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.

 

[Parmandur]

Do they, when their stock is 1/3 of what it was a year ago. It took another dive when they released a half-baked Payday 3.

There is a hard limit on how many services people will be a part of, especially come inflation money grabs.

Stock is stock, but income is what pays the bills.

 

[Parmandur]

They can if they're a hit, but they're going downhill now...

Can't be going down too hard, if they can afford to go out and get a big license.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Stock is stock, but income is what pays the bills.

Alright, show some numbers, then. Otherwise I'm going to go by the numbers we do have, and it's not looking healthy for them.

 

[vecna00]

Can't be going down too hard, if they can afford to go out and get a big license.

Depends on the terms of the license really. If it's just a percentage of sales, then it's easy in the short term.

 

[Parmandur]

Alright, show some numbers, then. Otherwise I'm going to go by the numbers we do have, and it's not looking healthy for them.

I don't have them, I don't know them from Adam honestly: but in general it is a profitable model.

 

[humble minion]

but in general it is a profitable model.

It's a bit of a mixed bag. If your live service game is a success, then it's great because you've got a reliable income stream from subscriptions and micropayments etc for a long time, rather than just the sugar hit of initial sales which then tail off. If it doesn't work, then it's a bigger disaster because live service games are more expensive to make and run, you need to pay to provide server support etc, and to develop all the networking code etc in the first place.

Definite swing for the fences stuff. There's LOTS of live service games that have crashed spectacularly over the last few years. Even an actual licenced Avengers game, which should have been a money printing machine in the superhero-ridden zeitgeist of a few years back, tanked fairly hard, not to mention legendary bombs like Anthem.

 

[jgsugden]

Take a look at Diablo 4. Diablo is a big name that comes with big expectations. They released a game that assumed the IP would sell itself and where they took shortcuts in quality to rush it out and start making money. The result: Big initial splash - followed by a huge crash. They lost a lot of money, and they've permanently (further) damaged the Blizzard name in doing so. Blizzard would have been better off if they'd called off Diablo 4 and instead released that game with some tweaks under a new IP so that they could do a Diablo 4 right. Right now, Blizzard would be better off hitting a reset button by giving full creative/brand control to people that were running things in the golden days of Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft - and focus more on rebuilding the brands than on short term profits. They've already squeezed all the short term profits out.

BG3 had turned D&D games into a big name with big expectations. If you release a D&D game in the next 5 years that doesn't come close to the level of storytelling and gameplay found in BG3 - you could Diablo 4 your company. You could see people slam it for being a money grab trying to capitalize upon BG3 (even if you started work on your game before you knew of BG3) - and you could raise the ire of the BG3 fanbase against your company. You might not recover your development costs, and you might damage your company brand IP. On the other hand, if you release a game that is so good that people consider it a good partner to BG3 you could be looking at the same types of success Larian is experiencing. Your small name company could suddenly become the "it" company of the year. You could see streams of revenue arise from licensing your characters from your game. You could become masters of your own destiny.

D&D, in short, is a gaming IP that just entered a five or so year period of big wins and big losses, but little middle ground. That will fade unless we get another huge hit D&D game ... but I highly doubt we struck lightning twice and that there is another game in development that has the same priorities behind it that BG3 did. I think we're going to hear a lot about D&D games coming out in the next 5 years ... but forget them as soon as they are out.

How many of us remember the name of the other game announced around the time of BG3 that was clearly a D&D rip off ... and came out first ... and had a demo little area with spiders in it ... They made their own sublasses ...

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I don’t think Diablo IV has cost them money, sales were very good, and it’s not a sub based game but a one time purchase. Like I got what I wanted from playing through the story once.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think Diablo IV has cost them money, sales were very good, and it’s not a sub based game but a one time purchase. Like I got what I wanted from playing through the story once.

Did you feel it was worth the money you paid?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Did you feel it was worth the money you paid?

Yes that’s why I said I got what I wanted.