https://pandaily.com/hasbro-seeks-to-sell-ip-dnd-and-has-had-preliminary-contact-with-tencent/

Hasbro Seeks to Sell IP “DND” and Has Had Preliminary Contact with Tencent
Jan 31, 2024, 11:22am Pandaily

Speed Daily exclusively learned that the American toy company Hasbro is
seeking to sell its well-known IP “Dungeons & Dragons” (referred to as
“DND” below), and Tencent is one of the potential buyers.

At present, the negotiations are still in the early stages and both
parties have not yet reached an agreement on the details of the transaction.

According to informed sources, the financial crisis faced by Hasbro is
the main reason for considering the sale of DND, and Tencent
Investment’s Larian Studios is acting as an intermediary in this
transaction. Larian Studios’ game “Baldur’s Gate 3” won the TGA Game of
the Year award in 2023 and is considered one of the most successful
adaptations of DND. As a result, it was seen as a potential target buyer
by Hasbro. However, due to insufficient funds, Larian ultimately
introduced this deal to shareholder Tencent.

Hasbro was founded in 1923 and has a history of over a hundred years. In
1935, the company gradually became a world-class toy company with its
Monopoly series games. It owns well-known IPs such as Transformers,
Dungeons & Dragons, Monopoly, and My Little Pony. However, this
century-old enterprise is currently facing a huge crisis due to losses.
Its stock price has dropped from a high of $108 in 2019 to $51 (closing
data on January 26th).

According to the financial report, as of the third quarter of 2023,
Hasbro has been experiencing consecutive losses for four quarters due to
its main business of toy sales. The accumulated loss from Q4 2022 to Q3
2023 exceeds $500 million USD, and in Q2 2023, there was even a negative
free cash flow situation. According to Forbes reports, in response to
the crisis, the company underwent significant layoffs last year, with a
total reduction of over 1,900 employees accounting for more than 20%.

Although the company as a whole is in a loss situation, its DND-related
IP is a high-quality asset and has achieved considerable success in
video game adaptations. Last year, the release of “Baldur’s Gate 3” by
Larian Studios was both critically acclaimed and commercially
successful. It not only won six TGA awards, including Game of the Year
but also generated revenue of $657 million, surpassing the Harry Potter
IP adaptation game “Hogwarts Legacy,” making it the most profitable PC
exclusive game last year.

The success of “Baldur’s Gate 3” is also reflected in the financial data
of Hasbro. The financial report shows that in the third quarter of 2023,
driven by “Baldur’s Gate 3” and another Monopoly IP game called
“Monopoly Go!”, Hasbro’s electronic gaming and licensing-related
business achieved a contrary year-on-year growth of 40%, reaching $423
million.

Outside of electronic games, DND is also one of the most popular
tabletop games in Europe and America. It has appeared multiple times in
American TV shows such as “The Big Bang Theory” and “Stranger Things”. A
large fan base has formed around its related culture, making it a
top-tier IP.

A Tencent IEG (Interactive Entertainment Group) insider revealed that
Tencent, represented by its overseas business department IEG Global, is
in negotiations with the aim of acquiring a series of rights including
the adaptation rights for electronic games such as DND.

According to the aforementioned IEG insiders, Tencent currently holds
the game adaptation rights for many top-tier IPs. However, due to the
licensing model mostly not being a one-time buyout, Tencent not only
needs to bear high copyright fees and long-term revenue sharing but also
frequently faces restrictions from its partners in terms of development
and operation. Previously, the mobile game adaptation of “NieR”
developed by Tencent TiMi Studio was unable to be launched even until
the project was cancelled.

If this acquisition is successful, it will enable Tencent to gain
dominant control over the IP of Dungeons & Dragons, which will largely
avoid the aforementioned issues.

Companies in Europe and America attach great importance to the value of
intellectual property (IP), while Chinese companies have limited
opportunities to acquire top-tier IP from overseas. For Tencent, the
opportunity to acquire the Dungeons & Dragons IP from Hasbro due to
financial considerations is a rare chance.

