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]

But you've been portraying the actions as more harmful than they were, because the actual actions taken by Wizards of the Coast are a more open system with less control by them.
Arguing that their actions were harmful forces things that weren't enacted to be considered actions.

Their actions, even before they were implemented, had harmful effects. Plenty of people had to go into emergency mode to figure out how they'd weather this. If you had a project on Kickstarter, you had to spend time to figure out how this was going to effect you and what to tell your backers. If you had a business, you had your plans upended because what Wizards does affects you and you have to plan around a new OGL.

Wizards is a giant of the industry: just because they didn't put their foot down doesn't mean they didn't send people from their shadow running in a panic. That uncertainty is harmful and has consequences. Acting like it doesn't misses the very real effects these announcements had.

Edit: This is my last response, as I am trying to avoid getting dragged in again.

 

[Loren the GM]

I mean...no, not really.

If you have to cite every paragraph in a 250 page document and mark it as the correct license it was sourced from, and under what license it is being released under, than that is a huge amount of work, both in writing (keeping notes), layout (designing how you will cite this information- is it color coded, it it footnotes or endnotes, is at all done through some sort of running page edge marking system, etc.), and legal/proofing (verifying that every paragraph is notated correctly, as it all has specific legal ramifications if you mark something from another publisher under the wrong license).

I'd call that a much larger burden than what is required under the OGL.

It also gets very complicated if you try to use something released in one manner, but need to include it with content that needs to be released under a different license. Remixing all of this stuff gets very difficult the more the various licenses intertwine and the further down the line you are in the content chain.

 

[Parmandur]

If you have to cite every paragraph in a 250 page document and mark it as the correct license it was sourced from, and under what license it is being released under, than that is a huge amount of work, both in writing (keeping notes), layout (designing how you will cite this information- is it color coded, it it footnotes or endnotes, is at all done through some sort of running page edge marking system, etc.), and legal/proofing (verifying that every paragraph is notated correctly, as it all has specific legal ramifications if you mark something from another publisher under the wrong license).

I'd call that a much larger burden than what is required under the OGL.

It also gets very complicated if you try to use something released in one manner, but need to include it with content that needs to be released under a different license. Remixing all of this stuff gets very difficult the more the various licenses intertwine and the further down the line you are in the content chain.

It really isn't as complex as all that.

 

[cranberry]

With so many people jumping back on the D&D bandwagon, It occurred to me that they were ultimately correct in stating that cancellations had a minimal financial impact.

I realize that the OGL issue was vitally important , but it seems like many people are shrugging off the real possibility that they plan on turning D&D into a micro transaction nightmare.

If a lot of players aren't happy with a micro transition environment, it has the potential of effecting the sales of 3rd party content, as people move to other systems.

 

[Parmandur]

With so many people jumping back on the D&D bandwagon, It occurred to me that they were ultimately correct in stating that cancellations had a minimal financial impact.

I realize that the OGL issue was vitally important , but it seems like many people are shrugging off the real possibility that they plan on turning D&D into a micro transaction nightmare.

If a lot of players aren't happy with a micro transition environment, it has the potential of effecting the sales of 3rd party content, as people move to other systems.

Here's the thing: if people by and large actually hated microtransaction environments all that much, then they wouldn't be so successful.

I don't plan on digital play at all, and there is no reason to believe that WotC will stop producing books, so I don't care if they introduce microtransactions to a VTT. But even if I were interested, I wouldn't mind because it's a perfectly rational way to run a digital service: a la carte options with bundle offerings.

 

[mamba]

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.

well, you are reading a different thread then, which is not surprising because you and the ones liking your post are part of the ‘time to move on’ squad

 

[ReshiIRE]

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.

The debate is really over whether people should feel bad about continuing to consume WoTC's product after they've done wrong.

People want to feel they're morally okay to consume product from a company that's now known to be willing to destroy the ecosystem of the game (players, other developers and companies, content creators in general) if they think it'll eak them out a little bit more profit.

They very obviously know what WoTC did is wrong. And they know it's pretty wrong to continue to support them - because in a capitalistic society, choosing where your money goes is a supposedly powerful choice - so supporting a business that does wrong isn't a good look.

But... they still want WoTC's product. They have to have it. For many valid (and invalid) reasons, they're not able to do or don't want to do the research to find high quality third party product, or change the way they play so they significantly reduce or eliminate their reliance on WoTC. Some will continue to buy because the act of buying it makes them happy (that is valid, if sometimes wasteful - but it's behaviour we all do).

