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]

I'm not even sure what you mean by "necessary".

That the action was simply not needed? I don't know if I can be any clearer than the fact that their OGL changes would have blown up the community in a way that wasn't needed if they wanted to control their IP.

But I can see why decision-makers and lawyers, with background in other areas and without intimate understanding of this particular hobby/ecosystem, would look at all these other people making money on their IP, imagine all sorts of bad things that could happen, and think, "Whoah, this is totally out of hand. We need to get more control over this."

I mean, you said it above: "...it's pretty obvious to anybody who has any sense of the community..." Well, obviously the people who won the internal argument didn't have a sense of the community, and didn't believe the people who did. No conspiracy theory necessary.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to just say "They saw an area where they could be making money/limiting loss and decided to try and wrangle it in". And even in your version, the objective is to destroy the 3PP market, even if you want to change the reasons.

I wish the public internet had been around when New Coke was introduced. I bet a lot of the comments were the same as these.

I dunno, would people defend Coke as vehemently?

 

[mamba]

Something I don’t understand.

Isn’t this the best result we could have wanted? Yes, WotC screwed up. Absolutely. But they fixed their mistake in a matter of a couple of weeks. Isn’t that how it should work?

By and large yes, it is certainly preferable to the possible alternatives, but the point remains that they were willing to go back on their word and a legal document they thought they found a way to wiggle out of, despite the very clear intent of the document.

This destroyed a lot of trust, and rebuilding that is not done by simply turning back at the last minute due to outside pressure.

Rebuilding trust will take repeated actions that demonstrate that WotC learned the lesson and is a good member of the community again. Until they have demonstrated that, a certain level of mistrust will remain (and this will take years, simply because there are not that many opportunities to show this) - and for some that trust has been damaged beyond repair and WotC will not be able to ever rebuild it.

So no, for some people things are not ‘back to normal’ yet, and for others they never will be, and trying to pressure them into ‘forgiving’ by saying ‘we should all get along now’ or something like that is not going to help.

 

[mamba]

What more can they do outside of some ridiculously over the top suggestions that have been lobbed on this forum?

simple, show us that they are trustworthy again.

Release the 3e SRD under CC, release a new SRD for 1DD under OGL and CC, keep licensing to other VTTs under current / similar terms.
If they do that, they win back the trust of 90% of those they have not won back already, and for the other 10% nothing will ever be enough, and that is ok too, sometimes things cannot be rebuilt.

 

[mamba]

Case in point.

case in point for what? for ridiculous, over the top suggestions? No, that is just an acknowledgement that they screwed up and a way (the CC part) to show that they won’t do it again. It kinda is the bare minimum.

 

[mamba]

When I say they had to "know", it's that they were informed of what would happen, that it was an informed choice. Does that make more sense?

it is pretty much how I understood it, but being told and ‘knowing’ are two separate things. Had they really known this would happen, why would they ever have done it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I dunno, would people defend Coke as vehemently?

They had to hire more operators because they were getting 8,000 angry calls a day.

 

[Justice and Rule]

it is pretty much how I understood it, but being told and ‘knowing’ are two separate things. Had they really known this would happen, why would they ever have done it?

Chalk that up to me using unclear verbiage. My bad. Though it's totally possible that they could have agreed that there would be outrage and think they could weather the storm. Really depends on whether you believe Kyle that 1.2 was a modification based on feedback or if 1.2 was meant to be a fallback position that looked benign but had a few backdoors in it.

They had to hire more operators because they were getting 8,000 angry calls a day.

There'd be at least a few people defending the reddit walls for them, I'm sure. Their downvoting... would be legendary.

 

[Saracenus]

Even granting your supposed truisms, this paragraph is quite flawed. Just because someone is in the room doesn't mean they were valued or listened to. Just about every planning disaster had someone in the room that said "this is going to be a disaster" and then it went forward anyway.

I concur.

I can speak from direct experience that being the voice of reason in a meeting is not a ticket to being listened to. There are the egos and the perceived importance when you put a bunch of people in a room that have differing aims and "truths." It is really hard to get people to see beyond there preconceived notions.

My brain naturally starts scenario building when someone says something about a problem. I ask questions and basically I try to determine the board state and the "rules" of the game (in my case it involves local politics and legislation). My decades of gaming gives me a quick toolset to break things down and find the win condition or better the win, win. Unfortunately, this usually leads me to suggest courses of action that are counter-intuitive. I have to remember to explain the 10 or 20 steps in my thinking that got me there and if I am lucky they maybe understand more than a couple of them. I initially got dismissed, a lot. I am usually right. I have more juice now. That only took me 5 years to build.

Let's not get into whole unequal dynamics of power in the room. If you are VP of X and a bunch of other VPs and directors that are in favor with the big cheese (read CEO, COO, CFO, CTO, etc.) and you are not, well speaking out is not a healthy prospect for continued employment. It is even more compounded when you are the new person at the table.

