WotC WotC Cancels 5 Video Games

While D&D itself seems to be still growing rapidly nearly 10 years after the launch of 5th Edition, WotC has recently scaled back its video game plans, costing up to 15 people their jobs, although they may be able to relocate within the company. WotC spoke to Bloomberg and told the site that they were "still committed to using digital games" and that the change in plans was designed to focus on "games which are strategically aligned with developing our existing brands and those which show promise in expanding or engaging our audience in new ways."

Studios working on games for WotC include Otherside Entertainment and Hidden Path Entertainment. WotC owns 6 video game studios in various cities according to CEO Cynthia Williams in an interview with GeekWire.

We’ve announced six different studios that are first-party and owned. There’s Archetype in Austin that’s working on a sci-fi game that we’re really excited about. It’s a new IP.

You’ve got Atomic Arcade in Raleigh-Durham, that’s working on a very mature G.I. Joe game, and then, Invoke is working on a D&D game. The key piece I’d tell you is that we have been really fortunate to hire some amazing industry veterans, who have a passion for the brands and games that they’re building.

The Bloomberg article also mentions an internal cancelled project code-named 'Jabberwocky', but does not say what that was.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Budget doesn't matter to much Anthem anyone?

Anthem is an AAA game. It's a terrible AAA game, but it was AAA in terms of budget, ambition, team-size and polish.

You're just proving my point by continuing to not understand!

What actually counts is a games reception.

No, absolutely not.

That's absolutely completely fatuous and factually wrong perspective.

By that logic, Undertale is AAA, Spelunky is AAA, Papers Please is AAA.

That's just beyond words. That's like saying The Blair Witch Project was a "big budget movie".

50 million is about the bare minimum imho for a AAA titles and that's if you're based in Eastern Europe eg Witcher3 which is a "cheap" AAA title.

No. Closer to true but still wrong.

Again, you just keep getting basic stuff wrong here. It's like you're doing it on purpose. In 2015 that was actually a mid budget AAA.

If your games a turkey it's not AAA regardless of it's budget.

Yes it is. You're just flatly wrong.

Anthem is a great example. Fallout 76 is another example. Battlefield 2042 yet another. Marvel's Avengers another one. Those are just recent examples of AAAs that were absolute trash on release. With Fallout 76 it was a big deal to Bethesda so they eventually managed to patch and give away free content enough that it became an okay game instead of trash. BF2042 the jury is still out but it ain't looking good. Marvel's Avengers they've tried to do that, but... nah mate.

The classic example of a terrible AAA is Lair, which was a game Sony invested huge amounts in, hoping it to super next-gen in 2007 and sell tons of PS3s, but... it was absolutely dire. We could look at other stuff too, like APB or Mass Effect: Andromeda, but I've made my point, and this is just a derail at this stage.

You're intentionally misusing the term to mean "good game", which it never has and never will.

 

[Zardnaar]

Anthem is an AAA game. It's a terrible AAA game, but it was AAA in terms of budget, ambition, team-size and polish.

You're just proving my point by continuing to not understand!

No, absolutely not.

That's absolutely completely fatuous and factually wrong perspective.

By that logic, Undertale is AAA, Spelunky is AAA, Papers Please is AAA.

That's just beyond words. That's like saying The Blair Witch Project was a "big budget movie".

No. Closer to true but still wrong.

Again, you just keep getting basic stuff wrong here. It's like you're doing it on purpose. In 2015 that was actually a mid budget AAA.

Yes it is. You're just flatly wrong.

Anthem is a great example. Fallout 76 is another example. Battlefield 2042 yet another. Marvel's Avengers another one. Those are just recent examples of AAAs that were absolute trash on release. With Fallout 76 it was a big deal to Bethesda so they eventually managed to patch and give away free content enough that it became an okay game instead of trash. BF2042 the jury is still out but it ain't looking good. Marvel's Avengers they've tried to do that, but... nah mate.

The classic example of a terrible AAA is Lair, which was a game Sony invested huge amounts in, hoping it to super next-gen in 2007 and sell tons of PS3s, but... it was absolutely dire. We could look at other stuff too, like APB or Mass Effect: Andromeda, but I've made my point, and this is just a derail at this stage.

