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.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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

I still believe that someone in there thought that the 3PP market was a dumb thing to leave open. The 3PP market for D&D is so unique that it's easy for someone who isn't involved in the community to simply not grok and thus see it as a wide open door for someone to run through. You kill the OGL and put them under firm controls or just let them die. That probably seems foreign to us, but it seems eminently reasonable if someone is trying to maximize output, and certainly more reasonable than trying to say "No, we were really the smol ones here because we were afraid of big bad Meta!"

Honestly if the reasoning is in the "You won, but so did we" letter, I just kind of dismiss it as a damage control excuse.

 

[mamba]

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.

The OGL 1.0a is generous. The replacement (1.1) was entirely unacceptable though. I don’t think anyone would have signed on to that even if there were no 1.0a to make it look horrible. It manages to do so all by itself

If 1.2 had been the first version of an OGL, everyone would have been pretty happy with that I believe. What ruined it is that we had 1.0a for 20 years by then and that 1.1 had just happened.

If WotC had said something like ‘here are our concerns, we drafted 1.2 to address them, let us know what you think and refine it where needed’, I don’t think much would have had to change.
Some tweaks sure (mostly the irrevocable to be the proper fully irrevocable term, and not the caveat version they snuck in), but that could have been handled without the outrage and boycott.

 

[bedir than]

You keep chalking this up to some sort of "bureaucratic" thing, but this wasn't a mistake on a spreadsheet or a small thing overlooked: this was a strategy, something that had been in the works for multiple years. This isn't like they forgot to flip a monthly switch so that the OGL didn't revoke, they planned this for years.

OGL and various licensing changes were planned for years. There's no evidence that OGL 1.0a revocation was planned for years. That's a reading that requires knowledge that hasn't been disclosed.

Plus a corporation could have a meeting two years ago, then six months later, then three months later and declare that it's been worked on for two years. A claim of a two-year project doesn't mean it was a daily task.

 

[Parmandur]

The OGL 1.0a is generous. The replacement (1.1) was entirely unacceptable though. I don’t think anyone would have signed on to that even if there were no 1.0a to make it look horrible. It manages to do so all by itself

If 1.2 had been the first version of an OGL, everyone would have been pretty happy with that I believe. What ruined it is that we had 1.0a for 20 years by then and that 1.1 had just happened.

If WotC had said something like ‘here are our concerns, we drafted 1.2 to address them, let us know what you think and refine it where needed’, I don’t think much would have had to change.
Some tweaks sure (mostly the irrevocable to be the proper fully irrevocable term, and not the caveat version they snuck in), but that could have been handled without the outrage and boycott.

Compared to how IP is normally licensed (and licensing fees), 1.1 is generous: that's the point, the business people calling the shots had every reason as hobby outsiders to see their offer as generous, as opposed to.insanely generous. The gap in rationality is background and perspective. Thankfully, levle heads qon out when the aituation was clarified by fan reaction, and CCing the core rules turns out to be a genius solution for their actual goals, in addition to beijg more generous.

 

[mamba]

Honestly if the reasoning is in the "You won, but so did we" letter, I just kind of dismiss it as a damage control excuse.

no, I dismiss that entirely. That was not even damage control, that was fanning the flames

The reasoning is in 1.2 being worked on before 1.1 leaked, so purely based on 3pp feedback. This shows there were discussions resulting in significant changes, making this more of an open discussion than 1.1 being a foregone conclusion.
That they then made a full 180 after that and released the SRD under CC is to me further proof of that.

 

[mamba]

Compared to how IP is normally licensed (and licensing fees), 1.1 is generous: that's the point

I am not sure it is generous. The only generous part there is that it is an ‘open’ license rather than something everyone has to apply for and negotiate.

I do not think most closed licenses have such draconian terms (sublicensing the product, 25% of gross as fee). I do admit that this is just me guessing though, I have no licensing knowledge.

 

[Justice and Rule]

OGL and various licensing changes were planned for years. There's no evidence that OGL 1.0a revocation was planned for years. That's a reading that requires knowledge that hasn't been disclosed.

That's how I took Kyle Brink's statement on the matter, but maybe I misheard him? Did he specifically say that OGL revocation was brand new?

Plus a corporation could have a meeting two years ago, then six months later, then three months later and declare that it's been worked on for two years. A claim of a two-year project doesn't mean it was a daily task.

It doesn't need to be a daily task to be a long-term strategy/project. You don't need to meet every week and say "Did we revoke the OGL? No? Okay, same time next week..." But the way Brink talked, it seemed like much of this had been planned for a while. At any rate, I don't see any reason to just take this as some sort of "bureaucratic" mistake like there was some lost paperwork that suddenly revoked the OGL. Rather, it was a conscious strategy by Wizards. One they did back off, but one they had originally intended to bring to fruition.

 

[mamba]

OGL and various licensing changes were planned for years. There's no evidence that OGL 1.0a revocation was planned for years. That's a reading that requires knowledge that hasn't been disclosed.

Working on / releasing 1.1 without intending to revoke 1.0a is just nonsense though, as that would allow everyone to continue using 1.0a.

No, these two have to go hand in hand, which means they both were being planned and discussed for two years

 

[Justice and Rule]

Working on / releasing 1.1 without intending to revoke 1.0a is just nonsense though, as that would allow everyone to continue using 1.0a.

No, these two have to go hand in hand, which means they both were being planned and discussed for two years

Like, why on Toril would any take 1.1 if 1.0a still existed? You have to take away the option otherwise who picks it? That's just this:

 

[Parmandur]

I am not sure it is generous. The only generous part there is that it is an ‘open’ license rather than something everyone has to apply for and negotiate.

I do not think most closed licenses have such draconian terms (sublicensing the product, 25% of gross as fee). I do admit that this is just me guessing though, I have no licensing knowledge.

No, that's about normal percentage wise. Licenses are going to charge on revenue, not profit. This really isn't abnormal, let alone draconian. Again, generous for IP licensing in general, not compared to the insanely generous terms of the 1.0a we're used to.