WotC Hasbro Gaming Down 17% But D&D Remains 'Bright Spot'

ICv2 reports on Hasbro's latest quarterly report, noting that "Wizards of the Coast’s Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons were two bright spots in Hasbro’s Q3, an otherwise tough quarter with sales and earnings both hit by actual and threatened tariffs on goods from China".

Other notes from ICv2:

• Hasbro Gaming, which does not include franchise brands Monopoly and Magic: The Gathering, was down 17%
• Total gaming sales, including Magic and Monopoly, were roughly flat, a big change from the 26% growth in Q2
• WotC has close to a dozen [digital] games in development for delivery over the next five to six years
• Hasbro believes that WotC sales can be doubled over the next five years, “…as we’ve accomplished over the past five years.”

 

[FrogReaver]

Not sure how this relates as we are talking about D&D and not the number 3 or 4 RPG company. I'm arguing against d20 happening by the way, I just thought the comment on "monetizing = decline" was just blatantly ridiculous.

Then you took the wrong implication from the post. It's not that companies don't attempt to monetize even in good times. But it's that there is an even greater push toward monetizing products and brands in more risky ways in bad times.

 

[Morrus]

I’m sorry but what does that even mean? What open content is being used in a video game?

Rules, character sheets. Equipment lists and stats, all sorts of stuff. Races, classes. Magic items. Spells.

OGL video games and apps exist, and have done for two decades now — I’ve pointed out a video game already, and if you dive into mobile apps and web apps, there are countless numbers of them. Character generators, encounter builders and managers, rules compendiums, spell managers, bestiaries, combat trackers.

It’s not as easy as making a book, but nothing in the OGL prohibits making a video game (or a coffee mug, or a t-shirt, or a space shuttle). The license doesn’t refer to product types at all.

 

[Hussar]

Ahh, I never considered things like character generators and the like. Good point. Fair enough.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If my memory doesn't fail I remember you can use d20 system for videogames, but then you can show the OGL mark.

And the American laws don't respect as copyright the game rules.

I imagine a D&D videogame like an asymmetric one where one player is the DM, controlling/summoning monsters and add traps, like the Resident Evil's spin-off "Resistance Project". And this title also could use a creator of quest/missions/adventures, or even this creative option be used to produce machinimas movies.

If youtube streamer gamers are a good advertising, then maybe D&D needs a title set in Ravenloft. The PCs should explore a dungeon with an interactive story, pre-created by other player, and other player is the DM, putting traps or summoning monsters. This would be like an interactive horror movie where nobody knows who will survive, nor the scripter himself. It would be a mixture of game-live show (as Critical Role), machinima movie and gamer-streamer.

Other option could be a mixture of ARPG+RTS(Warcraft III) and musou (Hyrule Warriors) like coming soon "Kingdom Under Fire II". But this as project would need a lot of time and money. I guess the best setting for this should be Birthright.

"Gamma World" could be used as an option of the famous and popular subgenre of zombie postapocalypse. The PC starts with a refuge and he has to farm, tame monster pets, crafting, repairing vehicles, trading, mining and explore. But the XPs reward should be different if PCs have got a lot of extra help as powered armours or heavy weapons. Try imagine a Fallout (or Fortnite) d20 with combats among road or sea vehicles.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Then you took the wrong implication from the post. It's not that companies don't attempt to monetize even in good times. But it's that there is an even greater push toward monetizing products and brands in more risky ways in bad times.

Considering D&D is probably in its best time, of all time, this means even less than what you've written before.

And the American laws don't respect as copyright the game rules.

I'm pretty sure this is not accurate at all (and I think Lowkey made a full post criticizing someone extensively for making an argument that game rules are not copyrightable).

The reason the OGL exists is not because Wizards can't copyright its rules (they completely can, and do; the OGL is in fact a public copyright license by choice).

I believe (and this is an opinion) the OGL exists for two reasons. One, so Wizards can differentiate between game systems into groups that are building off their own rules, and groups that are developing their own. And two, to more easily build a robust set of game material for players to use, especially necessary as Wizards began with a slow-drip system of new releases.

Here's an example; Google Android is an open source operating system, meaning any phone company can make a phone using Google's operating system. For it to work however, you need to use Google OS to function, creating a bigger user base for that operating system and making more people "rely" on Google's OS and less likely to switch to Apple's OS or something else.

Google still absolutely owns copyright over its technology; sharing it selectively doesn't mean copyright is weakened, its a business strategy to build a user base beyond who you directly sell to.