You're intentionally misusing the term to mean "good game", which it never has and never will.

I'm talking more about the long term prospects of D&D games.

If they make a "AAA" game that's terrible and it flops big studios can kinda write it off. They have more money and other IP to use.

Personally I think WotC is over rating the appeal of the D&D brand.

They don't have the infrastructure, vision, competency to deliver a good AAA game imho. It's all smoke and mirrors batm "hey look at us we dropped a few tens if millions and have 6 studios". Big Woop produce something good and let's talk.

As I said Ubisoft has 7 studios working on one game. And can actually produce stuff.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They don't have the infrastructure, vision, competency to deliver a good AAA game imho. It's all smoke and mirrors batm "hey look at us we dropped a few tens if millions and have 6 studios". Big Woop produce something good and let's talk.

I mean, sure?

I mostly agree. But I do think if they give Archetype Entertainment a reasonable budget, get them to hire like 100-200 more employees, and give them 3-5 years (lol) they'll be able to turn out an AAA sci-fi CRPG.

But will WotC do that? Nah. Probably not. I'm waiting for the axe to come down on Archetype. I really think that, as they've been stuck on "50-70" employees for like, coming up on two years, they're going anywhere.

And what I most agree with from what you're saying here is "vision" - yeah I don't think WotC have that vision. But they could prove us wrong, and it's mostly just about throwing money at people.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As I said Ubisoft has 7 studios working on one game. And can actually produce stuff.

Yeah, microtransactions...

 

[MNblockhead]

Sadly it seems like the closest we're going to get is BG3 and Solasta. I'd love to see an indie or AA company do something that was maybe 2D, sprite-based, and just really focused on providing a fun D&D experience, but it seems like that either isn't something anyone wants to make, or I think more likely, that isn't something WotC wants to even licence, let alone fund.

Turn-based strategy games, I've learned, are divisive. Lots of people were upset with BG being turn based. I got tired with the early release and am waiting until it is finally released, but I put a lot of hours into the early release on both Stadia and PC and really, really like the game. It is almost the perfect game for my tastes.

 

[Mistwell]

Hasbro isn't a major video games publisher though.

They're not even on the level Paradox Interactive which tends to release quality games that are reasonably cheap.

OK Zard. I think you know what we're all talking about here, and that it's about money and prestige.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

How will the movie connect to D&D? What recognizable elements of the fantasy TTRPG are going to be in the movie? The first D&D movie was a flop for multiple reasons. It had next to no connections to D&D. Any one of numerous fantasy movies in the 70s, 80, or 90s could have been labelled a D&D movie just as easily.

What setting does the movie use? To me, that's the first issue. If the story has no connection to anything in any D&D setting, then WotC needs to put out product to support this new setting or run the risk that there will be a very large disassociation between the viewers and the story. If that happens, I expect the movie to have limited success or possibly even fail at the box office.

So I guess you have paid no attention whatsoever to the movie. Cause your questions are answered.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Turn-based strategy games, I've learned, are divisive. Lots of people were upset with BG being turn based. I got tired with the early release and am waiting until it is finally released, but I put a lot of hours into the early release on both Stadia and PC and really, really like the game. It is almost the perfect game for my tastes.

I think they're more divisive with a certain generation, who are mostly 35-50-ish now, than with younger gamers. People who grew up playing single-player RTSes and Infinity Engine games like BG/IWD/PST and so on are pretty loudly keen on Real-time-with-Pause (RtwP), but there's a ton of pushback on games using it, and games which use turn-based approaches, like DOS1/2, have been generally reviewed better and been better regarded than games which were designed for RtwP. It's to the point now where of the selling-points of Wrath of the Righteous was that it had turn-based built-in from day 1, and the turn-based patch for Kingmaker made it a lot more popular (whereas the turn-based patch for Deadfire showed how Deadfire's system was really well-designed for RtwP and just not great for turn-based).

I will say I feel kind of vindicated by this because I always favoured turn-based and thought RtwP was an evolutionary dead end.

I did see one game actually make good use of RtwP, but it was an obscure indie whose name escapes me, with a custom design, not emulating a turn-based tabletop game in way that is inexplicably not turn-based.

