D&D (2024) Wizards of the Coast promises to release more “CRPGs that are going to be as serious as BG3” without Larian

[jayoungr]

By "serious," do they mean in tone or in terms of commitment?

 

[SkidAce]

A sensible company would see the success of BG3 and make it the model for future D&D video games: Find a talented outside studio, offer them a license and a long leash, and wait to see what they come up with. If they flop, move on to the next studio. If they knock it out of the park, collect your licensing fees and start cross-marketing the hell out of it. And the team that picked Larian and ran things on the WotC side would have been called in to be personally thanked by the CEO, given big raises, and sent back out to do it again -- not canned in a round of random layoffs.

Quoted for Truth!

 

[nevin]

That ... really does not describe BG3 at all. If anything it's the opposite. Playing outright evil in BG3 punishes you a lot, which is actually something that gets quite a few complaints.

YEP It really does. BG3 punishes you just as much for playing good the stories are so much more bland and they feel hollow.

 

[nevin]

They did find a team that worked. It was called Larian Studios. Then WotC laid off most of the folks who built and maintained that relationship, and that was that.

I wish WotC would quit trying to be a software company. They're a terrible software company. They have produced an endless series of flops, failures, and barely functional tools. Looking at the last few years, we've had Dark Alliance (went over like a lead balloon), the Sigil VTT (staggered along into alpha development, then got dumped into DDB and left for dead), and the DDB rollout of 2024E (still crawling with bugs halfway through 2025).

The only decent digital products I know of that WotC created in-house were the first iteration of the 4E character builder (which they then withdrew so they could chase more online dollars), and M:tG Arena.

A sensible company would see the success of BG3 and make it the model for future D&D video games: Find a talented outside studio, offer them a license and a long leash, and wait to see what they come up with. If they flop, move on to the next studio. If they knock it out of the park, collect your licensing fees and start cross-marketing the hell out of it. And the team that picked Larian and ran things on the WotC side would have been called in to be personally thanked by the CEO, given big raises, and sent back out to do it again -- not canned in a round of random layoffs.

well the problem is software companies get those big paychecks every 5 to 7 years and book and game publishers just get mediocre but healthy checks every year. Greed will always pull the executives in that direction. Everyone sees a big game success and they always miss the years of no income it took to get there.

 

[AlViking]

YEP It really does. BG3 punishes you just as much for playing good the stories are so much more bland and they feel hollow.

Nor to mention that the "main" PC you're supposed to play is literally called The Dark Urge. If you give into evil you get cool options. Reject evil and you may as well have played a custom PC.

 

[FrogReaver]

Bear sex is pretty much the opposite of serious.

Not for the bear.

 

[Koloth]

They did find a team that worked. It was called Larian Studios. Then WotC laid off most of the folks who built and maintained that relationship, and that was that.

I wish WotC would quit trying to be a software company. They're a terrible software company. They have produced an endless series of flops, failures, and barely functional tools. Looking at the last few years, we've had Dark Alliance (went over like a lead balloon), the Sigil VTT (staggered along into alpha development, then got dumped into DDB and left for dead), and the DDB rollout of 2024E (still crawling with bugs halfway through 2025).

The only decent digital products I know of that WotC created in-house were the first iteration of the 4E character builder (which they then withdrew so they could chase more online dollars), and M:tG Arena.

A sensible company would see the success of BG3 and make it the model for future D&D video games: Find a talented outside studio, offer them a license and a long leash, and wait to see what they come up with. If they flop, move on to the next studio. If they knock it out of the park, collect your licensing fees and start cross-marketing the hell out of it. And the team that picked Larian and ran things on the WotC side would have been called in to be personally thanked by the CEO, given big raises, and sent back out to do it again -- not canned in a round of random layoffs.

If you go back a bit farther, one of the reasons for the switch from D&D 3.5 to 4 and the cancellation of most of the 3rd party licenses was Hasbro wanted to create something that would generate the cash flow of Blizzard's World of Warcraft. They thought they could do it with a staff of 10~20 developers, maybe less don't remember the exact number. What we got was the green glowing brain in a jar called Gleemax. And a virtual tabletop that mostly didn't work. Plus a TTRPG that was largely panned at the time. The VTT product has finally became useful but by now, there are many alternatives that are just as good or better. Not sure of the cash flow of WoW vs D&D Beyond. The current TTRPG seems to be doing good.

Agree with the 'Sensible company' thought on how to create the next BG3 type success. But I am not optimistic that Hasbro will be sensible.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One cannot plan to mass produce Mona Lisas.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

They did find a team that worked. It was called Larian Studios. Then WotC laid off most of the folks who built and maintained that relationship, and that was that.

I wish WotC would quit trying to be a software company. They're a terrible software company. They have produced an endless series of flops, failures, and barely functional tools. Looking at the last few years, we've had Dark Alliance (went over like a lead balloon), the Sigil VTT (staggered along into alpha development, then got dumped into DDB and left for dead), and the DDB rollout of 2024E (still crawling with bugs halfway through 2025).

The only decent digital products I know of that WotC created in-house were the first iteration of the 4E character builder (which they then withdrew so they could chase more online dollars), and M:tG Arena.

A sensible company would see the success of BG3 and make it the model for future D&D video games: Find a talented outside studio, offer them a license and a long leash, and wait to see what they come up with. If they flop, move on to the next studio. If they knock it out of the park, collect your licensing fees and start cross-marketing the hell out of it. And the team that picked Larian and ran things on the WotC side would have been called in to be personally thanked by the CEO, given big raises, and sent back out to do it again -- not canned in a round of random layoffs.

I watched one of the Larian streams shortly after launch when the success of BG3 was becoming apparent and Sven was asked about this, his reflex response was that he had no interest in doing a DLC or BG4.
Wizards wants to increase monetisation of D&D, this is a given, they have said so. One of the easiest ways to do this is make video games based on D&D. Much more profitable than pen and paper rpgs. To do that they will have to become, at the minimum, a video game publisher, if not a studio owner.

 

[mamba]

Wizards wants to increase monetisation of D&D, this is a given, they have said so. One of the easiest ways to do this is make video games based on D&D. Much more profitable than pen and paper rpgs. To do that they will have to become, at the minimum, a video game publisher, if not a studio owner.

or they just license it to various studios. There is something Warhammer related being released every month (ok, slight exaggeration) and yet GW is neither a publisher nor studio owner