On 1 Feb 2024, kyonshi wrote:

> https://pandaily.com/hasbro-seeks-to-sell-ip-dnd-and-has-had-preliminary-contact-with-tencent/
>
> Hasbro Seeks to Sell IP “DND” and Has Had Preliminary Contact with Tencent
> Jan 31, 2024, 11:22am Pandaily
>
> Speed Daily exclusively learned that the American toy company Hasbro is
> seeking to sell its well-known IP “Dungeons & Dragons” (referred to as
> “DND” below), and Tencent is one of the potential buyers.

I find the timing interesting considering the new version is due to come out
this year.

Does that mean Hasbro can get a higher price based on potential future sales
of the new product, or are they walking from the new version because they're
worried it won't generate as much revenue? Or both?

--
gbbgu

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:38:56 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>https://pandaily.com/hasbro-seeks-to-sell-ip-dnd-and-has-had-preliminary-contact-with-tencent/
>
>Hasbro Seeks to Sell IP “DND” and Has Had Preliminary Contact with Tencent
>Jan 31, 2024, 11:22am Pandaily

<snip>

On the one hand, my heart sinks reading this news. I'm not sure it's
entirely warranted, however. Although there are concerns about Tencent
- a Chinese company - owning so much Western IP, the company on the
whole has generally been a reasonable custodian of other companies it
has purchased. Yes, it also has a large stake in many less reputable
companies (including a lot of MTX-heavy mobile games) but generally it
seems to be pretty hands-off with Western companies it acquires. So I
wonder how much my worries are mere Sinophobia.

Still, having D&D sold by one overly large corporation to another,
even larger corporation has its own concerns. Frankly, I just don't
think that D&D is a good fit for such a massive company. Despite
Hasbro's best attempts, I don't think D&D will /ever/ be the sort of
mass-market product that they - or any other mega-corporation - really
want. It's a niche game, made for - and by - dreamers, artists and
writers. Sure, it gained some popularity thanks to YouTube but I think
that was more a flash-in-the-pan, nostalgia-fueled Internet craze
rather than a real and enduring popularity amongst the greater
population. D&D requires (IMHO) just too much effort and time for it
to be something most people will want to engage with on a long term
basis.

(Then again, maybe I'm just gate-keeping my favored hobby, trying to
keep those 'dirty normies' out of what once was a quintessentially
nerdy hobby. I should try to avoid that)

Nonetheless, while the game's recent popularity brought a lot of new
faces to the game, I don't think that many of them will stick with the
hobby. The fact that its latest movie was a financial failure seems
indicative of that (It's also probably one of the reasons Hasbro is so
desperate to sell the brand; they overspent promoting the game to
people who weren't going to engage with it beyond the briefest of
flings).

D&D really needs to be in the hands of a small, independent company
again. For all its faults (it's many, many, many faults) some of D&D's
best years (again, IMHO) were under the helmsmanship of TSR. Or even
WOTC, before they were acquired by Hasbro. That smaller companies -
Paizo, Goodman Games, etc. - all seem to be putting out better, more
interesting products than Hasbro (and more of them too) seems telling.
The concerns and bureaucracy of large corporations are not fitting
setting for developing a role-playing game.

There's too little interest in artistry and development in large
corporations, and too much focus on marketability. Whether it's Hasbro
or Tencent holding the reins, that ultimately is the problem. And
Tencent being a much larger company doesn't give me any confidence
that a transfer of the brand to them will improve the situation.

Not that it matters what I - or any of the game's fans or developers -
think. D&D is too large and prominent a brand to ever escape its
corporate entanglements. Which, sadly, does not bode well for the game
overall, regardless of which corporation it gets transferred to.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> D&D really needs to be in the hands of a small, independent company
> again.

couldn't agree more!

> For all its faults (it's many, many, many faults) some of D&D's
> best years (again, IMHO) were under the helmsmanship of TSR. Or even
> WOTC, before they were acquired by Hasbro.

this!

> That smaller companies -
> Paizo, Goodman Games, etc. - all seem to be putting out better, more
> interesting products than Hasbro (and more of them too) seems telling.

proving above point.

We'll have "Folk D&D" at last ...