 

[BovineofWar]

I think they're more divisive with a certain generation, who are mostly 35-50-ish now, than with younger gamers. People who grew up playing single-player RTSes and Infinity Engine games like BG/IWD/PST and so on are pretty loudly keen on Real-time-with-Pause (RtwP), but there's a ton of pushback on games using it, and games which use turn-based approaches, like DOS1/2, have been generally reviewed better and been better regarded than games which were designed for RtwP.

It's always been a taste thing I think. RtwP was away to try and smooth out the experience for people that aren't as interested in the number crunching and minutiae. I still like it, but I don't begrudge people that don't enjoy it.

Back when BG came out, there were a lot of people complaining about RtwP. Hell, people complained when about Active Time Battle in Final Fantasy games. BioWare took the RtwP to a more action focus direction with their later games (e.g. Jade Empire, Dragon Age: Origins) before progressing into full-on Action RPGs. Which shows there's a spectrum of how detail oriented versus how action oriented an RPG is and games have fallen all along that spectrum.

So I'm not surprised people are upset about BG3 being turn-based only. It would just be a different set of people complaining if it was RtwP only.

 

[Scribe]

I think they're more divisive with a certain generation, who are mostly 35-50-ish now, than with younger gamers. People who grew up playing single-player RTSes and Infinity Engine games like BG/IWD/PST and so on are pretty loudly keen on Real-time-with-Pause (RtwP), but there's a ton of pushback on games using it, and games which use turn-based approaches, like DOS1/2, have been generally reviewed better and been better regarded than games which were designed for RtwP. It's to the point now where of the selling-points of Wrath of the Righteous was that it had turn-based built-in from day 1, and the turn-based patch for Kingmaker made it a lot more popular (whereas the turn-based patch for Deadfire showed how Deadfire's system was really well-designed for RtwP and just not great for turn-based).

I will say I feel kind of vindicated by this because I always favoured turn-based and thought RtwP was an evolutionary dead end.

I did see one game actually make good use of RtwP, but it was an obscure indie whose name escapes me, with a custom design, not emulating a turn-based tabletop game in way that is inexplicably not turn-based.

Yeah I think it just depends now. I didn't mind real time, but in Wrath, at higher difficulties, it just doesn't make sense. I enjoy turn based much more now.

 

[MNblockhead]

and the turn-based patch for Kingmaker made it a lot more popular

Funny, I friend recently gifted me Kingmaker. After playing for a bit, I dug through the settings and found and enabled turn-based. I don't think I would have continued playing it with RtwP. RtwP is one of the main things that kept me from completing Planescape Torment. I just tired of it.

 

[Incenjucar]

D&D needs to embrace multiple game types to really flex the brand, as fans have a range of tastes.
Hasbro should be in the license-and-review business, however, in most cases. Toy companies are notorious for stereotyping their audience into oblivion and losing tons of money by doing so.

 

[MNblockhead]

D&D needs to embrace multiple game types to really flex the brand, as fans have a range of tastes.
Hasbro should be in the license-and-review business, however, in most cases. Toy companies are notorious for stereotyping their audience into oblivion and losing tons of money by doing so.

Yeah, where are the DnD Duplo blocks! I mean the simple rules I came up with for the epic dinosaurs vs. circus animals battles years ago when my kids were in preschool created many fond memories, but some dragon and beholder Kre-O's would have been awesomer!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It would just be a different set of people complaining if it was RtwP only.

Sure, but it would be a much larger set of people, and ones who are more representative of the people who buy the bulk of CRPGs today, who would be complaining.

You've got to realize the average CRPG gamer now has not actually played BG1/2/IWD/PST, or if they did play them, bounced off them. For a lot of people out there, DOS1 and DOS2 were their BG1 and BG2.

BioWare took the RtwP to a more action focus direction with their later games (e.g. Jade Empire, Dragon Age: Origins) before progressing into full-on Action RPGs.

Correct and this is part of why there's now a split and RtwP is just in a really weird place in the middle, with basically turn-based rules, just running them in a way that kinda looks not turn-based, but that also has none of the fun and immediacy of action RPGs (where when you press a button, a thing happens), and also tends to lack the fine control and detailed tactical decisions of games designed for turn-based.

