D&D 5E I still want D&D and Beyond, but...

[TwoSix]

There's probably a safe argument that MTG was on Hasbro's radar from the day they bought WotC as the primary reason for the purchase, so there's probably long been pressure to squeeze that fanbase for as much money as possible. D&D was such a niche hobby for years that the recent explosion may have brought it to the executives at Hasbro's attention as something to focus on.

The CEO of Hasbro was the head of WotC before moving up to his current position. WotC IS Hasbro now, not the other way around.

 

[Reynard]

There's probably a safe argument that MTG was on Hasbro's radar from the day they bought WotC as the primary reason for the purchase, so there's probably long been pressure to squeeze that fanbase for as much money as possible. D&D was such a niche hobby for years that the recent explosion may have brought it to the executives at Hasbro's attention as something to focus on.

Hasbro bought WotC for Pokemon.

 

[Velderan]

Hasbro bought WotC for Pokemon.

I completely forgot WotC had that license at the time. That certainly makes sense in hindsight.

 

[Reynard]

I completely forgot WotC had that license at the time. That certainly makes sense in hindsight.

Plus a bunch of stores in malls. Malls!!!! (gawd I'm old)

 

[Krachek]

For 5ed I have bought 8 books so far.
A book per year!
In my entertainment budget this is a water drop.
Likewise my spending are a water drop in the 1.3 billion revenue for Wotc.
So I will buy OneDnD phb and some other books over the years.

 

[bedir than]

Plus a bunch of stores in malls. Malls!!!! (gawd I'm old)

Mallratting is getting popular again. People like to see people. It's weird.

 

[Reynard]

Mallratting is getting popular again. People like to see people. It's weird.

Like, in person?!?

 

[TheSword]

It's not misinformation.

In a video seminar for investors, WotC CEO Cynthia Williams said that D&D has never been as prominent as it is now, but that it's under monetized. Yes, she talked about licensing the D&D brand as part of the solution for that. But, another part of the solution was to create a recurrent spending environment to get players to spend more money. I have no idea how near to each other those statements are in terms of minutes, but that doesn't matter. The whole presentation was about how to make more money off of D&D, and creating a recurrent spending environment was presented as a way to do that.

There is already a recurrent spending environment it just isn’t owned by WoTC. I pay a monthly roll20 subscription and about £20 a month on patreons.

There is plenty of recurrent spending none of it goes to WoTC though because of the OGL.

 

[The Scythian]

Ah, my bad. Malinformation, using information that is partially true in a manner to create a false impression rather than using misinformation. Thank you for that correction.

It's still a dishonest presentation of the massive call. No one at Hasbro is stupid enough to think 99 cent feats are the path to a billion when compared to a midlevel success of their movie and the tv show that was likely sold for 9 figures.

Oh, I haven't really corrected you yet, but I'm about to.

So, first of all I really don't appreciate you claiming that I'm "using information that is partially true in a manner to create a false impression". You're flat out calling me a liar and, as I am about to demonstrate, you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Here is a quote from your previous post, so that you can see what I am referring to (I am bolding the parts that I am going to address):

This is some of the misinformation that I find harmful and disappointing. The call was clear and specific about where D&D was undermonetized -- movies, tv shows, licensed goods, lifestyle. They spoke at length to those things.

Then the internet connects two statements that didn't occur anywhere near each other and goes into a rage

Now, you might not be aware of this, but the December 8th investor call is available on Hasbro's website. You can access it here.

Cynthia Williams, President of WotC, begins talking about D&D around 33:05. She opens by saying that D&D has never been more popular, but that it is under monetized. Then she begins to talk about D&D Beyond, explaining that the app offers WotC an unprecedented glimpse into how people are playing the game in their homes. Then she continues (at around 34:05, just a minute later) by saying:

"So when we think about our future monetization, we start here. Dungeon Masters, which are the people who guide you through the adventure, they only make up about 20% of the audience, but they are the largest share of our paying players. For the rest of the players at the table, we believe digital will allow us to offer a lot more options to create rewarding experiences post-sale that helps us unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games, where more than 70% of the revenue in digital gaming comes post-sale. The speed of digital means that we're able to expand from what is essentially a yearly book-publishing model to a recurrent spending environment..."

