How profitable is DDI to WotC?

[Morrus]

We saw screenshots from the Character Visualiser. The Rouse said he'd used the VTT. That suggests that the losses when these were scrapped was significant. Software really isn't cheap, even in getting to a state where the management can play with it a bit.

Eh - an outsourced but not completed project could have cost zero. I've seen contracts of all stripes, and many of them require delivery. Who knows? Maybe it's zero, maybe it's $30M.

 

[Nagol]

You were doing great until this point. No one knows the investment of resources into these projects--so it's difficult to say how much, if anything, was truly lost here. I believe the issues that surrounded the company that was involved in making this, caused a lot of the issues we see today. If that company had not had the problems it did, we could very well have had all of those products right now. And if that were the case, who knows how epic the 4e brand would be perceived as.

It was a large enough loss to be called out by Hasbro as part of the investor information (the fact that this cost impacted profit, not the amount). Compare that to the fact that D&D revenue isn't called out. The amount was not small.

 

[Fifth Element]

It was a large enough loss to be called out by Hasbro as part of the investor information (the fact that this cost impacted profit, not the amount). Compare that to the fact that D&D revenue isn't called out. The amount was not small.

That comparison doesn't necessarily mean the amount was particularly large; just that it was an unusual thing. D&D revenue is something that is always coming in, and would not be mentioned unless it was very low or very high versus expectations. Unusual things get mentioned in financial reports, even if they're not that much in dollar value.

So we go back to not knowing anything about it.

 

[Shemeska]

That comparison doesn't necessarily mean the amount was particularly large; just that it was an unusual thing. D&D revenue is something that is always coming in, and would not be mentioned unless it was very low or very high versus expectations. Unusual things get mentioned in financial reports, even if they're not that much in dollar value.

So we go back to not knowing anything about it.

DDI and Gleemax management was -gutted- in the aftermath. Do you really think it was just moderately below expectations?

 

[Fifth Element]

DDI and Gleemax management was -gutted- in the aftermath. Do you really think it was just moderately below expectations?

I offer no opinion on it, because we have no information. I was responding to the specific assertion that since it was mentioned in a financial report, it must have been a very large amount of money. That's doesn't follow.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I offer no opinion on it, because we have no information. I was responding to the specific assertion that since it was mentioned in a financial report, it must have been a very large amount of money. That's doesn't follow.

You can't simultaneously claim we have no information and then immediately try to spin some of the information that we have. It looks ridiculous.

 

[Dannager]

You can't simultaneously claim we have no information and then immediately try to spin some of the information that we have. It looks ridiculous.

No, it doesn't. He said we don't have anything resembling credible information to go on, and that a thing that people seem to be implying is credible information (a brief mention in a financial report) is not, in fact, credible information because we have absolutely no numbers or context.

Which really makes me wonder why you decided to call it ridiculous.

 

[Nagol]

That comparison doesn't necessarily mean the amount was particularly large; just that it was an unusual thing. D&D revenue is something that is always coming in, and would not be mentioned unless it was very low or very high versus expectations. Unusual things get mentioned in financial reports, even if they're not that much in dollar value.

So we go back to not knowing anything about it.

Something has to be both unusual and material in size to get mentioned. It is extraordinarily unlikely something less than say 1% of total profit for the business unit would be mentioned as a factor in performance. In fact, the threshold is usually higher than that.

 

[delericho]

Eh - an outsourced but not completed project could have cost zero. I've seen contracts of all stripes, and many of them require delivery. Who knows? Maybe it's zero...<snip>

It's possible, but extremely unlikely. The contractors would be mad to go into a project of that size without specifying interim releases (such as... screenshots and a workable alpha) and interim payments.

And, for their part, WotC would also want to specify such things. They want to be as sure as possible that the project is going to succeed, and that also means they'll want interim releases.

Look, I only posited one scenario that happens to fit the known facts. I'll freely accept that it may be completely wrong - maybe the DDI is going great, and raking in huge profits. But given what (little) we saw of the 3D VTT, I simply don't believe that scrapping it was not a major hit for WotC.

 

[Morrus]

It's possible, but extremely unlikely. The contractors would be mad to go into a project of that size without specifying interim releases (such as... screenshots and a workable alpha) and interim payments.

And, for their part, WotC would also want to specify such things. They want to be as sure as possible that the project is going to succeed, and that also means they'll want interim releases.

Look, I only posited one scenario that happens to fit the known facts. I'll freely accept that it may be completely wrong - maybe the DDI is going great, and raking in huge profits. But given what (little) we saw of the 3D VTT, I simply don't believe that scrapping it was not a major hit for WotC.

It may very well be. I was just responding in the manner requested by the original question, which is that we simply don't know one way or the t'other. If I had to guess, I'd probably go with your theory.