Hasbro recently released their 2023 financial results.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240212472255/en/Hasbro-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2023-Financial-Results/

(why do I feel like this post is something Kyonshi should be making?
;-)

Not surprisingly, it's not looking good for D&D

"Full year Hasbro, Inc. revenue declined 15% with
growth in the Wizards of the Coast and Digital
Gaming segment (+10%) more than offset by declines
in the Consumer Products segment (-19%) and
Entertainment segment (-31%). "

Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -

"Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
operated production efforts and non-recurring
inventory costs. "

More on D&D:

- Revenue increase (in Wizards of the Coast / Digital
Gaming segment) of 10% driven by increase in Licensed
Digital Gaming revenue behind Baldur's Gate III from
Larian Studios and Monopoly Go! from Scopely.
- Tabletop revenue increased 1% behind growth in
MAGIC: THE GATHERING with a strong performance from
the Universes Beyond Lord of the Rings: Tales of
Middle-earth sets.
- Operating profit declined 2% and operating profit
margin of 36.1% due to higher royalty costs associated
with Universes Beyond.

- Q4 revenue declined 23% with growth in the Wizards of
the Coast and Digital Gaming segment (+7%) more than
offset by declines in the Consumer Products segment
(-25%) and Entertainment segment (-49%).

2024 outlook includes "Wizards of the Coast Segment revenue down 3% to
5% decline largely driven by second half comp in licensed digital
gaming; Operating margin 38% to 40%. "

So what little gains there have been for Wizards of the Coast have
been either from "Baldurs Gate 3" or from non-D&D stuff like Magic the
Gathering. And Hasbro expects the cash from "Baldurs Gate 3" to start
drying up.

Like I've said before, I have no idea if Hasbro will divest themselves
of the D&D brand... but it wouldn't surprise me if they did (but, also
knowing how avaricious corporations are, neither would I be surprised
if they kept it out of pure greed). But I think Hasbro was hoping they
could leverage the brand to be something more than a niche hobby. They
wanted to make a multimedia franchise out of it: movies, cartoons,
comics, toys (and more toys), etc. And I don't think D&D really lends
itself to that. Having spent billions in this quest and seen very
little in return, it wouldn't be unusual for them to try to sell the
brand to somebody else in attempt to recoup their losses.

Especially after they alienated so many of their hard-core fans - the
ones most likely to evangelicize the game - with their attempt to
revoke the OGL license.

On 2/14/2024 7:07 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>
> Hasbro recently released their 2023 financial results.
> https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240212472255/en/Hasbro-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2023-Financial-Results/
>
> (why do I feel like this post is something Kyonshi should be making?
> ;-)
>
> Not surprisingly, it's not looking good for D&D
>
> "Full year Hasbro, Inc. revenue declined 15% with
> growth in the Wizards of the Coast and Digital
> Gaming segment (+10%) more than offset by declines
> in the Consumer Products segment (-19%) and
> Entertainment segment (-31%). "
>
> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>
> "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
> billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
> impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
> a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
> operated production efforts and non-recurring
> inventory costs. "
>
> More on D&D:
>
> - Revenue increase (in Wizards of the Coast / Digital
> Gaming segment) of 10% driven by increase in Licensed
> Digital Gaming revenue behind Baldur's Gate III from
> Larian Studios and Monopoly Go! from Scopely.
> - Tabletop revenue increased 1% behind growth in
> MAGIC: THE GATHERING with a strong performance from
> the Universes Beyond Lord of the Rings: Tales of
> Middle-earth sets.
> - Operating profit declined 2% and operating profit
> margin of 36.1% due to higher royalty costs associated
> with Universes Beyond.
>
> - Q4 revenue declined 23% with growth in the Wizards of
> the Coast and Digital Gaming segment (+7%) more than
> offset by declines in the Consumer Products segment
> (-25%) and Entertainment segment (-49%).
>
>
> 2024 outlook includes "Wizards of the Coast Segment revenue down 3% to
> 5% decline largely driven by second half comp in licensed digital
> gaming; Operating margin 38% to 40%. "
>
> So what little gains there have been for Wizards of the Coast have
> been either from "Baldurs Gate 3" or from non-D&D stuff like Magic the
> Gathering. And Hasbro expects the cash from "Baldurs Gate 3" to start
> drying up.
>
> Like I've said before, I have no idea if Hasbro will divest themselves
> of the D&D brand... but it wouldn't surprise me if they did (but, also
> knowing how avaricious corporations are, neither would I be surprised
> if they kept it out of pure greed). But I think Hasbro was hoping they
> could leverage the brand to be something more than a niche hobby. They
> wanted to make a multimedia franchise out of it: movies, cartoons,
> comics, toys (and more toys), etc. And I don't think D&D really lends
> itself to that. Having spent billions in this quest and seen very
> little in return, it wouldn't be unusual for them to try to sell the
> brand to somebody else in attempt to recoup their losses.
>
> Especially after they alienated so many of their hard-core fans - the
> ones most likely to evangelicize the game - with their attempt to
> revoke the OGL license.
>