Then there are personality types. A lot of people are conflict avoidant. This means folks who are not usually walk all over them.

So, no even if Kyle Brinks spoke up about the impending disaster before WotC (and this is requires and assumption that he could see it that way) the only thing Kyle likely got to do is the "I told you so" dance when it blew up.

Again, we do not know all the players in the room or the power dynamics of that room. Disasters like this are usually way more complicated than most of the speculation here allows for. And if anyone here is saying they know what really happened... well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, it was only used by a grandmother to go to church on Sundays, and it is almost brand new...

 

[Hussar]

By and large yes, it is certainly preferable to the possible alternatives, but the point remains that they were willing to go back on their word and a legal document they thought they found a way to wiggle out of, despite the very clear intent of the document.

This destroyed a lot of trust, and rebuilding that is not done by simply turning back at the last minute due to outside pressure.

Rebuilding trust will take repeated actions that demonstrate that WotC learned the lesson and is a good member of the community again. Until they have demonstrated that, a certain level of mistrust will remain (and this will take years, simply because there are not that many opportunities to show this) - and for some that trust has been damaged beyond repair and WotC will not be able to ever rebuild it.

So no, for some people things are not ‘back to normal’ yet, and for others they never will be, and trying to pressure them into ‘forgiving’ by saying ‘we should all get along now’ or something like that is not going to help.

Who’s pressing to forgive or forget? I’m not. But I’m also in the boat that relitigating the past month over and over again shouting for WotC to do even more isn’t helping either.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Some times I think some people within WotC allowed this mistake because they knew it was idea by the "sharks" and these didn't want to listen they were wrong. They had to face the reality and then the others could say "we warned you!". Now those sharks of Wall Street should learn to listen the rest. They have to forget their previous possible prejudices against the geek community and to understand really the true psychology of this type of consumer, or at least the internaut comunity.

If I do an offensive coment within this forum, intetionally or by mistake, apologies will be not enough, but I will need a time show good behavior to prove I have learnt the lesson. And why would you be more condescending with a company when it affects the money from your ownpocket?

And we are not furious to pay more for our hobby, in our ordinary life we have to pay more taxes and more bills, and we are unhappy with certain economic strategies in the videogame industry, for example when the main game is incomplete and then you have to buy that DLC or expansion.

And it was really ridiculous about if there are animations of the figures then it is not a true VTT but a videogame. They haven't got the right to control the creations by others.

And I felt very bad vibes with the potential censorship with the excuse of hate-speech and inclusive content. I am OK with the idea of adding no-Caucasian characters to send the message of "everybody is wellcome in the D&D game". This is one of the positive things about this game and since the 1st edition, and it is not a new one added later. I don't mind if some details are added because if I don't like them then I can edit or change them, but my fear is it happens again, when they say "inclusive" but really they start to exclude certain groups. I feel unconfortable with the trope of "sinnister minister" within a Ravenloft story, for example.

* I have read something is happening with the onwers of Black Rock and Vanguard, the main investment funds. This can affect seriously biggest megacorporations, not only Hasbro but also their partners and potential acquirers in case of blankrupt.

 

[M_Natas]

The assumption you're making though is that Chris Cocks is telling the truth, which in the absence of hard numbers, I personally don't believe - simply because wotc/hasbro have done nothing, and continue to do nothing, that earns any belief in anything they say. What he says, particularly because there aren't actual numbers, sounds like just the sort of BS you would say to your investors so that they don't also jump ship.

wotc/hasbro are simply continuing the BS train. Sure, that's my opinion and YMMV

Edit: and yes I see what others are saying about this being an earnings call, and heavily regulated, and blah blah blah ... 'cause of course there's never been a company that's ever mislead investors

But if they lie on that earnings call this lie would get exposed at the next earning call when they have to publish the numbers for the first quarter 2023. So it would be very stupid, because if Investors find out you Lied to them you are gone.
Unless you think that Hasbro would go so far to falsefy their erarning reports.

Because if you look at the numbers ' like how many people canceld there subscription to Beyond? 10 000? 20 000?
If 10 000 people in the DM Tier canceld, that's 50 000$ a month. For a franchise that makes how much in a quarter? 50 million? I mean, yes, the subscribtion fees are basically free money that they now don't get. But in order to really impact the bottomline you need at least like 100 000 DM Tier subscribers cancelling their subscripitions.

 

[mamba]

Who’s pressing to forgive or forget?

there is a long thread with essentially that title…

I’m not. But I’m also in the boat that relitigating the past month over and over again shouting for WotC to do even more isn’t helping either.

This does come pretty close to saying ‘it is time to move on’… in other words ‘forgive and forget’

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

 

[mamba]

Because if you look at the numbers ' like how many people canceld there subscription to Beyond? 10 000? 20 000?
If 10 000 people in the DM Tier canceld, that's 50 000$ a month. For a franchise that makes how much in a quarter? 50 million?

not to mention the cancellation is not immediate, the subscription ends whenever your term ends, which can be 6 or 9 months later.

