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.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

And this is not only about money but also "soft power", to use the culture to create influence in other societies. In the right hands the TRPGs can be useful to build bridges between people from different cultures, but also it can be used as a propagandistic weapon to promote the hate againt the kenders, the gnolls, the drows and the orcs among others.

And when they said the word "inclusive" I started to feel fear, because usually it means the opposite. The true "inclusive" is saying something like "everybody is wellcome here", and that was the original or essence of the game, but now it sounds as "you aren't wellcome here if you are..".

Hasbro needs the new ideas contributed by the 3PPs and these needs the means by Hasbro to promote the hobby, opening new doors in other markets.

The adventage of multimedia franchises is usually these aren't too linked with a little group of main characters.

 

[dave2008]

WotC's 2021 operating profits were around 53.7% for one quarter.

I wasn't talking about WotC. My point is: just because you have a lot of revenue doesn't guarantee large profits, or profit at all.

 

[Maxperson]

I wasn't talking about WotC. My point is: just because you have a lot of revenue doesn't guarantee large profits, or profit at all.

I know, but this whole tangent stemmed from someone saying that WotC was greedy for wanting to get more profits when they make 6 billion a year. Others then stepped into say what you are saying that revenue =/= profit. I was showing that they do in fact make a ton of profit. The profit numbers for 2021 ranged form 40-53.7% If they make an average of 45% profit, that's still nearly 3 billion dollars.

 

[dave2008]

I know, but this whole tangent stemmed from someone saying that WotC was greedy for wanting to get more profits when they make 6 billion a year. Others then stepped into say what you are saying that revenue =/= profit. I was showing that they do in fact make a ton of profit. The profit numbers for 2021 ranged form 40-53.7% If they make an average of 45% profit, that's still nearly 3 billion dollars.

I agree with your analysis and was already aware of the information you provided. I just didn't like equating revenue with profit. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Hasbro has a quarter or two of no profit on millions if not billions of revenue, it happens to a lot of big companies. The fact they are doing well, should blind them from the fear of doing poorly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Rather, it's just lost trust and a tiredness with seeing people try to gaslight others on what went down and how they went down.

Mod Note:

The only problem I perceived with your post was the charge of “gaslighting”. That’s a strong accusation to levy at your fellow ENWorlders, and definitely not conducive to civility.

If you think that someone is indeed doing it, don’t accuse them in thread. Instead, report the posts and let the mods assess it. Disengage from or Ignore the poster(s) if you must.

 

[Parmandur]

I know, but this whole tangent stemmed from someone saying that WotC was greedy for wanting to get more profits when they make 6 billion a year. Others then stepped into say what you are saying that revenue =/= profit. I was showing that they do in fact make a ton of profit. The profit numbers for 2021 ranged form 40-53.7% If they make an average of 45% profit, that's still nearly 3 billion dollars.

I agree with your analysis and was already aware of the information you provided. I just didn't like equating revenue with profit. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Hasbro has a quarter or two of no profit on millions if not billions of revenue, it happens to a lot of big companies. The fact they are doing well, should blind them from the fear of doing poorly.

In point of fact, Hasbro as a whole posted a $129 million net loss on $6 Billion in revenue in 2022. WotC, as a division, is wildly profitable, but the whole corporation together is losing money in spite of that.

 

[Cadence]

In point of fact, Hasbro as a whole posted a $129 million net loss on $6 Billion in revenue in 2022. WotC, as a division, is wildly profitable, but the whole corporation together is losing money in spite of that.

Several charges taken for reorganization and costs to acquire DnD Beyond?

 

[bedir than]

Monopoly might be making significantly more then D&D.

There's been no hint that Hasbro's traditional games are that close. The best is Monopoly, the only traditional game in Hasbro's portfolio on the path to a billion (Magic, Transformers, D&D, Peppa the Pig and Monopoly)

We don't need to keep pretending that our passions are niche. They're on TV constantly. They're in major newspapers and magazines. There's a move coming out and TV shows and it's available in Target and Walmart.

 

[BlueFin]

Actually, I was trying to disengage, but you didn't quote that part.

This is just plain false. You had only made two comments in reply to me (unless I've missed one? But I do try to be careful in that regard). So as far as I am aware the only comment from you that might be you "trying to disengange" is this, and lo and behold, I did indeed quote it -

(Edit: and I don't see that comment of yours as "trying to disengage" given it is taking a pot-shot at me; instead you might have just not bothered to reply, or simply stated something like "Nah, I'd rather disengage")

In your first reply to me, you had expressed your opinion that you thought it would be "stupid of them" to have a c-suite exec make an apology. I replied with referenced examples of why I think that is incorrect, and how it is actually a much better way of handling things and produces better outcomes. I then asked for the basis of your opinion and this is what you wrote in reply - "I chose to be happy and not take a view of the world that always puts me in opposition to those who are out to get me" (presumably because you either couldn't be bothered to produce a reasoned reply), which I quoted and responded to - see above (infinite loop starts here so you can ignore the rest below as TLDR if you like ).

I'm not the only one who has interpreted your comments here to mean that you have been communicating a world view as outlined.

That's all kind of fine. But accusing other folks of being "miserable" (that's one that has been leveled at me), or your statement, is a big stretch (and it seems to happen quite a bit on these forums, and it's just lazy). In my case it is based on a single fact known about me - that I am not willing to let a large corporation continue (in my view) to harm a hobby that means a lot to me. Seeing that as "miserable" or that "everyone is out to get me" is, quite frankly, working very hard to see my position in that light, because there is the much simpler explanation stated in the previous sentence. Why is that I wonder? To me it goes back to the "inconvenient truth" aspect, which presumably I don't need to expand on right here, as you have read all my other posts.

You might not have the whole issue with TLDR responses if you tried to be more concise too.

Well there's only been one of those, and I thought it very funny because yeah, I had written a veeeery long post and I happily acknowledged that and can totally understand that most won't want to take the time to read it, and that bothers me not a whit.

 

[BlueFin]

What do you mean by this? Get in the way of what they want?

My interpretation, based on many of the comments I've read, is that most people are easing up on wotc and giving them the benefit of the doubt (now that those people have got what they want ie. OGL 1.0a left alone and the 5.1 SRD put into CC), at a time in which I believe wotc are still being very disingenuous towards the community (in my opinion to the point of it being lying) and in doing so wotc is treating the community with disdain.

My interpretation is that they reason many people are easing up on wotc is because it is simply 'inconvenient' to do otherwise. 'Inconvenient' because it is too energy taxing perhaps, but also inconvenient because maybe they don't really want to give up their sub, or go learn another system etc in order to continue to make a point at wotc. And that is totally their prerogative, and I respect and understand it. As I have acknowledged, in other times and places I would make the same choice. And, of course, maybe my interpretation of their decision is wrong.

I am disappointed though at how quickly that seems to have happened because I don't believe wotc will have really learned its lesson (so to speak), and I believe that wotc will try something like this again in the future (albeit it will be at least a couple of years away), and wotc is in a position to do a lot of harm to the hobby and the community, including the parts of said hobby and community that don't play D&D (that is self-evident isn't it? But maybe not, I thought my statement about them trying to take over the hobby was also self-evident given the uproar their actions in January caused, but it's now apparent I was wrong to think that - or at least two or three people don't think it was self-evident ).

I am not telling anyone they have to agree with my interpretation, or even that my interpretation is "the truth".