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.