D&D video games license to Infrogames extended til 2017

[Thanee]

This is definitely a thread I would appreciate seeing some WotC people comment on, to whatever extent they legally can...

Not sure how much WotC actually had to say there... it's Hasbro doing the deals.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Kaodi]

Well, I would have a hard time believing that the rights to use D&D in computer games, over a 10 year span, has no value, though as has been pointed out, it is really more like 12 years.

Looking at the convenient Wikipedia-compiled list, in the last 12 years there have been something like 20 games, as well as 6 full expansions and 3 or 4 further add-ons (in which I includge Kingmaker and similar stuff).

In my first post, where I compared it to having been before StarCraft, I kind of dropped the ball. 10 years ago was before Baldur's Gate.

 

[Numion]

How could anyone think it would be a good idea to sign away exclusive rights for a valuable intellectual property for 10 years, in the realm of computers and consoles. 10 years is a bloody eternity in the gaming world. Cripes, 10 years ago, StarCraft hadn't even come out.

For a valuable intellectual property? Obviously those rights have some value. If Infogrames pays > value, it's a good idea. Simple as that

 

[Kax Tuglebend]

And a ten year license? That's unheard of!
--Steve

I could have sworn when Activision bought the Heavy Gear license it was a 10 year license with clauses for two optional 5 year extensions

 

[Shawn Kehoe]

Well, this should put a damper on "Hasbro selling D&D" rumours - if that were their goal, they'd be trying to regain software rights to inflate the value of the property.

Shawn

 

[SteveC]

Are you saying this would be good or bad?

Either way, it would be utterly different from anything we can expect from IG.

Well, if I can quote Merlin from Excalibur:

A dream to some, a nightmare to others!

Seriously, though, I like the Final Fantasy games a lot, because especially with the more recent games they have a lot of depth of character and story to them, and I think D&D would be better for that.

At the same time, I imagine a lot of people would be, well, upset, at the thought because they haven't come around to agreeing with me on FF just yet .

--Steve

 

[I'm A Banana]

Other than the D&D name itself (and the D&D ruleset of course), there isn't a lot of valuable IPs in there. Elves and orcs are open to everyone, and even one of the big iconics of D&D, the Mind Flayer, has been freely used by Square since the very first Final Fantasy game. The core concept of D&D, a bunch of people going on an adventure in a fantastic world, is not exclusive to D&D at all. Unless a computer developer wants to make a game using the D&D rules (a questionable endeavor, really, and certainly not necessary), then the D&D brand name is useless. It might be the worst kind of license for a game developer. Sure, settings like the Forgotten Realms have proven to be valuable, but I don't think that is equated with the value of the D&D brand.

The value in the D&D brand is, quite simply, a whole lot of dedicated players who *will* buy and play any decent game attached to the liscence.

Or are you telling me you wouldn't shell out $60 for a D&D game with a solidly good buzz?

A dream to some, a nightmare to others!

I think D&D and FF do different things, ultimately. FF is very cinematic. D&D is very much a game about the rules.

In my mind, you could make a good D&D game that's nothing but dungeon crawls and a character builder on the cheap. Maybe make it a cheap portable game that generates random dungeons that you can build characters and run through. Maybe even make it so that players can build their own dungeons and share them online. For instance, through the Nintendo DS. Make it more about creating solid characters and difficult dungeons and sharing these simple parcels of information with each other, seeing who has the best.

That game is simple, basic, and fairly plain, but it'd be a ton more fun than most of what Atari has put out for the liscence so far.

 

[Lazybones]

In my opinion Atari/Infogrames is the only publisher that can give EA a run for its money in the crap category, and that's saying something. They all but killed Troika with the whole ToEE fiasco and whatever you think about NWN2 or Obsidian, it's clear that the game was pushed out the door early.

Heck, Bioware swore off the license altogether, and who can blame them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While it had its issues, and I understand many of the bugs were sorted by the fan community, I have to say that I had hours and hours of enjoyment out of the ToEE game.

-Hyp.

 

[Steel_Wind]

It is entirely possible that the D&D license just isn't very appealing to computer and video game companies.

You are smoking CRACK if you believe this. The D&D brand is of significant value - and it aids greatly in terms of recruiting talent to any development company as well.

Working on a Triple A D&D title is a dream many game designers - and virtually ALL CRPG designers have. We're all gamers folks - and the boy inside a computer game developer is an identity that bubbles near the surface on a daily basis.

True, there are a number of problems with using the license in practice, but there is nobody in the computer games business who thinks the D&D brand is not of great value. It is extremely valuable IP.

Its current upside in the immediate future is perceived to be moderate to low, given that PC gaming is in a significant downturn and Turbine fumbled the ball with D&D Online. It will take another 3-4 years for that "MMO launch window" to open again.

But it will re-open, and then the same hope for WoW like numbers for a D&D MMO will come around again. Greed is the oldest evergreen business there is - and greed will never go out of style.

Whether Infogrames SA manages to stay in business for the length of that license is the real question.