You do have to pick one to be good at. No game is good at both RtwP and turn-based. You'll be designed for one, typically, and that'll work better. Pathfinder always had kind of "fake RtwP" in that it was essentially running turn-based "under the hood", and when it got turn-based, it worked a lot better. Whereas Deadfire had a system custom-designed for a true RtwP, with no "secret rounds", and monsters and encounters were designed and scaled for RtwP, so making it turn-based was interesting but ultimately contributed to tedium.

Given the larger share of the audience, especially the younger part, is much happier with either turn-based or action-based, and that even a significant proportion of older gamers like RtwP, they'll grudgingly accept turn-based, I think the decision is fairly obvious.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, microtransactions...

I don't mind microtransactions (I don't use then) as long as I don't feel ripped off in the base game or they have held stuff back from the base game to sell to you later (if the base game is free that's a bit different).

So I got Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Origins ultimate editions (all dlc plus other stuff) for 75% off.

Now there a heap of legendary items they sell you but the best stuff is still found in game and the custom equipment fully trucked out is better than any legendary items.

Additionally you can aquire all the stuff in game as well so the microtransactions are pay for convenience. The skins as such are legendary armor.

So the only stuff I bought was with the helix points that came in the original Ultimate/,gold editions.

I got hundreds of hours of gaming out if those titles for something like $50 one had a great story both were beautiful looking and one raisedmy graphical expectations to new levels (AC:Odyssey ancient Greece was beautiful). So was Egypt but it's very desert based.

 

[Zardnaar]

OK Zard. I think you know what we're all talking about here, and that it's about money and prestige.

So if I somehow aquired $100 Million dollars and made a game called Kenderdoom that makes it a AAA title? I'll call my studio Zards Backyard Drunken Kiwi productions ZBDK for short. I'll head into central Otago from my backyard and take a photo of "Rohan" for the games case.I hire a guy I know who liked his drugs a bit to much as lead developer. I'll use NZ green as marketing material.

Kenderdoom is basically an HD update of the old NES game Duckhunt but instead if Ducks you shoot Kender with a variety of ACME inspired weapons. This actually sounds like an awesome pitch.

Anyway I blow the $109 million dollars while paying myself a generous salary that was like spending on booze and my friends product.

Anyway ZBDK does release something but let's assume it sucks hard because of obvious reasons.

Kenderdoom is a triple AAA title because I blew $100 million dollars on it? At least you'll get a nice picture of the Southern Alps that's an actual improvement over the last D&D game.

New idea mux a bit if angry birds into it. You catapult the Kender over the Southern Alps while blowing a horn to summon drunk kiwis riding horses from "Rohan" and ......

 

[Incenjucar]

AAA is indeed basically just a reflection of the resources put into a project and the visual fidelity that implies.

This is games industry standard stuff. Per Wikipedia: "In the video game industry, AAA is an informal classification used to categorise games produced and distributed by a mid-sized or major publisher, which typically have higher development and marketing budgets than other tiers of games."
While companies will try to not set fire to money, a game being high-budget and high-profile brings no guarantee of quality or popularity.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Anyway I blow the $109 million dollars while paying myself a generous salary that was like spending on booze and my friends product.

You're just describing the development of Star Citizen (budget $405m and rising) now.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Yeah, AAA is mostly just marketing buzzwords used by big-brand publishers to give their products prestige. It's like products that are made of "genuine leather", or "organic" produce.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

How will the movie connect to D&D? What recognizable elements of the fantasy TTRPG are going to be in the movie? The first D&D movie was a flop for multiple reasons. It had next to no connections to D&D. Any one of numerous fantasy movies in the 70s, 80, or 90s could have been labelled a D&D movie just as easily.

What setting does the movie use? To me, that's the first issue. If the story has no connection to anything in any D&D setting, then WotC needs to put out product to support this new setting or run the risk that there will be a very large disassociation between the viewers and the story. If that happens, I expect the movie to have limited success or possibly even fail at the box office.

I'm wow, I guess you haven't seen the Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves trailer yet, because it answers most of your questions, like for example it's set in the Forgotten Realms.