May be of interest here:
WSJ
* Hasbro Activist Begins Proxy Fight, Urges Dungeons & Dragons Spinoff
* Alta Fox Capital Management nominates five directors to company's board, saying stock has been trailing broader market
A little-known activist investor is seeking to add several directors to Hasbro Inc.'s board and is urging the toy maker to make changes including a spinoff of its fast-growing unit housing games such as Dungeons & Dragons.
Alta Fox Capital Management LLC, which has a 2.5% stake in Hasbro worth roughly $325 million, has nominated five directors to its board, according to a letter viewed by The Wall Street Journal that will be sent to the company's shareholders. Shareholders will vote on director nominees at Hasbro's annual meeting this spring.
Alta Fox, which says in the letter that it has spoken to Hasbro, noted that the company's stock price is lower than it was five years ago and has significantly trailed the broader market. Alta Fox believes Hasbro could double its valuation by spinning off the Dungeons & Dragons business.
Pawtucket, R.I.-based Hasbro, which has a market value of about $13 billion, owns such well-known brands as Nerf and Monopoly. It holds the rights for toys based on the popular children's show "Peppa Pig" and Walt Disney Co. 's blockbuster "Frozen" movies, though Mattel Inc. recently won back the lucrative rights to "Frozen."
It has been a period of turmoil for Hasbro, which named Chris Cocks as its new chief executive officer in January following the death of longtime CEO Brian Goldner last year.
Hasbro and Mattel, whose brands include Barbie and Hot Wheels, have been fierce rivals over the years. In 2017, when Hasbro was twice the size of Mattel, it made an unsuccessful takeover offer for its rival. Mattel has since improved its footing with cost cuts, an overhauled leadership team and updates to its brands, though its stock has also languished and the company's market value stands at about $9 billion.
Both companies enjoyed a boost during the Covid-19 pandemic as lockdowns spurred parents to spend on toys, though decreased attendance at movie theaters hit some character-driven toy sales.
A bright spot in Hasbro's business has been its Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming unit, which in addition to the cult-favorite role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons includes the card game Magic: The Gathering. The unit's revenue rose 42% in 2021 to $1.29 billion and accounted for roughly 46% of the company's $1.31 billion of adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
Alta Fox estimates in the letter that if the division was separated, it could be worth roughly as much as Hasbro, or $13 billion or more.
The activist takes issue with Hasbro's capital allocation, including its acquisition of Entertainment One in 2019, and its Brand Blueprint strategy, which focuses on promotion through multimedia storytelling.
The nominees include the founder and CEO of cloud-computing company Appian Corp. , Matthew Calkins, and Jon Finkel, a managing partner of an investment firm who has played games including Magic professionally.
Fort Worth, Texas-based Alta Fox is working with EnTrust Global, the investment firm run by Gregg Hymowitz that backs many of activist investors' biggest bets, a person familiar with the matter said.
Alta Fox's flagship fund was launched in 2018 by Connor Haley, who previously worked at New York hedge fund Scopia Capital Management LP. Though it has kept a relatively low profile since then, Alta Fox in 2020 successfully pushed Collectors Universe Inc., which authenticates and grades collectibles, to sell itself to a group of investors that included the hedge-fund manager Steven A. Cohen.
I've read through this multiple times and have no clue what I'm supposed to take away from it. What is the investor an "activist" for, and, is that even relevant to this? Because it seems like this is about boring financial stuff.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 16, 2022, 07:32:27 PM
I've read through this multiple times and have no clue what I'm supposed to take away from it. What is the investor an "activist" for, and, is that even relevant to this? Because it seems like this is about boring financial stuff.
An activist investor is one who pushes for changes in the company, instead of just passively holding shares. Carl Icahn is probably the most iconic example. It's a completely different use of the word than social activism.
The takeaway from this story is that someone with influence is pushing to spin off Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro.
From Investopedia:
" An activist investor is an individual or group that buys a significant stake in a public company in order to influence how the company is run, such as by obtaining seats on its board of directors. Companies that are mismanaged, have excessive costs, could be run more profitably if taken private, or have other problems the activist investor believes they can fix are often targets for activist investors. "
Probably the most famous(infamous) activist investor is Carl Icahn.
Awwww, shit.
Given WotC's current trajectory, I believe that spinning itself off from Hasbro would destroy it & Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, I wholeheartedly approve of this plan.
They should license D&D action figures and video games...
Quote from: Pat on February 16, 2022, 07:37:54 PM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 16, 2022, 07:32:27 PM
I've read through this multiple times and have no clue what I'm supposed to take away from it. What is the investor an "activist" for, and, is that even relevant to this? Because it seems like this is about boring financial stuff.
An activist investor is one who pushes for changes in the company, instead of just passively holding shares. Carl Icahn is probably the most iconic example. It's a completely different use of the word than social activism.
The takeaway from this story is that someone with influence is pushing to spin off Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro.
Thanks. As my use of "boring financial stuff" should indicate, I'm not really into finance stuff.
Quote from: Pat on February 16, 2022, 07:37:54 PM
...
The takeaway from this story is that someone with influence is pushing to spin off Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro.
Yup, because:
Quote from: WSJ investor shit
...