So what is the only solution but to paper over the moral issue and what happened?

Right now, people MUST defend the company that did the indefensible and get others back into the ecosystem and brush the problem under the carpet. Otherwise their continued support for the company and product becomes indefensible, and morally not okay, and that'll eat at their conscience.

They don't care that WoTC not facing longer term consequences will encourage them to do this again.

They don't care that people have reasonable objections.

It's not about the people not supporting the brand. It's about themselves. And it is so, so obviously bad faith, as this thread has been from the start.

We're seriously believing a billion dollar company over what caused their decision?? When have WoTC ever even acted in the slightest of good faith here?

Call it cynical, but I'd rather not believe a company when we have evidence to the contary over what forced their hand >.>

 

[Oofta]

With so many people jumping back on the D&D bandwagon, It occurred to me that they were ultimately correct in stating that cancellations had a minimal financial impact.

I realize that the OGL issue was vitally important , but it seems like many people are shrugging off the real possibility that they plan on turning D&D into a micro transaction nightmare.

If a lot of players aren't happy with a micro transition environment, it has the potential of effecting the sales of 3rd party content, as people move to other systems.

Good grief. Micro transactions? How would that even work. DDB currently let's you buy bits and pieces, so I guess they already exist? But nobody forces me to buy anything. There's no way they can give bonuses to a PC unless the DM allows it. It's just not a convincing bogeyman.

But oooh ... microtransactions... oooh....scary.

 

[bedir than]

If you have to cite every paragraph in a 250 page document and mark it as the correct license it was sourced from, and under what license it is being released under, than that is a huge amount of work, both in writing (keeping notes), layout (designing how you will cite this information- is it color coded, it it footnotes or endnotes, is at all done through some sort of running page edge marking system, etc.), and legal/proofing (verifying that every paragraph is notated correctly, as it all has specific legal ramifications if you mark something from another publisher under the wrong license).

I'd call that a much larger burden than what is required under the OGL.

It also gets very complicated if you try to use something released in one manner, but need to include it with content that needs to be released under a different license. Remixing all of this stuff gets very difficult the more the various licenses intertwine and the further down the line you are in the content chain.

I've never encountered this in nearly 20 years of using the CC. Do you have a real example of anyone that's produced something this byzantine?

 

[mamba]

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.

agreed, my point was more that not having seen impact yet is trivially true because it is impossible for the impact to have arrived yet.

Heck, even if no one returned they might be able to say that the impact is minor. At a minimum they contained it fast enough to prevent it from becoming major (if it ever would have is another matter)

 

[mamba]

But you've been portraying the actions as more harmful than they were, because the actual actions taken by Wizards of the Coast are a more open system with less control by them.
Arguing that their actions were harmful forces things that weren't enacted to be considered actions.

you are confusing actions and outcome…

 

[mamba]

I realize that the OGL issue was vitally important , but it seems like many people are shrugging off the real possibility that they plan on turning D&D into a micro transaction nightmare.

If a lot of players aren't happy with a micro transition environment, it has the potential of effecting the sales of 3rd party content, as people move to other systems.

I am perfectly capable of deciding whether I want to buy microtransactions or not, so you need not worry for me over that

Also, that sounds more like a WotC VTT problem, not a D&D one

 

[Oofta]

The debate is really over whether people should feel bad about continuing to consume WoTC's product after they've done wrong.

People want to feel they're morally okay to consume product from a company that's now known to be willing to destroy the ecosystem of the game (players, other developers and companies, content creators in general) if they think it'll eak them out a little bit more profit.

They very obviously know what WoTC did is wrong. And they know it's pretty wrong to continue to support them - because in a capitalistic society, choosing where your money goes is a supposedly powerful choice - so supporting a business that does wrong isn't a good look.

But... they still want WoTC's product. They have to have it. For many valid (and invalid) reasons, they're not able to do or don't want to do the research to find high quality third party product, or change the way they play so they significantly reduce or eliminate their reliance on WoTC. Some will continue to buy because the act of buying it makes them happy (that is valid, if sometimes wasteful - but it's behaviour we all do).

So what is the only solution but to paper over the moral issue and what happened?

Right now, people MUST defend the company that did the indefensible and get others back into the ecosystem and brush the problem under the carpet. Otherwise their continued support for the company and product becomes indefensible, and morally not okay, and that'll eat at their conscience.

They don't care that WoTC not facing longer term consequences will encourage them to do this again.

They don't care that people have reasonable objections.

It's not about the people not supporting the brand. It's about themselves. And it is so, so obviously bad faith, as this thread has been from the start.

