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

[Paul Farquhar]

So I think it's quite likely any future is going be somewhat dark - but an awful lot of good CRPGs are fairly dark, so I don't think it's a big concern

I think there needs to be darkness, in order to feel you are actually doing something to make things better. And the idea that you can be good, and not have to make any sacrifices, and end up with the most power and best loot as well, is pretty wrong-headed.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Honestly, I'd prefer to see WotC adapt the Games Workshop model of licensing their IP. There's a surprising number of 40k games out there, and yeah, a lot of them are average at best, but having more games on offer means you're a lot more likely to put one out that appeals to people.

I assume of the games they plan to release some are from external studios, not all internal.

I mean WotC only has so many internal studios and some of them are busy like Exodus with out projects.

Maybe Skeleton Key and Tuque studios seems like the most likely ones internally

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Witchlight is perfect if you want something more "family friend". How would be a LEGO: Witchlight?

Stryxhaven could be perfect for an otome dating simulation.

It is not only Hasbro but even the most important videogame developers can't safe what is the right path. If that way was enoughly known, then several companies would be doing the same but the market is changing very much. Gamers now want something and suddenly they would rather other thing.

We shouldn't be too surprised if Hasbro started to release new cartoon shows to promote their videogames.

Hasbro wants to sell a D&D videogame who most of gamers like, not only D&D fandom.

 

[Dausuul]

It is still one of the few directions they can go if they want to squeeze more money out of the IP. And the hits make up for the losses.

Only if you have enough hits to actually do that.

The biggest issue with WoTCs efforts is that they keep taking the big swing instead of starting out small and building up a team and experience. WotC has had successful licencing deals over the years but it always seems to be an afterthought. They have a successful licence like BG 1 &2 or Neverwinter but then nothing for years.

With that, I agree. If WotC must try to reinvent itself as a video game company, the way to do it is to iterate with small teams on small projects, learn from failure, and try again.

I don't think this will work, mind you. I don't believe Hasbro's executive culture is capable of the patience, stability, and attention to detail required by such a transition; they seem very focused on short-term profits. But it's the only way to grow a strong team in-house... and at least if it fails, the downside is limited.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Maybe Skeleton Key and Tuque studios seems like the most likely ones internally

Oof.

(Tuque Studios was the developer of the absolutely rancid D&D: Dark Alliance.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Only if you have enough hits to actually do that.

With that, I agree. If WotC must try to reinvent itself as a video game company, the way to do it is to iterate with small teams on small projects, learn from failure, and try again.

I don't think this will work, mind you. I don't believe Hasbro's executive culture is capable of the patience, stability, and attention to detail required by such a transition; they seem very focused on short-term profits. But it's the only way to grow a strong team in-house... and at least if it fails, the downside is limited.

May be that is why they are hiring execs out of Microsoft and Blizzard.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Oof.

(Tuque Studios was the developer of the absolutely rancid D&D: Dark Alliance.)

It also developed Livelock which was well reviewed.

The problem is is that they tried to be an AAA Studio with 12 employees when WotC bought the studio, and hiring more people latter couldn't fix that, and they made the mistake of making the D&D game ARPG instead of CRPG.

This time they are starting with well over a 168 employees, with plans to go over 200 this year. So it's a much bigger team building the foundation this time. They have learned things from the last two games.

Larian Studios had a bunch of mid games before BG3, they got better after each game (well most of them). They struggled and made mistakes and almost went bankrupt.

This time focusing on a CRPG They are set to do better this time.

FYI, while utilizing got roasted, Dark Alliance still made WotC millions if dollars.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

May be that is why they are hiring execs out of Microsoft and Blizzard.

I hope they hire some of Larians crew and folks from the external studios they used.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It also developed Livelock which was well reviewed.

No, actually, it was not.

Livelock (video game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

holding aggregated Metacritic scores of 73/100<a href="Livelock (video game) - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>6<span>]</span></a> 69/100<a href="Livelock (video game) - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>7<span>]</span></a> and 77/100,<a href="Livelock (video game) - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>8<span>]</span></a> for its PC, PS4, and Xbox One versions respectively.

Those are, at best, mediocre reviews.

I hope they hire some of Larians crew and folks from the external studios they used.

They can't hire from Larian because very few people leave Larian, because it's a good place to work. It's not like Blizzard or Bungie or similar, with massive turnover/churn. Recruiting from massive fill-in companies like Keywords Studio (12k employees!!!) doesn't guarantee any more quality than recruiting normally.

This time they are starting with well over a 168 employees, with plans to go over 200 this year. So it's a much bigger team building the foundation this time. They have learned things from the last two games.

