From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd


It's only tangentially D&D related but...

Roughly 1/4 of Hasbro's 2024 revenue in digital sales came from it's
"Monopoly Go" mobile game. Which is somewhat disheartening, because
that sort of income is bound to make Hasbro re-evaluate all its
video-game plans so it can refocus on more games of that style.
"Baldurs Gate 3" was popular, sure, but it was expensive and risky and
could have just as easily been a massive flop. "Monopoly Go" was
compartively cheap to develop, so even if it did flop it wouldn't have
been a major loss. But it didn't flop, and has made the company
literal billions of dollars.

So we all know what sort of games we won't be seeing much of from
Hasbro. I do fully expect an advert-laden, MTX-heavy "D&D Go" of some
sort to come out in the near future.



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:37:58 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

It's only tangentially D&D related but...

Roughly 1/4 of Hasbro's 2024 revenue in digital sales came from it's >"Monopoly Go" mobile game. Which is somewhat disheartening, because
that sort of income is bound to make Hasbro re-evaluate all its
video-game plans so it can refocus on more games of that style.
"Baldurs Gate 3" was popular, sure, but it was expensive and risky and
could have just as easily been a massive flop. "Monopoly Go" was
compartively cheap to develop, so even if it did flop it wouldn't have
been a major loss. But it didn't flop, and has made the company
literal billions of dollars.

So we all know what sort of games we won't be seeing much of from
Hasbro. I do fully expect an advert-laden, MTX-heavy "D&D Go" of some
sort to come out in the near future.

To quote Cynthia Williams (WoTC CEO):

"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and >engagement," Williams began. "But the brand is really under monetised."

As you probably know, the direct translation from C-speak to the
vernacular is, "D&D doesn't make us *enough* money. Sure it makes money,
but not *enough.*"

Apparently, either you make a killing or you kill the product. I hope
Hasbro sells it off to a company that isn't a raging ball of unbridled
greed.

So yeah, the best case scenario, IMO, is sell-off.

In the meantime, Hasbro is going to try to ruin our hobby with constant electronic rules supplements, if not subscriptions, and VTT subs.
Recurring revenue is the only thing that will satisfy them.

Of course, after sabotaging the core value of the product in pursuit of
making *enough* money, there may not be much left. I'm fearful that they
will just let it wither on the vine.

If that is indeed the future, take heart. We have four viable editions
(1, 2, 3.5, and 5) and can just play with good old-fashioned books. There
are VTT alternatives for those who prefer VTT.

Furthermore, Paizo has already positioned itself as a competitor to this C-speak nonsense, after the OGL fiasco. Williams needs to watch her back.
--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:01:12 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:37:58 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

It's only tangentially D&D related but...

Roughly 1/4 of Hasbro's 2024 revenue in digital sales came from it's >>"Monopoly Go" mobile game. Which is somewhat disheartening, because
that sort of income is bound to make Hasbro re-evaluate all its
video-game plans so it can refocus on more games of that style.
"Baldurs Gate 3" was popular, sure, but it was expensive and risky and >>could have just as easily been a massive flop. "Monopoly Go" was >>compartively cheap to develop, so even if it did flop it wouldn't have
been a major loss. But it didn't flop, and has made the company
literal billions of dollars.

So we all know what sort of games we won't be seeing much of from
Hasbro. I do fully expect an advert-laden, MTX-heavy "D&D Go" of some
sort to come out in the near future.

To quote Cynthia Williams (WoTC CEO):

"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and >>engagement," Williams began. "But the brand is really under monetised."

As you probably know, the direct translation from C-speak to the
vernacular is, "D&D doesn't make us *enough* money. Sure it makes money,
but not *enough.*"

Apparently, either you make a killing or you kill the product. I hope
Hasbro sells it off to a company that isn't a raging ball of unbridled
greed.

So yeah, the best case scenario, IMO, is sell-off.

In the meantime, Hasbro is going to try to ruin our hobby with constant >electronic rules supplements, if not subscriptions, and VTT subs.
Recurring revenue is the only thing that will satisfy them.

Of course, after sabotaging the core value of the product in pursuit of >making *enough* money, there may not be much left. I'm fearful that they
will just let it wither on the vine.

If that is indeed the future, take heart. We have four viable editions
(1, 2, 3.5, and 5) and can just play with good old-fashioned books. There
are VTT alternatives for those who prefer VTT.

Furthermore, Paizo has already positioned itself as a competitor to this >C-speak nonsense, after the OGL fiasco. Williams needs to watch her back.

In fairness, part of this problem is more because of the incentives
offered by our current economic system, where the value of the company
is more dependent on the APPEARANCE of profitablity than any actual
ability to make money. A business that reliably brings in $50 million
dollars per quarter will be valued less than a company that sabotages
itself to get $75 million this quarter even if it means the following
quarters will only get half that revenue. And C-levels are themselves incentivized to chase after whatever makes the stock-market happy,
because their pay is tied to the stock values too.

