D&D General No, Hasbro Is Not Selling D&D

I wasn't going to comment on this rumour in article form--despite a 20-page-and-counting thread about it--but it seems some clarification is needed as it's all over social media and the usual click-bait YouTube channels.

First off, Dungeons & Dragons is not being sold. That's the short version.

WotC, including D&D, is Hasbro's most profitable division and, as many put it, it's 'golden goose'. Despite an article on Pandaily being entitled "Hasbro Seeks to Sell IP “DND” and Has Had Preliminary Contact with Tencent"--and much of which is a close copy of a recent YouTube video rumour--buried halfway down the article is the important paragraph:

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.

That means they wish to license the D&D IP to make video games. WotC licenses the D&D IP all the time--that's why you see all those D&D lunchboxes and plushies and t-shirts and miniatures and foam dragon heads and, indeed, movies and video games. Licensing an IP is not buying an IP. Modiphius is licensing the Star Trek IP for their TTRPG; Modiphius hasn't bought Star Trek. I published the Judge Dredd TTRPG for a couple of years, but I didn't own the Judge Dredd IP.

Tencent, incidentally, owns 30% of Larian Studios, who made the recent Baldur's Gate 3 video game--under license, of course (Larian didn't buy D&D either). Tencent is a massive Chinese company known for venture capital, social media, mobile games, internet services, and more, and is one of the world's largest companies. Tencent Games is a division of the company. It has stakes in a lot of companies.

So what does WotC have to say? "We are not looking to sell our D&D IP". The following statement was sent to outlets who reached out for clarification:

We regularly talk to Tencent and enjoy multiple partnerships with them across a number of our IPs. We don't make a habit of commenting on internet rumors, but to be clear: we are not looking to sell our D&D IP. We will keep talking to partners about how we bring the best digital experiences to our fans. We won't comment any further on speculation or rumors about potential M&A or licensing deals."

So, to be clear, Hasbro is not selling D&D to a Chinese company. They are in--as always--talks to license their IP to various companies for various purposes, including electronic games, movies, and lunchboxes.

 

[Clint_L]

Exactly.

You have to remember that every single one of these people either is or is trying to make a living off of their videos (or other social content, which can include articles and blogs, but who goes to those anymore?), and therefore they have to get more clicks. It's that simple. If they want to feed their families, this is the way to do it, because social media has made it so.

And a blanket "tough!" is especially harsh for many (most?) of them, because they make other content that's great: tips, tricks, crafting ideas, actual plays, game analysis, reviews. They want that stuff to be the money-makers and the stuff they are known for, but less people consume that content, so...

Society made them do it!

 

[DoctorPip]

Youtube is pretty bad because its full of people who hate things for money, and they're all trying to become the voice or driver of the community.

Like instead of people moving on from D&D or away from Hasbro, they've chosen stagnation. They want D&D 5e to be a hugely successful and unifying game (so they can make money off it, in many cases) but also want the people developing and updating the game to fail and make no money so they can make money complaining.

Like the same people who cheered when Hasbro stock crashed and laughed when they saw Hasbro toys in a liquidation center are also upset that the company laid people off recently. Its all so dishonest and naughty word that I can't really see supporting them being morally different from supporting Hasbro.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No one is going to starve to death if they don't put out misleading videos on YouTube. It's a choice, one that says some important things about what kind of person they are, no matter what else they do with their platform.

If you limit it to "misleading" that's true, but if you expand it much further than that, it's not. Like "negative" videos - if you don't make any arguably negative or critical videos, unless you're Mr Beast (and there's only one of him, and he already has his cult worshipping him), you're going to have a harder time attracting any kind of audience in the longer-term than other YouTubers. Indeed, your audience might even consider you a shill or the like for failing to criticise certain things.

A lot of YouTubers and TikTokers and so on are actually not doing great financially, so the slightly snarky "you won't starve" is not an attractive or very honest-feeling position. Especially not in the US, a country absolutely happy to see certain people starve. Indeed, that's how a lot of them get into doing actual misleading videos - because those are often much more successful than ones which are not. There are some minor YouTubers in their 20s who I follow who I am pretty sure that if they didn't put out at least X% negative videos they'd end up on the street or at the very least would have to work two shelfstacking jobs or a lot more GrubHub alongside their YouTube. That is negative not misleading though, and maybe you don't care re: negative.

That argument endorses everyone behaving in the worst possible way, at all times, because that's what has the most financial benefit to them. And we can certainly find a lot of examples of people behaving like that in the world, but I don't know that I want to absolve them all of their behavior, just because some of that money turns into food for their kids.

This seems like a rather large overstatement. I normally find your posts pretty persuasive but this seems like just jumping on top of a high horse and attempting to look down at people, which is surely not the intention. The reality is, putting out purely negative videos usually sharply limits your an audience, and keeping on putting out "fake news" ones will eventually cause most people to stop clicking you entirely. Individual negative and critical videos are very often the way people find YouTubers though - the algorithm tends to monetize them less as I discussed so they're often not the "bread and butter" of YouTubers, but rather get people to come and start watching let's plays or crafting stuff or whatever.

