book plus a rule book that rewrites the rules into a new version compatible with the setting

∆ it's my understanding that points of light started as an FR expansion continent someone at wotc out together on a whim that was just too big to be anything but it's own setting

Nobody needs to license "generic fantasy" (as anime nicely proves) and the distinctive stuff is treated like lovecraft's cat.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top