So even if everyone had cancelled they could correctly claim to not have noticed much difference in the first two weeks…

 

[Oofta]

I dont even understand the conversation anymore.

Is Wizards being defended? Why?
Is Wizards being 'forgiven'? Why?

What even is the point of debate currently, like the thesis?

They clearly did wrong, knew it, owned it, backed off in a complete 180. Its as good as an admission of guilt as there is to get at this point. They dropped one in the middle of a packed room, and everyone saw them.

Whats even up for debate lol.

They thought about doing something but never actually followed through. In fact, they bent over backwards and provided more than people asked for.

Therefore they can never be forgiven because they have proven that they are a corporation that doesn't deeply care about every other unrelated business that also makes money off of D&D.

Oh, and something, something greed because they currently make a profit.

 

[mamba]

They thought about doing something but never actually followed through.

not for lack of trying though

In fact, they bent over backwards and provided more than people asked for.

CC is not really an improvement over OGL 1.0a, apart from not having been poisoned by WotC’s attempt to revoke it, so not much has actually changed there.
This is not bending over backwards, it is the first step to rebuilding trust. The remaining steps are not unreasonable either, they basically amount to continuing their past (pre 1.1) behavior.

Therefore they can never be forgiven

they will be, some have, others will be once they actually have shown that they can be trusted again, a few they lost for good - and they have no one to blame but themselves for that.

Not sure why you paint them as the victim here

Oh, and something, something greed because they currently make a profit.

they have been making record profits for years with no one complaining, so this is clearly not it

 

[mamba]

.

 

[bedir than]

CC is not really an improvement over OGL 1.0a, apart from not having been poisoned by WotC’s attempt to revoke it, so not much has actually changed there.

It's a more open license, with more supported legal cases about rights, internationally recognized as the standard.

It's better if you want to open up D&D to even more expressions.
It's worse if you're a legacy 3pp because you'll have a couple of pages to edit in past content removing the more bloated and restricted OGL 1.0a and replacing it with a dozen words

 

[Loren the GM]

It's a more open license, with more supported legal cases about rights, internationally recognized as the standard.

It's better if you want to open up D&D to even more expressions.
It's worse if you're a legacy 3pp because you'll have a couple of pages to edit in past content removing the more bloated and restricted OGL 1.0a and replacing it with a dozen words

First, I agree with you that Creative Commons is a more open license, and that it definitely is more solid on the legal front than the OGL 1.0a at this point in time.

That said, there are still issues, and they amount to much more than layout concerns. Creative Commons doesn't have a mechanism for Open Gaming Content, meaning (a) if your work made use of other Open Gaming Content from outside the SRD, it will be difficult or impossible to move it to the Creative Commons license (at best you would need to negotiate a license with the publisher of all the Open Gaming Content you use from outside the SRD, which could be difficult as many publishers no longer exist), and (b) it also limits the future of shareable content as an ecosystem, as Creative Commons doesn't have a method to mark aspects as Open Gaming Content while keeping the rest of the document closed.

For people who care about these aspects (basically, building on a legacy of content that up until now has been freely available to use, and adding to this large group of content), there are a lot more questions regarding what license to use for their own publishing going forward. It is possible the ORC license will answer some of this (although moving old content into the new license will prove troublesome no matter what license it is moving to if you have built anything on Open Gaming Content from outside the SRD) and include mechanisms for designating content as open and shareable (but we don't know that, as ORC hasn't been published yet). Continuing to publish under OGL 1.0a is also an option, but that has obviously been tarnished in many ways and would need to be carefully evaluated as a business proposition.

All in all, the SRD being in Creative Commons is a very good and helpful thing, but it does not solve all the issues publishers are facing that the issues with OGL 1.0a created. It merely solves the core 5e (and hopefully all previous OGL content, as promised by Kyle Brink in his interviews) mechanics being available for everyone to use.

 

[Oofta]

not for lack of trying though


CC is not really an improvement over OGL 1.0a, apart from not having been poisoned by WotC’s attempt to revoke it, so not much has actually changed there.
This is not bending over backwards, it is the first step to rebuilding trust. The remaining steps are not unreasonable either, they basically amount to continuing their past (pre 1.1) behavior.


they will be, some have, others will be once they actually have shown that they can be trusted again, a few they lost for good - and they have no one to blame but themselves for that.

Not sure why you paint them as the victim here


they have been making record profits for years with no one complaining, so this is clearly not it

So ... basically they thought about doing something you didn't approve of. In addition, according to you, they already make enough profit.

I don't see anything but confirmation of what I said. I don't see the point of continuing. They made a mistake that was never implemented because they listened to the community, even if some bureaucrats had to be beaten over the head by the reaction of the community.

 

[bedir than]

b) it also limits the future of shareable content as an ecosystem, as Creative Commons doesn't have a method to mark aspects as Open Gaming Content while keeping the rest of the document closed.

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.