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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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".

That's certainly an interpretation.

My interpretation is that there was probably a multi-way argument about this internally, and the people who won the first round simply didn't understand the ecosystem and the role of 3rd party developers in that ecosystem. But they figured it out, and the people who had argued with them said, "See? We told you so."

Given my experiences seeing how decisions are made in organizations, that makes total sense to me, and doesn't require nefarious machinations.

They will undoubtedly make more bad decisions, as an organization, in the future.

 

[Clint_L]

The mistake your making is thinking that I'm on a "ledge" and that this is just "outrage". 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. We're less than a month removed from this, and yet I see people going hard on justifying the exact stuff Wizards did. I wouldn't talk about it if I didn't see people basically trying to rewrite what we just went through.

But...what if people just have a different perspective than you? Your charge of "gaslighting" implies that people have ill intentions - they know the truth and are deliberately trying to deceive and manipulate in order to distort it. However, that only works if you are certain that your perception of what happens is just objective reality, and everyone knows it.

It is clear that you see these events differently than I do. But I do not accuse you of gaslighting me. I just think you are probably wrong, or have a different context.

 

[Parmandur]

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

Well, the Beyond acquisition didn't hurt anything: Cocks told the investors that had paid off as an investment by EOY. The reorganization is coming because the other divisions of Hasbro are spending Billions of dollars to make slightly less than they spent.

 

[BlueFin]

That's certainly an interpretation.

My interpretation is that there was probably a multi-way argument about this internally, and the people who won the first round simply didn't understand the ecosystem and the role of 3rd party developers in that ecosystem. But they figured it out, and the people who had argued with them said, "See? We told you so."

Given my experiences seeing how decisions are made in organizations, that makes total sense to me, and doesn't require nefarious machinations.

They will undoubtedly make more bad decisions, as an organization, in the future.

And I would likely be willing to believe that interpretation …. were it not for the fact that this isn't wotc’s first rodeo - they have a history of behaviour that is contrary to the interpretation you have presented, and as I continue to say, their current behaviour continues to be, in my opinion, contrary to your interpretation. But yes, it's all just interpretation.

However, someone once said, “the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour".

I think it is worth noting here that wotc are not making any attempt to strengthen 1.0a, just to leave it alone (unless I have missed something). They got themselves to the position of believing they could de-authorise it, so if they don't change it, what's to stop them trying again in the future? Now, you can argue "what would be the point, everyone will be producing content for the 5e SRD in CC", or something similar - but if that's true, and pretty much whatever counter-argument one might present, then there would be no loss in just going ahead and strengthening 1.0a right now - and indeed, such as act would go a very, very long way towards the interpretation you presented.

 

[Clint_L]

And I would likely be willing to believe that interpretation …. were it not for the fact that this isn't wotc’s first rodeo - they have a history of behaviour that is contrary to the interpretation you have presented, and as I continue to say, their current behaviour continues to be, in my opinion, contrary to your interpretation. But yes, it's all just interpretation.

However, someone once said, “the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour".

I think it is worth noting here that wotc are not making any attempt to strengthen 1.0a, just to leave it alone (unless I have missed something). They got themselves to the position of believing they could de-authorise it, so if they don't change it, what's to stop them trying again in the future? Now, you can argue "what would be the point, everyone will be producing content for the 5e SRD in CC", or something similar - but if that's true, and pretty much whatever counter-argument one might present, then there would be no loss in just going ahead and strengthening 1.0a right now - and indeed, such as act would go a very, very long way towards the interpretation you presented.

I think anything they do to touch the OGL, even to allegedly strengthen it, will be met by some with charges that Hasbro are up to something nefarious. We asked them to keep their hands off and they are. It is better for them just to leave it alone, especially since, as you point out, there is really no point in them trying to change it now that the SRD is in the CC.

I don't understand reading ill intent into them doing what we explicitly asked them to do: keep hands off the OGL.

 

[Justice and Rule]

But...what if people just have a different perspective than you? Your charge of "gaslighting" implies that people have ill intentions - they know the truth and are deliberately trying to deceive and manipulate in order to distort it. However, that only works if you are certain that your perception of what happens is just objective reality, and everyone knows it.

It is clear that you see these events differently than I do. But I do not accuse you of gaslighting me. I just think you are probably wrong, or have a different context.

You're commenting on a post where I got a mod warning, so I'm going to be careful in my response.

I made that comment in response to a post that said I was on the "ledge of outrage" and in previous posts there had been comment that my posts were "partisan" and had a "PF-fan like mentality". Previous to that I did not make any sort of talk of gaslighting from posters. I'm not sure how much you have followed the conversation, but I think the context of my remarks are important.