Alta Fox estimates in the letter that if the division was separated, it could be worth roughly as much as Hasbro, or $13 billion or more.
...
Of course the spinoff would mean that those already holding shares would make more money...
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 16, 2022, 07:57:24 PM
They should license D&D action figures and video games...
This is part of the investors beef. Hasbro has invested heavily in digital initiatives for D&D, and they largely have fuckall to show for it as of right now:
Quote from: WSJ investor shit
...
The activist takes issue with Hasbro's capital allocation, including its acquisition of Entertainment One in 2019, and its Brand Blueprint strategy, which focuses on promotion through multimedia storytelling.
...
When they could have been licensing this stuff to 3rd party developers for the past few years and raking in cash instead of spending it.
For various reasons WotC seems to want to do lots of this stuff in-house.
The investor is saying: "Fuck that long term shit that may not work out, license this hot IP and give me a fatter dividend payment now!"
Quote from: Zelen on February 16, 2022, 07:51:49 PM
Given WotC's current trajectory, I believe that spinning itself off from Hasbro would destroy it & Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, I wholeheartedly approve of this plan.
The motion is seconded...
I'm usually opposed to the actions of activist investors. They're looking for a quick profit and don't care if it damages the company, long-term investors, customers, the employees, and management. They are never as qualified as management to make decisions about the direction of a company. The only argument in their favor as that if management is enriching itself at the expense of investors (which is actually illegal) it's a remedy for that.
All that said, in this case selling D&D would be an opportunity for someone to do a better job with it, so I'd really like to see it happen.
HAS will spin it off, lever it up, then spend the proceeds on share repo. Green-ass SpinCo management will screw it up because they're used to having someone else wipe their noses but, with the added debt, they'll have little to no margin for error and wind up distressed and sold to Apollo or Platinum. A tale as old as time.
Quote from: Jaeger on February 16, 2022, 08:23:12 PM
Of course the spinoff would mean that those already holding shares would make more money...
Yep. That's the drive behind an activist investor. They buy companies they think have potential, but need a shakeup. So they push for a restructuring of the company, which often includes divestment. The biggest criticism of activist shareholders is they're looking for a quick buck, and their proposed changes aren't always in the long term interest of the company.
Edit: This time I was the one who got ninjaed, by Mishihari.
Quote from: Mishihari on February 16, 2022, 08:58:26 PM
I'm usually opposed to the actions of activist investors. They're looking for a quick profit and don't care if it damages the company, long-term investors, customers, the employees, and management. They are never as qualified as management to make decisions about the direction of a company. The only argument in their favor as that if management is enriching itself at the expense of investors (which is actually illegal) it's a remedy for that.
All that said, in this case selling D&D would be an opportunity for someone to do a better job with it, so I'd really like to see it happen.
The purpose of activist investors isn't to handle the nuts and bolts of running the company, but to shift strategy and restructure. While they have a mixed track record, overall it's net positive because they bring in an outside perspective and can shakeup hidebound management and force them to react to the market. It's rarely about management enriching themselves, which is something most activist investors would want to avoid because fraud can result in the company being tied up in legal woes, and their assets being slashed in value or stuck in limbo. It's more about ossification and resting on their laurels.
In this case, they're basically saying Hasbro is a big blob that's collected too many random things, and should split up so the different parts can each focus on what they do best.
Quote from: Zelen on February 16, 2022, 07:51:49 PMGiven WotC's current trajectory, I believe that spinning itself off from Hasbro would destroy it & Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, I wholeheartedly approve of this plan.
Absolutely!!!
Anything that hastens WotC's death is good news.
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 17, 2022, 02:14:57 AM
Quote from: Zelen on February 16, 2022, 07:51:49 PMGiven WotC's current trajectory, I believe that spinning itself off from Hasbro would destroy it & Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, I wholeheartedly approve of this plan.
Absolutely!!!
Anything that hastens WotC's death is good news.
Quote from: Pat on February 16, 2022, 09:17:27 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on February 16, 2022, 08:58:26 PM
I'm usually opposed to the actions of activist investors. They're looking for a quick profit and don't care if it damages the company, long-term investors, customers, the employees, and management. They are never as qualified as management to make decisions about the direction of a company. The only argument in their favor as that if management is enriching itself at the expense of investors (which is actually illegal) it's a remedy for that.
All that said, in this case selling D&D would be an opportunity for someone to do a better job with it, so I'd really like to see it happen.
The purpose of activist investors isn't to handle the nuts and bolts of running the company, but to shift strategy and restructure. While they have a mixed track record, overall it's net positive because they bring in an outside perspective and can shakeup hidebound management and force them to react to the market. It's rarely about management enriching themselves, which is something most activist investors would want to avoid because fraud can result in the company being tied up in legal woes, and their assets being slashed in value or stuck in limbo. It's more about ossification and resting on their laurels.
In this case, they're basically saying Hasbro is a big blob that's collected too many random things, and should split up so the different parts can each focus on what they do best.
I'm quite aware of how activist investors work. The issue is that management has tons more experience in the industry and can better decide on strategy. Most of the time when I read a news story on the topic I can tell that the professed strategy is simplistic with no more than cursory knowledge of the industry and what I picked up in my MBA program. Activist investors make their money by transferring wealth to themselves and leaving wreckage in their wake. On occasion they'll actually solve a problem but these seem to be few and far between.
