D&D General Wizards of the Coast has its biggest Quarter Ever, with D&D down a smidge. From Comicbook.com

[Jer]

yeah I don't get this 'level' of finace but I guess they have a reason to bundle it the way they do...

But it feels like if I had a big car issue that was $1,000 to fix this month and I just added that to my monthly bills and said "Why have my monthly expenses jumped so high?"

It's more like you inherited a chunk of money last year in June and then this year you look at your bank account this year and wonder "why is my account lower than the same time last year"?

But yeah - that's why they need the narrative explanation of "we only look like we're performing worse because we didn't have a big video game drop this year, we've actually expanded in other areas" to the investors. Because just plopping down the numbers they're required to file with the SEC would make the story look worse than they think it actually is.

(A lot of these questions about "why do they report things this way" are due to the requirements of SEC regulations, mixed with the standard corporate desire to only show themselves in the most positive light possible - which the SEC regulations are partially there to fight against though when you make a rule people will figure out how to game it. So the Dark Alliance explanation is Hasbro's "spin" on why the numbers they're required to report look a little bad, but actually represent an opportunity rather than a downturn for the company. It's up to each individual investor whether they buy that that's the case or not. I suspect it's true - it certainly makes sense as an explanation that the lack of new release this year at the same time would make the numbers smaller.)

 

[Parmandur]

yeah I don't get this 'level' of finace but I guess they have a reason to bundle it the way they do...

But it feels like if I had a big car issue that was $1,000 to fix this month and I just added that to my monthly bills and said "Why have my monthly expenses jumped so high?"

It's not expenses, it's income. So if you win a small Lotto pot in 2021, but don't in 2022, your income will be lower even though nothing went wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

It's more like you inherited a chunk of money last year in June and then this year you look at your bank account this year and wonder "why is my account lower than the same time last year"?

But yeah - that's why they need the narrative explanation of "we only look like we're performing worse because we didn't have a big video game drop this year, we've actually expanded in other areas" to the investors. Because just plopping down the numbers they're required to file with the SEC would make the story look worse than they think it actually is.

(A lot of these questions about "why do they report things this way" are due to the requirements of SEC regulations, mixed with the standard corporate desire to only show themselves in the most positive light possible - which the SEC regulations are partially there to fight against though when you make a rule people will figure out how to game it. So the Dark Alliance explanation is Hasbro's "spin" on why the numbers they're required to report look a little bad, but actually represent an opportunity rather than a downturn for the company. It's up to each individual investor whether they buy that that's the case or not. I suspect it's true - it certainly makes sense as an explanation that the lack of new release this year at the same time would make the numbers smaller.)

Yeah, this is overall still good news for D&D. Another explanation that comes to mind for me is that the big Q2 tabletop release was delayed until Q3.

 

[JEB]

Appreciate the research, but still not seeing it. Just the same thing about tabletop being up 15%, with no breakout. Again, the article says most of that 15% is MTG.

 

[bedir than]

Appreciate the research, but still not seeing it. Just the same thing about tabletop being up 15%, with no breakout. Again, the article says most of that 15% is MTG.

You can tell that the Tabletop 15% bullet is related to D&D because there are two sub-points related to licensed games, one below MtG and one below D&D. Those licensed game numbers are different and the only reason to structure a slide that way would be because they are subpoints.

 

[JEB]

You can tell that the Tabletop 15% bullet is related to D&D because there are two sub-points related to licensed games, one below MtG and one below D&D. Those licensed game numbers are different and the only reason to structure a slide that way would be because they are subpoints.

Related, sure, but if D&D is up 15%, they would have said D&D is up 15%. Instead, they say tabletop is up 15%. And MTG - at least the card game part - counts as part of tabletop. And the article said most of the tabletop growth was in MTG, not D&D.

 

[bedir than]

Related, sure, but if D&D is up 15%, they would have said D&D is up 15%. Instead, they say tabletop is up 15%. And MTG - at least the card game part - counts as part of tabletop. And the article said most of the tabletop growth was in MTG, not D&D.

For your version to be true MtG being up 11% and MtG licensed games being up 20% while also MtG licensed games are down 36% - that's nonsensical.

A natural plain reading of the powerpoint slide is that D&D is down overall because Digital and Licensed had a large downswing while tabletop was up some.

 

[JEB]

For your version to be true MtG being up 11% and MtG licensed games being up 20% while also MtG licensed games are down 36% - that's nonsensical.

A natural plain reading of the powerpoint slide is that D&D is down overall because Digital and Licensed had a large downswing while tabletop was up some.

The categories of MTG and D&D broadly are not the same as the tabletop category specifically. MTG and D&D overlap multiple categories that include tabletop; tabletop overlaps multiple categories that include D&D and MTG.

What I'm basically getting at here is that we do not know how much D&D went up in the tabletop category, only that the tabletop category as a whole went up 15%. And per the original article, most of that tabletop growth was in MTG, meaning MTG tabletop. D&D tabletop is some undefined portion of the tabletop growth, but presumably less than half if MTG was most of it.

 

[MockingBird]

Related, sure, but if D&D is up 15%, they would have said D&D is up 15%. Instead, they say tabletop is up 15%. And MTG - at least the card game part - counts as part of tabletop. And the article said most of the tabletop growth was in MTG, not D&D.

I see what you're saying. Like they don't specifically call out D&D but they do MtG. Is D&D the only "table top" game they have sans MtG? Just seems odd to put it out that way if they aren't including MtG in the table top category.

 

[bedir than]

The categories of MTG and D&D broadly are not the same as the tabletop category specifically. MTG and D&D overlap multiple categories that include tabletop; tabletop overlaps multiple categories that include D&D and MTG.

What I'm basically getting at here is that we do not know how much D&D went up in the tabletop category, only that the tabletop category as a whole went up 15%. And per the original article, most of that tabletop growth was in MTG, meaning MTG tabletop. D&D tabletop is some undefined portion of the tabletop growth, but presumably less than half if MTG was most of it.

Then you are insisting that the Licensed games category simultaneously made and lost money