I think anything they do to touch the OGL, even to allegedly strengthen it, will be met by some with charges that Hasbro are up to something nefarious. We asked them to keep their hands off and they are. It is better for them just to leave it alone, especially since, as you point out, there is really no point in them trying to change it now that the SRD is in the CC.

It will be looked as such because Hasbro destroyed a lot of trust with their actions and a lot of people see their backtracking as being in response to the backlash and not an honest judgement on their part. It's just going to take a lot of time to repair that sort of trust.

I don't understand reading ill intent into them doing what we explicitly asked them to do: keep hands off the OGL.

There's going to be ill-intent for a time until they regain people's trust. People will suspect they are up to something because, as we have been told throughout this thread, they are trying to make a lot of money. Given how they viewed they could make money previously, people probably think that they may have found some sort of workaround to finally do what they tried before.

Instead of trying to force trust back into the relationship, it'd be better to just let Wizards do the long, hard work of actually earning it again.

 

[BlueFin]

It is better for them just to leave it alone, especially since, as you point out, there is really no point in them trying to change it now that the SRD is in the CC.

No, I did not "point that out". Please take the time to read my post accurately. I pre-empted someone else trying to make that point in response to what I presented as my interpretation. If you read my post fully you would have read that I believe strengthening OGL 1.0a would go a long way towards your interpretation.

I don't understand reading ill intent into them doing what we explicitly asked them to do: keep hands off the OGL.

It's based on their pattern of behaviour. I have merely expressed that simply leaving the OGL untouched, leaves it open for them to try to de-authorise it in future - something they obviously believe they a) have a right to do, and b) can do so from a legal standpoint (which we will only know the true answer to if it ever gets to court).

 

[Saracenus]

Lest we forget, WotC may be driving profit for Hasbro, Hasbro still sets the standards and the tone for all divisions. WotC didn't wake up and think, "Wow, I am going to be a 1 Billion dolar division of Hasbro" all on its lonesome.

Hasbro made a call that they are going to focus time, energy, and resources on those segments of their business that are bringing $1 Billion a year in revenue. That filters down and the Execs at WotC hear that and see that their "paltry" $150 million in revenue a year from D&D is not going to cut it. They are now under pressure to increase that revenue so D&D is one of those segments that get those precious amounts of time, energy, and resources.

Sure, you are more likely to be able to meet those targets with media deals (Movies, TV, streaming, etc.) and digital tools but they are longer term prospects and really, not a sure thing. They need to show they can squeeze more blood from a stone now because the clock is ticking. So there is one factor, pressure.

We know they have been working on a new OGL for nearly 2 years and in that time they haven't done squat. There are internal arguments about how to approach it prior to the $1 Billion directive but now one person or group has made the case yet to change the OGL. Another factor, no consensus on changes OGL.

We know there has been a sea change in the top leadership at WotC where most everyone is relatively new in their positions, leading to very fragmented internal communications and incomplete understanding of the D&D market by those at the top. This adds a self reinforcing bubble and ignorance to the list of factors.

So, now you have this heady stew of factors all waiting for the perfect moment to mess things up. There is no "evil" here. This is a combination of human failure and flawed processes that allowed people in charge to make flawed decisions, because making D&D a $1 Billion segment of Hasbro is driving the bus.

One thing I have learned from hard experience working in corporate America is that people under pressure revert to what they know because they do not have time to think and live to their aspirational goals as a leader and decision maker. What got WotC to the end result was not some evil personified in the form of the upper management, it was the break down of people and processes under strain. The end result may be "evil" if you wish to define it that way, but it really was all to human and understandable.

But this explanation will not assuage those who feel personally wronged or temper their anger. WotC cannot individually fix everyone's feelings. They can make efforts to make amends in general and fix internal processes so a Charlie Foxtrot like this is less likely to occur in the future. So, ultimately, the real question is, what are you going to do about how you feel from this point forward. Ultimately, you are in charge of how you feel.

 

[cranberry]

Look, I get it. For most 3rd party creators, D&D is their largest and most consistent source of revenue. So people want to believe that everything is fine, WoTC has learned it's lesson, and they will never try to anything sneaky ever again (It's doesn't have to be related the OGL).

But they have demonstrated their contempt for the community and their willingness to lie. IMO, trusting them implicitly is not a good idea.

It's not about good or evil. It's about money. It's about pleasing the shareholders. They have a financial target, and they will do what it takes to achieve that target...whether it hurts the community or not.

So, as the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[LordEntrails]

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 -
View attachment 275999

(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 ).



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.



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.

TLDR