Quote from: Mishihari on February 17, 2022, 04:41:20 AM
I'm quite aware of how activist investors work. The issue is that management has tons more experience in the industry and can better decide on strategy. Most of the time when I read a news story on the topic I can tell that the professed strategy is simplistic with no more than cursory knowledge of the industry and what I picked up in my MBA program. Activist investors make their money by transferring wealth to themselves and leaving wreckage in their wake. On occasion they'll actually solve a problem but these seem to be few and far between.
I think there's room to debate the value of activist investors, but I don't think your assumption that industry and company insiders never need a kick from someone less entwined to get them back on track is defensible. But this isn't a thread about them, so I'll drop it.
I don't know enough about Hasbro to venture a guess about whether splitting up would make financial sense, but one positive from the standpoint of the fanbase is it would enable them to escape Hasbro, which is a company notorious for never letting go of IPs. If interest in D&D waned, it could easily be put on a back shelf for a generation. That's less likely in a company where the brand is more central.
Quote from: Pat on February 16, 2022, 07:37:54 PM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 16, 2022, 07:32:27 PM
I've read through this multiple times and have no clue what I'm supposed to take away from it. What is the investor an "activist" for, and, is that even relevant to this? Because it seems like this is about boring financial stuff.
An activist investor is one who pushes for changes in the company, instead of just passively holding shares. Carl Icahn is probably the most iconic example. It's a completely different use of the word than social activism.
The takeaway from this story is that someone with influence is pushing to spin off Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro.
And perhaps this would be a good thing for investors and fans. Stand alone companies cannot hide behind their parent company like a wholly owned subsidiary. Look at Marvel Comics and DC. Both of those organizations are completely unprofitable yet continue their woke garbage because the parent companies subsidize them.
The downside of such a split is that basically the same people would be charge of it and still accountable to the same shareholders (the point of the divestment is that the shareholders get shares in both the parent and spun-off companies).
The only "advantage" I see is more opportunity to crash and burn which doesn't actually guarantee the D&D IP becomes available to someone non-woke (the new ESG guidelines in big business are intended to make it harder for the non-woke to secure the sort of capital needed to acquire any IP of real value).
Basically, unless someone already mega-rich is a D&D fan, there's little hope that a spun-off WotC's collapse would land the IP in any better hands than it is now and while it might be satisfying to see it die, I do think D&D does have its uses even now.
The main benefit of D&D to the larger gaming community is that it provides an easy on-ramp for new blood. That it's just enjoyable enough to keep people playing, but lacking enough that people will look to see what else is out there is a boon to the hobby overall.
Basically, I think the broader RPG market benefits more from a wounded/unsatisfying market leader than from one where it's absent (or changed so much by a random investor's whims that it no longer provides the on-ramp to the larger sphere of rpgs).
Quote from: Pat on February 17, 2022, 11:01:26 AMI don't know enough about Hasbro to venture a guess about whether splitting up would make financial sense, but one positive from the standpoint of the fanbase is it would enable them to escape Hasbro, which is a company notorious for never letting go of IPs. If interest in D&D waned, it could easily be put on a back shelf for a generation. That's less likely in a company where the brand is more central.
The article is unclear on whether they want to create a new company that just owns D&D or whether they want to spin off Wizards of the Coast. If it's just WotC, I don't see much change possible. Magic will still take center stage and D&D will continue to earn the most money through merchandise rather than through RPG sales. WotC was pretty much given free reign with D&D anyway so a standalone WotC would just be more of the same.
https://freethewizards.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Alta-Fox-HAS-Presentation-Final.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1CDGhDt61tnKEPPlKz56yP41i1E6XZycW3TdJQhjyG9vU90FN1vlHoubc
Enjoy!
Wow they figure only 15% of WotC revenue is D&D.
Quote from: KingCheops on February 17, 2022, 10:36:23 PM
Wow they figure only 15% of WotC revenue is D&D.
Well, I mentioned the other day how I understand why SJ games focuses on Munchkin and not GURPS, because I see Munchkin in Target...right beside it though I see Magic as well. I think the cards perform like gangbusters for any company that can get a game out there and a bit of traction. Considerably lower price point, 2 players, and much more available in many more stores where a person walking by will grab it up.
Quote from: FreetheWizards on February 17, 2022, 10:20:07 PM
https://freethewizards.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Alta-Fox-HAS-Presentation-Final.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1CDGhDt61tnKEPPlKz56yP41i1E6XZycW3TdJQhjyG9vU90FN1vlHoubc
Wow. That is brutal. Whoever wrote that thinks that MTG can double their player base. I'm too far removed from MTG Arena to know if that is even plausible.
Still, D&D is barely a footnote in those projections so, as I said, I don't see the spin off helping D&D much. And that doesn't even address the issue as to whether or not a strong D&D is good for the RPG hobby (even if it is good for the RPG business).
What happens if D&D is shelved?
Will other games take up the empty space on game store shelves? Right now, at the 2 game stores in my area, RPGs other than D&D occupy precious little space and probably equally little sales. Without D&D, will their sales increase?
