Yes, they did. You even responded to it. In a very dismissive way. In a way which showed you clearly had not clicked on the three links provided. Go back to post #120. Now actually click the links.
WHAT!???
Okay, now that I see more clearly what you are talking about...You misread the post entirely.
First, it was clearing up his math...and SECONDLY it was clarifying WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
If you are a Stockholder, than you are acting in pretty bad faith in your understanding. I wasn't talking about his discussions in other articles...
and thus I specified that what I WAS talking about was NOT something that CNBC or other articles (and especially NOT an enworld thread or article which I would have to search through just to find the link...why not just post the link itself?.) but the quarterly and annual reports...official ones that Hasbro puts out (aka...they have Hasbro branding and other items, such as directly released by Hasbro. Some of them are the direct talking of Hasbro, not the reports talking about what Hasbro said in these things to their stockholders)
Hasbro is NOT a hard company to follow. I've posted some of the current stock prices (in case people have missed it) because it really is that easy. ANYONE can follow it...and Hasbro also makes many of it's reports PUBLIC. In these reports D&D has been mentioned, but normally it's financial impact is small enough to not be a major point of interest (as opposed to MtG which has regularly been a major point of financial graphs and other items in the reports).
That means, the reports to stock holders...these are not articles on other sites but things specifically from Hasbro. They at a minimum come out quarterly and annually. Hasbro actually has things that come out from Hasbro itself almost daily.
I was clarifying this is what I was looking at, not IGNORING what he was posting (I took it because he didn't understand what I was asking...though in some ways it would seem if you ARE a stockholder (shareholder) than what you did was deliberately ignoring what I was asking or referring to rather than anything else. Why would you do that?)
Now that I finally GOT the answers I was looking for and BECAUSE I figured out the source was able to go and ask some others (in private) how this was all going down and why this type of stuff wasn't showing up in the money...
My position has CHANGED (which is why it is even more confusing why you are pursuing this course of discussion).
It is more congruent and parallel to your own original discussion (unless you are now trying to argue against your old position).
Because I got an explanation (not here, and I don't think anyone here actually KNOWS why) I understand WHY we might not see a financial breakdown or financial breakthrough with D&D. I understand why it hasn't suddenly stood out with major financial numbers showing an impact as great as some of the other departments (or even greater than many of them) in recent months and why we may not see one (or we might) in an upcoming report.
A lot of it is because my assumptions (everyone buying all three core rulebooks, the number of rulebooks sold, etc) were flawed off of what I thought they would be considering.
In reality, it really appears the answer to how they come up with some of the ideas (and why it is actually kind of vague in regards to hard numbers) is pretty simple in my opinion.
But, as it is actually more marketing thing than monetary (and most of the statements that I've discussed I think are coming from a PR and marketing viewpoint rather than monetary, whilst I was coming from a monetary viewpoint, which I now know was flawed, it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with marketing and PR) I think saying 12-15 million players is fine.
It doesn't actually effect me, but it can affect a lot of others and even, eventually have that impact on the "monetary" side of things. However, my assumptions of how much this money should be reflected in the stock reports and money were off because I was looking at it from the wrong angle.
If you look at the numbers I posted, in regards to sales, from a PR and marketing viewpoint, 5e IS the best selling D&D ever, has sold more rulebooks in accounting them (PHB) than any other edition, and has sold more than 3e and 4e combined.
I think those were along the lines of what Mistwell was saying, so if that is true, what exactly is Mistwell trying to argue now?
In this, I am very confused as to what he is trying to say or argue in regards to my current position
