Jump to content



Photo

License does not include Board Games?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 spirit

spirit

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 07 August 2011 - 08:04 PM

Don't put any store on the live action show. It's currently too expensive to film as Lucas wants to film it and so it's on ice until production costs come down. 



#22 Hellfury

Hellfury

    Member

  • Members
  • 837 posts

Posted 08 August 2011 - 12:28 AM

Spike1382 said:

 

We just need to ask a few questions:


1) What is Hasbro doing with the board game licence?


2) Do they have any future plans for the licence?


3) Is what they are currently producing generating enough income to justify the licence?


4) Is Lucasfilm happy with how the licence is being used?


My answers would be:
1) Not much. Not sure they are even selling many Star Wars Monopoly games right now. Plus they are redesigning a bunch of their games and seem focused on simplification. The only way it seems to be put to use right now is a game you can use your Clone Wars action figures for.


2) Star Wars isn't as big a brand as it was five or six years ago since the new movies ended. Hasbro is refocusing on their core products and I wouldn't be surprised if they have no specific plans for Star Wars.


3) Having WoTC drop their licence makes me think it is not, especially when it comes up for renewal and there are other companies actively looking to bid on it.


4) It seems unlikely that they would be if they care about pleasing their fans. I don’t know if that is the case. They can be a peripheral licence (board game wise, not counting toys here) with a huge company or a core brand with a smaller one.

Will someone other than Hasbro get the board game licence? Not sure anyone outside of these two companies can say. Maybe there has been some back room discussion about it but we’re even less likely to hear that.

I would say the outlook is decent unless Hasbro makes a big push with Star Wars board games in the near future. Of course all this depends on when the board game licence comes up and if that is tied in to the toy licence it will be a cold day in hell before anyone other than Hasbro makes a Star Wars board game.

 

1) Agreed. Not much at all. In fact a really good opportunity to utilize the license was passed by not incoporatiing the SW IP into their newest Battleship game. Which is good for FFG since I doubt X-Wing would have had much of a chance since both games are fairly simplistic and cater to the same demographic.

2)  #1 applies here somewhat to answer #2. Such precedence makes it doubtful. It seems Hasbro is doing the same thing FFG does by making up their own contrived universe to lessen dependance on outside licensing.

3) Also agree. But then again they do not need to really do anything with the license to make money, they just have to keep it from anyone else from utilizing it effectively and steal Hasbro's market dominance. By simply preventing other companies from making money on the license, they can better maintain their own grip on the undiscriminating plebeian boardgame mass market. This should not be mistaken for spite, but as an almost political marketing maneuver. It's not unheard of for larger businesses to do this to keep the little guys "little".

4) As with #2-3 this is hard to say with any sort of accuracy. We do have to keep in mind that Lucas does have a stake in Hasbro though. This tips it in the favor of Hasbro unless another company can come up with a phenomenal use for the boardgame license.



#23 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,257 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 05:45 AM

Number 3: It's not "spite" or "political marketing maneuver". It is just capitalism. If Hasbro can limit the chances of a company appearing that can threaten their market share and profits they are going to do that. Simply holding onto the Star Wars licence and allowing it to tick over allows them to do that. It gives them a license which will get them some money, and it prevents a competitor getting hold of something that may make them a bigger competitor in the future.



#24 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,258 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 04:35 AM

borithan said:

 

Number 3: It's not "spite" or "political marketing maneuver". It is just capitalism. If Hasbro can limit the chances of a company appearing that can threaten their market share and profits they are going to do that. Simply holding onto the Star Wars licence and allowing it to tick over allows them to do that. It gives them a license which will get them some money, and it prevents a competitor getting hold of something that may make them a bigger competitor in the future.

 

 

Agreed. It's not as though Hasbro is a malevolent entity, any more than all corporations are to some degree. Nor is it the case that Hasbro's staff don't care about their fans. It's just that a corporation needs to please its shareholders, and it can't do that if it drops a money license just because it's not doing anything great with it.