Will new players (ages 12-17) use Castles and Crusades, Call of Cthulu, Lion & Dragon, etc. as their gateway into the hobby?
Will existing 5e players (ages 20-25) shift to other TTRPGs or get bored when their books are no longer shiny and new and leave the hobby?
I don't know. All I can do is theorize.
I doubt it would be simply shelved, but if times got tough for the SpinCo, scarce capital might be prioritized for the card games and the D&D product would get crappier (even crappier).
Far more likely then just shelved would be a relaunch as a different (probably collectible) thing where only the name and some of the fluff is maintained... think D&D minis/Heroscape or as a MtG expansion/add-on. Alternately, micro-transaction mobile games.
What's important at the corporate level is keeping the IP/trademarks in use, whether that use is in a form that's useful to ttrpg community is irrelevant.
Side-bar: if that corporate analysis of D&D is any indication of their understanding of D&D their wording implies that "characters" refers to specific IP elements akin to Iron-Man, Cap or Thor that players would use rather than "build your own hero."
Depending on who ends up in charge (i.e. if it's a corporate suit), I wouldn't be surprised if newer projects came with pregens tailor made for the adventure path you're expected to use (which they can copyright/trademark and use/license in other mediums) instead of having rules for creating your own PCs.
Basically, my expectation is that the further into the maws of corporations D&D gets the less of its 'soul' is going to be maintained because the goal of corporations is to monetize everything.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 18, 2022, 09:20:10 AMDepending on who ends up in charge (i.e. if it's a corporate suit), I wouldn't be surprised if newer projects came with pregens tailor made for the adventure path you're expected to use (which they can copyright/trademark and use/license in other mediums) instead of having rules for creating your own PCs.
If I were to look at D&D purely from a perspective of maximizing ROI, it would make sense to turn it into a game similar to Gloomhaven: Jaws of the Lion (which is also available at Target). Sell books of adventures like Jaws of the Lions, which has the map printed on each page, as well as small boxes of individual characters which have a mini, the starting stats, as well as all the cards for all the powers they get as they level up. Gloomhaven already has a system to adjust the difficulty based on the number of players and the character levels, so any adventure could be used by any group.
Then sell what they describe as "a true to tabletop digital version" where you sell the same stuff for use in a simple, multiplayer game.
And because each character is distinct, you can use their image in a D&D TV show or movie or, more likely, a spin-off video game.
QuoteBasically, my expectation is that the further into the maws of corporations D&D gets the less of its 'soul' is going to be maintained because the goal of corporations is to monetize everything.
Which is why I don't really care about D&D 5e bringing in "new players" because those players are now conditioned to think of RPGs in a totally different way than I do. I've found much more success in keeping players for my game if they have never played RPGs before.
Quote from: Jaeger on February 16, 2022, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 16, 2022, 07:57:24 PM
They should license D&D action figures and video games...
This is part of the investors beef. Hasbro has invested heavily in digital initiatives for D&D, and they largely have fuckall to show for it as of right now:
Hasbro likely did with WOTC exactly what WOTC did with TSR. Bought it up and THEN found out that the D&D IP is a literal Gordian Knot with some of the IP handed off effectively in perpetuity as in Solomon's blockade on anything Movie/TV media related that he either isnt involved in or gave permission to.
So Hasbro acquired all of TSR's problems as well as all of WOTCs stupid. Like letting their hold on multiple IPs lapse. And Hasbro themselves have been screwing up on top of all this.
I'll read the 100-pages soon, but anyone see them do a bottom-up beta and a 'separated' business valuation for WOTC? I can't fathom it could be worth as much as or more than HAS. A 36% IRR seems a bit... optimistic. So, I'm wondering about their CAPM estimation.
From reading the financials in the report, it looks like Hasbro has been using the profits from WotC (MtG specifically) to fund development/defray the expenses of less profitable Hasbro lines instead of allowing WotC to reinvest the profits into either growing the WotC brand or handing them out to investors (the latter being the REAL issue).
Spinning off WotC would allow WotC to give more profits to the investors (while still reinvesting to grow WotC) and force Hasbro proper to actually work at making its other divisions more profitable since they won't be able to use WotC profits to keep them afloat.
Looks like analysts figure only ~30% chance there'll be a spinoff. The current market conditions are unfavorable.
With the shift of the WOTC president to HAS CEO, I think there is recognition of the failed attempts to replicate WOTC competitive advantage in the other IP.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2022, 04:53:16 PM
From reading the financials in the report, it looks like Hasbro has been using the profits from WotC (MtG specifically) to fund development/defray the expenses of less profitable Hasbro lines instead of allowing WotC to reinvest the profits into either growing the WotC brand or handing them out to investors (the latter being the REAL issue).
Spinning off WotC would allow WotC to give more profits to the investors (while still reinvesting to grow WotC) and force Hasbro proper to actually work at making its other divisions more profitable since they won't be able to use WotC profits to keep them afloat.
Thanks for that reader's digest version!
