WotC Hasbro's CEO Reports OGL-Related D&D Beyond Cancellations Had Minimal Impact

hasbro-logo-5-2013769358.png

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
there is a long thread with essentially that title…

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

Yes, both sides of the discussion have to have time to work it through.

But it then follows that the sides poking each other about it prolongs that time. Each side, looking at the other still talking, will feel as if there's some need to continue defending their position.

Someone has to stop sometime, or it won't end.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Loren the GM

Explorer
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.
I will revise then - Creative Commons puts much more burden on the publisher to attempt to contribute to this ecosystem, which is a much higher barrier to entry than the OGL provided. An end result might actually be clearer to someone who wants to make use of the material, but there are significantly more hurdles in writing, layout, and legal for the publisher.
 

mamba

Hero
So ... basically they thought about doing something you didn't approve of.
They did more than think about it, they started to execute on it and only the pushback by the community stopped them

In addition, according to you, they already make enough profit.
I said nothing like that anywhere

I don't see anything but confirmation of what I said. I don't see the point of continuing.
If you see this as a confirmation of your points then there is no point continuing, agreed.
 

mamba

Hero
Someone has to stop sometime, or it won't end.
then maybe the side that is happy already should give the other side the time they need and let them talk it through / process it without jumping in. Basically what you opened with
Yes, both sides of the discussion have to have time to work it through.
The side that still needs time to process cannot very well stop talking, that is part of processing it, so this leaves the other side to not jump in on it.
On top of that, as you pointed out, doing so is actually counterproductive, so not even in their own best interest
 
Last edited:

OB1

Jedi Master
I don't think NuTSR was the inciting incident for the OGL, bur rather a pain point for Hasbro that pushed the OGL 1.1 development into a more extreme direction than originally conceived. The inciting incident was likely Hasbro looking at threats to the $350+ million dollars that they were preparing to invest in D&D One to grow it into a $1B division. When you're going to spend that amount of shareholder's money on something, you take a serious look at any potential threats to that investment. In this case, a 20 year old licensing agreement that could be used in ways not conceived of when it was created. Solasta released right about this time using the OGL, and may have been crucial in the initial direction of OGL 1.1.

Once the decision on that direction was made, WotC made a crucial error in siloing the development of the new OGL away from the people who understood the D&D community best. That may have been due to disagreements over the goal itself, and as often times happens when major decisions are in contention within a corporation. When a direction has been set and some disagree with that decision, the ones who do agree with it get put in charge of implementing it. "You worry about design, we'll worry about protecting the company."

Finally, the group in charge likely saw 1.1 as a negotiation with the existing 3PPs, not expecting to get everything they wanted, but hoping that with a strong starting point, that they would get most of it. That backfired horribly once 1.1 was leaked and the community rose up, leading to an actual threat to the $300M investment in One far greater than the potential threat of a Meta or Disney trying to buy their way into the space, and the plan was abandoned. Too much money has already been spent on One to back out of that plan now, so their only option is to compete.
 

mamba

Hero
The inciting incident was likely Hasbro looking at threats to the $350+ million dollars that they were preparing to invest in D&D One to grow it into a $1B division.
where is that number from? The DDB purchase was $150, so what are the other $200, mostly the VTT?

Too much money has already been spent on One to back out of that plan now, so their only option is to compete.
quite frankly, that was their only real option to begin with, and I see nothing wrong with that. If they fail here, that is not because anyone else can outcompete them but because they made stupid decisions, like trying to revoke 1.0a
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Yes, both sides of the discussion have to have time to work it through.

But it then follows that the sides poking each other about it prolongs that time. Each side, looking at the other still talking, will feel as if there's some need to continue defending their position.

Someone has to stop sometime, or it won't end.

Yeah, I'm tilting at windmills here. I'm out.
 

OB1

Jedi Master
where is that number from? The DDB purchase was $150, so what are the other $200, mostly the VTT?


quite frankly, that was their only real option to begin with, and I see nothing wrong with that. If they fail here, that is not because anyone else can outcompete them but because they made stupid decisions, like trying to revoke 1.0a
DDB acquisition - $150M
D&D:HAT - $50M (an estimate of their share of the production costs on a $150M production)
Baulder's Gate 3 - $100M+ (typical AAA game budget)
VTT - $100M+ (typical AAA game budget)
5.1 Development, Playtest, Marketing - $20-30M (estimate)

It wasn't the only option to begin with, they just executed it so poorly (taking a too strong initial position) that it is their only option moving forward. It's actually what I told them in the 1.2 survey feedback. That the only way out of this mess was to release 5.1 to CC and then compete in the marketplace against OGL products.
 

