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.

 

[Loren the GM]

Not so much.

It does if you are trying to hold elements out as closed content, while leaving other content as open content, which is the entire point of what I'm discussing. Somewhere, you have to expressly differentiate between the two, and it gets tricker as you include more content from various sources. Which is the limit I've been discussing since my first comment on the topic. Straight CC publishing is much easier, but it doesn't operate in the same way as the OGL, so if you want the option of some elements being open, and others closed within the same document (especially if you need to indicate specific sentences or paragraphs as closed content that are intertwined with open content), in a way similar to the OGL, then expressing this is more burdensome than the OGL.

 

[Parmandur]

It does if you are trying to hold elements out as closed content, while leaving other content as open content, which is the entire point of what I'm discussing. Somewhere, you have to expressly differentiate between the two, and it gets tricker as you include more content from various sources. Which is the limit I've been discussing since my first comment on the topic. Straight CC publishing is much easier, but it doesn't operate in the same way as the OGL, so if you want the option of some elements being open, and others closed within the same document (especially if you need to indicate specific sentences or paragraphs as closed content that are intertwined with open content), in a way similar to the OGL, then expressing this is more burdensome than the OGL.

Not significantly so: either way, if one wants to keep some content closed and some open, hiring a lawyer is 100% necessary, and based on reviewing examples it doesn't take any more work to do right.

 

[Loren the GM]

Not significantly so: either way, if one wants to keep some content closed and some open, hiring a lawyer is 100% necessary, and based on reviewing examples it doesn't take any more work to do right.

But not so under the OGL, as it was very simple to declare what was open and what was closed with the built in mechanisms of the license. Which again, was the topic and context I was originally pointing at.

 

[bedir than]

It does if you are trying to hold elements out as closed content, while leaving other content as open content, which is the entire point of what I'm discussing. Somewhere, you have to expressly differentiate between the two, and it gets tricker as you include more content from various sources. Which is the limit I've been discussing since my first comment on the topic. Straight CC publishing is much easier, but it doesn't operate in the same way as the OGL, so if you want the option of some elements being open, and others closed within the same document (especially if you need to indicate specific sentences or paragraphs as closed content that are intertwined with open content), in a way similar to the OGL, then expressing this is more burdensome than the OGL.

The Creative Commons is 22 years old. In those two decades has anything like you described ever come up?

This is a real, used licensing system that is several orders of magnitude more influential than the OGL. We don't have to dream up scenarios. It's been used for games even.

 

[Mistwell]

Talk of micro transactions has never come up? "Recurrent spending environment" doesn't in any way suggest micro transactions?

That phrase more often is associated with subscriptions, not microtransactions. If something is a recurring transaction, it's usually on a fixed basis and not a one-off one like microtransactions.

 

[Saracenus]

How can you assume this when it’s never come up. The amount of fear mongering about currently imaginary micro transactions has been ridiculous.

Come to think of it, the fear about micro-transactions is on par with WotC's "fear" of NFT's. Both can be misused horribly. On the other hand, micro-transactions can benefit both consumers and business.

Good Example: Fortnite (for those living underground, it is a Battle Royal Shooter on PCs and consoles) and base game is free. There are a certain number of cosmetics that are free. But none of the cosmetics are "pay to win." My brother plays and will not spend a dime on it and after buying his first and only battle pass has got each subsequent battle pass from the in game currency earned on the previous battlepass and basically plays for free. I do buy certain cosmetics (I am sucker for the Marvel/DC, anime, and Star Wars stuff). One of my favorites is the Ash skin from Evil Dead/Army of Darkness. None of it is needed to play the game, it is my choice to purchase them and really are not needed to play and compete in the game on a level playing field. They generated $5.8 Billion in 2021 from their free to play game.

Bad Examples of micro-transactions are too numerous to list. Play to win is the worst. The Simpson game on mobile devices can be played for free but to collect all the stuff during a season requires to you to pay to do it, there is no way to grind your way to a complete season's offerings. The whole point of that game is use folks nostalgia for the show to get entire sets so they can show off their version of Springfield to their friends.