Let's suggest to the new land lords, do a 1:1 new print run of
original D&D, including the boxes 8-)

--
https://social.sdfeu.org/@lkh
IRC: lkh on Libera.chat and others

On 1/31/2024 10:32 PM, lkh wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> D&D really needs to be in the hands of a small, independent company
>> again.
>
> couldn't agree more!
>
>> For all its faults (it's many, many, many faults) some of D&D's
>> best years (again, IMHO) were under the helmsmanship of TSR. Or even
>> WOTC, before they were acquired by Hasbro.
>
> this!
>
>> That smaller companies -
>> Paizo, Goodman Games, etc. - all seem to be putting out better, more
>> interesting products than Hasbro (and more of them too) seems telling.
>
> proving above point.
>
> We'll have "Folk D&D" at last ...
>
> Let's suggest to the new land lords, do a 1:1 new print run of
> original D&D, including the boxes 8-)

Let's not. I assume I'll be dead by then, but in another 50 years it'll
enter public domain if they don't.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 2 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:

> Let's not. I assume I'll be dead by then, but in another 50 years it'll
> enter public domain if they don't.

I could be wrong, but it'll enter the public domain anyway, even if they
reprint it.

--
gbbgu

On 2/2/2024 3:34 AM, gbbgu wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:
>
>> Let's not. I assume I'll be dead by then, but in another 50 years it'll
>> enter public domain if they don't.
>
> I could be wrong, but it'll enter the public domain anyway, even if they
> reprint it.
>

You're not wrong. Well, according to the current laws that is. Who knows
what copyright shenanigans they are going to come up with in the next 50
years.

On 1/31/24 3:45 PM, gbbgu wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024, kyonshi wrote:
>
>> https://pandaily.com/hasbro-seeks-to-sell-ip-dnd-and-has-had-preliminary-contact-with-tencent/
>>
>> Hasbro Seeks to Sell IP “DND” and Has Had Preliminary Contact with Tencent
>> Jan 31, 2024, 11:22am Pandaily
>>
>> Speed Daily exclusively learned that the American toy company Hasbro is
>> seeking to sell its well-known IP “Dungeons & Dragons” (referred to as
>> “DND” below), and Tencent is one of the potential buyers.
>
> I find the timing interesting considering the new version is due to come out
> this year.
>
> Does that mean Hasbro can get a higher price based on potential future sales
> of the new product, or are they walking from the new version because they're
> worried it won't generate as much revenue? Or both?
>
>
From:
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/tencent-is-reportedly-seeking-to-acquire-dungeons-dragons-from-hasbro/

Wizards of the Coast has denied the report.

In a statement provided to VGC, it said: “We regularly talk to Tencent
and enjoy multiple partnerships with them across a number of our IPs. We
don’t make a habit of commenting on internet rumors, but to be clear: we
are not looking to sell our D&D IP.

“We will keep talking to partners about how we bring the best digital
experiences to our fans. We won’t comment any further on speculation or
rumors about potential M&A or licensing deals.”

--
dozens@tilde.team
https://tilde.town/~dozens

On 2/2/2024 12:29 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
> On 2/2/2024 3:34 AM, gbbgu wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:
>>
>>> Let's not.  I assume I'll be dead by then, but in another 50 years it'll
>>> enter public domain if they don't.
>>
>> I could be wrong, but it'll enter the public domain anyway, even if they
>> reprint it.
>>
>
> You're not wrong. Well, according to the current laws that is. Who knows
> what copyright shenanigans they are going to come up with in the next 50
> years.

Forgot that bit. I think there's a shorter time if they don't reprint,
but I think digitally counts for time of last print, and they're
available on DriveThruRPG in digital form.

I do have to say I was surprised Disney either didn't try or failed to
bribe enough politicians to keep Mickey (Steamboat Willy) copy-write
from expiring.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 2/2/2024 11:36 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 2/2/2024 12:29 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
>> On 2/2/2024 3:34 AM, gbbgu wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's not.  I assume I'll be dead by then, but in another 50 years
>>>> it'll
>>>> enter public domain if they don't.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong, but it'll enter the public domain anyway, even if they
>>> reprint it.
>>>
>>
>> You're not wrong. Well, according to the current laws that is. Who
>> knows what copyright shenanigans they are going to come up with in the
>> next 50 years.
>
> Forgot that bit.  I think there's a shorter time if they don't reprint,
> but I think digitally counts for time of last print, and they're
> available on DriveThruRPG in digital form.

