WotC WotC Makes Over $1B In 2021!

According to ICv2, D&D publisher WotC made over $1 billion in total sales in 2021, including $952M in tabletop games.

WotC is the first (and only) billion dollar publisher in tabletop RPGs, although much of this revenue will also be due to Magic the Gathering. It is responsible for a staggering 72% of Hasbro's total operating profit.

Interim CEO Rich Stoddart indicated that tabletop games grew 44% and accounted for 74% of the $1.3B sales for WotC in 2021. The division at Hasbro is 'Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming', so the remained came from the Digital Gaming side of things.

WotC Sold Over $950 Million in Tabletop Games in 2021

As Company Revenues Passed $1 Billion for the First Time

icv2.com

WotC - WotC Has A New President

With outgoing president Chris Cocks being promoted to the top job at Hasbro, WotC has a chief -- Microsoft's Cynthia Williams! Williams is joined by Tim Fields as Senior Vice President. Over at Microsoft, Williams was General Manager and Vice President, Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team and was...

www.enworld.org

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Awesome! If I noticed it all back then, I probably assumed that it was a module and passed on it because as with all 4e modules, I figured it wasn't worth it because combat took too long in 4e, I was only gaming once a month at best back then, and I figured it would just take forever to get through it.

It packs a lot of ideas into its slim pages. Practically everything in it is a hook. An entire potential campaign is outlined in under two pages! My only complaint is that the art is so-so.

I saw Hammerfast on shelves years ago but never picked it up. I've just read a review and I'm hooked! What a dense product too! Unlike a kitschy super-dungeon, Hammerfast seems more like the mini-campaign world setting you'd find in an AD&D module. Another tragedy of great content lost in the swamp of flooded market.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention *nods

I agree, it was absolutely the right decision. Each release is something we take note of, whether we buy it or not. Heck, there are products from 2e that I'm still finding out about and the last one of those came out over 20 years ago!

Yeah, I was initially kind of frustrated with the slow production schedule for 5E, but in retrospect it was the right move. In addition to what you said, I suspect it might have also boosted sales of each individual book, since they were no longer competing with one another for attention. Speaking for myself, up until last year, I bought nearly single book they released...

Of course, now they seem to be slowly reversing course, with five releases last year and six going forward, so it'll be interesting to see how that goes.

 

[JEB]

@Morrus Your point about the SRD leads me to a What If question: do you think you still would have made Level Up if you had to build it off the 3.5 SRD instead of the 5E SRD? Would it have been worth the extra trouble? And if you did, would it have turned out the same way, if it technically used a 3E chassis?

 

[darjr]

@Morrus Your point about the SRD leads me to a What If question: do you think you still would have made Level Up if you had to build it off the 3.5 SRD instead of the 5E SRD? Would it have been worth the extra trouble? And if you did, would it have turned out the same way, if it technically used a 3E chassis?

Just note, this is the internet after all.
OSRIC is an AD&D clone built using the 3rd edition OGL and SRD but not the "3E chassis".

So a 5e clone wouldn't either.

If that wasn't what you meant, then I beg your pardon.

 

[JEB]

Just note, this is the internet after all.
OSRIC is an AD&D clone built using the 3rd edition OGL and SRD but not the "3E chassis".

So a 5e clone wouldn't either.

OSRIC certainly diverged significantly from the 3.5 SRD, but its starting point was still the 3.5 SRD, and therefore its "chassis" is a stripped-down version of the 3.5 rules. Just like the early Fifth Edition Fantasy modules were completely compatible with 5E, but got there by repurposing mechanics and terminology from the 3.5 SRD.

 

[darjr]

OSRIC certainly diverged significantly from the 3.5 SRD, but its starting point was still the 3.5 SRD, and therefore its "chassis" is a stripped-down version of the 3.5 rules. Just like the early Fifth Edition Fantasy modules were completely compatible with 5E, but got there by repurposing mechanics and terminology from the 3.5 SRD.

Well this is probably just a semantics misunderstanding so I'll leave it with OSRIC is not a game using the 3e chassis. In my opinion. It is an AD&D clone. It uses verbiage from the SRD to rebuild a 1e AD&D game using the AD&D chassis. You can't use 3e monsters/classes/races/magic items/spells etc.

 

[JEB]

Well this is probably just a semantics misunderstanding so I'll leave it with OSRIC is not a game using the 3e chassis. In my opinion. It is an AD&D clone. It uses verbiage from the SRD to rebuild a 1e AD&D game using the AD&D chassis. You can't use 3e monsters/classes/races/magic items/spells etc.

