D&D 4E WotC, DDI, 4E, and Hasbro: Some History

After Vince Calouri was pushed out of Wizards of the Coast he was replaced by Chuck Heubner. Chuck basically had to manage Wizards on the downslope from the Pokemon salad days. Hasbro has been through many boom & bust cycles in the toy business and they have a standard response when it happens: cut headcount and reduce overhead. Since Wizards was de facto the only part of the business that had not been rolled up into Hasbro proper it was not insulated by the successes of other things at Hasbro like GI Joe or Transformers.

While this was happening there was a big internal fight for control over the CCG business within Hasbro. Brian Goldner who was at the time the head of the Boys Toys (i.e. half the company) division of Hasbro thought that the company was missing a huge window of opportunity to follow up Pokemon with a series of mass-market CCGs linked to Hasbro's core brands GI Joe and Transformers. These battles resulted in things being escalated all the way to the C-Suite and the Hasbro Board, where Brian lost the fight and Wizards retained the exclusive ability within Hasbro to make CCGs. The downside for Wizards is that they were forced to do things with the Duelmaster brand that they did not want to do, and it never got the traction in the US that Wizards thought it could achieve. (In Japan, by contrast, it became a huge best-seller).

Chuck left after two years and Loren Greenwood, who had been the long time VP of Sales, replaced him in 2004. He was also a visible proponent of the idea that Wizards, and not Boys Toys, should set Hasbro's CCG strategy. Thus when Brian was named COO of the whole company in 2006 and CEO in 2008, Loren had a big problem on his hands. Loren guided the company through the post 3.5e crash of the TRPG market, the loss of the Pokemon franchise, and the unwinding of the Wizards retail strategy. All of this was pretty bitter fruit for hm since he'd been instrumental in building up much of what had to then be torn down. The combination of all these things led to Loren's exit and his replacement by Greg Leeds, who is the current CEO of Wizards.

Sometime around 2005ish, Hasbro made an internal decision to divide its businesses into two categories. Core brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and had a growth path towards $100 million annual sales, and Non-Core brands, which didn't.

Under Goldner, the Core Brands would be the tentpoles of the company. They would be exploited across a range of media with an eye towards major motion pictures, following the path Transformers had blazed. Goldner saw what happened to Marvel when they re-oriented their company from a publisher of comic books to a brand building factory (their market capitalization increased by something like 2 billion dollars). He wanted to replicate that at Hasbro.

Core Brands would get the financing they requested for development of their businesses (within reason). Non-Core brands would not. They would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support. In fact, many Non-Core brands would simply be mothballed - allowed to go dormant for some number of years until the company was ready to take them down off the shelf and try to revive them for a new generation of kids.

At the point of the original Hasbro/Wizards merger a fateful decision was made that laid the groundwork for what happened once Greg took over. Instead of focusing Hasbro on the idea that Wizards of the Coast was a single brand, each of the lines of business in Wizards got broken out and reported to Hasbro as a separate entity. This was driven in large part by the fact that the acquisition agreement specified a substantial post-acquisition purchase price adjustment for Wizards' shareholders on the basis of the sales of non-Magic CCGs (i.e. Pokemon).

This came back to haunt Wizards when Hasbro's new Core/Non-Core strategy came into focus. Instead of being able to say "We're a $100+ million brand, keep funding us as we desire", each of the business units inside Wizards had to make that case separately. So the first thing that happened was the contraction you saw when Wizards dropped new game development and became the "D&D and Magic" company. Magic has no problem hitting the "Core" brand bar, but D&D does. It's really a $25-30 million business, especially since Wizards isn't given credit for the licensing revenue of the D&D computer games.

It would have been very easy for Goldner et al to tell Wizards "you're done with D&D, put it on a shelf and we'll bring it back 10 years from now as a multi-media property managed from Rhode Island". There's no way that the D&D business circa 2006 could have supported the kind of staff and overhead that it was used to. Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content. So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D. That's something between 50 and 75 people.

Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI. At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing. The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals. Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.

The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI. DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the DDI team and it never really recovered. The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched, and the explicit link between 4e and DDI that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized. The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone. The marketplace backlash to 4e didn't help either.

Greg wasn't in the hot seat long enough to really take the blame for the 4e/DDI plan, and Wizards just hired a new exec to be in charge of Sales & Marketing, and Bill Slavicsek who headed RPG R&D left last summer, so the team that committed those numbers to Hasbro are gone. The team that's there now probably doesn't have a blank sheet of paper and an open checkbook, but they also don't have to answer to Hasbro for the promises of the prior regime.

As to their next move? Only time will tell.
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryan S. Dancey

Ryan S. Dancey

OGL Architect


First Post
But then what is the point of hiring back Monte Cook and all the polls in his articles? If not for 5th edition, are we looking at some kind of repacking of 4e/Essentials into one (not confusing and divisive) line? Or maybe a revision of the GSL to allow more 3rd party involvement in 4e, which could revitalize the line?

Well, there isn't any sort of Unearthed Arcana book for 4e, just some articles in the e-magazine now and again. Maybe he was brought on to help with a project like that? That honestly makes more sense to me than a 5th edition does right now (and the research for it probably looks pretty much the same since Unearthed Arcana has always been about retooling the existing system into something different at a basic level).

In terms of building a brand instead of a product, it's pretty easy to look at Pokemon and how well it succeeded there. It had a card game, a game boy game, other games for other platforms, a TV show, and a movie, and even right up until the movie happened a Hollywood bigshot said "yeah the movie will come out and that'll be the end of it". Obviously that was not the end of it and Pokemon spiralled into greater and greater success in the following years because it created a universe accessible from many points, not a product accessible only in a theater, or only in a video game, or only on TV. Years ago, back when Gary was still posting around on this very website, he advocated a similar "universe building" approach for the future of D&D; though it was obviously out of his hands at that point, I think he was on to the right idea.

So, Hasbro's plan of building a "universe" around its core products is a smart one - even though movie tie-in games are (generally considered) terrible they keep making them so they must be doing something right, you know? Somebody earlier in the thread advocated the same approach applied to D&D and I couldn't agree more... but it sounds like Hasbro won't give it its chance to shine as a universe with multiple entry points until it makes some more moolah, and that's rather sad. I suppose blame the recession.
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad


Easy problem first - Hasbro does not own the rights to make any D&D games, regardless of edition; AFAIK they still belong to Atari. They were sold off (via Hasbro Interactive) around the time Neverwinter Nights was made. So any further issues are a moot point - Hasbro can not make a D&D game.

Hasbro re-acquired the D&D videogame rights in a settlement with Atari. It was late last year I believe.

However, assuming Hasbro could reacquire the rights, a D&D video game would still face several challenges. Video game development costs money, and that expenditure is counted against income. So, for a game to move forward, the risk of the game failing would have to be relatively small, especially if the D&D brand is in such dire straits. MMOs in the current game climate are quite risky to finance, and a D&D MMO already failed once. So the likelihood of Hasbro giving the okay to one is next to none.

Hasbro is not a video game studio, so it would be foolish for them to develop their own game. What they would do, is go out into the market and see what companies are out there, and who is interested in the D&D IP. Ideally, WotC should go to a promising young studio like Runic Games, who made the incredibly popular game "Torchlight", and offer them the rights to use the D&D brand name and IP in exchange for a modest share of profits. Or configure some other deal that is mutually beneficial. Though, you want to make money, the initial goal here is to rebuild the brand's stature in the PC/console market. The big money comes later, and a talented studio like Runic Games is a perfect partner with a proven track record, but who could benefit from leveraging the D&D IP with their already strong game engine.

Similarly, the market for RPGs these days does not really have a cost-benefit ratio that would allow for Hasbro to develop another Baldur's Gate. To head off the obvious comparison, Skyrim did have a phenomenal release. However, Skyrim also had several points in its favor that a new RPG would not have, not the least of which is Bethesda's wealth of development time and talent, as well as their stability as a company.