From my understanding about international copyright in the USA it's 95
years from publication for works published 1964–1977 and 28 if copyright
not renewed. Original DnD was published in 1974, so it's gonna be 2069
until we can see PD reprints. Unless they mess around with that again.
Of course someone might still hold the trademark, but that might be able
to get genericised over time.

This means that Holmes' DnD will be out of copyright by 2071.

Books published after 1978 are protected by life of author + 70, so it
depends on when the authors died. Tom Moldvay died in 2010, so his
edition will become PD in 2080; Frank Mentzer is still alive, so BECMI
can't even be determined.

One interesting thing here is the provision of 28 years if copyright not
renewed. I doubt that many of the really early publishers would have
thought about doing that (I assume TSR did though, but who knows with
how that shop was ran...), so it might be that a few really early books
are currently out of copyright and could technically be reprinted by
anyone. (first thing I was thinking about was the 1975 fanzine
publication of Warlock for example, before the 1978 book)

>
> I do have to say I was surprised Disney either didn't try or failed to
> bribe enough politicians to keep Mickey (Steamboat Willy) copy-write
> from expiring.
>

They did long enough, the joke was always that the length of copyright
is however long it will take to keep Steamboat Willy out of copyright.
That's why the length of copyright for it came down to 95 years.
I assume they did not feel it was worth it for protecting the character
like that. They still have Mickey trademarked after all, and noticeably
they have been using an animated sequence from Steamboat Willy (the one
of Mickey Whistling on the steering wheel) as a logo for their movies
for the last decade or so. Which means that yes, you can use Mickey
Mouse (even with his red pants, as someone found a colored promotional
poster from the time) in their own works. They might run into trouble
with using the animation though (after all: trademarked) or by
advertising things as Mickey Mouse's something, as I bet that name also
is trademarked, and a company HAS to defend their trademark unless they
want to lose it.

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:36:14 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 2/2/2024 12:29 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
>> On 2/2/2024 3:34 AM, gbbgu wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's not.  I assume I'll be dead by then, but in another 50 years it'll
>>>> enter public domain if they don't.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong, but it'll enter the public domain anyway, even if they
>>> reprint it.
>>>
>>
>> You're not wrong. Well, according to the current laws that is. Who knows
>> what copyright shenanigans they are going to come up with in the next 50
>> years.
>
>Forgot that bit. I think there's a shorter time if they don't reprint,
>but I think digitally counts for time of last print, and they're
>available on DriveThruRPG in digital form.

Reprints don't affect the length of copyright. An author may be able
to get a NEW copyright on the reprint if there is new content added,
but that won't give him any right to stop the original content from
entering public domain once the copyright on the first work expires.
Any new copyright from a reprint essentially only covers any new
material.

New copyrights are for 'life of author' + 70 years (up to 120 years
for anonymous works). Older copyrights - that is, stuff published
before 1978) vary depending on a number of factors, but for original
D&D it likely has a 95-year term. So, roughly 45 years until the
oldest rules enter the public domain.

On 3 Feb 2024, dozens wrote:

> Wizards of the Coast has denied the report.
>
> In a statement provided to VGC, it said: “We regularly talk to Tencent
> and enjoy multiple partnerships with them across a number of our IPs. We
> don’t make a habit of commenting on internet rumors, but to be clear: we
> are not looking to sell our D&D IP.
>
> “We will keep talking to partners about how we bring the best digital
> experiences to our fans. We won’t comment any further on speculation or
> rumors about potential M&A or licensing deals.”

It's always interesting seeing the rumour mill churn. First you see
politicians denying things, then _whoops_ here's an email proving you did
actually know about x, and then they soon leave to spend more time with their
family.

I wasn't paying much attention when TSR was bought by Wizards, so I don't know
what the rumours at the time were like. From reading books like Slaying the
Dragon, I don't think anyone at TSR knew what was happening either until they
were in the meeting room with WotC.