I think they easily could make it into a successful multi-media
franchise, but as with so many things nowadays it demands effort. And
effort is not something venture capitalists want to put in themselves.
Hasbro literally owns TV channels. When My Little Pony was broadcast
this was done ON THEIR OWN CHANNEL.
But do they even think about making a new Dungeons and Dragons series to
entice kids?
Well, I don't know if they do. I certainly haven't heard anything about it.
Instead they made their own Dungeons and Dragons TV channel and then
sell the production company before it even goes live.
Hasbro could make DnD into something big. Instead they try to squeeze it
for all the money they can make as soon as possible.
So yeah, they are gonna sell it off. But I assume most of the company
assets will be sold off soon enough. The brand of capitalist in charge
of Hasbro only knows how to make short-term profits.

On 2/14/2024 10:07 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>
> "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
> billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
> impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
> a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
> operated production efforts and non-recurring
> inventory costs. "

They lost 1.3 billion somehow on the D&D movie? I don't get this.
Sounds fishy, or perhaps stupid?

--
-Justisaur

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

On 2/15/2024 5:17 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 10:07 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
>> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>>
>>      "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
>>      billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
>>      impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
>>      a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
>>      operated production efforts and non-recurring
>>      inventory costs. "
>
> They lost 1.3 billion somehow on the D&D movie?  I don't get this.
> Sounds fishy, or perhaps stupid?
>

Might be stupid, they might not know how Hollywood Accounting works.
From everything I heard the movie was not as successful as they wanted,
but hardly a real flop. I mean, they are talking both sequel and tv
series. (and it has both quite good audience and critic ratings).

It reads to me that someone is being taken for a ride.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 08:17:55 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 2/14/2024 10:07 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
>> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>>
>> "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
>> billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
>> impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
>> a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
>> operated production efforts and non-recurring
>> inventory costs. "
>
>They lost 1.3 billion somehow on the D&D movie? I don't get this.
>Sounds fishy, or perhaps stupid?

Looks like the 1.3 billion is grouping a whole heap of different line
items together

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 01:02:46 +1100, Mad Hamish
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 08:17:55 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2/14/2024 10:07 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
>>> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>>>
>>> "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
>>> billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
>>> impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
>>> a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
>>> operated production efforts and non-recurring
>>> inventory costs. "
>>
>>They lost 1.3 billion somehow on the D&D movie? I don't get this.
>>Sounds fishy, or perhaps stupid?
>
>Looks like the 1.3 billion is grouping a whole heap of different line
>items together

Yeah, what Mad Hamish said. Apparenly, Hasbro divested itself of its
movie/TV assets, selling them off to Lionsgate. I read the loss to
mean "we valued those assets at X billion USD, but sold them at a 1.3
billion USD less than that".*

That still means there was a 239 million USD loss on the books from
'something else'. I suspect there were other projects - perhaps a TV
show - that never got released at all. None of which necessarily had
anything to do with D&D, though.

The failure of the D&D movie to make it big was probably the nail in
the coffin for those TV/movie assets but I don't think it affected
Hasbro's bottom line too much. The movie wasn't technically a flop,
after all (it made $200 million USD on a budget of $130) but I think
Hasbro had much higher expectations for it.

