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.

 

[Imaro]

The "repeated" incidents I'm referring to are not WotC, they're other companies which suddenly announced something that struck me as deeply unethical, and backed down. And then, in every previous case, went ahead to try other similar things again later.

Yes, it was just one proposed change, but it was a proposed change that suggests that they believe that it's okay if they make agreements, then decide the agreements are bad and just stop following them, without regard for the terms and conditions governing those agreements. A person who thought that was a legitimate course of action, and backed down because it was unpopular, will still think it's a legitimate course of action every future time it would be in their best interests to try to unilaterally alter the terms of a deal, and will still try it if they think it'll work.

This doesn't have much effect on me in my current line of work or whatever, but if I were a third-party publisher, and considering entering into a contract or deal with WotC, I would be very careful about what the terms were, and I would not enter into an agreement if I didn't have a plan in place for what to do if they just declared that they were violating the terms because they didn't like them anymore.

Well to be fair, until it's decided in a court of law... we don't know whether they re or are not within their legal rights to alter the OGL and now because of their current course of action there's a slim to none chance we'll ever find out.

 

[Oofta]

Well to be fair, until it's decided in a court of law... we don't know whether they re or are not within their legal rights to alter the OGL and now because of their current course of action there's a slim to none chance we'll ever find out.

Not to mention that it's a bit of an open question on whether the OGL 1.0 was even necessary. Whether or not core game mechanics have legal protection has never really been addressed in court. Specific lore is protected but roll a D20 add a number to determine success or failure? Bit more of an open question. I'm not sure I buy the whole "The OGL saved the TTRPG industry" thing, but it did work as a "Let's not spend a lot of money on lawyers trying to figure out legalities as we throw around lawsuits."

 

[seebs]

Well to be fair, until it's decided in a court of law... we don't know whether they re or are not within their legal rights to alter the OGL and now because of their current course of action there's a slim to none chance we'll ever find out.

I don't actually entirely care whether they're within their legal rights, because they had previously promised people they wouldn't try to do that.

If your pitch for how much I should trust a company is that you don't know for sure that they would do something unambiguously illegal to me that a court would be willing to intervene in, that is not actually suggesting a very high level of trust.

 

[Imaro]

I don't actually entirely care whether they're within their legal rights, because they had previously promised people they wouldn't try to do that.

If your pitch for how much I should trust a company is that you don't know for sure that they would do something unambiguously illegal to me that a court would be willing to intervene in, that is not actually suggesting a very high level of trust.

I don't suggest you trust in any company...