Or ... some of us accept that corporations don't care about them as a person. I accept that they don't really care about the health of other companies that publish D&D materials outside of how it affects their image and bottom line. But most of all, they didn't actually change any policy. But you have a grudge and it's likely not going to change, so good luck. I just happened across an article you may want to consider Why it feels so perversely good to hold a grudge that made me think of you and the others who simply won't let this go. Personally, I don't think it's healthy to hold on to a grudge.

But can we ask, pretty please, that you not insult people who don't agree with you? I'm not lazy. I just don't care about what policy changes could have been implemented, I only care about what the policy actually was implemented.

 

[mamba]

The debate is really over whether people should feel bad about continuing to consume WoTC's product after they've done wrong.

I am not seeing this reflected here at all

They very obviously know what WoTC did is wrong. And they know it's pretty wrong to continue to support them - because in a capitalistic society, choosing where your money goes is a supposedly powerful choice - so supporting a business that does wrong isn't a good look.

But... they still want WoTC's product. They have to have it.

I do not need you or anyone else to tell me what I think or how I feel (or what I should, which is slightly less insulting). You do not speak for me, and neither does anyone else. If people stopped doing this, then we would not have to continue to correct them.

That is what this thread is about

Look what you made me do, I am agreeing with Oofta now

 

[cranberry]

Good grief. Micro transactions? How would that even work. DDB currently let's you buy bits and pieces, so I guess they already exist? But nobody forces me to buy anything. There's no way they can give bonuses to a PC unless the DM allows it. It's just not a convincing bogeyman.

But oooh ... microtransactions... oooh....scary.

I don't know how it will work, but that appears to be their primary monetizing strategy. It will largely depend on where the paywall begins and ends. But sure, if it's only cosmetics, it won't be a big deal, but how can you be sure it will end there?

 

[Parmandur]

I don't know how it will work, but that appears to be their primary monetizing strategy. It will largely depend on where the paywall begins and ends. But sure, if it's only cosmetics, it won't be a big deal, but how can you be sure it will end there?

The most likely comparison is to look at Magic: Arena, which is way, way cheaper than playing paper Magic, particularly if one is patient. I'm not sure of anything, but I'm not worried about anything either.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know how it will work, but that appears to be their primary monetizing strategy. It will largely depend on where the paywall begins and ends. But sure, if it's only cosmetics, it won't be a big deal, but how can you be sure it will end there?

I don't want to get into this a great deal, but I can't imagine anything that they could do that would affect me one way or another. Right now, I like the option to buy just part of a book in DDB, I guess that qualifies as a microtransaction. It works great for me if I can just buy the monsters from an adventure module because I rarely if ever use modules.. I don't use VTT, so it doesn't affect me at all.

But if someone is playing VTT and they want a custom mini and shiny toys? People will ooh and ah over it for a minute just like they do when I show off a freshly painted mini. Then they'll get on with the game. That shiny worth it to you? Cool. But there is no way that they can affect the actual play of the game in any appreciable way. I just don't see it.

So there has to be something other than just "microtransactions bad" because there's nothing behind the curtain on that one.

 

[Parmandur]

Or ... some of us accept that corporations don't care about them as a person. I accept that they don't really care about the health of other companies that publish D&D materials outside of how it affects their image and bottom line. But most of all, they didn't actually change any policy. But you have a grudge and it's likely not going to change, so good luck. I just happened across an article you may want to consider Why it feels so perversely good to hold a grudge that made me think of you and the others who simply won't let this go. Personally, I don't think it's healthy to hold on to a grudge.

But can we ask, pretty please, that you not insult people who don't agree with you? I'm not lazy. I just don't care about what policy changes could have been implemented, I only care about what the policy actually was implemented.

I think it's helpful for people who consider this an ongoing "moral" issue to understand the concepts of remote versus proximate cooperation, and material versus formal cooperation. Is buying a Wizards of the Coast product participation in any activity their employees do? Only remotely and materially, which is basically not at all. I'm going to the grocery store layer today, and will be buying a bunch of stuff that is probsvly more "morally compromised" than the next D&D book, and I'm fine with that.

 

[cranberry]

But can we ask, pretty please, that you not insult people who don't agree with you?

Yes, I agree, which is why your response and tone in post 488 was uncalled for.

 

[Bill Zebub]

They very obviously know what WoTC did is wrong. And they know it's pretty wrong to continue to support them -

Do you spend a lot of time psychoanalyzing people over the Internet?