It actually makes a lot of sense for Hasbro to divest itself from any
movie/TV production. It's a risky and expensive business and not
really one where Hasbro has expertise. Better to sell off those assets
and then license their IP to somebody else. It's more profitable that
way; if a movie or show flops, you still get paid for your IP. If you
try to do it yourself, you're on the hook for the costs of development
for the movie.

* Some quick research indicates that 'goodwill impairment' is
basically, "if we sell all the tangible stuff - real estate, IP,
office desks, customer data, factories, etc. - in our company, it
equals X billion USD. However, we value the company at $X + $Y
billion. That $Y billion value is because of intangible stuff, like
being extremely competitive or being the only company to offer a
certain product. This intangible value is your 'goodwill'. Goodwill
impairment is when you correct your price because you overvalued how
much the Y in that equation is actually worth.

So in this case, they valued their eOne TV/movie assets too highly
because of the intangible values (perhaps, "D&D is really popular on
YouTube, so everyone is gonna go watch the movie and buy the toys!")
and had to cut that value drastically when they sold the division to
Lionsgate.

On 16 Feb 2024, kyonshi wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 5:17 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 2/14/2024 10:07 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
>>> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>>>
>>> "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
>>> billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
>>> impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
>>> a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
>>> operated production efforts and non-recurring
>>> inventory costs. "
>>
>> They lost 1.3 billion somehow on the D&D movie? I don't get this.
>> Sounds fishy, or perhaps stupid?
>>
>
> Might be stupid, they might not know how Hollywood Accounting works.
> From everything I heard the movie was not as successful as they wanted,
> but hardly a real flop. I mean, they are talking both sequel and tv
> series. (and it has both quite good audience and critic ratings).
>
> It reads to me that someone is being taken for a ride.

The sad thing about the movie is the burnt all the community/fan good will
just before it came out.

I don't know how it did in the end, and these numbers might be the typical
movie accounting shell game, but pissing of a large section of your dedicated
hype-people (YouTubers, tiktok and twitter posters) must have hurt the
numbers. The inbuilt fan community instead of saying "Cool a dnd movie, Let's
go see it!" were instead talking about mess that WotC/Hasbro was making.

PS I also want a DragonLance movie :(

--
gbbgu

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:02:22 GMT, gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com> wrote:

>
>The sad thing about the movie is the burnt all the community/fan good will
>just before it came out.

It wasn't a good move, although I don't know how much it actually cost
them directly. Most gamers probably didn't know about it, and very few
were directly affected by it (indirectly, the change would have cost
them as fewer third-party modules would have been made, but that only
would have happened months or years in the future).

It did put the brakes on D&Ds increasing popularity amongst the
casuals as the game's evangelicals stopped promoting it. I don't think
the movie was less successful because 'the nerds' didn't go to see it
but not having them praise the game to the high-heavens probably
didn't help its uptake.

>PS I also want a DragonLance movie :(

Or a "Baldurs Gate" movie. Or a "Drizzt" movie. Or even a "Gord the
Rogue" movie. "Ravenloft" has a lot of potential. Hell, I think they
could even do something amazing with "Spelljammer". The brand has a
lot of potential, with many interesting scenarios and characters.

Just not another generic fantasy movie with uninteresting characters
sprinkled with WOTC-trademarked monsters and spells. It absolutely
baffles me* that they are ignoring the potential of so much of their
IP.

(I know this has been discussed in this newsgroup before, but: "Tomb
of Horrors: The Movie", can you imagine? Although if it were honest to
the module, it would last all of five minutes before the first TPK ;-)

* not really, though. If they did "Dragonlance" or "Drizzt" or any of
the others, they'd have to share the revenue with the original
authors, and why do that when you can just toss any old schlock onto
the screen and keep all the profits for yourself?