The side that still needs time to process cannot very well stop talking, that is part of processing it, so this leaves the other side to not jump in on it.
On top of that, as you pointed out, doing so is actually counterproductive, so not even in their own best interest
Yep, the folks who still need time to sort out how they feel about the whole thing need people that have made up their minds to stop downplaying how they feel about the whole thing. The extremely dismissive way some people phrase it only causes people who were against WotC's business strategy to dig in further and defend the stance WotC did a bad thing which they shouldn't even need to defend because WotC has already conceded people criticizing them were right. We don't need to debate if WotC did a bad thing because they've already admitted they did a bad thing for us. If there's any debate to be had, it's what that means for each person and whether you can believe their business strategy moving forward will consider the overall community or not.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not in the camp of people trying to decide how I feel about WotC's business strategy. I bought a pack of WizKids draconian minis this weekend, so my mind is pretty well made up about what I will and won't be buying going forward.
 

Oofta

Legend
They did more than think about it, they started to execute on it and only the pushback by the community stopped them


I said nothing like that anywhere


If you see this as a confirmation of your points then there is no point continuing, agreed.

Nothing was actually enacted. Companies do draft documents and contracts to get feedback on a regular basis They released the OGL 1.2 for review, listened to the reviews, and changed direction.

But I think @OB1 just explained it quite well from a business logic perspective.
 

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

They tried getting people to sign contracts. They tried to get people to follow through with it. That they failed doesn't really diminish their attempt.

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.

I mean, I don't think anyone has actually said this, and in fact I and others have literally said we could forgive them in time. This sort of distortion of our points is really rude.

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

This was me, but my point about greed was that putting down a target is unnecessary and sextupling your profits causes you to do rash and stupid things in the pursuit of money. Promise less, grow sustainably, and don't lose your community... or at the least, don't make bonkers promises that require you to take massive risks.

So ... basically they thought about doing something you didn't approve of.

I mean, they did something that had a huge impact on the community and hurt a lot of people. There were a lot of people making content through Kickstarters and what-not having to scramble to figure out what they needed to do. It's not just that they did something we didn't like, it's that they hurt a lot of people who couldn't fight back, too.

In addition, according to you, they already make enough profit.

I don't think anyone said they "make enough profit", but clearly looking to make too much made them do stuff that ended up being a disaster. I thought that inarguable, but maybe you disagree.

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.

Again, what bureaucrats? You keep acting like this was an innocent mistake when everything we know indicates it was something planned in the long-term.

Yes, both sides of the discussion have to have time to work it through.

But it then follows that the sides poking each other about it prolongs that time. Each side, looking at the other still talking, will feel as if there's some need to continue defending their position.

Someone has to stop sometime, or it won't end.

Maybe this should become orange text instead of white? Like, I joined this thread because I thought people were minimizing what Wizards did. Frankly, I find people are still doing that, and I don't expect them to stop... but the argument is just going in circles. I'll bow out after this, but maybe we just need to keep any of this discussion to specific topics, and specifically on the board that talks about the OGL? I mean, apparently someone raised the "Forgive and Forget" topic anyways. Maybe that could be a containment thread?

I don't think NuTSR was the inciting incident for the OGL, bur rather a pain point for Hasbro that pushed the OGL 1.1 development into a more extreme direction than originally conceived. The inciting incident was likely Hasbro looking at threats to the $350+ million dollars that they were preparing to invest in D&D One to grow it into a $1B division. When you're going to spend that amount of shareholder's money on something, you take a serious look at any potential threats to that investment. In this case, a 20 year old licensing agreement that could be used in ways not conceived of when it was created. Solasta released right about this time using the OGL, and may have been crucial in the initial direction of OGL 1.1.

I don't think that's the case in regards to LaNasa. OGL 1.1 wouldn't have really dealt with anything LaNasa was doing.

Solasta releasing in the summer is something I hadn't thought about, but then again, we know this had been in the works much longer than that. But this is another interesting point that may put context into their actions. But I also think stuff like Solasta goes more towards supporting the idea that they wanted to basically destroy the 3PP market and wall the garden off: people are making a bunch of content about our system that we don't get any slice of, and now people are making video games? When you are trying to make $1B, just letting people use your stuff for free is leaving cash on the table, right? To me, that stuff makes way more sense than anything regarding Disney or Meta.

