Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7660284" data-attributes="member: 7006">I think a very important piece of his interview was this:I think he's saying Hasbro is in the same position as Activision, and as well I'd say major movie studios are in.&nbsp; They don't do &quot;small releases&quot; anymore, everything is just blockbuster releases (because that's where the largest influx of cash comes in.)Obsidian is making a tablet game based upon the Pathfinder Trading Card Game.&nbsp; As a release, it's probably going to be rather small-- nowhere near Magic: The Gathering Online or Hearthstone status.&nbsp; So while maybe it could be the licensing fees that stopped it from being a D&amp;D game... it's also quite possible that Wizards/Hasbro just didn't want to give a license to a &quot;small release&quot; game.&nbsp; For their video game licenses, perhaps they're just thinking &quot;go big or go home&quot;?Which reflects Urquhart's final statement on why he wishes D&amp;D was owned by a smaller company that has D&amp;D as their focus.&nbsp; Because a smaller company would be more likely to grant licenses to a great many products from a great many companies of a great many sizes, just to get the D&amp;D brand out there.&nbsp; Back in the day, TSR would be wiling to grant a license to a (at the time) no-name developer studio like Bioware and publisher Black Isle Studios for some game called Baldur's Gate that who knows would have worked or how well.But that's not the case anymore.&nbsp; Wizards/Hasbro doesn't seem like they're going to offer the brand out to just anybody for just anything anymore.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7660284, member: 7006"] I think a very important piece of his interview was this: I think he's saying Hasbro is in the same position as Activision, and as well I'd say major movie studios are in. They don't do "small releases" anymore, everything is just blockbuster releases (because that's where the largest influx of cash comes in.) Obsidian is making a tablet game based upon the Pathfinder Trading Card Game. As a release, it's probably going to be rather small-- nowhere near Magic: The Gathering Online or Hearthstone status. So while maybe it could be the licensing fees that stopped it from being a D&D game... it's also quite possible that Wizards/Hasbro just didn't [i]want[/i] to give a license to a "small release" game. For their video game licenses, perhaps they're just thinking "go big or go home"? Which reflects Urquhart's final statement on why he wishes D&D was owned by a smaller company that has D&D as their focus. Because a smaller company would be more likely to grant licenses to a great many products from a great many companies of a great many sizes, just to get the D&D brand out there. Back in the day, TSR would be wiling to grant a license to a (at the time) no-name developer studio like Bioware and publisher Black Isle Studios for some game called Baldur's Gate that who knows would have worked or how well. But that's not the case anymore. Wizards/Hasbro doesn't seem like they're going to offer the brand out to just anybody for just anything anymore. [/QUOTE]

Verification