this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
288 points (94.4% liked)

Games

32696 readers
1493 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 112 points 10 months ago (22 children)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I really doubt Hasbro are looking to sell it unless they're planning to shut their doors too. To my knowledge they have two profitable IPs, Magic the gathering and Dungeons and Dragons. D&D is also a strong brand but people don't need the brand to enjoy the game. If the designers aren't appeased, they'll just leave and make their own D&D clone. It's happened before and it's currently happening now.

Also the repeated use of only referring to the game as DND in the article is very odd, nobody calls it that maybe DnD is ok but not in a professional setting where either Dungeons and Dragons or maybe D&D is the standard. It sets off my hearsay alarm massively.

[–] deweydecibel 16 points 9 months ago

Also the repeated use of only referring to the game as DND in the article is very odd, nobody calls it that maybe DnD is ok but not in a professional setting where either Dungeons and Dragons or maybe D&D is the standard. It sets off my hearsay alarm massively.

It's a site based out of Beijing, written in English, reporting on a story published on another Chinese site, that was written in Chinese. It's completely believable that they wouldn't know this. There is no & in Chinese, they just write their word for "and", and not thinking to leave the middle N uncapitalized is hardly an odd mistake.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] JJROKCZ 95 points 10 months ago (9 children)

Please no, not Tencent of all companies please. Just sell it to Games Workshop and let them run it alongside the assorted warhammer IPs. GW already has the mini printing and lorecrafting experience to make it successful

[–] RGB3x3 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Or maybe everyone on the internet who plays it crowd sources a bunch of money to buy it, then makes it open source or whatever, because a company owning copy rights to something like DnD is ridiculous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vic_rattlehead 12 points 10 months ago

Each class would get its own codex and they would always be released staggered and late 😂

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] soupguy 58 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Was this what Wizards was talking about when they said they had big plans for D&D's 50th anniversary?

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb 12 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Just wait til MtGs 35th when they claim every aftermarket card banned and you can only play with the cards you buy direct from their on site printer

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bahnd 52 points 10 months ago (2 children)

China has some odd cultural hangups around skeletons and such that I think would eventually work its way into the IP (see old video game releases and the state approved model changes they have to make for their versions). Thats not nessessaraly a bad thing, but it would be weird to see what gets changed.

I would be concerned if I cared for the IP. The thing is that Hasbro broke the public's trust with the attempted OGL change along with many other bad decisions and my groups fully abandoned the IP for Pathfinder. BG3 really is only my last connection to the current edition, and even then its really only set dressing over the video game mechanics.

As someone who deeply cares for D&D as a collaborative story telling tool, an excuse to RP with friends and just play fun games. I dont care who owns it, ive got my old books and can use any framework to tell a fun adventure. As Hasbro proved in 2023, the hobby is too popular to kill and people will make rules forks if they feel like the owner has too much influence over it.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (5 children)

"Eventually"? They already force wotc to change art in DND and mtg for their market. If they owned it, those things would never be seen in the games again.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sxt 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's kinda where I'm at with it. There are loads of other systems at this point which honestly probably do more interesting things with certain mechanics. Just a matter of finding which one works for your group.

Im more curious to see what this does to a group like Critical Role. Most of the appeal there is the RP anyway so it seems like they'd be fine barring any weird contract stuff.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 9 months ago (3 children)
[–] TwilightVulpine 10 points 9 months ago

Prepare for D&D Beyond with class and gear lootboxes

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 10 months ago

To shreds you say...

[–] Sanctus 42 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I've gotta say, Hasbro didn't make Monopoly they stole it. They ripped Landlord's Game by Elizabeth Magie and changed up the box art slightly. The board was even a square beforehand.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They didn't steal shit. Parker Brothers bought the rights. Hasbro bought Parker Brothers in 1991.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Donkter 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Didn't parker brothers make monopoly?

[–] Sanctus 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They published it for her in 1932 after rejecting it at first in 1909. It was published in 1913 in the UK under a different name, and a college professor from Elizabeth's town also spread it to his students. Which is where the monopoly name came from. The information for this followup comment I found on Wikipedia. It also mentions she sold her patent to them in 1935 for 500 bucks. Which they then shelved her version of the game for someone else's. I think I just invalidated my stolen comment and found where that accusation comes from. Cause there were a fuckton of versions of this game. But she made the original for sure. I read all this on wikipedia for the follow up comment, it seemed unbiased but someone should challenge me if they know better.

[–] helloharu 40 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hasbro was founded in 1923 and has a history of over a hundred years.

Yep, that's how years work.

[–] tjsauce 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

2024-1923=101, that's over a hundred

[–] nrezcm 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Who would have known. It doesn't feel like it's been 101 years since 1923.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] De_Narm 25 points 10 months ago (5 children)

What's the big idea here anyway? Cash out before Hasbro dies completely? You can't survive longterm by selling your only profitable IPs, instead you could focus on them and abandon the rest.

[–] JJROKCZ 19 points 10 months ago

CEO makes a profitable year, collects large bonus then golden parachutes out while has to melts down after selling one of only two profitable divisions of the company. The other is Magic the Gathering

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

D&D has been somewhat profitable yes, but it has also been notoriously hard to monetise. Magic: the Gathering is their big cash cow. This is why Hasbro was fiddling with the OGL last year and why they were (are?) investing into an official digital tabletop (which they would presumably fill with micro transactions).

They are also in huge trouble financially, and last year was a bit of a surprise hit for the D&D brand with both the movie being pretty good and BG3 being a huge unexpected success. It's not inconceivable that they deem the brand value to be somewhat inflated currently and feel pressed to try to cash out, given their circumstances.

Now, whether that is a good idea or not I have no clue. I'm not an expert.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

If yall thought WOTC and Hasbro was toxic for D&D, just wait until Tencent owns it outright!

But this smells more to me like stock market manipulation. BG3 is a beast, D&D has never had more players, Hasbro's stock increased directly due to BG3 sales, they identify it as a high value IP, and yet they're trying to sell?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ilinamorato 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yeah no. This is a licensing deal that one person misunderstood and everyone else freaked out about.

Hasbro doesn't sell IPs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cossty 17 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Wait... I thought Larian was private company. Why is this article saying that tencent owns shares of it? Or am I reading it wrong?

[–] Bayz0r 19 points 10 months ago

I don't know about this case, but private companies also have shares and can sell them out/issue them to other parties just like public companies. It's just that it doesn't happen via a stock exchange and a lot of what they do doesn't need to be publicly disclosed.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago

Minority share. Tencent does that a lot. Helps them get a foot in the door for later full acquisitions or potential deals such as the one here.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NOT_RICK 10 points 10 months ago

I was smiling as I read the first half. I should have known better…

[–] Cybersteel 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why not just sell to paizo

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think paizo can afford the IP

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cafuneandchill 9 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

When did tencent gank the chrome logo?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›