On 2/19/2024 12:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> (I know this has been discussed in this newsgroup before, but: "Tomb
> of Horrors: The Movie", can you imagine? Although if it were honest to
> the module, it would last all of five minutes before the first TPK 😉

The only way to do that properly would be as a black comedy, where
characters die messy deaths and are replaced by identical substitutes
almost immediately.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:51:16 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/14/2024 7:07 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hasbro recently released their 2023 financial results.
>> https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240212472255/en/Hasbro-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2023-Financial-Results/
>>
>> (why do I feel like this post is something Kyonshi should be making?
>> ;-)
>>
>> Not surprisingly, it's not looking good for D&D
>>
>> "Full year Hasbro, Inc. revenue declined 15% with
>> growth in the Wizards of the Coast and Digital
>> Gaming segment (+10%) more than offset by declines
>> in the Consumer Products segment (-19%) and
>> Entertainment segment (-31%). "
>>
>> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
>> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>>
>> "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
>> billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
>> impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
>> a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
>> operated production efforts and non-recurring
>> inventory costs. "
>>
>> More on D&D:
>>
>> - Revenue increase (in Wizards of the Coast / Digital
>> Gaming segment) of 10% driven by increase in Licensed
>> Digital Gaming revenue behind Baldur's Gate III from
>> Larian Studios and Monopoly Go! from Scopely.
>> - Tabletop revenue increased 1% behind growth in
>> MAGIC: THE GATHERING with a strong performance from
>> the Universes Beyond Lord of the Rings: Tales of
>> Middle-earth sets.
>> - Operating profit declined 2% and operating profit
>> margin of 36.1% due to higher royalty costs associated
>> with Universes Beyond.
>>
>> - Q4 revenue declined 23% with growth in the Wizards of
>> the Coast and Digital Gaming segment (+7%) more than
>> offset by declines in the Consumer Products segment
>> (-25%) and Entertainment segment (-49%).
>>
>>
>> 2024 outlook includes "Wizards of the Coast Segment revenue down 3% to
>> 5% decline largely driven by second half comp in licensed digital
>> gaming; Operating margin 38% to 40%. "
>>
>> So what little gains there have been for Wizards of the Coast have
>> been either from "Baldurs Gate 3" or from non-D&D stuff like Magic the
>> Gathering. And Hasbro expects the cash from "Baldurs Gate 3" to start
>> drying up.
>>
>> Like I've said before, I have no idea if Hasbro will divest themselves
>> of the D&D brand... but it wouldn't surprise me if they did (but, also
>> knowing how avaricious corporations are, neither would I be surprised
>> if they kept it out of pure greed). But I think Hasbro was hoping they
>> could leverage the brand to be something more than a niche hobby. They
>> wanted to make a multimedia franchise out of it: movies, cartoons,
>> comics, toys (and more toys), etc. And I don't think D&D really lends
>> itself to that. Having spent billions in this quest and seen very
>> little in return, it wouldn't be unusual for them to try to sell the
>> brand to somebody else in attempt to recoup their losses.
>>
>> Especially after they alienated so many of their hard-core fans - the
>> ones most likely to evangelicize the game - with their attempt to
>> revoke the OGL license.
>>
>
>I think they easily could make it into a successful multi-media
>franchise, but as with so many things nowadays it demands effort. And
>effort is not something venture capitalists want to put in themselves.
>Hasbro literally owns TV channels. When My Little Pony was broadcast
>this was done ON THEIR OWN CHANNEL.
>But do they even think about making a new Dungeons and Dragons series to
>entice kids?
>Well, I don't know if they do. I certainly haven't heard anything about it.
>Instead they made their own Dungeons and Dragons TV channel and then
>sell the production company before it even goes live.
>Hasbro could make DnD into something big. Instead they try to squeeze it
>for all the money they can make as soon as possible.
>So yeah, they are gonna sell it off. But I assume most of the company
>assets will be sold off soon enough. The brand of capitalist in charge
>of Hasbro only knows how to make short-term profits.

Which is ironic, because capitalism is a long-term strategy where you,
you know... build capital over a period of decades. Doing that only for
oneself, and not the company, leaves the company vulnerable to the
inevitable ebb and flow of fashion and setbacks.