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2022, 04:53:16 PM
From reading the financials in the report, it looks like Hasbro has been using the profits from WotC (MtG specifically) to fund development/defray the expenses of less profitable Hasbro lines instead of allowing WotC to reinvest the profits into either growing the WotC brand or handing them out to investors (the latter being the REAL issue).
It's been that way for, well always. Most rounds of layoffs at WotC are due to Hasbro siphoning $ off to prop up the legacy consumer products, or to lessen the blow of movie flops.
I was a Wizard for 13+ years, until, after a year of record profits, Mr. Potato Head gave me the pink slip due to Battleship being a flop, and G. I. Joe: Retaliation being delayed (to make it 3D, fml).
Just to you guys know, Magic the Gathering is as woke as D&D is right now if not even more.
The difference is that Mtg players will consume everything wotc throws at then, i have friends who spend more money on cards than they possibly can. They don't care how ugly, uninspired, incoherent and obviously political the new cards are, as long as they give it some game breaking effect they'll blindly consume it
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2022, 04:53:16 PM
From reading the financials in the report, it looks like Hasbro has been using the profits from WotC (MtG specifically) to fund development/defray the expenses of less profitable Hasbro lines instead of allowing WotC to reinvest the profits into either growing the WotC brand or handing them out to investors (the latter being the REAL issue).
Spinning off WotC would allow WotC to give more profits to the investors (while still reinvesting to grow WotC) and force Hasbro proper to actually work at making its other divisions more profitable since they won't be able to use WotC profits to keep them afloat.
That is definitely a problem with Hasbro. They've gotten very lax with their toys board gaming and related products in recent years as they use WOTC money to make it seem like the company is growing. Meanwhile upstarts like MGA Entertainment has been kicking their asses on the toy front with one inventive hit after another, with Bratz, Lolaloopsy, Rainbow High, L.O.L. Surprise (which became so popular at one point people were camping out Target and Walmart waiting for new shipments and scouring places like Best Buy for toys)., etc..
Meanwhile what has Hasbro done that took the market by storm like any of those products did in the past several years? New nerf stuff? Peppa pig stuff? My Little Pony? None of these are new. They're just licensed brands that are turning out ordinary stuff for known names. I think Littlest Pet Shop is the only thing somewhat inventive they've done lately.
Hasbro needs a kick in the butt to get innovating and spinning off WOTC might be just the thing they need for that.
Quote from: arctic_fox on February 20, 2022, 01:30:50 PMThe difference is that Mtg players will consume everything wotc throws at them.
Addicts can't be choosers. The very structure of MTG is 'Put up with it bitch - the game'. All MTG players that don't quit when they see power creep are just addicts lying to themselves.
Same goes with all CCG players. The very structure of all those games is to develop addiction - being good is secondary.
Regect MTG-ernity, return to
monke board games
Quote from: FreetheWizards on February 20, 2022, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2022, 04:53:16 PM
From reading the financials in the report, it looks like Hasbro has been using the profits from WotC (MtG specifically) to fund development/defray the expenses of less profitable Hasbro lines instead of allowing WotC to reinvest the profits into either growing the WotC brand or handing them out to investors (the latter being the REAL issue).
It's been that way for, well always. Most rounds of layoffs at WotC are due to Hasbro siphoning $ off to prop up the legacy consumer products, or to lessen the blow of movie flops.
I was a Wizard for 13+ years, until, after a year of record profits, Mr. Potato Head gave me the pink slip due to Battleship being a flop, and G. I. Joe: Retaliation being delayed (to make it 3D, fml).
Thanks for the insight.
So, basically Hasbro was mismanaging things and costing investors profits just as the activist investor is pointing out. The investor seems to mainly want WotC split off so that Hasbro will stop wasting money on failing legacy products and crappy movies and instead let the stuff that is actually making a profit grow.
You know, in retrospect, it's probably a good thing for D&D that its movie rights were so screwed up... it kept Hasbro from turning out another of their stinkers that would have hurt the brand.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Quote from: arctic_fox on February 20, 2022, 01:30:50 PMThe difference is that Mtg players will consume everything wotc throws at them.
Addicts can't be choosers. The very structure of MTG is 'Put up with it bitch - the game'. All MTG players that don't quit when they see power creep are just addicts lying to themselves.
Same goes with all CCG players. The very structure of all those games is to develop addiction - being good is secondary.
Regect MTG-ernity, return to monke board games
The CCG bubble burst back in the 90s and has never recovered and most compnies now know to avoid them. Some CCGs have been converted into standalone games.
And NO. LCGs are not CCGs. They are normal card games with lots of small non-random expansions in usually a monthly release table. FFG made or still makes a few. Not sure.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 20, 2022, 06:17:33 PM
You know, in retrospect, it's probably a good thing for D&D that its movie rights were so screwed up... it kept Hasbro from turning out another of their stinkers that would have hurt the brand.
you say that, but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_(2023_film)
Quote from: Hakdov on February 21, 2022, 03:04:42 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 20, 2022, 06:17:33 PM
You know, in retrospect, it's probably a good thing for D&D that its movie rights were so screwed up... it kept Hasbro from turning out another of their stinkers that would have hurt the brand.
you say that, but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_(2023_film)
Good for them. Goldstein and Daily also did Spider-Man Homecoming so they're at least better than the last efforts and it looks like Chris Pine is the lead so at least they're aware enough to not go completely Woke on it.
