Licensed games...

[ColonelHardisson]

TSR also had one. The common joke at the time was that the little Nazi standups were all labeled 'Nazi(tm)' as if TSR had tried to trademark the term It certainly seemed approriate in that era

...and it resulted in one of gaming's most persistent urban legends - that TSR tried to trademark "Nazi." I have those minis, and I can say for sure there is no such trademark in or near the word, or on those minis at all, except for Lucasfilm's trademark on the characters from the movies.

Just thought I'd chime in...

 

[Piratecat]

So, here's a bit of scuttlebutt that flies in the face of most of this thread:

I've had a fairly high-up at WotC tell me that Licensed games usually always lose money.

Designers and publishers love 'em, because they carry built-in name recognition and a certain degree of panache. Consumers, however, often stay away from them like they're covered in weeping sores. Let's face it, of the games above (and let's add Elric and Lankhmar and Judge Dredd into the mix, too), how many are actually played in the long term by anyone you know?

I'm thinking just Star Wars. And CoC, of course, but that isn't really a licensed setting under the definition I'm using. As far as I can tell, my friend is right; at first most licensed properties sell decently to people who like that setting/world, but don't picked up enough steam to build a player base, and thus wilt soon after launch... not necessarily after the publisher has paid back their licensing fees.

By this logic, licensed game settings aren't the way to go. Thoughts, comments, opinions?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

My opinion is it's at least partly because there haven't been a lot of licensed products that have used a game system as their base that is as popular as d20 is right now. The exceptions are Wheel of Time, Star Wars, and CoC, and the latter two are doing fairly well, as I understand. I don't know about the Wheel of Time RPG; I know Jordan sells a lot of books, but I wonder how many D&D/d20 fans actually read him? I think that if the D&D mechanic had been coupled with something like Lord of the Rings or Conan (especially back when TSR had this license), you might have seen a successful licensed game product. I could be wrong, but it's how I feel.

 

[mearls]

I'm wondering, is the only way to get successful new game/setting going to use an established brand?

First, as a designer I see 90% of licensed games as the RPG design equivalent of producing Garfield coffee mugs. Read into that what you will.

Licensed products are easy to sell to distributors and retailers. They allow you to make the incorrect assumption that if, say, 500,000 people are fans of Cucumber Wars, a Cucumber Wars RPG will sell lots and lots of copies. Distributors and retailers see a licensed product as less risky, and are more willing to order it.

As PC points out, a vanishingly small number of licensed games actually survive to produce viable player bases. Look at the games that have survived 10+ years: only CoC (and to a lesser extent d6 Star Wars) were based on licenses. All the rest have died.

What a license does is allow a company to bootstrap itself into the industry. If my first release is a game tied to a popular license, that gets my games into lots of retailers and distributors for the reason noted above. With that foothold, I can then launch profitable settings that I've developed in-house. At least, if I were running a publisher that's how I'd do it.

The key, IMO, is that most licensed games are awful. The license is either wholly unsuitable for use as an RPG, or the execution is terrible. CoC and d6 Star Wars are the best examples of good licensed games. They are both dedicated to letting you make up adventures and campaigns that fit into their source material. They don't spend endless pages obsessing over irrelevant, fanboyish details or regurgitating stuff that you could find in non-RPG books about the license.

The key to the RPG industry is that it's probably much cheaper and more efficient in the long term to create your own games and settings rather than license them. Licensed games sell to RPG players who are also fans of the setting, and as PC points out they rarely see play. Rather, they end up treated as collectibles. Most people who are fans of a license are more interested in reading about it than playing games set in it.

 

[Davelozzi]

I've never been a fan of license based games myself. For me it comes down to the fact that I'd rather play or run in a world that is primarily designed as a game setting where your characters are the heroes rather than a world that's designed to showcase a particular story. Lord of the Rings has been one of my favorite books since I was little but I've never picked up any of the RPGs based on it. I picked up the revised Star Wars d20 and I think it's a great game from a design standpoint, and I have some players who have expressed interest, but it I just don't really see running a campaign with it. If I was going to run a space game, I'd be far more likely to use Star*Drive (either with Alternity or converting to d20).

 

[Samothdm]

PCat, I had an official at WotC (in the marketing department) tell me something very similar about two years ago. This was in reference to CCGs and licenses, but I think that the analogy is the same for RPGs.

This is why I think that while WotC "losing" the Pokemon license may be bad short-term (in terms of layoffs and such), in the long run it'll probably help make WotC more profitable b/c they won't be shelling out huge cash for that license.

Licenses help the company to get distribution with retailers and such, and may help open up new avenues for distribution (such as the Harry Potter CCG being sold in places where normally WotC doesn't have a presence). If they do well, then WotC has a "foot in the door" to approach that retailer with another, non-licensed product down the road.

 

[Crothian]

I've never been a fan of Licensed games. I played Robotech and TMNT when I was younger but they never had the feel of what I was used to. Star Wars d6 came close but that was more becasue we had a great group.

I will say though that the Slaine line has really impressed me. I think the best thing about it might be I'm totally unfamiliar with the comic. So, I'm getting a place with rich history but I don't have to worry about the feel of the comics since I don't know them.

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Re: Licensed games...

As in "Lone Wolf and Cub"?
Any more news about this? A quick look at the Mongoose publishing site didn't show anything but I may have missed it.

A different Lone Wolf. It's based on a gamebook series that allows you to roll a d10 to simulate combat. Written by Joe Devers.

 

[Sulimo]

Also, no mention of the Suthority or Stormwatch at Goo's site. Any more info on those? I musta missed the pr for it.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40161

 

[Sulimo]

I've never been a fan of Licensed games. I played Robotech and TMNT when I was younger but they never had the feel of what I was used to. Star Wars d6 came close but that was more becasue we had a great group.

I will say though that the Slaine line has really impressed me. I think the best thing about it might be I'm totally unfamiliar with the comic. So, I'm getting a place with rich history but I don't have to worry about the feel of the comics since I don't know them.

With a few exceptions (LOTR, Star Wars, Marvel and now Buffy, Slaine, and perhaps B5 and Army of Darkness) I havent been a big fan of licensed games either.

And mainly when I've played in established settings I've much preferred to NOT get involved in the major events of a given setting and just use the game as a way to explore a setting that I've really enjoyed in other media.