I would call this kind of strategy "cannibalism." They got the "c" right.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 08:17:55 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 2/14/2024 10:07 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> Also -and I suspect this bit has to do with the D&D movie (although
>> they sold eOne Film to Lionsgate) -
>>
>> "Operating loss of $1,539 million includes $1.3
>> billion of non-cash goodwill and intangible asset
>> impairment charges associated with eOne film and TV,
>> a change in outlook for the balance of our owned and
>> operated production efforts and non-recurring
>> inventory costs. "
>
>They lost 1.3 billion somehow on the D&D movie? I don't get this.
>Sounds fishy, or perhaps stupid?

It's been mentioned in thread, but I would assume that's just them trying
to screw Chris Pine somehow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 2/18/2024 3:24 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:02:22 GMT, gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The sad thing about the movie is the burnt all the community/fan good will
>> just before it came out.
>
>
> It wasn't a good move, although I don't know how much it actually cost
> them directly. Most gamers probably didn't know about it, and very few
> were directly affected by it (indirectly, the change would have cost
> them as fewer third-party modules would have been made, but that only
> would have happened months or years in the future).
>

I thought it was a good movie (not great, but good) but general public
it was great 91/93 % rotten tomatoes which is an unusually high score,
especially for a fantasy movie.

It wasn't 'my' D&D, and Critical Role was also involved which I'm also
not fond of. Another reason is we might be too close to it - my family
all liked it much more than I did. Though for the most part from what
I've read people who like 5e and/or CR were enthusiastic enough about it.

> It did put the brakes on D&Ds increasing popularity amongst the
> casuals as the game's evangelicals stopped promoting it. I don't think
> the movie was less successful because 'the nerds' didn't go to see it
> but not having them praise the game to the high-heavens probably
> didn't help its uptake.

It might've had a small impact, but I wouldn't guess anywhere near as
much as would've been needed to make it hit break even. Most people
aren't really aware of WotC that go to the movies.

BG3 by comparison was a huge success having made more than 3x the D&D
movie on less budget so far. I don't see that the WotC issues affected
that much if at all, and it would seem to me that people playing the
game would be more likely to be aware of that than moviegoers. Though
as you've noted (and I agree with) gamers tend not to vote off anything
not having to do with a game itself, and WotC is even further removed
from the game than game studios that continue to thrive with far worse
behavior.

--
-Justisaur

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

On 2/19/2024 5:17 AM, kyonshi wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 12:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> (I know this has been discussed in this newsgroup before, but: "Tomb
>> of Horrors: The Movie", can you imagine? Although if it were honest to
>> the module, it would last all of five minutes before the first TPK 😉
>
> The only way to do that properly would be as a black comedy, where
> characters die messy deaths and are replaced by identical substitutes
> almost immediately.

Do it as any horror movie. Even better, pull a Psycho on it. First
group is a seasoned shiny group with obviously all magical gear played
by well known actors. Overconfident they all walk in to the gaping
demon portal.

Next group are the underdogs who carefully go through and get killed one
by one, until one escapes with their life and little else.

--
-Justisaur

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

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:00:46 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 2/18/2024 3:24 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:02:22 GMT, gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The sad thing about the movie is the burnt all the community/fan good will
>>> just before it came out.
>>
>>
>> It wasn't a good move, although I don't know how much it actually cost
>> them directly. Most gamers probably didn't know about it, and very few
>> were directly affected by it (indirectly, the change would have cost
>> them as fewer third-party modules would have been made, but that only
>> would have happened months or years in the future).
>>
>
>I thought it was a good movie (not great, but good) but general public
>it was great 91/93 % rotten tomatoes which is an unusually high score,
>especially for a fantasy movie.
>
>It wasn't 'my' D&D, and Critical Role was also involved which I'm also
>not fond of. Another reason is we might be too close to it - my family
>all liked it much more than I did. Though for the most part from what
>I've read people who like 5e and/or CR were enthusiastic enough about it.
>
>> It did put the brakes on D&Ds increasing popularity amongst the
>> casuals as the game's evangelicals stopped promoting it. I don't think
>> the movie was less successful because 'the nerds' didn't go to see it
>> but not having them praise the game to the high-heavens probably
>> didn't help its uptake.
>
>It might've had a small impact, but I wouldn't guess anywhere near as
>much as would've been needed to make it hit break even. Most people
>aren't really aware of WotC that go to the movies.
>
>BG3 by comparison was a huge success having made more than 3x the D&D
>movie on less budget so far. I don't see that the WotC issues affected
>that much if at all, and it would seem to me that people playing the
>game would be more likely to be aware of that than moviegoers. Though
>as you've noted (and I agree with) gamers tend not to vote off anything
>not having to do with a game itself, and WotC is even further removed
>from the game than game studios that continue to thrive with far worse
>behavior.