That said, the fact that this is a major motion picture aimed at normies means it's going to need to have at least one dungeon and one dragon in the story, which necessarily means that it's not going to look anything like what the starting experience for actual players is going to be... ergo, its not actually that great of an advertisement for the actual tabletop game, just for the lifestyle brand.
Quote from: FreetheWizards on February 20, 2022, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2022, 04:53:16 PM
From reading the financials in the report, it looks like Hasbro has been using the profits from WotC (MtG specifically) to fund development/defray the expenses of less profitable Hasbro lines instead of allowing WotC to reinvest the profits into either growing the WotC brand or handing them out to investors (the latter being the REAL issue).
It's been that way for, well always. Most rounds of layoffs at WotC are due to Hasbro siphoning $ off to prop up the legacy consumer products, or to lessen the blow of movie flops.
I was a Wizard for 13+ years, until, after a year of record profits, Mr. Potato Head gave me the pink slip due to Battleship being a flop, and G. I. Joe: Retaliation being delayed (to make it 3D, fml).
This actually makes a lot of sense in light of past reporting like this from 2021:
WOTC SEGMENT 75% OF HASBRO PROFITS IN Q1
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/48207/wotc-segment-75-hasbro-profits-q1
Magic money is mighty (and some D&D). I have worked in enough companies to know that they will milk one division to prop up others.
The activist investor kinda does have a point here.
I wonder...
I've been watching a lot of videos showcasing Transformers toys, and some of the third-party, non-Hasbro stuff is gorgeous. Like, 'stepped right out of the 80's cartoon and looks amazing' levels of awesome. I wonder if that's cutting into their revenue as well?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 22, 2022, 03:29:14 PM
I wonder...
I've been watching a lot of videos showcasing Transformers toys, and some of the third-party, non-Hasbro stuff is gorgeous. Like, 'stepped right out of the 80's cartoon and looks amazing' levels of awesome. I wonder if that's cutting into their revenue as well?
Part of it is just that their toys are cheap crap.
But aren't they all cheap crap?
IMHO - There are degrees of cost cutting that people notice, even if unconsciously...
I know that when I saw the "new" G.I. Joe toys in the 90's - the overall quality was a distinct and visible step down from the mid -80's G.I. Joes I still had in a drawer at home. Everything from the cheapness of the plastic to the finish and painting of the figures.
(Hasbro switched their factories from Hong Kong to China proper evidently.)
It has been a continual race to the bottom ever since. And if you know about the costs of plastic molding, it is a race driven by epic penny pinching greed.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 22, 2022, 03:29:14 PM
I wonder...
I've been watching a lot of videos showcasing Transformers toys, and some of the third-party, non-Hasbro stuff is gorgeous. Like, 'stepped right out of the 80's cartoon and looks amazing' levels of awesome. I wonder if that's cutting into their revenue as well?
Doubtful. Most of that would be under a license... Hasbro wouldn't be putting up any money, just receiving it. More likely, it's trying to sell their actual Transformers toys that are overpriced shoddy made-in-China crap that kids have zero interest in (seriously, my godkids have way fewer toys than I ever had at that age, because all they want to play with are their tablet/console games), but they need to put a modicum of support into to keep the IP trademarks viable (the same reason Marvel and DC trot out limited series of their C-list characters every half-dozen years... gotta keep the trademarks fresh; don't want another Captain Marvel fiasco to happen).
Also, instead of just taking the easy licensing money for films based on their properties, Hasbro keeps inserting its in-house studio into the mix so if it turns into a mega hit they can rake in the theoretical mega-bucks. This means they have to actually put up some of their own money and when the film doesn't do as well as projected, it harms Hasbro's bottom line... and other than the live-action Transformers films almost none of them made enough to cover their production expenses.
And when it comes to investors, things can be deemed failures if they don't produce enough profit... much less outright lose money.
So, yeah, basically Hasbro has been taking profits from WotC and dumping them into what could reasonably be called bad investments by the shareholders. From a financial point of view, the shareholders stand to make more money off a split-off WotC (which no longer has its profits wasted) and a Hasbro that's losing money (if Hasbro doesn't get its house in order the shareholders can write it off as a loss on their taxes while still making improved returns on the unburdened WotC).
From a purely investor profit position, the activist investor is right on target. Whether that's actually in D&D's best interest is a completely different kettle of fish.
Quote from: Jaeger on February 22, 2022, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 22, 2022, 03:29:14 PM
I wonder...
I've been watching a lot of videos showcasing Transformers toys, and some of the third-party, non-Hasbro stuff is gorgeous. Like, 'stepped right out of the 80's cartoon and looks amazing' levels of awesome. I wonder if that's cutting into their revenue as well?
Part of it is just that their toys are cheap crap.
But aren't they all cheap crap?
IMHO - There are degrees of cost cutting that people notice, even if unconsciously...
I know that when I saw the "new" G.I. Joe toys in the 90's - the overall quality was a distinct and visible step down from the mid -80's G.I. Joes I still had in a drawer at home. Everything from the cheapness of the plastic to the finish and painting of the figures.
