WotC WotC Cancels 5 Video Games

Dungeons-and-Dragons-Dark-Alliance-1298699017.jpg

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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Legend
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.


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.
Stellaris is my favorite game, and it's definitely RtwP.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Clint_L

Hero
I assume it's because they are focused on making AAA games now and these were more middling projects?
Given this is affecting 15 people on 5 games, then yeah, these were not major projects. I'm speculating that these were at the very formative stages, and none of them looked likely to be a big winner.
 


BovineofWar

Explorer
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.
That's true if your market is only the average CRPG player. The intent of RtwP in Baldur's Gate was to translate the pen-and-paper experience in to something that more people would play. I'd argue that the proliferation of action-RPGs is a pretty good indicator that the majority of video game players are not interested in turn-based game play. The challenge being can you lure people in with RtwP or ATB mechanics that otherwise wouldn't play turn based games?

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.
I think most RtwP are turn-based "under the hood", that's definitely the case for BG and the like. You still have have the opportunity for detailed tactical decisions with RtwP, and the lack of abstraction make certain phenomena like simultaneity occur in RtwP that get very clunky in a turn-based environment. I'll agree that the main impediment is the lack of fine control; unless you're pausing every 6 seconds, which is not the usual playing condition.

I guess my point is I don't see RtwP dying out. With the number of MMOs using real-time battle with ability timers, JRPGs with ATB-inspired features, etc., the trend is here to stay. I think for better or worse, it's just a matter of time before the pendulum swings the other way and a new isometric RtwP RPG is released.
 

BovineofWar

Explorer
Given this is affecting 15 people on 5 games, then yeah, these were not major projects. I'm speculating that these were at the very formative stages, and none of them looked likely to be a big winner.
Only 15 people are affected at Wizards of the Coast. That's not to say that five independent studios will not be laying off 15+ developers each now that their projects are cancelled. There's really not enough information here to speculate on the stage of the projects, quality of the deliverables to date, or the business strategy. This could have been a business performance issue (I'm thinking of Aspyr's KOTOR remake) or it could have been a strategic decision (Wizards wants all the development know-how and profits in house).
 

That's true if your market is only the average CRPG player. The intent of RtwP in Baldur's Gate was to translate the pen-and-paper experience in to something that more people would play. I'd argue that the proliferation of action-RPGs is a pretty good indicator that the majority of video game players are not interested in turn-based game play. The challenge being can you lure people in with RtwP or ATB mechanics that otherwise wouldn't play turn based games?
No, is the answer.

That wasn't true in the '90s because they weren't trying to lure in action-game players. They were trying to lure in RTS players. RtwP doesn't work on action players. It never has. Same for ATB. There's a reason FF16 is basically a DMC game with RPG elements rather than using ATB.

And re: turn-based, well, whatever you think, modern turn-based games sell extremely well, whether they're Divinity: Original Sin, Civ, XCOM, Battletech, Midnight Suns, Gears Tactics, Darkest Dungeon, Fire Emblem: Three Houses, Triangle Strategy, Into the Breach, Yakuza: Like a Dragon (which moved from action to turn-based, note, to great applause), Persona, Dragon Quest or whatever. They outnumber RTS games many times to one. Probably more than 10 times to 1. The RTSes which did so well in the '90s are virtually gone now. The last major one was StarCraft 2 in 2010. It's not really a thing any more (there have been some failed AA attempts and a some nostalgia remakes/enhanced versions but...). Whereas turn-based is.

The only place real-time strategy really survives is Paradox games and settlement builders, both of which have a much more hands-off approach and one that's not really about controlling individual units.

So the RtwP isn't even a real option at this point. Your choice is action or turn-based, and you can't do D&D well as action (as the Neverwinter MMO rather shows, unfortunately).
I guess my point is I don't see RtwP dying out.
I mean, it already died dude. Apart from Paradox games and settlement builders.