#25 Hellfury

Hellfury

    Member

  • Members
  • 837 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:45 PM

Hellfury said:

3) Also agree. But then again they do not need to really do anything with the license to make money, they just have to keep it from anyone else from utilizing it effectively and steal Hasbro's market dominance. By simply preventing other companies from making money on the license, they can better maintain their own grip on the undiscriminating plebeian boardgame mass market. This should not be mistaken for spite, but as an almost political marketing maneuver. It's not unheard of for larger businesses to do this to keep the little guys "little".

 

borithan said:

 

Number 3: It's not "spite" or "political marketing maneuver". It is just capitalism. If Hasbro can limit the chances of a company appearing that can threaten their market share and profits they are going to do that. Simply holding onto the Star Wars licence and allowing it to tick over allows them to do that. It gives them a license which will get them some money, and it prevents a competitor getting hold of something that may make them a bigger competitor in the future.

 

Man, its almost like there is a echo in here.

Political marketing maneuver. Capitalism. Potaytoes. Potahtoes. Other than attempting to make that distinction you just said the exact same thing I did.



#26 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,258 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 06:44 AM

You say that like echoes are a bad thing. :P



#27 spirit

spirit

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 10:49 PM

Like echoes are a bad thing... 



#28 Natesroom

Natesroom

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 06:48 AM

 There's no place to ask questions about the possible SW RPG that they have the license to.. If you ask anybody who has played it most ppl Dislike WOTC d20 system of the RPG. I say there is such a plethora of material for the d6 system still out there online and other places that it would make sense for FFG to take that availability and package into something that makes it relevant again and not just a re-print to make money.

I hope the LCG of SW makes alot of headway. I still love to play EPIC DUELS to this day  (i think thats really a miniature/CG even though released by hasbro under the eir BG license) that might not really qualify as a board game. 



#29 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 31 August 2011 - 06:22 AM

 Actually it doesn't make sense for them to use the d6 stuff at all. It was produced by another company. While FFG holds the SW license it almost certainly comes soley from Lucas and not from the publishing company that wrote the d6 system.

I'd rather something brand new.



#30 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,629 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:45 AM

Hellfury said:

Hellfury said:

3) Also agree. But then again they do not need to really do anything with the license to make money, they just have to keep it from anyone else from utilizing it effectively and steal Hasbro's market dominance. By simply preventing other companies from making money on the license, they can better maintain their own grip on the undiscriminating plebeian boardgame mass market. This should not be mistaken for spite, but as an almost political marketing maneuver. It's not unheard of for larger businesses to do this to keep the little guys "little".

 

borithan said:

 

Number 3: It's not "spite" or "political marketing maneuver". It is just capitalism. If Hasbro can limit the chances of a company appearing that can threaten their market share and profits they are going to do that. Simply holding onto the Star Wars licence and allowing it to tick over allows them to do that. It gives them a license which will get them some money, and it prevents a competitor getting hold of something that may make them a bigger competitor in the future.

 

Man, its almost like there is a echo in here.

Political marketing maneuver. Capitalism. Potaytoes. Potahtoes. Other than attempting to make that distinction you just said the exact same thing I did.

So I read this thread last night and have been thinking about the point mentioned repeatedly above. Basically this could work for FFG as well, right? I mean, even if they don't make a ground-breaking game that everyone loves, the fact that they have the license is a big deal. I don't know about anyone else, but I never even heard of FFG until it was announced that they got the licence for Star Wars. It was a really great move for them just to get their name out to non-gamers who aren't familiar with them but like Star Wars since it expands their pool of potential customers. Of course, it would be better if they did make fantastic Star Wars products, but I'm just saying there doesn't seem to be a lot of incentive to do anything more than milk Star Wars for its popularity and drop it when it starts to stagnate since they'll probably be able to sell more of their other products through the Star Wars fans.

I could be 100% completely wrong about this. Please point out the holes in my logic.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#31 Darth Malus

Darth Malus

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 18 September 2011 - 01:54 AM

spirit said:

Don't put any store on the live action show. It's currently too expensive to film as Lucas wants to film it and so it's on ice until production costs come down. 

 

At the price LCL is charging for licensing,  they should be able to produce it.