Quite a bit later in the presentation, licensing does come up. However, the first example of under monetization that Williams provides isn't movies, TV shows, mind flayer Funko Pops, or whatever. It's that 80% of the game's players don't spend as much as the 20% who run games. Her solution to this problem is to shift D&D from the business of publishing RPG books to creating a recurrent spending environment.

With that out of the way, your claim that "the internet" has connected "two statements that didn't occur anywhere near each other" is pure nonsense. Williams goes from saying that D&D is "under monetized" to talking about "unlock[ing] the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games" in less than a minute and a half, and she talks about moving from D&D current publishing model to a "recurrent spending environment" about thirty seconds after that.

So, yeah. These statements do occur near each other. More importantly, the "under monetization" statement leads directly into the "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games" statement, and the latter statement follows directly from the former.

So, no. No misinformation. No "malinformation". No "using information that is partially true in a manner to create a false impression". No whatever brand of lying you intend to accuse me of next. You are simply mistaken about what was said in the presentation and when, or you are making things up.

 

[bedir than]

Oh, I haven't really corrected you yet, but I'm about to.

So, first of all I really don't appreciate you claiming that I'm "using information that is partially true in a manner to create a false impression". You're flat out calling me a liar and, as I am about to demonstrate, you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Here is a quote from your previous post, so that you can see what I am referring to (I am bolding the parts that I am going to address):

Now, you might not be aware of this, but the December 8th investor call is available on Hasbro's website. You can access it here.

Cynthia Williams, President of WotC, begins talking about D&D around 33:05. She opens by saying that D&D has never been more popular, but that it is under monetized. Then she begins to talk about D&D Beyond, explaining that the app offers WotC an unprecedented glimpse into how people are playing the game in their homes. Then she continues (at around 34:05, just a minute later) by saying:

"So when we think about our future monetization, we start here. Dungeon Masters, which are the people who guide you through the adventure, they only make up about 20% of the audience, but they are the largest share of our paying players. For the rest of the players at the table, we believe digital will allow us to offer a lot more options to create rewarding experiences post-sale that helps us unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games, where more than 70% of the revenue in digital gaming comes post-sale. The speed of digital means that we're able to expand from what is essentially a yearly book-publishing model to a recurrent spending environment..."

Quite a bit later in the presentation, licensing does come up. However, the first example of under monetization that Williams provides isn't movies, TV shows, mind flayer Funko Pops, or whatever. It's that 80% of the game's players don't spend as much as the 20% who run games. Her solution to this problem is to shift D&D from the business of publishing RPG books to creating a recurrent spending environment.

With that out of the way, your claim that "the internet" has connected "two statements that didn't occur anywhere near each other" is pure nonsense. Williams goes from saying that D&D is "under monetized" to talking about "unlock[ing] the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games" in less than a minute and a half, and she talks about moving from D&D current publishing model to a "recurrent spending environment" about thirty seconds after that.

So, yeah. These statements do occur near each other. More importantly, the "under monetization" statement leads directly into the "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games" statement, and the latter statement follows directly from the former.

So, no. No misinformation. No "malinformation". No "using information that is partially true in a manner to create a false impression". No whatever brand of lying you intend to accuse me of next. You are simply mistaken about what was said in the presentation and when, or you are making things up.

Ignoring the original call and the entirety of the chat to selectively choose outrage is malinformation, which isn't lying. It's using the truth to mean different things.

I've bolded what you've done, because you chose to do the exact thing multiple times. The earnings report and the fireside chat both addressed much more than just microtransactions.

Your assumption that I read transcripts of neither is inaccurate and unfair.