(Hasbro switched their factories from Hong Kong to China proper evidently.)
It has been a continual race to the bottom ever since. And if you know about the costs of plastic molding, it is a race driven by epic penny pinching greed.
Assuming you have the injection machines then the most expensive thing would be making the molds:
Create the original sculpture (this used to be made in physical form, nowadays it's made in 3d modelling and 3d printers (if needed).
Then make the actual molds, due to the multiple "textures" I would think this is done by electroerosion, which means you do need an original physical sculpture.
After that each figure's materials costs cents. A few more to have it actually made. A few more to pay for the molds. You're talking about 1 dollar tops including the shitty packaging.
Less if your plants are in China.
I find it odd that the new GIJoe and Transformers RPGs are not being produced by WotC.
Quote from: Jaeger on February 22, 2022, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 22, 2022, 03:29:14 PM
I wonder...
I've been watching a lot of videos showcasing Transformers toys, and some of the third-party, non-Hasbro stuff is gorgeous. Like, 'stepped right out of the 80's cartoon and looks amazing' levels of awesome. I wonder if that's cutting into their revenue as well?
Part of it is just that their toys are cheap crap.
But aren't they all cheap crap?
Hasbro Transformers range all the way from cheap crap to $800 self transforming Transformers.
Mass market stuff most probably makes far more profit then the $800 figures because of the sheer scale of the market.
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 22, 2022, 04:41:09 PM
I find it odd that the new GIJoe and Transformers RPGs are not being produced by WotC.
I don't find it odd at all.
Developing new RPGs would mean actually reinvesting some of WotC's profits into WotC itself instead of propping up the lines overseen by longtime executives who can't be seen to be failing or someone might take their fief from them.
WSJ follow-up profiling new CEO
* Chris Cocks Is Hasbro's Gamer in Chief
* The toy maker's new CEO loves Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. Now he's playing against an activist investor, a surging rival and a slowing toy market.Chris Cocks Is Hasbro's Gamer in Chief. The toy maker's new CEO loves Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. Now he's playing against an activist investor, a surging rival and a slowing toy market.
PAWTUCKET, R.I.— Chris Cocks played with G.I. Joe and Transformers action figures as a child. Then he moved on to Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. He's still playing both at 48.
Now he runs the company that makes all of those products. His goal is to sell more stuff to the people who, like him, never stop gaming.
Mr. Cocks, who took over as CEO of Hasbro Inc. HAS -1.85% last month following the death of longtime leader Brian Goldner, is trying to broaden the company's focus beyond younger children who play with Play-Doh, Nerf blasters and My Little Pony dolls. The Ohio native, who calls himself a "professional adult kid," said he sees growth opportunities in older consumers who are fans of games like Dungeons & Dragons and collect retro toys like G.I. Joe. Until recently, he ran Wizards of the Coast, the Hasbro division that makes Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: The Gathering and other fantasy games.
"I don't think about Hasbro as a toy company for kids," Mr. Cocks said in an interview at the company's headquarters. "I think of it as an entertainment company for people of all ages."
He is taking over Hasbro at a challenging time. The industry is bracing for a slowdown after two years of surging demand from American families stuck at home. Meanwhile, Hasbro faces calls by an activist investor to break up the business. Its shares are up about 33% over the last two years, compared with a roughly 50% gain in the S&P 500 and more than 100% jump by rival Mattel Inc.
A week before he started in the role, Alta Fox Capital Management LLC sent a letter to shareholders nominating five new directors and urging the toy maker to spin off its Wizards of the Coast unit. Alta Fox has said investors would ascribe a higher value to an independent Wizards.
Mr. Cocks spent nearly six years running Wizards. Under his leadership, the Renton, Wash.-based unit doubled sales to over $1 billion last year. Alta Fox has criticized Hasbro's capital spending on acquisitions including a $4 billion purchase of Entertainment One Ltd., a production studio that also owns the Peppa Pig and other franchises, instead of investing in Wizards.
Alta Fox founder Connor Haley has said that he is excited by Mr. Cocks' appointment as Hasbro's CEO, which was announced weeks before the proxy fight became public. But he wants Hasbro to refresh its 11-member board, which Alta Fox says contains mostly consumer and entertainment executives and not enough with gaming backgrounds. "We want to surround him with shareholder-designated directors who understand corporate turnarounds, finance, gaming and M&A," he said.
Mr. Cocks declined to respond to most of Alta Fox's criticisms. He did say he never felt that the division, which Hasbro bought in 1999 for $324 million, was starved of investment. "Our limiting constraint has never been capital," he said. "It's been the acquisition of talent, just like any other big gaming company."
Hasbro's board has said that it welcomes input from investors and "is on the right path to deliver sustainable growth for shareholders."
Hasbro for more than a decade has been guided by what it calls the Brand Blueprint. The strategy focuses on developing engaging stories behind Hasbro brands, which in turn spurs sales of toys, digital games or other merchandise like shirts and backpacks. Hasbro credits the blueprint for the production of Transformers and My Little Pony movies, and a rise in sales in selling products tied to those franchises.