All the classic D&D games were successfully licensed to other studios. Hasbro never made any of those games directly. Nor should they. They are not a game studio.

Now, that's not to say nothing could be done, but I think an MMO is too risky and a traditional RPG just won't pull the profit needed. However, it's possible that something along the lines of Magic Online could work with a little tweaking. A micro-transaction model where you buy modules to play with people online might work. It's risky, but WotC has direct experience via Magic: Online.

I'm not a big MMO fan, and there are a lot of subpar MMO's out there, but they do make money. That said, if I were Hasbro, I'd partner with a promising young company like Runic Games that made the first Torchlight to earn enough funding for an MMO and go from there. Otherwise, I'd let companies come to me and listen to their pitches and choose the best one, or not. Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun are all solid IP. I imagine you can find a partner willing to shoulder most of the risk and financial burden for access to that IP. And if not, then sit on it for now. Grow the D&D brands footprint in videogames first through quality console and PC games and then get into an MMO when the opportunity is right.

You mean like what was announced at DDXP 2008 and subsequently never materialized? There's a reason it never did - historically, non-book D&D media just doesn't do well enough to justify the cost. Again, it's not impossible, but try convincing investors to put forth a bunch of money on a brand that hasn't done well outside of its niche.

Sounded like the talks with Warner back in 2008 fell through. I don't know the details, but it should absolutely be revisited. A popular animated series would drive the brand in a way that nothing else could and would be a huge boost for all D&D products. HUGE boost.

The thing that people don't get about brand marketing is that it is a symbiotic relationship. In other words, if the product you slap your name on sucks, then it lowers the status of your brand. If the product itself is good and popular, it actually strengthens the brand as a whole. The original Baldur's Gate games were amazing in their own right, not just because they had the D&D name on it. And because they were amazing, it raised the profile of D&D among video game players and also caused the reverse to be true. Games with the D&D name on it then got more attention and were more likely to sell because the previous games were so good.

Making crappy B movies on the sci-fi channel, or authorizing that horrendous DL animated film a few years ago needs to end. Now. The D&D brand needs to be treated like the precious commodity it is. You need to pick and choose only the right projects and grow and nurture it carefully.

If Hasbro came to me and said, DB, we like how you think. You get access to all of Hasbro and WotC's resources and employees, and 5 years to do whatever you want with the D&D brand. I guarantee I could turn it into at least $50 million business in that time, if not a full blown mega brand. I GUARANTEE IT. Thats how confident I am in the power of the IP that WotC is sitting on. I'm talking animated series, toy lines, TRPG, videogames, the works.

Making crappy B movies on the sci-fi channel, or authorizing that horrendous DL animated film a few years ago needs to end. Now. The D&D brand needs to be treated like the precious commodity it is. You need to pick and choose only the right projects and grow and nurture it carefully.

If Hasbro came to me and said, DB, we like how you think. You get access to all of Hasbro and WotC's resources and employees, and 5 years to do whatever you want with the D&D brand. I guarantee I could turn it into at least $50 million business in that time, if not a full blown mega brand. I GUARANTEE IT. Thats how confident I am in the power of the IP that WotC is sitting on. I'm talking animated series, toy lines, TRPG, videogames, the works.

I believe u DB, and here's why:

D&D did this before, it can do it again. Back in the 80's they had the toys, 'video' games, coloring books, animated series, board games, even 'stickers' u could bake in the oven, what were those things called? Pretty much everything that could have the D&d name on it back then did, and it sold like hotcakes!


Makes me wonder if I should "man up" and subscribe. BUT ... I don't even play 4e anymore.:(

Nah. If you want to subscribe, then subscribe. But don't subscribe out of some notion of 'saving D&D' - it hasn't come to that pass yet, and even if it had a few extra subscribers here and there won't make any noticable difference. We would need a major push to make any difference.

If it does happen, it would rather mean that 4e's failure was not such a dramatic one.

If it were done by any other company than Hasbro, 4e would be considered a runaway success. 4e is considered a failure by Hasbro only because it was given an impossible target to hit.

(Of course, there's a flip side to that - without the backing of Hasbro, the DDI would have been an impossibility. Make of that what you will.)

Jan van Leyden

Entering wild-speculation mode here.

Hasbro doesn't focus on single items or game lines, but on brands.

D&D is a brand, but - as opposed to licensed brands - has no external synergies like in marketing or brand-awareness. So D&D as a brand has to be developed by Hasbro-forces.

The D&D brand traditionally consists of two lines: RPG and novels. These two lines will probably not achieve the critical revenue Hasbro demands for an active brand.

One could either try to stretch oneself in order to reach this goal or add more lines to the brand. The first solution will probably be a hard fight which never ends.

We have already seen two new lines, board games and DDI. Board games are an addition to the brand, while DDI tries to strengthen the RPG line.

The traditional publishing model giving as a new edition of D&D (RPG) every few years does little to increase revenues of the line. It's more suitable to fight the loss of revenue caused by more and more specific products which find less and less buyers - a sign of an edition well endowed with all necessary and/or interesting books.

WotC will have to add more new product lines to the D&D brand, which, all together, hopefully reach the goals.

For D&D (RPG) to prosper, one can address the customers of other product lines in the brand. This will work better when D&D (RPG) can use synergies with these other lines.

If some of the lines are computer-based or can be computer-supported, subscription model becomes more and more interesting. They'd allow for effortless cross-marketing between the lines.

Edition numbers are a hindrance for the brand, as they divide it rather than strengthen it.

So what are possible brand additions? TCG, MMO, for sure, but what else?

Are there possible brand additions which provide continuous revenue as opposed to fads which earn truckloads of money in one year and next to nothing after that?

Is the brand D&D strong enough to entice other companies to license it and to provide their own support for it?

What role will the RPG department play if the D&D brand reaches its goals? Could they continue to be brand developers or would they be just users of the brand developed in other departments?

Having just written this, it seems that the future of D&D (RPG) will change anyway. Either it'll get shelved together with the whole brand or it will have to be managed in a very different way. Both scenarios would mean that other companies would have to take over development and publishing of "traditional" RPGs. Interesting times, indeed... :)


First Post
What Ryan is describing seems a rather hopeless future for D&D.
I do not know if it is actually true... but boy is it depressing.

So, if I were Wotc here is what I would try to do:
Publish 5e core as:
1 player's box product that costs 29$, deals with classes from level 1 to level 10, includes dice and character sheets. It should be an excellent read.
1 dm's box that includes world-building charts, treasure charts and monsters, a dm screen and an intro adventure. It costs the same as the player's box.

See if I can make a clause to make sure that every retailer than wants to sell m:tg displays the two D&D core boxes in its store and be able to order, stock and sell D&D product if needed. I do not care if it is a comic store, a hobby store or a mass-market store. All should put the D&D products to display if they want to display and sell m:tg.


This has been an interesting read. I wasn't aware of the tragedy... so much about DDI makes a lot more sense in that light. Such an unfortunate turn of events... :(


This just doesn't work.

This has been the strategy used by TSR and WotC since D&D's inception. Do you honestly believe that 1e didn't have a board of directors saying, "We must earn X amount of money in Y amount of time,"?

It seems to me that people operate on this romantic notion that D&D existed in a vacuum, untouched by corporate realities until the big, bad, meanie-heads at Hasbro summoned the Dark Forces of Accounting & Liability to destroy the dreams and ambitions of True Geeks everywhere.

D&D was ALWAYS a business. And the facts of the matter are that D&D has NEVER been bigger than it is RIGHT NOW. Whether that translates into financial success is another matter entirely. I know that doesn't fit with the dreamy unreality of Real Roleplayers, but at some point everyone has to join the real world.

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads


Remove ads

Upcoming Releases