As far as I know, there are literally no major (i.e. even AA) RtwP RPGs on in development. Owlcat abandoned it entirely for turn-based with their new 40K RPG. They were the last hold-out. No Kickstarters or similar for any RtwP games.

So I read a couple of threads - there is literally one game - Dark Envoy -
Now I will say, these are the people who made the only other genuinely clever RtwP game of recent years (sorry Pillars of Eternity 1/2 you were great games and your RtwP was well-designed but it was old-fashioned and clunky partly by design), which was Tower of Time.

I've got this wishlisted and I expect it'll be a good game, but that's it. Whereas there are hordes of turn-based or action-based RPGs on the way out in the next couple of years.

I guess DA4 might come out and might technically be RtwP? It could happen!

And no, this isn't a pendulum situation. It never was. RtwP was popular because of RTSes, not because it was a natural mode. The designers of the BG1 even discussed this. It's possible that turn-based with ALSO die, but unless DA4 is the biggest smash hit in history, and is severely RtwP, I don't see anything in the near future for RtwP in party-based RPGs.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
No, is the answer.

That wasn't true in the '90s because they weren't trying to lure in action-game players. They were trying to lure in RTS players. RtwP doesn't work on action players. It never has. Same for ATB. There's a reason FF16 is basically a DMC game with RPG elements rather than using ATB.

And re: turn-based, well, whatever you think, modern turn-based games sell extremely well, whether they're Divinity: Original Sin, Civ, XCOM, Battletech, Midnight Suns, Gears Tactics, Darkest Dungeon, Fire Emblem: Three Houses, Triangle Strategy, Into the Breach, Yakuza: Like a Dragon (which moved from action to turn-based, note, to great applause), Persona, Dragon Quest or whatever. They outnumber RTS games many times to one. Probably more than 10 times to 1. The RTSes which did so well in the '90s are virtually gone now. The last major one was StarCraft 2 in 2010. It's not really a thing any more (there have been some failed AA attempts and a some nostalgia remakes/enhanced versions but...). Whereas turn-based is.

The only place real-time strategy really survives is Paradox games and settlement builders, both of which have a much more hands-off approach and one that's not really about controlling individual units.

So the RtwP isn't even a real option at this point. Your choice is action or turn-based, and you can't do D&D well as action (as the Neverwinter MMO rather shows, unfortunately).

I mean, it already died dude. Apart from Paradox games and settlement builders.

As far as I know, there are literally no major (i.e. even AA) RtwP RPGs on in development. Owlcat abandoned it entirely for turn-based with their new 40K RPG. They were the last hold-out. No Kickstarters or similar for any RtwP games.

So I read a couple of threads - there is literally one game - Dark Envoy -
Now I will say, these are the people who made the only other genuinely clever RtwP game of recent years (sorry Pillars of Eternity 1/2 you were great games and your RtwP was well-designed but it was old-fashioned and clunky partly by design), which was Tower of Time.

I've got this wishlisted and I expect it'll be a good game, but that's it son. Whereas there are a horde of turn-based or action-based RPGs on the way out in the next couple of years.

I guess DA4 might come out and might technically be RtwP? It could happen!

And no, this isn't a pendulum situation. It never was. RtwP was popular because of RTSes, not because it was a natural mode. The designers of the BG1 even discussed this. It's possible that turn-based with ALSO die, but unless DA4 is the biggest smash hit in history, and is severely RtwP, I don't see any future for that approach.

Arts are essentially dead. I still play a modded one but it was released 2005 iirc.

Paradox Interactive isn't really rts they're grand strategy. They lured me away from Civilization series. Still but out Civ3 and SMAC occasionally.

I tots didn't lose a Super Star Destroyer the other day!!!
 
Last edited:



No, is the answer.

That wasn't true in the '90s because they weren't trying to lure in action-game players. They were trying to lure in RTS players. RtwP doesn't work on action players. It never has. Same for ATB. There's a reason FF16 is basically a DMC game with RPG elements rather than using ATB.