In an interview, Mr. Cocks laid out a possible application for Dungeons & Dragons, a fantasy board game introduced nearly 50 years ago. While people start playing the game around age 11 or 12, Mr. Cocks said there could be opportunities to introduce younger kids to the game through toys like action figures. Hasbro also could develop movies or shows based on the game for older consumers who played it when they were younger.
The executive has been immersed in the toy industry from an early age. When he was about 13, he recalls, he struck up a conversation with a neighbor who worked for toy maker Kenner Products about an idea for an action figure called Techno-Knights. Afterward, Kenner lawyers called Mr. Cocks's mother to have him sign a nondisclosure agreement. (Hasbro later bought Kenner, the original maker of Star Wars toys; Techno-Knights never came to fruition.)
A high-school football player who also dabbled in theater, Mr. Cocks earned an English degree at Harvard before starting work at Procter & Gamble Co. There, he worked on marketing for Actonel, a drug to treat osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. He later joined Microsoft Corp. , where he worked on marketing the Xbox videogame console and eventually took a senior sales role.
Stephanie Wissink, an analyst at Jefferies Group, said that Mr. Cocks doesn't have the traditional pedigree of a CEO for a large publicly traded company, but she was struck by his passion for the product when he ran Wizards. "I find him so raw, so authentic, but at the same time mysterious, intriguing and likable," she said.
Mr. Cocks's view to expand Hasbro's target market of consumers away from kids stemmed from a meeting around 2005 during his time at Microsoft. Visiting Coca-Cola Co. executives described how the beverage giant redefined its market, expanding beyond sugary drinks to include any consumable liquid, including tap water.
"I think of age limits that same way," he said.
At the in-house video studio at company headquarters on a Thursday afternoon in February, a small group of Hasbro employees were putting part of that strategy into play. Surrounded by boxes of older G.I. Joe products dug out from storage, the employees began unveiling items for a live stream tied to the 40th anniversary of the action figure.
Many of the people buying those items are in their 30s and 40s, Mr. Cocks said. "It's not the traditional eight- to 10-year-old from when we were kids," he said.
Mr. Cocks is coming into the role as the toy industry finished up two strong years of double-digit percent growth, as homebound Americans splurged on toys and games and stimulus payments added juice to customer wallets. Hasbro is projecting a slowdown this year, with sales up at a low-single digit rate overall. Mattel, which in recent years has slashed costs, overhauled its leadership and revived key brands, has forecast sales rising up to 10% this year.
Even so, Mr. Cocks does hope to bring more playtime at headquarters. "I don't know if I'm gonna be able to get everyone on the leadership team to play D&D with me," he said. "But I'll try."
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 20, 2022, 06:17:33 PM
You know, in retrospect, it's probably a good thing for D&D that its movie rights were so screwed up... it kept Hasbro from turning out another of their stinkers that would have hurt the brand.
Problem is. Solomon is connected to this new movie as well. WOTC cant get rid of him as Loraine gave him some very broad rights to anything D&D movie, and apparently also cartoon related.
As noted before. This was why WOTC wanted to base 5e in Dragonlance instead. That is not covered under Solomon's rights. But they blew it because WOTC cant live with success. Ever.
Quote from: Chainsaw on March 06, 2022, 08:00:22 AMMr. Cocks spent nearly six years running Wizards. Under his leadership, the Renton, Wash.-based unit doubled sales to over $1 billion last year.
<snip>
In an interview, Mr. Cocks laid out a possible application for Dungeons & Dragons, a fantasy board game introduced nearly 50 years ago.
Articles always do this. They talk about how WotC increased its revenue, but then go on to insinuate that D&D is causing this growing even though the vast majority of the growth is in Magic and most of that is in MTG Arena. It's so common a thing that it seems like some sort of conspiracy. Either that or most reporters only know about D&D so are more interested in talking about it rather than some pay-to-win Windows game.
Quote from: Chainsaw on March 06, 2022, 08:00:22 AM
In an interview, Mr. Cocks laid out a possible application for Dungeons & Dragons, a fantasy board game introduced nearly 50 years ago.
"board game"
board gameboard gameb̸̧̬̲̔̀o̴̢̨̧͇̰͈̫̾̚͝a̷̧͍̖͓̣͉̒̃̍̌͝r̷̡̧̛̳̖̫̗̟̀d̸̥̥̞̼̗̗͙̉̎͊ ̷̰͎͑̿̓̓͌̾g̷̨̘̭̼̈́̆́̍ȁ̶̗̯̰m̶͎̑̐e̷̟̥̣̊̉
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 06, 2022, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw on March 06, 2022, 08:00:22 AM
In an interview, Mr. Cocks laid out a possible application for Dungeons & Dragons, a fantasy board game introduced nearly 50 years ago.
"board game"
board game
board game
b̸̧̬̲̔̀o̴̢̨̧͇̰͈̫̾̚͝a̷̧͍̖͓̣͉̒̃̍̌͝r̷̡̧̛̳̖̫̗̟̀d̸̥̥̞̼̗̗͙̉̎͊ ̷̰͎͑̿̓̓͌̾g̷̨̘̭̼̈́̆́̍ȁ̶̗̯̰m̶͎̑̐e̷̟̥̣̊̉
I have no dice and I must scream.
Sigh.