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]

Want and need are different. Their are lots of VTTs today who run without a license and with minimal impact/use of the OGL 1.0a.

Do any of them do it for a game that is currently being published and could possibly have litigious lawyers with a lot of funding? Yes, people can build VTT systems without a license. In fact, I play with a few of them! Certainly there is no official FFG Star Wars license for my Foundry game, but the fans have put one together.

However, most of the time that sort of thing is implicitly allowed by the company. Will it be allowed here? That's a different story. Their entire stance towards things becomes more restrictive and when they are talking about defending their IP like "owlbears" and such, it feels Wizards is about to get aggressive. I'm not sure those making VTTs want to test themselves making something that can skirt the edge of D&D without getting legally enforced, or be forced to rely on fan-made projects that may or may not be DMCA'd.

Doesn't matter what they release. Lots of lawyers made it clear that their statement on that would not be enforceable unless the VTT voluntarily entered into a contract with WotC to be restricted by that policy.

You miss the point: obviously they don't want to enter into that contract, but that also restricts how much they can do in the first place. Wizards is creating two bad options: agree to our terms and create an inferior product than ours, or don't and be forced to create a VTT where it may or may not at any given time be able to run the biggest RPG out there. Either way, that does have a massive effect on the VTT space.

 

[Faolyn]

Fan works using their trademarked content, which otherwise the fans would not lawfully be able to use. I mean, Jesus, WotC is more open and permissive about their IP than any other publicly traded company and people are still not happy with the minimalist restrictions they do ask for.

Their "minimalist restrictions" were going to cause the companies who could actually expect to make money in a kickstarter to instead lose money, meaning they couldn't afford to produce books any more, and they were going to try to restrict VTTs in a way that very likely would have caused those VTTs to have to either raise prices or shut down, thus keeping people who don't even play D&D from being able to use them.

 

[Scribe]

No. Lol. Sorry, I thought this was one of those eyerolling T$R or Micro$oft type portmanteaus. My bad.

 

[Clint_L]

So here's the position Chris Cocks is in - his subsidiary has completely effed up its hostile attempt to aggressively takeover an entire hobby (surely no-one is going to take issue with this description of the events???).

The moment when you know that further dialogue is unlikely to be productive. I wish you well, but I encourage you to consider the possibility that other perspectives exist and can also be valid.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The moment when you know that further dialogue is unlikely to be productive. I wish you well, but I encourage you to consider the possibility that other perspectives exist and can also be valid.

I would also encourage @BlueFin to read this.

 

[LordEntrails]

When most commentators bring up the part of the policy that says others aren't allowed to use animations, I don't think said commentators are really concerned about whether it is or is not legal or enforceable. I think such commentators are expressing disgust at the audacity and the arrogance that underlies the attitude that comes with those words.

Most commentators actually had no clue what they were talking about. They were responding emotionally and without comprehension. They want clicks and controversy, not reasoned discussion.

Do any of them do it for a game that is currently being published and could possibly have litigious lawyers with a lot of funding? Yes, people can build VTT systems without a license. In fact, I play with a few of them! Certainly there is no official FFG Star Wars license for my Foundry game, but the fans have put one together.

However, most of the time that sort of thing is implicitly allowed by the company. Will it be allowed here? That's a different story. Their entire stance towards things becomes more restrictive and when they are talking about defending their IP like "owlbears" and such, it feels Wizards is about to get aggressive. I'm not sure those making VTTs want to test themselves making something that can skirt the edge of D&D without getting legally enforced, or be forced to rely on fan-made projects that may or may not be DMCA'd.

Foundry currently does it for D&D 5E. Yes WotC presented thing in a way which it was reasonable to assume it was going to be a hostile environment. But that didn't happen, so what might have been is not of much interest to me now.

You miss the point: obviously they don't want to enter into that contract, but that also restricts how much they can do in the first place. Wizards is creating two bad options: agree to our terms and create an inferior product than ours, or don't and be forced to create a VTT where it may or may not at any given time be able to run the biggest RPG out there. Either way, that does have a massive effect on the VTT space.

You miss the point. The legality of such would not have changed for those that chose not to enter into the contract and adopt that policy. If they were doing so legally before, they could continue to do so. I do however agree that WotCs actions at that time did make it seem like the VTT space was going to be a hostile development environment. But that is now behind us.

 

[Scribe]

No snark intended @Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

 

[Justice and Rule]

Foundry currently does it for D&D 5E. Yes WotC presented thing in a way which it was reasonable to assume it was going to be a hostile environment. But that didn't happen, so what might have been is not of much interest to me now.

Eh, not quite the same. The Foundry module uses the SRD, which is different than the Star Wars module that doesn't include text from the books but very much uses stuff like dice images and other things that could probably get them in trouble if Edge Studios wanted to actually try something.

You miss the point. The legality of such would not have changed for those that chose not to enter into the contract and adopt that policy. If they were doing so legally before, they could continue to do so. I do however agree that WotCs actions at that time did make it seem like the VTT space was going to be a hostile development environment. But that is now behind us.

I mean, I am less worried about the legality of it changing and more about Wizards deciding to more aggressively enforce their claims on such things.

As far as things being passed, well, certainly when it comes to the SRD, people will be able to make systems. Now fan projects that take DNDB material and give access to them... I do wonder about that.

 

[Mirtek]

What percentage of companies going out of business for a completely unnecessary decision WotC clearly didn't even really mean (given the outcome), would be acceptable to you lol?

How do you define necessary? They clearly assumed, by their internal projections, that this would increase their profits and thus it was necessary for WotC. And they absolutely did mean it.

It was just the backslash being so much greater than their internal projections expected and thus they had to question and all of them and came to the new conclusion that it would not result in the desired increase in profits. As damage control they went with the "we did never truly mean it" approach.

If their revised projections would have concluded that the unexpected backslash may reduce the expected increase in profitability but still result in a large enough increase nonetheless, they would have pulled through with it without any hesitation which small business they would crush under their iron boots on the road to those increase profits.

If WotC could increase their profits by 20% at the cost of nuking the market and forcing 70% of companies out of business, that would certainly be a necessary action for WotC.

 

[Vincent55]

Trust has been broken, so anyone that jumps back on that train gets what's coming, which is overpriced fluff and few useful game mechanics.