Sure, there are lines that individuals don't want to cross, or shouldn't cross, and making actively misleading/dishonest videos is one of them. But here's a big problem - a huge amount of the content out there is misleading and dishonest, but the people making it often don't really even understand that, because they're morons, as are their audience. Much of the worst dishonest and misleading stuff isn't even negative - it's positive - magical thinking stuff about how you can solve all your problems if you just wish hard enough or whatever. That doesn't really apply to D&D but it certainly impacts the climate of video sites - when people who pushing absolute nonsense aren't treated negatively in any way by the sites, even positively because their nonsense is theoretically positive, that's going to have an impact.

The audience is a huge part of the problem - algorithms are too but honestly YouTube has got significantly better there - I can watch a bunch of weird gun content (I do like a weird guns) and am no longer directed straight to Qanon, fringe militia groups, and ranting sovereign citizens and so on. Whereas say, five years ago? Oooof. I imagine on TikTok I would be though.

 

[MoonSong]

If you limit it to "misleading" that's true, but if you expand it much further than that, it's not. Like "negative" videos - if you don't make any arguably negative or critical videos, unless you're Mr Beast (and there's only one of him, and he already has his cult worshipping him), you're going to have a harder time attracting any kind of audience in the longer-term than other YouTubers. Indeed, your audience might even consider you a shill or the like for failing to criticise certain things.

Well, there's this guy who is basically Mexican Mr Beast, so not so much as only one... n_n

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, there's this guy who is basically Mexican Mr Beast, so not so much as only one... n_n

That is a fair point. Perhaps we are allocated one per language!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A lot of YouTubers and TikTokers and so on are actually not doing great financially, so the slightly snarky "you won't starve" is not an attractive or very honest-feeling position.

I am not a big fan of people who say snarky stuff about the minimum wage -- those arguments largely ignore who is actually on minimum wage in this country and why they remain on it -- so if this argument strays close to that, I apologize and acknowledge the ick factor.

But YouTube-as-a-career isn't something anyone ever said was a good idea. In fact, I suspect nearly every professional YouTuber had parents, spouses, teachers and guidance counselors begging them not to do it. If it turns out to be an untenable career path, one that can only be partially staved off by doing clickbait video, well, yeah, everyone agrees.

For the folks whose real preference is to be an RPG creator, DriveThruRPG, Patreon, Kickstarter, Etsy and other platforms are right there. They all have their issues, but they don't require consciously jerking around your audience with hot takes that you know aren't true, just to please the almighty algorithm. At the very least, doing multiples of these at the same time makes one less reliant on any one algorithm or any one corporation's whims. (At least until further Silicon Valley consolidation, anyway.)

Especially not in the US, a country absolutely happy to see certain people starve. Indeed, that's how a lot of them get into doing actual misleading videos - because those are often much more successful than ones which are not. There are some minor YouTubers in their 20s who I follow who I am pretty sure that if they didn't put out at least X% negative videos they'd end up on the street or at the very least would have to work two shelfstacking jobs or a lot more GrubHub alongside their YouTube. That is negative not misleading though, and maybe you don't care re: negative.

I don't want anyone to starve or be homeless or anything of the sort.

But if your job -- and forget YouTube, any job -- requires you to toss your values out the window in order to eat, the thing to do is to find another job. I know that's a big ask, but I've done it myself, after a previous job almost destroyed my marriage and my health because of what it was doing to me.

This seems like a rather large overstatement. I normally find your posts pretty persuasive but this seems like just jumping on top of a high horse and attempting to look down at people, which is surely not the intention.

It's not my intention to look down on anyone. I have had to stare down the choice of "do I want to do this horrible thing because it's how the rent gets paid or do I want to go through 18 months (!) of job searches and temp work so that I can do something I feel better about" more than once. It sucks.

The fact that doing the objectionable thing is often the easier thing is a big red flag all on its own.

 

[Hussar]

Something I'd point out, not that I think that there's any legs to the whole rumour whatsoever but, something that should be said.

If you ARE going to sell something, it's far, far better to sell it when it's doing fantastically than when it's failing. Selling off a failing business is never, ever a good thing. You want to sell your business at it's absolute peak. That's precisely what WotC did when they sold to Hasbro after all. They didn't wait until they started losing money to sell the business. They got out when they could get the best price they could have for their business.

I've seen repeated posts about how Hasbro would/should never sell off it's "cash cow". But, frankly, that's actually the best time to sell something, if selling something is what you want to do.

In other news, the rights to Rom have gone back to Marvel and Marvel has reprinted the entire Rom line last year. One would hope to see some Rom stuff in the MCU. At least, I'm really hoping.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

the rights to Rom have gone back to Marvel

The indicia of the first omnibus say all trademarks Hasbro, © 2023 Hasbro.

 

[Hussar]

The indicia of the first omnibus say all trademarks Hasbro, © 2023 Hasbro.

Sorry, misspoke. Marvel can now reprint Rom. Was going by memory. The point being, Marvel and Hasbro have worked things out and Marvel can now use Rom again.

 

[Divine2021]

YouTube is terrible, people need to be more incredulous about poorly sourced news articles (written by ai?!), and we all need to chill out a bit when people question if the whole story is BS.