In fact, the success of "Baldur's Gate 3" seems to be the only thing
that kept the D&D division from doing even worse than it already did.

"Wizards of the Coast Gamign Segment: Revenue increase of 10%
driven by increase in Licensed Digital Gaming revenue behind
Baldur's Gate III from Larian Studios"

And they recognize that the Baldur's gate money-train is only going to
last so long as the game ages:

"2024 Outlook: Wizards of the Coast Segment revenue down 3% to
5% decline, largely driven by second half comp in licensed
digital gaming"

TL;DR: what money we made from D&D came from one video game, not the
sales of the books (or miniatures or maps or subscription services or
whatever else Hasbro has associated the brand with), and the movie
didn't do so great either.

Again, none of this is /terrible/ for WOTC and D&D. The brand still
has value, and Hasbro may still have interest in keeping it. But I
think that Hasbro really was hoping to turn D&D more mainstream, and
that just isn't going to happen. Given the recent downturns in their
business - not only with D&D, but overall (Hasbro's core business of
selling plastic tchotkes to tots has been struggling too) - they may
decide that selling WOTC is a quick-n-easy way to make a few bucks.
Especially since they haven't had much success in turning it into a
super-profitable division. But they could just as easily decide that
the brand still has value to them and keep it.

Like I've said, I think D&D would be better off if it wasn't
controlled by a mega-corp. But Hasbro may not agree. We'll see how it
goes.

On 2/19/2024 11:25 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:00:46 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

> Again, none of this is /terrible/ for WOTC and D&D. The brand still
> has value, and Hasbro may still have interest in keeping it. But I
> think that Hasbro really was hoping to turn D&D more mainstream, and
> that just isn't going to happen. Given the recent downturns in their
> business - not only with D&D, but overall (Hasbro's core business of
> selling plastic tchotkes to tots has been struggling too) - they may
> decide that selling WOTC is a quick-n-easy way to make a few bucks.
> Especially since they haven't had much success in turning it into a
> super-profitable division. But they could just as easily decide that
> the brand still has value to them and keep it.
>
> Like I've said, I think D&D would be better off if it wasn't
> controlled by a mega-corp. But Hasbro may not agree. We'll see how it
> goes.
>

I think it's more of what the hell do they have left if they sell off
WotC? Toys are on the decline altogether. A quick search seems to
indicate NERF and Power Rangers, still owned by them are still doing
well. I suppose they could keep WotC & Magic (also still doing well)
and just sell off D&D. I can't see anyone that might have a chance of
doing something decent with it affording it though, so it'd likely end
up with another Megacorp unless an extremely wealthy fan decided to blow
their wad on it.

--
-Justisaur

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

On 2/19/24 11:06 AM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 5:17 AM, kyonshi wrote:
>> On 2/19/2024 12:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> (I know this has been discussed in this newsgroup before, but: "Tomb
>>> of Horrors: The Movie", can you imagine? Although if it were honest to
>>> the module, it would last all of five minutes before the first TPK 😉
>>
>> The only way to do that properly would be as a black comedy, where
>> characters die messy deaths and are replaced by identical substitutes
>> almost immediately.
>
> Do it as any horror movie.  Even better, pull a Psycho on it.  First
> group is a seasoned shiny group with obviously all magical gear played
> by well known actors.  Overconfident they all walk in to the gaping
> demon portal.
>
> Next group are the underdogs who carefully go through and get killed one
> by one, until one escapes with their life and little else.
>
Or a Tomb of Horrors Groundhog Day:
The adventurers constantly die and restart the adventure
until they experience existential nihilism
before finally breaking out of the loop