Some folks are known to create sculptures of animals and the like out of car parts: for example.

OSRIC is basically that, except using 3.5 parts. It may not be directly compatible with 3.5 anymore, it certainly doesn't look much like 3.5 anymore, but it started out with the same material.

So a game that emulates/improves on 5E but started with 3.5 parts is likely going to be at least a little different from a game that's built directly off 5E rules, especially if it tries to replicate 5E stuff that doesn't have an equivalent in the 3.5 SRD. (Fifth Edition Fantasy and similar pre-5E SRD products were pretty close, but sometimes you could see where the seams didn't quite fit, so to speak.)

 

[darjr]

Some folks are known to create sculptures of animals and the like out of car parts: for example.

OSRIC is basically that, except using 3.5 parts. It may not be directly compatible with 3.5 anymore, it certainly doesn't look much like 3.5 anymore, but it started out with the same material.

So a game that emulates/improves on 5E but started with 3.5 parts is likely going to be at least a little different from a game that's built directly off 5E rules, especially if it tries to replicate 5E stuff that doesn't have an equivalent in the 3.5 SRD. (Fifth Edition Fantasy and similar pre-5E SRD products were pretty close, but sometimes you could see where the seams didn't quite fit, so to speak.)

As to the first part, yea, I agree.

As to the second? I wasn't commenting on that.

However, like you, I am curious in @Morrus thoughts on if he didn't have a 5e OGL and SRD and instead had to depend upon the 3E one.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My thoughts:

Do you remember the "litlle prince" story where the main character is asked to draw a lamb, but the little prince didn't like until in the third attempt the MC draws a box and says: "your lamb is within the box". "Oh, it is perfect!". I mean D&D franchise can be very popular because here the story is controlled by the players, adapted to the taste of each tabletop.

Not only they are making money, but also becoming a delicious "prey" for the megacorporations what want earn thanks the multimedia franchises. Hasbro wants to keep its independence, I guess, but also they need the highest number or partnerships deals to sell toys and other products.

If Critical Role adult cartoon works, we could see also an animated Paizo's Pathfinder serie. And a rival for D&D should be good for the players. I may be totally wrong, but it couldn't totally impossible Paizo being adquired by a bigger fish what wants its own alternative of D&D if this becomes too popular.

In the internet age where you can get free PDFs who buys books are "collectors". Nobody is going to lose money with the SRD, and even then can be useful to promote these systems.

I am afraid soon we will see a satiation of the most "popular" franchises from the speculative fiction/entertaiment industry. If D&D has been relatively unknown, then there is some opportunity for D&D to take over.

Hasbro worries more about D&D as franchise for cinema productions and videogames than the original business of the tabletop game, but they haven't learnt they key yet.

 

[Mannahnin]

OSRIC certainly diverged significantly from the 3.5 SRD, but its starting point was still the 3.5 SRD, and therefore its "chassis" is a stripped-down version of the 3.5 rules. Just like the early Fifth Edition Fantasy modules were completely compatible with 5E, but got there by repurposing mechanics and terminology from the 3.5 SRD.

To the best of my recollection that's not accurate. That's the theoretical basis for a number of retroclones (certainly Basic Fantasy RPG, among the first wave, and at least nominally true of Labyrinth Lord), but OSRIC in particular uses the SRD under the OGL only for limited parts of the text (and TBF, a remarkable amount of 3E spell verbiage, for example, is retained from AD&D).

Most of OSRIC is very much designed (and reviewed by attorneys involved in its creation) to emulate 1E in ways which do not run afoul of copyright. Such as the THAC0 tables being based on a demonstrable algorithm, and the saving throw, experience, and ability score tables being slightly altered from AD&Ds, because the originals were not based on a demonstrable algorithm.

 

[Morrus]

@Morrus Your point about the SRD leads me to a What If question: do you think you still would have made Level Up if you had to build it off the 3.5 SRD instead of the 5E SRD? Would it have been worth the extra trouble? And if you did, would it have turned out the same way, if it technically used a 3E chassis?

Other than certain key terms (like 'hit points' or spell names) we didn't use any text from the 5E SRD. We used all our own words. Reworded everything. So, yes.

If you compare a spell or a feat from 5E to A5E, you'll see that they aren't the same words, other than the name.