Arthaus reverts rights to Ravenloft and Gamma World back to Wotc

[DragonLancer]

So, no love for Gamma World? What about Ravenloft? Was it not selling, or was the contract simply up?

I'd guess that it was a case of both.

 

[Henry]

THANK YOU GOD!!!

"Great Job" my ass. White Wolf completely buggered Gamma World. Not only did they botch the setting, but the books themselves are misleading and completely useless.

Mikey, while I agree I wasn't a fan of the SSS Gamma World, at least they did something WotC didn't do:

They USED it.

Unless someone knows something I don't, the likelihood of further Gamma World material in ANY capacity, is between slim and none. Besides, making a version of GW that the fans hate long ago became a tradition -- SSS made what, the 121st edition of the game?

And while I never followed Ravenloft, I had heard from fans of the setting that a VERY good job was done on it.

 

[Turanil]

Arthaus Publishing, Inc. and Wizards of the Coast, Inc. today announced that they have reached an agreement for the reversion of rights to the RAVENLOFT and GAMMA WORLD campaign settings.

I would like to know what it means exactly. Does it means that Arthaus simply doesn't wish to continue paying for the right to publish them and prefer to stop the lines; or was it that WotC wished to get the rights back so they can (supposedly) publish stuff on their own?

Now that WotC has bought back the rights I wonder if they will put them on the market for another company to try their hand or if they percieve enough of a market to publish stuff themselves.

Did WotC buy back the right for GW??

 

[Frostmane]

I for one am sorry to see Ravenloft revert. Frankly, WOTC is not interested in yet another setting to publish books for. Ravenloft will end up dormant, <like Greyhawk> except for the 'generic' HoH sourcebook..and I, for one consider it quite a pity. I deeply enjoyed ArtHaus' take on the setting for 3.5..and I even enjoyed GW, which is more than I can say for previous editions.
For me this is a sad day..but at least we get the Guide to the Mists.

 

[Belen]

Well, WOTC is publishing Tome of Horror and the Ravenloft books have not been selling well the last year or so. My FLGS discounted them long ago. They still did not sell.

I doubt that any new Ravenloft will be published by WOTC.

They do seem to be trying to clean up all loose ends with their IP though, so that causes me to wonder if D&D has a buyer....

 

[Belen]

Did WotC buy back the right for GW??

More likely that WW was paying Wizards a licensing fee. They would not have to buy it back.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Shame about Ravenloft. I am not a fan of horror roleplaying, but everything I saw from that entire line (which, admittedly, was a small fraction of the line) was of stunning quality.

I'm not sure the Gamma World reversion means much of anything-- I seriously doubt that Wizards intends to do anything with it, and most of Gamma World is already well-covered by d20 Modern, d20 Future, and d20 Apocalypse. All you really need are the stats for some of the iconic mutant races and a longer list of animal moreaus. (Alright, and mutant plant rules... but I'm seriously doubting we'll ever see that in print again.)

You could turn d20 Apocalypse into Gamma World in less than 10 pages-- and I'm willing to bet you could get half of that out of the SRD.

 

[Darth Mikey]

Mikey, while I agree I wasn't a fan of the SSS Gamma World, at least they did something WotC didn't do:

They USED it.

Unless someone knows something I don't, the likelihood of further Gamma World material in ANY capacity, is between slim and none. Besides, making a version of GW that the fans hate long ago became a tradition -- SSS made what, the 121st edition of the game?

And while I never followed Ravenloft, I had heard from fans of the setting that a VERY good job was done on it.

I know absolutely nothing about their version of Ravenloft, so I cannot comment on that.

Henry, I agree with you that they at least made an attempt. But the way they went about it was staggering.

Throughout the GW editions (6-7 depending on your count) some things have changed and some have remained constant. One thing that changed was racial mindsets. In some editions npc races are anti-human, in some they are pro-human. Stuff like that is no big deal. The rules have changed vastly with each edition being an entirely new system.

But the big constants were the "Anything Goes" and "Mutations".

I offer this example: Vampire the Masquerade, 2.0

Let's say a company decides to re-issue V:tM. Now, I'm not talking about their new game, Requiem, or whatever it is. This company promotes the game as a new edition of Masquerade, updated, improved, all that happy stuff.

But when V:tM 2.0 hits the shelves, the vampires are now policing the earth, using their superhuman powers for the good of humanity.

Not exactly what you were expecting, eh?

As far as WOTC doing anything. I dunno. Probably not. They just released D20 Apocalypse. and they also did the Alternity version. I think they'll probably let it die.

 

[Darth Mikey]

I would wager by the dripping vitriol of Darth Mikey's comments above...

Sorry about that. I've gotta wipe the spit off my monitor now.

 

[DaveMage]

They do seem to be trying to clean up all loose ends with their IP though, so that causes me to wonder if D&D has a buyer....

Interesting thought (although I don't think they are selling D&D).

Are there any other licesnses out there for D&D properties?

I know AEG had OA, but they (AEG) are taking the Legends of the Five Rings universe back into their own system.

Charles Ryan explained in another thread why WotC doesn't want to have multiple lines to support, so this might be indicative of that philosophy.

On the other hand, if I were going to release a new edition of the game, the last thing I'd want out there were licenses that allowed others to support older editions of my IP....