Once the decision on that direction was made, WotC made a crucial error in siloing the development of the new OGL away from the people who understood the D&D community best. That may have been due to disagreements over the goal itself, and as often times happens when major decisions are in contention within a corporation. When a direction has been set and some disagree with that decision, the ones who do agree with it get put in charge of implementing it. "You worry about design, we'll worry about protecting the company."

In fairness to Wizards, that was Kyle Brink's own decision to silo his team off from this. I'm not sure it would have made a difference, but it's worth noting that it was not the higher-ups necessarily not putting them in the room. Brink says he was still in the room, though, so there's that. I've made the assumption based on his interviews that he was arguing against this, but obviously it requires trusting Brink's word. At the same time, I would believe that him that he argued with them, and his talk about how they stuck to their guns on the the lower threshold for royalties makes me think that was something that was important for them.
 

Clint_L

Hero
Yep, the folks who still need time to sort out how they feel about the whole thing need people that have made up their minds to stop downplaying how they feel about the whole thing.
That's not what I'm seeing in these threads. I'm seeing folks who have very much decided how they feel about the whole thing litigating it endlessly, and bringing it up at every opportunity. Mostly folks who, looking at their post history, were not fans of WotC to begin with.
 

That's not what I'm seeing in these threads. I'm seeing folks who have very much decided how they feel about the whole thing litigating it endlessly, and bringing it up at every opportunity. Mostly folks who, looking at their post history, were not fans of WotC to begin with.
You're not seeing the people saying WotC didn't actually do anything and they only stated intent? No one at all?
 



Mostly folks who, looking at their post history, were not fans of WotC to begin with.

lol

I know I post on the Pathfinder forum a lot, but...

Right now, 5E is in a pretty solid place sales-wise. Sales are insane, and while I would make the argument that it's so high on the book list because the only place you can properly read the rulebook is physically, they are still clearly making a bunch of cash. 1D&D looks like it has some good ideas for changes (even if they are not likely bringing me back to the game) and overall the whole franchise seems like it is in a really good place for the future. You don't need a singular visionary who is going out there to break things because nothing is really broken right now: things seem to be working fairly well on all fronts.

Rather, the biggest threat right now is continuing to dip into nostalgia. I'd rather see a Steering Committee that looks to how past stuff can be adapted and used in a way that won't have WOTC putting its foot in its mouth, as well as trying to keep a nice gap between the top and the most hardcore fans. One of the simplest things they could do with D&D is get a few sensitivity readers/editors to make sure they aren't doing anything bluntly stupid, while also pushing for newer voices and expanded settings beyond just "European High Fantasy". Al Qadim and Kara-Tur are interesting places to visit, but I really don't trust WOTC to do them with any sort of tasteful handling (I've heard good things about the fan Al-Qadim book on the DMG). They should look at adding new voices to update these places like Paizo did with their Mwangi Expanse book and now their Impossible Lands book, both of which are very good and the former being one of the most highly regarded setting books in my recent memory.

So yeah, I don't think we need someone big to make drastic changes because 5E is not in trouble. I would want to focus on polishing it and making sure it's in a good place for the future, which would be more about doing a better job of modernizing old material and raising new voices into positions of power to help the company from calcifying in the near future.

I find it funny that I probably look like a hater, but really that's because I post in stuff that largely deals in inclusivity. When Wizards makes good moves, I typically defend their stuff in that regard pretty vehemently. I think removing alignment from monster entries was one where I did a lot more defending than attacking.

But I find Wizards to be more important than their system because, as we've recently their moves can impact the entire industry. Like @mamba says, a lot of us who were really activated by this whole controversy really don't like it when people try to portray Wizards's actions as less harmful than they were, which is definitely where I decided to join the thread. I don't think I've brought it up anywhere else, though.

But I do find it funny that we are now going so deep as to look at people's posting histories to find ammunition. :p

Okay okay, I'm really leaving now...
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
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…
Well, if they are already seeing a lot of those cancellations already reuppikg the subscriptions after CC, which they say and I have seen in the online discourse...they can also correctly claim to not see much impact moving forward.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I will revise then - Creative Commons puts much more burden on the publisher to attempt to contribute to this ecosystem, which is a much higher barrier to entry than the OGL provided. An end result might actually be clearer to someone who wants to make use of the material, but there are significantly more hurdles in writing, layout, and legal for the publisher.
I mean...no, not really.
 


Epic Threats

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top