On 2/20/2024 2:15 PM, dozens wrote:
> On 2/19/24 11:06 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 2/19/2024 5:17 AM, kyonshi wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2024 12:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> (I know this has been discussed in this newsgroup before, but: "Tomb
>>>> of Horrors: The Movie", can you imagine? Although if it were honest to
>>>> the module, it would last all of five minutes before the first TPK 😉
>>>
>>> The only way to do that properly would be as a black comedy, where
>>> characters die messy deaths and are replaced by identical substitutes
>>> almost immediately.
>>
>> Do it as any horror movie.  Even better, pull a Psycho on it.  First
>> group is a seasoned shiny group with obviously all magical gear played
>> by well known actors.  Overconfident they all walk in to the gaping
>> demon portal.
>>
>> Next group are the underdogs who carefully go through and get killed
>> one by one, until one escapes with their life and little else.
>>
> Or a Tomb of Horrors Groundhog Day:
> The adventurers constantly die and restart the adventure
> until they experience existential nihilism
> before finally breaking out of the loop

Ooh, I like that one, but that would probably work better with one of
the computer games (i.e. god reloading a save.) Unfortunately I can't
think of any that have a good enough plot to do that with.

--
-Justisaur

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

On 21 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:

> I think it's more of what the hell do they have left if they sell off
> WotC? Toys are on the decline altogether. A quick search seems to
> indicate NERF and Power Rangers, still owned by them are still doing
> well. I suppose they could keep WotC & Magic (also still doing well)
> and just sell off D&D. I can't see anyone that might have a chance of
> doing something decent with it affording it though, so it'd likely end
> up with another Megacorp unless an extremely wealthy fan decided to blow
> their wad on it.

I'd love to see the sweet irony of Paizo purchasing it.

--
gbbgu

On 2/20/2024 5:35 PM, gbbgu wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:
>
>> I think it's more of what the hell do they have left if they sell off
>> WotC? Toys are on the decline altogether. A quick search seems to
>> indicate NERF and Power Rangers, still owned by them are still doing
>> well. I suppose they could keep WotC & Magic (also still doing well)
>> and just sell off D&D. I can't see anyone that might have a chance of
>> doing something decent with it affording it though, so it'd likely end
>> up with another Megacorp unless an extremely wealthy fan decided to blow
>> their wad on it.
>
> I'd love to see the sweet irony of Paizo purchasing it.
>

I wouldn't, it'd just be turned into Pathfinder 3. I didn't like the
direction PF took from 3.5, basically make everything more extreme and
more complicated. 5e was a huge improvement over 3.5 (and of course
4e.) and I'd hate to see it go back to 3.5+. Sure 5e still needs some
serious paring down in complexity especially on the DM side of the screen.

Maybe Paizo could manage to take the best of both worlds and make
something better, and it wouldn't be so bad. Paizo at least seems to
have managed their company well across two editions of D&D, which is
impressive. TSR and WotC after Hasbro were never well managed, and any
TTRPG company surviving for very long seems to be a fluke.

If it gets sold it'll probably end up with the likes of Tencent like the
rumor was. I don't know what they'd do with it, but it seems hard to
imagine another company would do worse than Hasbro has lately. The
worst I can imagine is a company that's very interested in heavily
enforcing copyright, and damn the consequences.

--
-Justisaur

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

On 2/21/2024 4:31 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 2/20/2024 5:35 PM, gbbgu wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2024, Justisaur wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's more of what the hell do they have left if they sell off
>>> WotC? Toys are on the decline altogether.  A quick search seems to
>>> indicate NERF and Power Rangers, still owned by them are still doing
>>> well.  I suppose they could keep WotC & Magic (also still doing well)
>>> and just sell off D&D.  I can't see anyone that might have a chance of
>>> doing something decent with it affording it though, so it'd likely end
>>> up with another Megacorp unless an extremely wealthy fan decided to blow
>>> their wad on it.
>>
>> I'd love to see the sweet irony of Paizo purchasing it.
>>
>
> I wouldn't, it'd just be turned into Pathfinder 3.  I didn't like the
> direction PF took from 3.5, basically make everything more extreme and
> more complicated.  5e was a huge improvement over 3.5 (and of course
> 4e.) and I'd hate to see it go back to 3.5+.  Sure 5e still needs some
> serious paring down in complexity especially on the DM side of the screen.
>
> Maybe Paizo could manage to take the best of both worlds and make
> something better, and it wouldn't be so bad.  Paizo at least seems to
> have managed their company well across two editions of D&D, which is
> impressive.  TSR and WotC after Hasbro were never well managed, and any
> TTRPG company surviving for very long seems to be a fluke.
>
> If it gets sold it'll probably end up with the likes of Tencent like the
> rumor was.  I don't know what they'd do with it, but it seems hard to
> imagine another company would do worse than Hasbro has lately.  The
> worst I can imagine is a company that's very interested in heavily
> enforcing copyright, and damn the consequences.
>

