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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

It's not a party-based RPG mate though is it?

Paradox RtwP is an entirely different beast.

 

[Zardnaar]

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

Kinda in MP the rule is generally no pausing allowed.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

 

[Jimmy Dick]

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.

What reference would that be?

 

[BovineofWar]

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]

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).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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]

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!!!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Still but out Civ3 and SMAC occasionally.

SMAC may be one of the best games ever made. That level of sheer bloody inspiration coming together is so rarely seen. It reminded me of the original Planescape boxed set in the way it synthesized so many ideas together.