168 is still low for AAA development, especially of content-heavy games like RPGs. 200 is basically the realistic minimum. It's also worth noting that no amount of people being hired can fix a studio that is fundamentally badly lead and/or pursuing the wrong goals. And as you said:

and they made the mistake of making the D&D game ARPG instead of CRPG

These errors don't occur in a vacuum. They occur because of bad leadership decisions. And the leadership is still in place.

Larian Studios had a bunch of mid games before BG3, they got better after each game (well most of them). They struggled and made mistakes and almost went bankrupt.

Yes. Having survive as a studio on your own tends to be pretty sink-or-swim. Either you get better and better at making games, or you die off. But that's not what's happening with WotC's studios - they're not independent, and they haven't got better and better, nor do have the same sort of pressure on them to keep it real, because they're being funded by WotC, not their own sales and deals.

FYI, while utilizing got roasted, Dark Alliance still made WotC millions if dollars.

What's your actual basis for that claim? You can't say say "FYI" if you have no basis, which appears to be the case - it's not "i" - "information" at all if there's no factual basis!

Be careful not to confuse Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance with the 2003 game Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, which was successful. I suspect you might be making that confusion if you're saying "Dark Alliance" was successful.

I can't find any evidence that supports your claim at all. Given we have no official sales figures from WotC or Tuque, that it had tiny player numbers on Steam (the only source), and all "estimator" sites show it as barely selling, it's very unlikely it made money. It's much more likely it lost millions. If you've got some WotC guy clearly outlining that it made a profit, link him by all means.

But buying and staffing up a studio isn't cheap, and neither is developing games, especially in North America (though Canada is slightly cheaper than the US),

Estimators suggest it sold 140-220k copies on Steam. Even if it both did and equalled that on PS5 and Xbox (unlikely - Steam is now usually the dominant seller), and got a million or two from MS for Game Pass (MS are real cheap nowadays - they offered Larian $5m to put BG3 on Game Pass at launch late in BG3's development), the best case scenario I can see, napkin math-wise is that, if the were very lucky, they just barely broke even. More likely sales were at the lower end and they lost $5+ million.

This time focusing on a CRPG They are set to do better this time.

Why do you think that? Just because they have 168 people? They have zero experience with CRPGs. They're subject to the corporate whims of WotC (which is genuinely more dangerous than being indie to game quality and actually being released). CRPGs are an inherently difficult market full of particularly difficult customers (but also particularly loyal ones if you do well), which generally require significantly more development time than other genres, especially at the AAA level.

To me it seems like they came second-from-last in a national-level track and field event, and have been entered into the Olympics, if they're going from a mediocre isometric shooter, to an outright bad action RPG, and are now attempting a CRPG.

Is it impossible they succeed? No. "Miracles" happen in game development. But the odds are stacked against them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

2) I thought DOS2 combat was great, and really enjoyed its continuation from DOS1. The various effects "slathered" on the field could be extreme, but at their basic level, they did enhance tactics.

True but not an accessible or naturalistic kind of tactics like BG3 has (and actually like DOS1 rather had). Instead DOS2 had really bizarre systems for protection, incredibly steep level/equipment/enemy scaling (far, far steeper than BG3 or DOS1), and very game-y systems that required gaming these game-y systems (and/or just barrelmancy). And I think that's part of what kept it from doing better, and why an awful lot of people played a few hours in, thought "cool but not for me" and gave up.

It's fine to like that, note, I know I like some weird-as-hell games - but the issue I am really pointing to is that it was weird and counterintuitive (especially the armour/magic shielding system), which is antithetical to accessibility. There are a lot of games (not just videogames, either) which technically have "complex" tactics but ones which are deeply unaccessible and off-putting.

I was going to say "Swen is wrong to think gameplay like this will sell better than BG3's gameplay", but I don't know if he actually does think that!

See, Swen is pretty canny. He has personal preferences, and they're pretty strong, but he's not an idiot nor a business idiot (unlike, say, Todd Howard, who is absolutely a "business idiot", one of the biggest in the games industry). I strongly suspect he loved that stuff in DOS2, but I also suspect he knows an awful lot of people didn't, and that it would limit a future game to go that way.

Likewise, whilst he loves Rivellon's crapsack world stuff, I'm not sure he'd push for a similar setting in future.

This is a man so canny that despite DOS2 doing well, he removed the long-time Larian lead writer (who he is surely friends with), and replaced him with two incredibly well-chosen non-videogame writers (but also managed to keep the old guy on, just under them, so clearly diplomatic too!). I should not underestimate him on this!

Honestly I'm really hoping Larian is doing something SF - either their own take on a post-apocalypse setting or a grunge-y Firefly/Farscape space deal. I think they'd do a ton better with that than generic fantasy.