Hasbro doesn't feel anywhere near as broken, and it makes sense they're not
desperate enough to offload DnD. Like someone said "throwing out a chest of
diamonds to save a sinking ship".

Hasbro does have huge shelf presence in stores with the specialised monopoly
editions. Dad likes X, kid's buy the monopoly edition of X for fathers day.
Gets played once, everyone has a fight, and it sits in the back of the
cupboard forever.

We might see more movement towards the high profit and the lifestyle brand
items. I guess similar to Disney, StarWars, LoTR, Marvel, StarTrek. I really
doubt we'll see something like the Deck of Many Things. I assume the mistakes
and low sales have cost them a load of money and now they won't touch it
again. I also expect to see a lot of mentions about VTT in the new rules.
Maybe things like QR codes linking to digital only assets. (You'll need some
dice to play, scan the QR code to used DnD Digital Dice! Fill in your charater
sheet, or scan the QR code to use a Digital Character sheet that does all the
book-keeping for you. Click to generate AI art for you charater!)

--
gbbgu

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 03:53:16 GMT, gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com> wrote:

>On 3 Feb 2024, dozens wrote:

>I wasn't paying much attention when TSR was bought by Wizards, so I don't know
>what the rumours at the time were like. From reading books like Slaying the
>Dragon, I don't think anyone at TSR knew what was happening either until they
>were in the meeting room with WotC.

The TSR/WOTC sale was also made during the early years of the
Internet, when it was /much/ harder to get news... especially
corporate news.

I don't think I learned about TSR's acquisiton by WOTC until long
after the ink had dried? The diminishing quality of TSR products (and
my own fluctuating finances) meant that I hadn't been buying their
products for a while. I'd even let my subscription to Dragon Magazine
lapse (an incontrovertible sign of a slide into heresy)! I wasn't even
frequenting r.g.f.dnd anymore.

So the change-over didn't really affect me... not that I didn't feel
betrayed by the sale. Dungeons & Dragons? In the hands of the
trading-card company, of all people?!?!? Had it gone to FASA or Iron
Crown or any even Steve Jackson Games*, it would have been less
devastating. But WOTC felt like a gut-punch.

>Hasbro doesn't feel anywhere near as broken, and it makes sense they're not
>desperate enough to offload DnD. Like someone said "throwing out a chest of
>diamonds to save a sinking ship".

>Hasbro does have huge shelf presence in stores with the specialised monopoly
>editions. Dad likes X, kid's buy the monopoly edition of X for fathers day.
>Gets played once, everyone has a fight, and it sits in the back of the
>cupboard forever.

Hasbro is actually struggling in the toy aisle too. It's stock isn't
moving, at least not at the same pace it's being produced. They've
moved too heavily into the licensed toy market, with every single
vaguely kid-oriented game getting multiple lines of action figures.
And, unsurprisingly, they aren't selling.

That's not to say that everything Hasbro produces is failing, but the
company is definitely in need of some sort of reorganization /
refocusing. And - despite a momentary rise in popularity - D&D doesn't
really seem a good fit for the company. It was purchased mostly for
its brand recognition, not its actual products, and yet Hasbro has
repeatedly failed to significantly grow the brand. Sure, more people
are aware of it, more people have tried it... but most aren't sticking
with it, much less buying the dozens of rulebooks and accessories.
After pouring so much money into trying to leverage the brand
(including financing four movies) I wouldn't be surprised if Hasbro
has had enough.

* D&D being converted (officially) to GURPS would, I think, have
caused nerdom's collective brains to explode, setting back the world's
technological advancement by twenty years. So it's a good thing that
didn't happen ;-)

On 2/5/2024 4:51 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> It was purchased mostly for
> its brand recognition, not its actual products, and yet Hasbro has
> repeatedly failed to significantly grow the brand.

It was purchased as a package deal when they bought WotC to get to the
rights of the Pokémon Trading Card Game.
Yep, it wasn't even Magic that enticed Hasbro (although I doubt they
were unhappy about the business they got from that over the years), it
was Pokémon they were after. (at this point sales for PTCG were higher
than they ever were for MTG)
DnD was just one of those additional properties they got from that, and
for the longest time it was basically considered dead weight.