NFT's can be horribly abused and are primarily scams. The encryption tech behind them could be used for the purpose of having unique stuff in the digital RPG space. I know of one company that is working on the use of NFT/Blockchain tech to power TTRPG rewards earned in game during organized play. Instead of signed certs for items earned in an adventure you could get them digitally and it makes it possible to have unique and customized rewards without fear of cheating and duplication.

I think it is a little early to claim the sky is falling. It might, but it might not. I for one will see what WotC will have to offer and make my choice then.

 

[mamba]

Talk of micro transactions has never come up? "Recurrent spending environment" doesn't in any way suggest micro transactions?

it could also mean subscriptions, but sure I expect microtransactions, I just am not overly concerned

 

[Faolyn]

Explain exactly what micro transactions could look like, because no one ever has.

They already have them: $1.99 for a single item on DDB.

Apparently, you can't spend more on these things than you can on the entire book, at the moment, so presumably if the book costs $40 and you spend $40 on these mechanics, you would be able to get the rest of the book for free--I've never bought anything from DDB to know for sure, but that's what people have said here.

But for all we know, they may start putting out feats, archetypes, races, or statblocks that aren't part of a book, that are add-ons for the books they put out. Look at the Dragonlance book. They only included one race, the kender. I wouldn't be surprised, if Dragonlance proves popular enough, that the irda or thanoi or ursoi eventually get made into playable species, yours for only $1.99 each, exclusively on DDB. And if not Dragonlance, then another setting. Think people would pay $1.99 for the saurial PC race for the Forgotten Realms?

Sure, this is speculation... except that they have done this before. The Elemental Evil Player's Companion was free, but now those races are for sale via Mordenkainen's, with just enough modification to render the older free version outdated. And look at the "Domains of Delight" add-on for Witchlight. The money for that went to charity, sure, but how often do they put out books for charity? Once or twice a year.

So yeah. This, I feel, is a very logical progression for them. This is what microtransactions are almost certainly going to look like.

 

[Umbran]

Call it cynical, but I'd rather not believe a company when we have evidence to the contary over what forced their hand

Mod Note:
Less cynical than insulting and accusative.

Taking an uncompromising position that allows for no nuance to lay moral blame on others isn't cynical - it is an easy way to sit on a high horse.

You are done in this discussion.

 

[doogx]

It doesn't, that data isn't available yet. But it's a company's job to talk up the share price. Far more money is lost due to a fall in share price than any effect of the boycott. And a company with a falling share price is vulnerable to hostile takeover. The sharks are quick to smell blood in the water. There isn't room for such niceties as "truth" when you are fighting for survival.

The company itself does not lose money when the share price tanks. The money is lost (and they're paper losses, until someone sells for less than the purchase price) by the shareholders. In Hasbro's case, it seems that the company is almost 90% owned by mutual funds and other institutional investors. Some of the individual shareholders may be company executives or Directors, but the company itself retains none of its stock.

The shareholders — the real owners of the company — put pressure on management to improve financial performance, who then in turn may panic and make idiotic decisions like the ones that resulted in the Great OGL Crisis of 2022-23.

Your statement, while it contains some truth, is nonetheless somewhat misleading and ill-informed. The point is not to "avoid hostile takeovers," the point is to keep the shareholders happy, so that they don't fire the Board of Directors, who will first fire the company managers before they allow themselves to be voted out by the shareholders. This is not directly related to "avoiding hostile takeovers" so much as driving up the stock price so that any shareholder who wants to cash out can do so at a healthy profit. In this case, I recall it being reported with some authority that Hasbro's shareholders had been pressuring management to do a better job of 'monetizing' D&D. The idea being that if Hasbro was making more money off of the brand, Hasbro's stock would go up in value.

The statement in question is nothing more than Hasbro top managers trying to save face and admit to being idiots only as much as they have to. It's as simple as that.