And re: turn-based, well, whatever you think, modern turn-based games sell extremely well, whether they're Divinity: Original Sin, Civ, XCOM, Battletech, Midnight Suns, Gears Tactics, Darkest Dungeon, Fire Emblem: Three Houses, Triangle Strategy, Into the Breach, Yakuza: Like a Dragon (which moved from action to turn-based, note, to great applause), Persona, Dragon Quest or whatever. They outnumber RTS games many times to one. Probably more than 10 times to 1. The RTSes which did so well in the '90s are virtually gone now. The last major one was StarCraft 2 in 2010. It's not really a thing any more (there have been some failed AA attempts and a some nostalgia remakes/enhanced versions but...). Whereas turn-based is.

The only place real-time strategy really survives is Paradox games and settlement builders, both of which have a much more hands-off approach and one that's not really about controlling individual units.

So the RtwP isn't even a real option at this point. Your choice is action or turn-based, and you can't do D&D well as action (as the Neverwinter MMO rather shows, unfortunately).

I mean, it already died dude. Apart from Paradox games and settlement builders.

As far as I know, there are literally no major (i.e. even AA) RtwP RPGs on in development. Owlcat abandoned it entirely for turn-based with their new 40K RPG. They were the last hold-out. No Kickstarters or similar for any RtwP games.

So I read a couple of threads - there is literally one game - Dark Envoy -
Now I will say, these are the people who made the only other genuinely clever RtwP game of recent years (sorry Pillars of Eternity 1/2 you were great games and your RtwP was well-designed but it was old-fashioned and clunky partly by design), which was Tower of Time.

I've got this wishlisted and I expect it'll be a good game, but that's it. Whereas there are hordes of turn-based or action-based RPGs on the way out in the next couple of years.

I guess DA4 might come out and might technically be RtwP? It could happen!

And no, this isn't a pendulum situation. It never was. RtwP was popular because of RTSes, not because it was a natural mode. The designers of the BG1 even discussed this. It's possible that turn-based with ALSO die, but unless DA4 is the biggest smash hit in history, and is severely RtwP, I don't see anything in the near future for RtwP in party-based RPGs.

Yeah Owlcat was really the last hope for RTwP, Except maybe Dragon Age 4 (never played the DA series is it RTwP?) so Rogue Trader going completely turn based must have felt like a betrayal for RTwP fans.

It's funny too me because when BG1 & 2 came out folks acted like their was no market for turn based games anymore, like turned based gold box game fans like me were dinosaurs, and while I enjoyed the BG 1 & 2 series and NWN2 series (didn't care for the NWN1), it's gratifying to see turned based games win.


I love to see one of these studios do a proper sequel to the Gold Box games.
 

It's funny too me because when BG1 & 2 came out folks acted like their was no market for turn based games anymore
That's absolutely right!

I got told at the time - repeatedly - that Fallout 1/2 were "outdated" because they were turn-based, and no-one was ever going to play turn-based CRPGs (or really other games again), and to be fair, from like 1998 to like 2010 there were pretty few turn-based games in the West.

I think two factors really served to bring it back:

1) Japan kept putting out turn-based games. Some series went action-based, but ATB-type deals largely vanished - with games largely splitting to be either turn-based OR action-based, no hybrids.

2) Board games became wildly popular with a big crossover with the sort of people who play CRPGs, strategy games, and so on. Obviously basically all of those are turn-based.

So then we got stuff like XCOM in 2012 and D:OS in 2014, both of which were very well-regarded, and a new generation got to meet RtwP in the form of Pillars of Eternity, Kingmaker, and so on, and their reaction was... to say "hmmm" and keep asking for a turn-based mode. Which the sequels to both of those put in.

So vindication at last lol!

Except maybe Dragon Age 4 (never played the DA series is it RTwP?)
Every DA game so far has a slightly different take on it.