#32 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 813 posts

Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:43 AM

I always get a bit confused on the difference between a board game and a miniatures game. The WotC Star Wars Miniatures game was a game played with miniature figures, damage counters, cards, dice and on a board (well, the RotS starter came with the battle map on a board...) Board game are defined here by FFG as exactly that. It goes on to define Miniatures game as just games featuring "detailed miniatures" and "tactical decisions". So is there any real difference to them producing a game such as Runebound (this was the only FFG game I played until July this year) and calling it a miniatures game? The distinction seems, to my casual-gamer mind, to be exceptionally blurry so as to be non-existent.

I must admit though - Hellfury, you have a very valid point! I weight it up, and following the announcement that FFG has the license, I thought I'd buy the LotR card game to see "What can I expect from the Star Wars game when it comes out?" (and I had an amazon voucher that almost covered the total cost of the game), and was so impressed I promptly bought all three expansions and am on the hook to continue with this game. Enjoying the LCG concept so much I investigated the Warhammer: Invasion game. And shortly thereafter bought all 21 expansions for that, as well. FFG just having the license for Star Wars, without actually producing any game for it that is available yet, have had nearly £350 in just two weeks off me.

I can't be the only person this nuts...can I..?


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#33 I. J. Thompson

I. J. Thompson

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 03 October 2011 - 04:18 AM

spalanzani said:

I can't be the only person this nuts...can I..?

Nope!

After the announcement, I came to this site to poke around, got curious about the Battlestar Galactica board game, bought it, loved it, bought the first expansion, and am going back to buy the second expansion quite soon. So all-in, that's $100 from me! :)



#34 yagyu

yagyu

    Member

  • Members
  • 316 posts

Posted 03 October 2011 - 06:00 AM

Star Wars announcement is what got me into ffg's version of lord of the rings, now me and my friend have collected every expansion and card to date :)


"It was so artistically done."-Grand Admiral Thrawn


#35 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,629 posts

Posted 03 October 2011 - 03:07 PM

 Wow. I'm glad my assessment was correct, but I honestly didn't expect that many people to agree with me. As for myself, I got figuratively "this close" to buying the LOTR starter set when my local game store was having a sale. I was totally pumped for it; I just didn't have the money.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#36 kevmann

kevmann

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 07 October 2011 - 05:28 PM

Just curious if anyone knows the answer to this...I know in the film industry, rights to a character or property can expire if the studio does not make a movie in a certain amout of years. This is why we are seeing a new Spider-Man origin story in 2012...Sony did not want to have the rights the the character go back to Marvel.

Is this the same for the gaming industry? If Hasbro lets the SW property sit on the shelf will the right to the property revert back to LucasFilm?



#37 spirit

spirit

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 11 October 2011 - 09:49 AM

Depends what's in their contract. 



#38 Otakuon

Otakuon

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 02:33 PM

Well, here it is almost 3 years later and now we have some what of an answer.  With the new Star Wars: Imperial Assault being classified as a "Board Game" by FFG, it would seem they do now have the license for Star Wars board games...just took them a little longer.

 

2015 is going to be a banner year for all of us Star Wars fans....


  • lovfinion likes this

#39 lovfinion

lovfinion

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 05:42 PM

Well, here it is almost 3 years later and now we have some what of an answer.  With the new Star Wars: Imperial Assault being classified as a "Board Game" by FFG, it would seem they do now have the license for Star Wars board games...just took them a little longer.

 

2015 is going to be a banner year for all of us Star Wars fans....

Yeah I saw this today, definitely sates that Imperial Assault is a board game, something has happened recently and it now looks like FFG can finally produce Star Wars board games, I am so excited and look forward to many future board game releases :)



#40 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,629 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 11:52 AM

I wouldn't get too excited. From the bits and pieces I've read and heard, they don't actually have the license for board games. They just cut a deal to get Imperial Assault a waver of sorts. I imagine the miniatures skirmish aspect did a lot to help them work through this deal since they do have the right to make miniatures games. But I would be really surprised if they made any other Star Wars board games.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS