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.

 

[Umbran]

there is a long thread with essentially that title…

People are upset, they express this. This does not need to happen on your timescale.

Yes, both sides of the discussion have to have time to work it through.

But it then follows that the sides poking each other about it prolongs that time. Each side, looking at the other still talking, will feel as if there's some need to continue defending their position.

Someone has to stop sometime, or it won't end.

 

[Loren the GM]

This remains untrue.

A publisher can choose to have their new creation listed as cc-by-sa, or cc-by-non commercial even copyrighted in full.

By using a CC in one place you aren't committed to using that form everywhere.

Billions of pages on the internet already prove this. Using a cc-by photo doesn't remove copyright, or claim the photo as their own

Just mark the elements borrowed as borrowed, mark the derivatives as derivatives, mark original work as original. Using techniques similar to technical and academic writing should help.

I will revise then - Creative Commons puts much more burden on the publisher to attempt to contribute to this ecosystem, which is a much higher barrier to entry than the OGL provided. An end result might actually be clearer to someone who wants to make use of the material, but there are significantly more hurdles in writing, layout, and legal for the publisher.

 

[mamba]

So ... basically they thought about doing something you didn't approve of.

They did more than think about it, they started to execute on it and only the pushback by the community stopped them

In addition, according to you, they already make enough profit.

I said nothing like that anywhere

I don't see anything but confirmation of what I said. I don't see the point of continuing.

If you see this as a confirmation of your points then there is no point continuing, agreed.

 

[mamba]

Someone has to stop sometime, or it won't end.

then maybe the side that is happy already should give the other side the time they need and let them talk it through / process it without jumping in. Basically what you opened with

Yes, both sides of the discussion have to have time to work it through.

The side that still needs time to process cannot very well stop talking, that is part of processing it, so this leaves the other side to not jump in on it.
On top of that, as you pointed out, doing so is actually counterproductive, so not even in their own best interest

 

[OB1]

I don't think NuTSR was the inciting incident for the OGL, bur rather a pain point for Hasbro that pushed the OGL 1.1 development into a more extreme direction than originally conceived. The inciting incident was likely Hasbro looking at threats to the $350+ million dollars that they were preparing to invest in D&D One to grow it into a $1B division. When you're going to spend that amount of shareholder's money on something, you take a serious look at any potential threats to that investment. In this case, a 20 year old licensing agreement that could be used in ways not conceived of when it was created. Solasta released right about this time using the OGL, and may have been crucial in the initial direction of OGL 1.1.

Once the decision on that direction was made, WotC made a crucial error in siloing the development of the new OGL away from the people who understood the D&D community best. That may have been due to disagreements over the goal itself, and as often times happens when major decisions are in contention within a corporation. When a direction has been set and some disagree with that decision, the ones who do agree with it get put in charge of implementing it. "You worry about design, we'll worry about protecting the company."

Finally, the group in charge likely saw 1.1 as a negotiation with the existing 3PPs, not expecting to get everything they wanted, but hoping that with a strong starting point, that they would get most of it. That backfired horribly once 1.1 was leaked and the community rose up, leading to an actual threat to the $300M investment in One far greater than the potential threat of a Meta or Disney trying to buy their way into the space, and the plan was abandoned. Too much money has already been spent on One to back out of that plan now, so their only option is to compete.

 

[mamba]

The inciting incident was likely Hasbro looking at threats to the $350+ million dollars that they were preparing to invest in D&D One to grow it into a $1B division.

where is that number from? The DDB purchase was $150, so what are the other $200, mostly the VTT?

Too much money has already been spent on One to back out of that plan now, so their only option is to compete.

quite frankly, that was their only real option to begin with, and I see nothing wrong with that. If they fail here, that is not because anyone else can outcompete them but because they made stupid decisions, like trying to revoke 1.0a

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, both sides of the discussion have to have time to work it through.

But it then follows that the sides poking each other about it prolongs that time. Each side, looking at the other still talking, will feel as if there's some need to continue defending their position.

Someone has to stop sometime, or it won't end.

Yeah, I'm tilting at windmills here. I'm out.

 

[OB1]

where is that number from? The DDB purchase was $150, so what are the other $200, mostly the VTT?


quite frankly, that was their only real option to begin with, and I see nothing wrong with that. If they fail here, that is not because anyone else can outcompete them but because they made stupid decisions, like trying to revoke 1.0a

DDB acquisition - $150M
D&D:HAT - $50M (an estimate of their share of the production costs on a $150M production)
Baulder's Gate 3 - $100M+ (typical AAA game budget)
VTT - $100M+ (typical AAA game budget)
5.1 Development, Playtest, Marketing - $20-30M (estimate)

It wasn't the only option to begin with, they just executed it so poorly (taking a too strong initial position) that it is their only option moving forward. It's actually what I told them in the 1.2 survey feedback. That the only way out of this mess was to release 5.1 to CC and then compete in the marketplace against OGL products.

 

[Velderan]

The side that still needs time to process cannot very well stop talking, that is part of processing it, so this leaves the other side to not jump in on it.
On top of that, as you pointed out, doing so is actually counterproductive, so not even in their own best interest

Yep, the folks who still need time to sort out how they feel about the whole thing need people that have made up their minds to stop downplaying how they feel about the whole thing. The extremely dismissive way some people phrase it only causes people who were against WotC's business strategy to dig in further and defend the stance WotC did a bad thing which they shouldn't even need to defend because WotC has already conceded people criticizing them were right. We don't need to debate if WotC did a bad thing because they've already admitted they did a bad thing for us. If there's any debate to be had, it's what that means for each person and whether you can believe their business strategy moving forward will consider the overall community or not.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not in the camp of people trying to decide how I feel about WotC's business strategy. I bought a pack of WizKids draconian minis this weekend, so my mind is pretty well made up about what I will and won't be buying going forward.

 

[Oofta]

They did more than think about it, they started to execute on it and only the pushback by the community stopped them


I said nothing like that anywhere


If you see this as a confirmation of your points then there is no point continuing, agreed.

Nothing was actually enacted. Companies do draft documents and contracts to get feedback on a regular basis They released the OGL 1.2 for review, listened to the reviews, and changed direction.

But I think @OB1 just explained it quite well from a business logic perspective.