So no wonder every company chases after short-term profits even if it
alienates their customers. Anyway, from their point of view: there are
8 billion potential customers on the planet, and if the current 100
million (or whatever) people playing D&D don't like it, they're easily replacable.




--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 10:27:05 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:01:12 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:37:58 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson >><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

It's only tangentially D&D related but...

Roughly 1/4 of Hasbro's 2024 revenue in digital sales came from it's >>>"Monopoly Go" mobile game. Which is somewhat disheartening, because
that sort of income is bound to make Hasbro re-evaluate all its >>>video-game plans so it can refocus on more games of that style.
"Baldurs Gate 3" was popular, sure, but it was expensive and risky and >>>could have just as easily been a massive flop. "Monopoly Go" was >>>compartively cheap to develop, so even if it did flop it wouldn't have >>>been a major loss. But it didn't flop, and has made the company
literal billions of dollars.

So we all know what sort of games we won't be seeing much of from
Hasbro. I do fully expect an advert-laden, MTX-heavy "D&D Go" of some >>>sort to come out in the near future.

To quote Cynthia Williams (WoTC CEO):

"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and >>>engagement," Williams began. "But the brand is really under monetised."

As you probably know, the direct translation from C-speak to the
vernacular is, "D&D doesn't make us *enough* money. Sure it makes money, >>but not *enough.*"

Apparently, either you make a killing or you kill the product. I hope >>Hasbro sells it off to a company that isn't a raging ball of unbridled >>greed.

So yeah, the best case scenario, IMO, is sell-off.

In the meantime, Hasbro is going to try to ruin our hobby with constant >>electronic rules supplements, if not subscriptions, and VTT subs.
Recurring revenue is the only thing that will satisfy them.

Of course, after sabotaging the core value of the product in pursuit of >>making *enough* money, there may not be much left. I'm fearful that they >>will just let it wither on the vine.

If that is indeed the future, take heart. We have four viable editions
(1, 2, 3.5, and 5) and can just play with good old-fashioned books. There >>are VTT alternatives for those who prefer VTT.

Furthermore, Paizo has already positioned itself as a competitor to this >>C-speak nonsense, after the OGL fiasco. Williams needs to watch her back.

In fairness, part of this problem is more because of the incentives
offered by our current economic system, where the value of the company
is more dependent on the APPEARANCE of profitablity than any actual
ability to make money. A business that reliably brings in $50 million
dollars per quarter will be valued less than a company that sabotages
itself to get $75 million this quarter even if it means the following >quarters will only get half that revenue. And C-levels are themselves >incentivized to chase after whatever makes the stock-market happy,
because their pay is tied to the stock values too.

This is true. My complaint still applies. If the problem goes deeper than
one person, maybe we all need to change, or maybe human beings can't
change, nor their exploitable personality quirks. I don't know, but I'm
not in the habit of apologizing for behavior like this. It's still poor management of the IP. I don't think that's an unfair conclusion.

So no wonder every company chases after short-term profits even if it >alienates their customers. Anyway, from their point of view: there are
8 billion potential customers on the planet, and if the current 100
million (or whatever) people playing D&D don't like it, they're easily >replacable.

In that case, it comes at the cost of killing D&D. Because *what's*
replaceable is fungible, and it probably means replacing the hobby with
other, more lucrative, short-term impulse titles (ie: not people). Sure,
the people get replaced, but at the expense of options for play.

Attempts to make D&D an impulse buy and subscription based constant
revenue generator are misguided at best. Make a mobile game if it's that important to make a quick buck. I'm sure the brand can be leveraged. If
they don't like the IP's performance, they should sell it to someone who
does. Maybe Paizo.

Hasbro has a large portfolio of IPs. It can do exactly what you say with
other products. IMO, D&D is not an appropriate product for this. The CEO
should know that, but is lamentably, IMHO, incompetent (or someone above
her is incompetent and tying her hands). The product makes money, but
they supposedly always *must* make more? It is believed that every IP
should be treated like that? This is short-sighted, cookie-cutter
thinking and untrue.

That's because D&D is valuable for reasons other than short-term profit.
There are other forms of capital than money, such as brand recognition, loyalty, and perceived value, which keep a business optimal and
sustainable. That the CEO's can't see this is their problem, not
society's. Hasbro should be trumpeting that "D&D is Hasbro," and that
this means Hasbro = good, and their stewardship of the time-honored hobby
is good, so Hasbro = no-brainer. Then people buy more Hasbro.

"You can trust Hasbro to give you a quality play experience" is as
important a bit of capital as short-term market performance.*

This isn't hard to grasp. It does, however, take complex systemic
thinking, and perhaps Hasbro main giving subsidiary WoTC more leash to
make good decisions, rather than generating OGL fiascos and the like.
--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08) ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
* I buy Hanes socks. Hanes is just a brand holder at this point, they
don't produce anything. They went to a supplier whose socks were so bad
that there was an avalanche of complaints. I'm sure it was a low bid, and
made them lots of money, but it damaged the brand. Someone at Hanes had
the sense to find a better supplier, and quick. Lesson: Brand stewardship
is competent leadership as much as the quick buck is.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2