DA:O was straight-up RtwP but with an important innovation - in-game, you could "script" your characters through menus, so whoever you weren't playing at the time could have elaborate conditional behaviour. Scripts existed for Dungeon Siege and Infinity Engine games, but they had to be created/edited out of game, and Infinity Engine games I don't think even ever explain this, you just had to know.

DA2 on PC was similar to DA:O, but refined the menus for conditional behaviour, and also clearly considered the conditional behaviour fully when designing abilities (which DA:O did not). Some people are bizarrely unaware of this - I had someone telling me DA2 "ripped out" the conditional behaviour - absolutely false, on PC at least. On consoles, DA2 had slightly different gameplay, in that you didn't click to move, but moved with the control stick, and didn't have auto-attack, you have to actually keep pressing a button to attack.

DAI made the DA2 console approach the default - no auto-attack for the controlled character, but you can turn it on in options. It made the characters a lot smarter by default, but also changed and simplified the conditional behaviour, linking it directly to abilities (which works surprisingly well, I didn't expect that). Click-to-move exists, but only in the "tactical" view, otherwise you move with KB/control stick. In general the idea has been to reduce the amount you need to pause whilst still giving you the option to be very pause-heavy if you want.

(NB DAI came out just before the "Return of the PC" era, hence the console-centric design choices. However to this day console-centric design choices remain normal, it's just PC gamers also usually now own gamepads!)

DA4 is slightly hard to predict as Bioware know they need a crowd-pleaser and nostalgia can play well, but what plays better is selling lots of copies, so it needs to be something accessible and fun (note that despite a lot of grousing about DAI from DA:O fans, and four big design errors*), DAI sold extremely well and kept selling for a long time). So I'd expect a combat design perhaps similar to DAI but maybe slightly more "action-y" on the character you're playing, whilst still allowing you to tell other characters who to act - probably looking more at conditional behaviour than pause, swap, cast stuff though. Either that or they'll go more action and make character swapping a major mechanic (a number of JRPGs do this), but that'd be risky, and if there's one thing Bioware needs, it's a game largely regarded as at least "good".

* = Hinterlands, too many zones, too many entirely optional but MMO-esque sidequests, the bloody table. All of these except the stupid table were overreactions to specific and common criticisms of DA2, and avoidable as issues by just choosing not to mess with them (but it really helped if someone warned you about them!). The table is unavoidable on consoles, but on PC you can get a mod to make it instant which suddenly takes it from "GRRRRRRR" to "Ok fine".
 
Last edited:


Scribe

Legend
The mystery deepens further:


Lot going on at WotC atm.

You know, its really really funny.

I talk to people all the time, "how can X being doing Y, it makes no sense!" and the answer is always the same.

X (a company, a government, a political party, whatever!) is made of PEOPLE. People who are just like the idiot we all work with, and wonder how he hasnt been fired. People who are dealing with a sick kid, or a dog that needs to go to the vet, or a spouse that gets on their nerves, and people who on any given day, just dont care about their work enough.

Days like today, just make me shake my head and have a laugh.

Dc Comics Joker GIF by HBO Max
 

Mirtek

Hero
If your games a turkey it's not AAA regardless of it's budget.
I have agree with those that disagree with you here.

It'd still be an AAA game, just a failed AAA game. As opposed to a successful non-AAA game that could very well outsell even some just moderately successful AAA games.

A flopped Hollywood movie is still a Hollywood movie, even if outsold by some direct-to-TV B-movie (which will also still remain a B-movie, no matter how successful it may become)
 



FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Curious, were these games part of studios owned by WOTC or studios that had licensed with them to produce the cancelled games? If the later, could it have had something to do with the OGL 1.1 (or updates to their non public license agreements with less favorable terms)?
 

Curious, were these games part of studios owned by WOTC or studios that had licensed with them to produce the cancelled games? If the later, could it have had something to do with the OGL 1.1 (or updates to their non public license agreements with less favorable terms)?
They were partnerships rather than licenses, which is why Wizards was able to cancel them.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top