TSR never was managed well either. WotC seemed to know what they are
doing most of the time. That is, before they sold out.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 17:00:16 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/21/2024 4:31 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>> Maybe Paizo could manage to take the best of both worlds and make
>> something better, and it wouldn't be so bad.  Paizo at least seems to
>> have managed their company well across two editions of D&D, which is
>> impressive.  TSR and WotC after Hasbro were never well managed, and any
>> TTRPG company surviving for very long seems to be a fluke.

>TSR never was managed well either. WotC seemed to know what they are
>doing most of the time. That is, before they sold out.

TSRs failures seem almost quaint in comparison. It was, essentially, a
company run by a bunch of nerds who had no experience in business, and
no real expectations of success. They wrote a few books for a game
that became unexpectedly successful, and they had no idea what to do
after that. The company floundered financially. Lorraine Williams got
a lot of flack - much of it deserved - but she was the closest thing
to successful management the company had. If the company hadn't been
so fucked from the beginning, if the staff wasn't harder to manage
than a herd of cats, if her own greed hadn't sabotaged her efforts...
who knows, she might actually have gotten TSR into a stable place.

Wizards of the Coast has, financially, been a better steward of the
game... but they tend - especially recently - to focus more on what's
good for the business than what's good for the game. But that's
understandable... because D&D, ultimately, is a mature product. It's
not something that is still developing and changing; it's something
you can buy once and stick with for years and years. But modern
capitalism demands constant (unrealistic) growth, and you don't get
that with mature products. This forces a company to therefore look for
new avenues of revenue.

In WOTC's case, its by releasing new, largely unnnecessary editions,
or trying to force new licensing agreements on third-parties, or
subscription services, or whatever. None of these are beneficial for
the end-users, but a publically-owned company has gotta make the stock
price go up somehow, right? Just having a stable and predictible
income won't do that. In some ways, WOTC is just as trapped as the
rest of us by the rigged system.

>
> If it gets sold it'll probably end up with the likes of Tencent like the
> rumor was.  I don't know what they'd do with it, but it seems hard to
> imagine another company would do worse than Hasbro has lately.  The
> worst I can imagine is a company that's very interested in heavily
> enforcing copyright, and damn the consequences.

Tencent is still, I think, in the 'grow the business' stage of
development, which means it is still interested in making good
products for consumers. But ultimately I think they'd be the same as
Hasbro, forced to enshittify to prop up the stock price. And I think
the transition between these two states will happen fairly soon for
Tencent. So were D&D to be sold to them, I don't think there would be
enough honeymoon period for the brand before we start seeing the same
bullshit being forced down the corporate pipe. So I doubt a sale to
Tencent would be the panacea we'd hope for.

D&D is a game made by artists and writers, for dreamers and players.
It's just not the sort of thing that is - by itself - ever going to be
profitable... or even mass market. It's not a good fit for
ultra-capitalistic mega-corps. It would do best in the hands of a
private owner... and even then, it would struggle. Because all
products have a lifespan, and refreshing them to keep up with modern
tastes (and competing against imitators) is expensive. But, you know,
that's okay.

I love D&D. I played it for decades. I'm thrilled to see new gamers
take up the hobby. I think the game has a lot to offer, especially to
younger players. But at the same time, I don't think it's a game that
needs to last forever. And if D&D can't remain popular without huge
investments - that come at a cost to its soul - I'm fine with letting
it go.

It's not like I still can't use my old hardcopy rulebooks, anyway.