WotC Hasbro's CEO Reports OGL-Related D&D Beyond Cancellations Had Minimal Impact

Hasbro held a quarterly earnings call recently in which CEO Chris Cocks (who formerly ran WotC before being promoted) indicated that the OGL controversy had a "comparatively minor" impact on D&D's revenue due to D&D Beyond subscription cancellations. He also noted that D&D grew by 20% in 2022 (Magic: the Gathering revenues grew by an astonishing 40% in Quarter 4!)

WotC as a whole was up 22% in Q4 2022.

Lastly, on D&D, we misfired on updating our Open Gaming License, a key vehicle for creators to share or commercialize their D&D inspired content. Our best practice is to work collaboratively with our community, gather feedback, and build experiences that inspire players and creators alike - it's how we make our games among the best in the industry. We have since course corrected and are delivering a strong outcome for the community and game.

 

[LordEntrails]

No one thought they were philanthropic, just everyone assumed they were not dumb enough to go back on something they had said they wouldn't do for years and had built up an entire community around. It's like saying "I can't believe you didn't expect them to completely self-destruct their image?" Well, yeah, we thought they would be smarter than that.

"They" who said they wouldn't do something for years are not the same "They" that made decisions in December & January. We need to keep in mind that the people in a corporation change over time, and that a corporation is not a monolith. Not all current employees have the same opinions and often times statements are made on behalf of the corporation without complete buy-in from everyone in the corporation, or even awareness.

I believe they were paranoid (defending from imagined threats)

The lawsuits with NuTSR prove that not all threats to WotC are imagined.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

"They" who said they wouldn't do something for years are not the same "They" that made decisions in December & January. We need to keep in mind that the people in a corporation change over time, and that a corporation is not a monolith. Not all current employees have the same opinions and often times statements are made on behalf of the corporation without complete buy-in from everyone in the corporation, or even awareness.

The lawsuits with NuTSR prove that not all threats to WotC are imagined.

NuTSR is neither a threat to WoTC nor is it OGL related. It keeps being brought up as a reason or defense for their actions and it simply is not.

 

[LordEntrails]

This goes beyond just a bureaucratic mistake and shows a complete misunderstanding of what they actually have with D&D.

Yes, and it also does not mean that there was any evil or malign intent on part of those who did not understand. It also does not mean that the corporation, as an organization, has not learned a valuable lesson that they might be committed to trying to learn from.

 

[LordEntrails]

NuTSR is neither a threat to WoTC nor is it OGL related. It keeps being brought up as a reason or defense for their actions and it simply is not.

It may be related in that the draft OGL specifically had provisions about hate speech. It seems reasonable that the battle to protect the SF brand from hate speech had an impact on the draft OGLs. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but it seems more likely to me that awareness of hate speech regarding NuTSR would impact a provision to protect themselves from future hate speech related concerns int eh future.

 

[Justice and Rule]

"They" who said they wouldn't do something for years are not the same "They" that made decisions in December & January. We need to keep in mind that the people in a corporation change over time, and that a corporation is not a monolith. Not all current employees have the same opinions and often times statements are made on behalf of the corporation without complete buy-in from everyone in the corporation, or even awareness.

No, absolutely. But also there is continuity, at least at some level. Certainly guys like Brink and others know what the OGL means in the community and what it would do. It's still unimaginably stupid that they would attempt this in the first place.

The lawsuits with NuTSR prove that not all threats to WotC are imagined.

Ehhhhhhhhhh...

I know that NuTSR is a great punching bag, but they are not a threat. Nothing of what was done here addresses anything that has to deal with NuTSR. It is not a shield for these actions.

Yes, and it also does not mean that there was any evil or malign intent on part of those who did not understand. It also does not mean that the corporation, as an organization, has not learned a valuable lesson that they might be committed to trying to learn from.

I mean, definitely was going to have a malign effect and they almost certainly knew that going in. I think it's harder to say that they didn't intend to cause harm to 3PPs with these rules and they just figured they'd weather the storm.

Also I'm really getting frustrated with the whole disconnect between the idea that I shouldn't trust corporations or humanize them in bad ways but also I should trust them when they try to do better and humanize them in good ways like learning from mistakes. I know there are multiple people in this discussion, but it feels like one side really wants to have it both ways when it comes to both trusting and distrusting WotC.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I find it amusing that one of the internal villains earlier in the news cycle is one of the few non-white executives. Much of the ire directed at him was around tone and style which is very often just side for “they are not like us”.

However, they are not the beloved D&D developer team, so shots at them are fair I guess.

The beloved developer team that in another thread someone asked me if I understood that most of them originally started in 3PP as if that means they must be blameless. Meanwhile, the actual 3PP landscape is full of factions that do not like each other and actively war against each other on social media.

I certainly see a clear possibility for malice and forethought here. I find dismissing it as simple corporate incompetence is too deferential and does not match many of the known facts.

 

[mamba]

I'll be honest, I don't think I should trust their own reasons about "defending the brand" given that I have a bunch of people apparently giggling that I trusted them at all.

I am dismissing their reasons for defending the brand, that is why I am calling them paranoid

And even if they had a point, none of what they did / planned would have protected them. That is the delusional part.

Unfortunately that leaves me with no good explanation for OGL 1.1, since I arrive at whoever called those shots was highly irrational…
I wish I had an explanation where the actions were rational, I just do not see it

And maybe that too contributed to how fast this went from 1.1 to 1.2 to CC. Once their house of cards was exposed to the real world, they finally realized from the reactions it received just how far off any rational path they had strayed

 

[Justice and Rule]

I find it amusing that one of the internal villains earlier in the news cycle is one of the few non-white executives. Much of the ire directed at him was around tone and style which is very often just side for “they are not like us”.

However, they are not the beloved D&D developer team, so shots at them are fair I guess.

The beloved developer team that in another thread someone asked me if I understood that most of them originally started in 3PP as if that means they must be blameless. Meanwhile, the actual 3PP landscape is full of factions that do not like each other and actively war against each other on social media.

I certainly see a clear possibility for malice and forethought here. I find dismissing it as simple corporate incompetence is too deferential and does not match many of the known facts.

Wait, who is this now?

 

[Parmandur]

I am dismissing their reasons for defending the brand, that is why I am calling them paranoid

And even if they had a point, none of what they did / planned would have protected them. That is the delusional part.

Unfortunately that leaves me with no good explanation for OGL 1.1, since I arrive at whoever called those shots was highly irrational…
I wish I had an explanation where the actions were rational, I just do not see it

And maybe that too contributed to how fast this went from 1.1 to 1.2 to CC. Once their house of cards was exposed to the real world, they finally realized from the reactions it received just how far off any rational path they had strayed

Well, it's about perspective, I'd say. Coming at the situation from a more general business or law background, not a gamer one, the replacements really do make sense and are, from thst point of view, insanely generous. The OGL 1.0a is tremendously generous, and I can see why people more used to traditional close holding of IP might see toning it down to.protect the brand as reasonable.

 

[mamba]

Well I'm sure there will be a book, maybe a couple, that will cover this and probably a bit more.

looking forward to that, hopefully that will close the holes we still have